Even so, Choi and Owen identify that democracies main priorities are to go to war with aristocratic and nondemocratic government, to establish democracy view in their own nations. .
Power to Create Peace.
Some researchers have concluded that democracies rarely go to war with each other. Benjamin Goldsmith states "democracies are highly unlikely to go to war with each other, may be more peaceful in general"" (189). However, Goldsmith's response is not accurate, as the United States, a democratic nation, has waged war with another democracy without trying to solve the problem with peace. Likewise, Wesley Widmaier states two democracies; the United States and India were about to go to war (431). Widmaier does not agree with Goldsmith that democracies are highly unlikely to go to war with each other. Widmaier goes into consideration "as he explains authoritarian Pakistan, the Nixon administration tilted to favor Pakistan, dispatching a naval task force to the Bay of Bengal to press India and even considering a possible escalation to nuclear conflict"" (431-432). This contradicts the point of democratic peace; if a country goes to war with its own ally but siding with another government. The United States, a democratic nation, is not looking to create peace between India and Pakistan, but rather go to war. Owen also disagrees with Goldsmith as he states two democratic states Ethiopia and Eritrea went to war between 1998 and 2000 (Owen). Owen and Widmaier believe that democracies start wars with other democracies as stated in the paragraph. Nevertheless, Owen and Widmaier show that democracies do indeed go to war with each other. .
Starting wars with other democratic nations does align with Steve Chan and William Safran views. Their research disagrees with the concepts of democracies attempting to create peace. Chan and Safran state that the Bush administration invaded Iraq because there was skepticism of whether the government of Baghdad had weapons and supported Al Qaeda's terrorist network (137).
