Democracy in Modern World - Essay Example

Gladys argument focuses on the fact that democracies cannot wage successful wars as the case of Athenians waging war in Sicily’s. I do support her argument that democratic countries should distinguish between good and bad leaders, but I find certain flaws in her argument. In her argument, Gladys fails to define the key term that is a democracy and what it stands for in the war. This creates a flaw in her premises that leads to her conclusion. This creates ambiguity for the reader since one cannot relate the key term with the premises in her argument that weak generals were chosen to engage in the war.

I agree with Gladys’ premises that suggest the country frightened their generals into sending better news home than the facts on the ground and chose weak generals to wage the war. This argument leads to her argument that democracies cannot wage a successful war. A look at all the premises helps Gladys conclude that a democratic country cannot lead such a war is viable.Her argument in her conclusion is valid since there need to be better strategies in war, and the failure of Athenians was a result of poor strategies and poor execution by the generals.

There was a need to evaluate leaders and have better alternatives. In her argument, it is clear that poor intelligence brought the wrong generals, and they were overextended. This situation showed that to have the best plans there is a need for good executors for it to be successful. In conclusion, I agree with her argument that democratic countries cannot wage successful war since their strategies are prone to hope and checks and balances. Such checks limit the passion experienced in such wars but to be on the safe side all parties in a war need to appreciate and differentiate between choosing weak and strong leaders to wage wars.

ReferencesTop of FormHanson, V. D. (2009). A war like no other: How the Athenians and Spartans fought the Peloponnesian War. New York: Random House. Bottom of Form