{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012526096033402923, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.706293706293707, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Democracies and Intervention: Is there a Danger Zone in the Democratic Peace?

By overlooking the full range of studies of democracy and intervention that we have undertaken, Tures misrepresents our intentions and our evidence. To clarify the definable patterns within democracies' use of interventions, we broaden his picture of our results to demonstrate where his critique of our general findings is misleading. By focusing exclusively on the methodological implications of only one part of our program of research, Tures fails to recognize that how democracy and intervention are conceptualized and operationalized can make a difference. Moreover, his critique misses entirely our evidence showing that democracies use interventions for a variety of purposes and with varying consequences, including strengthening their own security and promoting the spread of liberal democratic institutions consistent with the underlying logic of the democratic peace.