2 of 2

Write now Article Tools

George W. Bush has repeatedly told America and the world that US troops invaded Iraq in order to bring democracy to the Middle East. However, since the new Iraqi regime has been set up under the watchful eye of American minders, the Iraqis feel that they did not freely choose their current form of government. It might be the most wonderful form of government possible, but if it isn't according to the wishes of Iraqis, then it isn't genuinely their government, but rather our vision of what we think they should want. Although Japan has adopted an American introduced form of government as if it were their own, the circumstances were very different, as Japan had attacked America without provocation. In the case of Iraq, it was America that attacked Iraq without provocation.

Clearly, when one country attacks and invades another, there is a right to self-defense and if it was the form of government that allowed the attack to happen, the defender country may feel justified in ensuring that safeguards are set up to prevent recurrence. However, in the case of the War in Iraq, there never was belligerent action by Iraq against the US. America engaged in a unilateral attack on the territorial sovereignty of Iraq for its own reasons, unrelated to Iraq. If anything, Iraqis might feel that they should have the right to impact the American form of government, since it allowed US forces to invade a country with a government that was simply unfriendly to the US. It turned out that Saddam Hussein had told the truth about his disposal of his weapons of mass destruction and without concrete proof, Bush beat the drums of war against Iraq. There was no Saddam connection to al-Qaeda, 9-11 or danger to America.

Under the circumstances, the Iraqis have justification for being angry with U.S. military attacks on and in their country. If America had exited Iraq soon after deposing Saddam, then Iraqis might look with pride at having set up a new, more democratic government. However, since America first imposed its own administration and then orchestrated the formation of a new government in Iraq, while still occupying the country, it is very understandable that the result of American actions has been a civil war with multiple insurgencies in Iraq. The failure of America's attempt to dictate its own form of government in Iraq was predictable. In the evolution of forms of governments, a country is unlikely to understand or appreciate a more open and democratic form of government, without going through precursor stages.

Foisting democracy or any other form of government on another country is a "sure-fire" way to cause deep-seated resentment. No country should have the right to dictate to others, simply because it is stronger. The principle of "might makes right" does not assure righteous morality. It merely justifies any actions of the stronger party. The impression of stronger
settings is due to lack of renewable positions. It is based on superior force, not superior logic.

Learn more about this author, Robert C. Sage.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about When the US attempts to foist democracy onto Iraq?
We want to hear your view. Write now!