Is it possible that the “We’re here to establish democracy” rationale being used to justify the continued occupation of Iraq is just as false and deceptive as the rationale that Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction” posed an imminent threat to the United States?
After all, think about it: When was the last time you heard President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, or any of their minions pressure such countries as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, or Egypt about the need to establish democracy? If democracy is supposed to be so important to U.S. officials as to justify an invasion of a country — an invasion that was sure to cost the lives of thousands of innocent people — wouldn’t you think that those federal officials would be fervently promoting democracy elsewhere in the region, especially among friendly regimes?
Yet, hardly a peep on democracy to the nondemocratic regimes in the surrounding area! Not even in Kuwait, where U.S. officials intervened for freedom more than a decade ago in the Persian Gulf War!
Also, think about this: If democracy is so important as to justify a deadly and destructive invasion, why has the U.S. government continually furnished millions of dollars in foreign aid to nondemocratic governments, including those in the Middle East? Wouldn’t you think that if democracy is as important to U.S. officials as they say it is, they would have terminated the giving of U.S. taxpayer monies to nondemocratic regimes a long time ago?
Is it not possible that one primary objective in Iraq was to establish a puppet regime, democratic or not — that is, a regime that would do the bidding of the U.S. government, including the granting of important concessions to U.S. companies with long-established ties to U.S. officials? Is it not possible that that was an important part of Operation Iraqi Liberation? Isn’t it possible that that’s the reason the Iraqi Governing Council consists of U.S. appointees rather than people elected by the Iraqi people? Isn’t that the real reason that federal officials have banned elections in Iraq, even at the local level?
After all, let’s not forget that during the 1980s the U.S. government was once an ardent supporter of Saddam Hussein, knowing full well that he was not democratically elected (at least not in legitimate elections). In fact, let’s also not forget that it was the cozy relationship between U.S. officials and Saddam that caused the United States to furnish Saddam with his chemical and biological weapons — the same weapons that later became the primary rationale for invading Iraq (before it was later replaced by the love-of-democracy rationale).
If U.S. officials had no reservations about supporting Saddam when he was “their man in Baghdad,” doesn’t that make their professed love of democracy in Iraq somewhat suspicious? Indeed, given that they also supported the nondemocratically-elected shah of Iran (the cruel and brutal dictator of that country) — and, for that matter, still ardently embrace the nondemocratic and tyrannical military regime currently ruling in Pakistan (which harbored the Taliban) — why should we believe that U.S. officials have, all of sudden, acquired a born-again fervor for democracy in Iraq?
Indeed, why shouldn’t we believe that the newly found U.S. government love for democracy in Iraq is just one more part of the falsehood and deception that infects the entire Iraqi adventure?