A Test For America's Viewpoint on Democracy in Iraq
Well, now we, the worldwide community, are really going to see how the American government views democracy in Iraq and in the greater Middle East for that matter. Is the American view of democracy in Iraq a popular democracy -- a reflection of the Iraqi people, or is the American view of democracy in Iraq a puppet democracy -- mouthpiece for American political views.
Just how far is America ready to let the Iraqi democracy take charge of its own affairs? Yesterday, there was an uproar in Washington DC about comments, or the lack of comments by the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki. Al-Maliki had gone to Washington DC to ask the American Congress and the American President, George Bush, for additional funding to try to subdue the spiraling out of control violence in his country. He did secure a pledge from President Bush to bolster US troops in Baghdad and he did ask the American Congress for more reconstruction aid.
His visit to the Congress was however marred by widespread political uproar as many refused to attend his address. The main disagreement centered on al-Maliki's refusal to back down from his critical comments on Israel's incursion into Lebanon and his lack of desire to denounce Hezbollah's killing and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers openly.
So now, America, this is the test. When the rightfully elected democratic leader does not voice or intone the message of the liberator, does this invalidate the process of democracy? Does this mean that America is only interested in setting up democracies that parrot their own world view, or is America willing to take the step to help foster real democracy and then step back and let the people govern and express world views internationally even when they do not match their own?
Just how far is America ready to let the Iraqi democracy take charge of its own affairs? Yesterday, there was an uproar in Washington DC about comments, or the lack of comments by the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki. Al-Maliki had gone to Washington DC to ask the American Congress and the American President, George Bush, for additional funding to try to subdue the spiraling out of control violence in his country. He did secure a pledge from President Bush to bolster US troops in Baghdad and he did ask the American Congress for more reconstruction aid.
His visit to the Congress was however marred by widespread political uproar as many refused to attend his address. The main disagreement centered on al-Maliki's refusal to back down from his critical comments on Israel's incursion into Lebanon and his lack of desire to denounce Hezbollah's killing and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers openly.
So now, America, this is the test. When the rightfully elected democratic leader does not voice or intone the message of the liberator, does this invalidate the process of democracy? Does this mean that America is only interested in setting up democracies that parrot their own world view, or is America willing to take the step to help foster real democracy and then step back and let the people govern and express world views internationally even when they do not match their own?
