the expedience of democracy

So now a host of U.S. politicians are backtracking and saying establishing democracy was the wrong strategy in Iraq. Many--including Hillary Clinton--are saying Iraq Prime minister Maliki should be replaced. Not so long ago U.S. politicians were calling for greater democracy for the Palestinians: after Hamas's free and democratic election all of a sudden they announced they would only deal with (the unelected) Palestinian politicians from Fatah.

So after a decade and a half of American foreign policy apparently aligning away from dictators and claiming to support the establishment of democracy, now it returns to the expediency of supporting whoever it can get it to execute its dirty work.

This will shortly come into a third crisis as American puppet/dictator General Musharraf in Pakistan confronts the possibility of the return of two exile politicians who would surely oust him in elections.

But to my mind the lesson of this exercise in blatant hipocrisy is not to suggest that the U.S. recommit to establishing democracies in its client states.

I find it equally horrifying that who should be governing these other sovereign nations is at all the topic of conversations on the U.S. political scene. How arrogant that U.S. politicians and media offer their suggestions for who should be governing Iraq. How arrogant that they may get their way!

The best thing we in the U.S. can do for the Iraqi people is just get out. The second best thing we can do for the Iraqi people--and the rest of the peoples of the world--is replace our government, our system, with one committed to equality, progress, and freedom. Let's hear it for the revolution.