the writer seems to suggest that democracy is "useful" to the US only when it has a political outcome that matches ours. the purpose of promoting democracy around the world is not to create a world that agrees with us, but to create governments that reflect their people. this is the very antidote to the "f__ you rage and resentment" of the occupied and the oppressed. but this does not mean that the actions that a democratically elected government are instantly agreeable to all other governements everywhere - and that countries don't have to learn that their actions have international consequences. i considered it a great victory for governemnts and democracy when the Iraq government supported Hizbullah in 2006, and that the US "let them". while the author of this piece seems to suggest that democracy is a failure if we don't get other countries to do what we want the US acted this way, it acted as a liberator, not a dictator. and the US demonstrated its long deep understanding of democracy when it understood that differences will arise from it.









Discuss