The author recounts a candid exchange with an American visitor and critiques how U.S. democracy promotion in the Middle East has often ignored local voices, produced unintended harm (Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo), and fostered perceptions of hypocrisy. The remedy proposed is simple: ask affected people first and make policy accountable to their needs, not to distant ideologues.
I met an American official recently who wanted to gauge local feeling about his government's role in the region. What followed was a frank exchange about expectations, anger, and the repeated impression that local voices are heard only to be ignored.
We asked, you listened - but not really
I told him up front: I appreciate that you came, but whatever I say will probably be disregarded unless it suits your policy. People here often feel consulted as a formality. When the answers diverge from a chosen script, they vanish from strategy documents.
The problem with "bringing democracy"
"Democracy promotion" sounded like a noble project until people saw how it played out. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was justified publicly with weapons of mass destruction that were never found. That moment left deep suspicion: the goal of spreading democracy came to look like a cover for other interests.
The aftermath reinforced the point. Iraqi politics were reshaped under occupation. The United States opposed the results of the 2006 Palestinian elections after Hamas won, and many felt external powers stepped in to favor leaders more amenable to their agenda - a perception sharpened when Ibrahim al-Jaafari was succeeded by Nouri al-Maliki with strong U.S. backing.
Human cost and hypocrisy
Abu Ghraib and the detention facility at Guantánamo became symbols of a double standard: professed respect for human rights on one hand and practices that violated those standards on the other. Guantánamo remains open and still houses detainees in 2025 [[CHECK: current detainee count at Guantánamo Bay]].
People here remember that selective interventions rarely reflect consistent concern for human suffering. Darfur drew international outrage, yet many locals saw uneven responses compared with interventions that served clearer strategic interests.
A plea: ask, then act
The core request was simple: stop assuming you know what we want. If you want influence, start with genuine consultation and follow-through. Base policy on what affected people ask for - not on the preferences of ideologues who debate far from the neighborhoods that bear the consequences.
You can distinguish between a population and its government. Many Americans honestly believed they were doing good. That doesn't absolve policymakers from responsibility for outcomes.
Repeating mistakes?
When the same pattern - intervention, short-term goals, and long-term instability - repeats, it looks like a recipe for more failure, not a path to durable stability. The region deserves foreign policies built on listening, humility, and accountability, not on the assumption of unilateral solutions.
- Verify the current number of detainees held at Guantánamo Bay as of August 2025.
- If citing casualty figures or precise civilian-death estimates from the Iraq war or other conflicts, verify with reputable sources (e.g., Iraq Body Count, academic studies, UN reports) before publishing.