Lately there has been much talk about exporting the essence of the U.S. democratic system into other countries across the globe, in particular, the most recent commotion has had to do with Iraq.

After the removal of Saddam Hussein in December 2003, the United States’ most immediate goals in Iraq became the elimination of the pro-Hussein insurgency and the installation of a functioning democratic government.

In March 2003 the majority of Americans (72%) supported armed involvement in Iraq to achieve these goals; nevertheless, conditions have become more realistic and the Gallup poll conducted on July 8th reported that the majority of Americans (62%) believe this whole Iraq situation was a ‘mistake’ (Iraq War Gallup Poll, July 2007).

Nearly four years after the removal of Iraq’s dictator it seems that we are back on square one. No democracy. Constant Violence. Political in-fighting. This is what happens when you allow distinctly volatile elements to interact without introducing a stabilizing compound – which in Iraq’s case, was the constant oppression and genocide of innocent people by the now-deposed dictatorship.

The U.S. strategy is to establish a democracy that brings together the varied peoples of Iraq under one central government for the greater good. George Bush, though his approval rating is at a record low of 29% (President’s Approval Gallup Poll, July 2007) still insists that he’s a “strong believer in advocating the march of democracy in the Middle East” (Bush Speaks in Cleveland, Ohio, July 2007).

This approach, exporting the U.S. brand of democracy to Iraq, though well-intended, must be carefully implemented so as to not appear ethnocentric. This is especially true when viewed from a socio-economic and socio-political standpoint. Iraq, home to the world’s first known civilization, has been ruled by a tradition of monarchs and religious caliphates – never has it been organized with modern democracy.

In her book ‘World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability,’ Amy Chua suggests that the abrupt introduction of democracy into third world countries can have negative results, and among other things bring about sectarian violence. Whether Chua’s theory applies to the situation at hand is an entirely separate analysis. There is, however, proof of sectarian violence, civil disorder, and a depressed economic landscape. The religious factions (i.e. Shi’a, Sunni) and ethnic groups (i.e. Kurds, Arabs) all want to secure a good future for their respective communities, and find themselves fighting each other over deeply-ingrained & ancient differences.

One cannot expect tranquility to set in on Iraq any time soon – not so much because of civil fighting but more because of the destabilization of an organizational system, though regressive and inhumane, that kept each of these different groups separated by forcing each to accept roles assigned by the dictatorship.

There are many causes for and against foreign intervention in Iraq. Some argue that poverty and the disenfranchisement of the lowest classes are central issues, which can be solved by progressive initiatives such as the Grameen banking system; while others believe that multilateral efforts to impose a democratic system will pay off in the long run, though it seems like tough love in the short-term.

All of these strategies sound great in heated speeches and printed editorials, but for the better good, we should put our differences aside and work together by developing one solution that is a hybrid of several strategies. That’s collaboration for the greater good.