When President George W. Bush and his Administration decided to get rid of Saddam Hussein, they justified the arguments by stating that Iraq process Weapons of Mass Destruction. They also believed that the Iraqi government had helped Al Qaeda in preparing for 9-11 attack on the USA. Aside of these two arguments there was a rhetoric promoting democracies in regions of the world where instable governments suffer from authoritarian ruling and dictators. The very definition of democracy resides in the hands of the people who decide what it is and how to interpret it. We cannot impose a foreign inspired definition of democracy in cultural settings that are different than ours. The Definition of democracy is not the same across the globe. An example of how promoting a democracy backed by a foreign government can back fire is the recent winning of Hamas in the Palestinian elections; if the people choose their leaders that is a democracy. 

That is not to say that the new unfolded democracy is the best available solution the public was aware of. In other words, in order to promote democracy, the people have to be educated on the choices available and the results of their selection. In the case of Iraq promoting a democracy had killed more people in six years than all the combined 35 years under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. These results can let you wonder if promoting democracy is the right thing to do in some countries around the world. Especially when that new democracy is tailored after foreign backed democracies. We need to devise new definitions and concepts of democracies that work differently around the world.