It's no secret that while America was "liberating" Iraq by "pushing for democracy" in the country, the US Administration continued to (and still does) support unpopular dictatorship regimes in Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan (as exemplified by recent protests) and most infamously Saudi Arabia. It's fair to say that when it comes to practically applying the Democratic Peace Theory, it's a fairly selective process that normally adheres to some sort of agenda.
Take for example the revolutionary Tunisian protests. During the first few days the uprising wasn't given any importance/particular mention on American news channels. It barely made headlines, let alone news. If Noam Chomsky was to comment on this phenomenon (American media censorship), I would imagine that he would apply it to his "Manufacturing Consent" theory - citizens are spoon-fed what they can/can't think about certain events through the media.
The end result, a status-quo that would continue to self-replicate itself through the generations and offers complete and unquestionable support to their government. Sounds a little conspiracy theory-like? Well it shouldn't - the concept of mind-control is one that is shared by many prominent scholars and theorists (Said, Barber, Der Darian etc).
Now there's little point in being naive and questioning (or doubting) the existence of certain agendas - Israel’s are of paramount importance to America. Understandably, losing an ally in Mubarak (and possibly Abdullah II in Jordan) would be hugely detrimental in the Jewish state's perceived "struggle" for survival in a dominant Muslim Middle East. But for a country that prides itself on being "the freest and fairest democracy in the Middle East," it's highly hypocritical then to dismiss the Syrian uprising as "illegitimate" and "in need of being stabilized." To anyone that understands the politics and dynamics of the region though, this would be of little surprise - Israel has never accepted Hamas, the democratically elected government of Gaza (and arguably all Palestinians). It's fair to say that with the recent surfacing of the "Palestine Papers," the PLO under Abbas has lost more than a little credibility.
Yet America (and subsequently Israel) continue to support these very "undemocratic" regimes. Yes, recently Hillary Clinton did call for a "peaceful transition" in Syria, and at the second round of voting the UN Security Council did make some headway on the issue, but why did it take the (so called) "protectors of democracy" this long to finally accept a very democratic solution? Democracy, in its core essence, is quite easy to make sense of - if majority of the citizens demand something, granting it would be democratic. Popular rule, majority consent, there are plenty of ways to word/understand it. But did it really have to take an uprising en masse for the world to finally realize that tyranny still exists today?
Supporting the Syrian people's wishes (as majority of them demanded the same thing) should of been a second-nature reaction for America under their highly championed and propagated DPT. Instead, their perceived inconclusiveness and uncertainty in choosing a side seems to have backfired - it's exposed their "true colours."
These kinds of actions completely undermine America's efforts in Iraq (and other places), which were instigated and presented as a liberation effort by means of exporting democracy. When considering America's unflappable support for other dictatorship regimes in the region with their simultaneous condemnation of "undemocratic reform," the question really begs itself - what are America's true motives for the Middle East?
My advice to anyone reading this - rhetoric and the propagation of patriotism (as we so often see in The States) is a powerful tool. Be weary and don't be swayed by it!