Editing Bush Doctrine (section)

===Democratization===
Some commentators argue that the Bush Doctrine has not aimed to support genuine democratic regimes driven by local peoples, but rather U.S.-friendly regimes installed by diplomats acting on behalf of the United States and intended only to seem democratic to American voters.<ref name="Kolhatkar-Ingalls2007">{{cite book |last1=Kolhatkar |first1=S. |last2=Ingalls |first2=J. |year=2007 |title=Bleeding Afghanistan: Washington, Warlords and the Propaganda of Silence |publisher=Seven Stories Press |isbn=978-1-58322-731-2}}</ref> For example, in the case of Afghanistan, it is argued that [[Parliamentary system|parliamentary democracy]] was downplayed by the U.S. and power concentrated in the hands of [[President of Afghanistan|Afghan president]] [[Hamid Karzai]], a U.S. ally.<ref name=Kolhatkar2007_Ch4>{{harvnb|Kolhatkar|Ingalls|2007|chapter=Chapter 4: A Client "Democracy", pp. 117–166}}</ref> The election of Karzai has been described as the result of manipulation on the parts of the U.S. government and American policy maker [[Zalmay Khalilzad]]. At the same time, these commentators draw attention to the number of unpopular (but U.S.-friendly) warlords achieving "legitimating" positions under United States supervision of the elections. Some commentators interpreted voter turnout figures as evidence of "large-scale fraud".<ref name=NYT_Krugman_20041001>{{cite news|last=Krugman|first=Paul |title=America's lost respect |work=The New York Times |date=October 1, 2004}}</ref> Sonali Kolhatkar and James Ingalls have written, "It remains to be seen if U.S. policymakers will ever allow anything approaching democracy to break out in Afghanistan and interfere with their plans."<ref name=Kolhatkar2007_p166>{{harvnb|Kolhatkar|Ingalls|2007|p=166}}</ref>

Of the elections in Afghanistan, [[Sima Samar]], former Afghan [[Ministry of Women's Affairs (Afghanistan)|minister of Women's Affairs]], stated, "This is not a democracy, it is a rubber stamp. Everything has already been decided by the powerful ones."<ref name="BBC-2002-12">{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2039665.stm |title=Tempers Flare At Loya Jirga |publisher=BBC News online |date=June 12, 2002|access-date=July 19, 2013}}</ref>

Most studies of American intervention have been pessimistic about the history of the United States exporting democracy. John A. Tures examined 228 cases of U.S. intervention from 1973 to 2005, using data from [[Freedom House]].<ref name="tures">{{cite journal|first=John A.|last=Tures|year=2005|title=Operation Exporting Freedom: The Quest for Democratization via United States Military Operations|journal=The Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations|issue=Winter/Spring|pages=97–111|url=http://blogs.shu.edu/projects/diplomacy/archives/09_tures.pdf|access-date=2010-02-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100630200643/http://blogs.shu.edu/projects/diplomacy/archives/09_tures.pdf|archive-date=2010-06-30}}.</ref> While in 63 cases a country did become more democratic, in 69 instances the country became less democratic - and the plurality of interventions, 96, caused no change in the country's democracy.<ref name="tures" />