Some entities may choose to disappoint others in themselves and choose a less moral path if there is a benefit. The American Governments, on the other hand, may follow that path as if it is a requirement. They did that in Iraq with the uprising of 1991 leaving Saddam's army does things like those done at the times of the Pharaohs in reprehensibility. Contrary to what some may think about people like those in North Korea adding insult to the injury of being under a dictatorship, those people are further away than many if not most of those living in Western countries in believing these dictatorships. However, if you live all your life overpowered like those in places like these you may start to have the impression as if dictator overpowering is undefeatable. So even that factor alone may provide a good justification to why Iraqis did not move before the war.       

In 2012 the American government chose to apply on Egypt its strategy of disappointing others as if it is a requirement. They got an elected government and the power of the military  on different sides balancing things, yet our government here still chose to accept abolishment of the democratic process. Even if we assume they wanted to  count in or follow the choice of those who demanded the removal or did not want that government, do you think that those people would have accepted in exchange of that the abolishment of the entire democratic process making the military takes over?

Even if the American Government did not like the choice of the first election, had many of the people who did not vote earlier realized that it was a real democracy that is there to stay with no persecution for voting their choices, that government might not have gotten another term, but that was not given an opportunity to happen.