I was referring to an example of dictatorship such as existed under Saddam: hard core Stalinism. Apparently from your first post, you would have preferred that we preserve such a dictatorship in Iraq for the sake of so-called stability, rather than risk Democracy, as we are doing now.
After defeating Nazism, we quickly distanced ourselves form our Soviet ally and pushed for Constitutional democratic governments in those areas of Europe and Asia we controlled. Although it took decades, we were successful and stable, productive nations arose from the effort.
Meanwhile, the Soviets and the Chicoms pushed for stable communist dictatorships in the areas they controlled. They were almost immediately successful in achieving stability locally, but devastated the economies of everywhere they touched with their backward brutality. It took 50 years of cold war to resolve this tension: the "stability" of mutually assured nuclear destruction.
Now, we are in a similar situation. We can choose to support the false stability of dictatorship, attempting to play the local Mid East hatreds and feuds off against each other. This was the solution of the post WWI British and French to the break up of the Ottoman Empire, and the solution of GHWB after Gulf War I. It demonstrably fails in its objective.
Or, we can attempt to change the dynamic, and free the people of the Mesopotamian Basin from oppression and let them govern themselves Maybe they'll screw up and collapse into civil war as you fear. We did, but survived to grow greater still. And if this historically keystone region succeeds as well as Poland has, it will forever break the stranglehold of the dictators under which terrorism thrives as a tool of policy.
"hard core Stalinism"? You live in a dream world. Do you really believe that under Stalin's regime half of population could be armed, all religions were free to flourish and numerous private businesses were functioning?
After defeating Nazism, we quickly distanced ourselves form our Soviet ally and pushed for Constitutional democratic governments in those areas of Europe and Asia we controlled. Although it took decades, we were successful and stable, productive nations arose from the effort.
Democratic governments in Western Europe were home-grown and USA did not control Western Europe (UK, France are good examples). The exception was Germany where the denazification had to take place.
But US control was much stronger in Central America where plenty of dictatorships had friends in Washington.
Or, we can attempt to change the dynamic, and free the people of the Mesopotamian Basin from oppression and let them govern themselves.
Could the stable American democracy/republic be established by the occupying foreign (of differen language and culture like Spain or Turkey) power in XVIII century?