Perhaps Democracy in Iraq is impossible, as you assert, but why is it that some of the same ones who once declared a joint effort between Iraq and al-Qaida was impossible because Iraq was SECULAR, now say Democracy is impossible because its people are suddenly TOO ISLAMIC?
You miss read me, I never meant to imply that democracy couldn't work in Iraq, or in Islam in general. But, the American notion of democracy, which is a whiggish one, could not work in an Islamic framework without serious changes to that framework. Iraq's government was secular true; it was a party government -- technically Iraq already had a "democratic" revolution -- but the reason the Baathist party ruled they way it did (i.e. show democracy) was because any people with a strong philosophical ethos will seek a consistent morality in government. Strong men, the "terrible simplificators," and the ideological parties they represent promise such government to get in power, but, in order to maintain that power they need to establish totalitarian party systems. You can see this in almost every political dictatorship.
The Iraqis, because they've already gone through the first part, might, like Germany, and other countries that have gone through similar systems, be able to accept a more secular democracy of the American (amoral) form.
But, the hitch is that the whole reason for going to Iraq was to establish a base for the spread of democracy to other Muslim nations. In that sense Iraq, because of it's history, was perfect. It follows a pattern which most Americans are unaware of. Because America always had a tradition of a complete split between religious ethos and political ethos our democracy never concerned itself with the moral realities of man; except on those occasions when democracy itself was made a blasphemous idol of a political pseudo-religion. That last change, the one to democratizm as a faith, was the only way democracy could work in cultures which needed a positively ethical society. Hence the deification of the "chosen people," (the Volk), or the "chosen class" (the proletariat) in those nations which did not have a clear split of the political and religious ethos in their culture. consider for example that the Baathists wanted to "resurrect" Arab greatness through secular democracy, the irony of course is that, like every party trying to gain power in a morally (moral in the general sense of a belief in Good and Evil) sensitive culture the party will have to become an ethically positive one. I.e. it must have a "mystical mission" like the Nazis or the Bolsheviks.
So Iraq might be able to accept an amoral form of democracy but that would work in Bin Laden's favor too, if it develops along the lines I outlined in the previous paragraph. Secular America's (and to a lesser extent Britain's) influence on the continental revolution of 1789, 1848 and 1917 would then be paralleled by Iraq's on her neighbors. In fact it will be made worse since we are deliberately trying to mold democracy into something which will fit in an Islamic framework to start with, essentially doing Bin Laden's work for him.
Like every terrorist before him Bin Laden's aims have always been to get us to do his work for him be reacting in some way. That's what terrorists always do whether they are anarchist, red-republicans, our religious fanatics. Take for example the taking of hostages for demanding the release of political prisoners. That is a well known stratagem of terrorism which we are all familiar with. It works as a win win for terrorists because of the nature of our democratic world. Either 1: government relents and the prisoners are released; that's a win. Or 2; government doesn't release prisoners, hostages are murdered, and government gets the blame; also a win from a terrorists perspective. And finally 3; government reacts violently, hostages are still probably killed and best of all, the people react to "government oppression." When a terrorist takes Hostages he's more hoping for the 2nd or 3rd option than anything. This is what I mean when I say they archive their aims "obliquely."
In reality your modern terrorist is your most democratic of all warriors. In his eyes all are potential targets, all are equal. He's not anti-democratic, all his power comes from the people. Terrorism would never work against Saddam's government because it was already as repressive as it could be (note: this should not be construed as a defense of Saddam's government), however it will work in the new Iraq. The Iraqi government will be forced to react, it will fail like all governments do at one point or another, it will be blamed (along with America seen as its ultimate suzerain) and western democracy will then be democratically discredited and replaced by a more radical system.