Bush has a very bad misconception that "liberating" Iraq and having elections there will lead to the spread of "liberal democratic regimes" (liberal in the classical liberal sense). He keeps looking towards WWII (World War II) and America's liberation and subsequent rebuilding of Japan and Germany as inspiration for his crusade. Unfortunately the more I analyze the situation the more it becomes apparent that what he has created is NOT Germany 1945 but Germany 1918 after WWI (World War I)! A weak Weimer-republic democracy led to the free and fair election of Adolph Hitler! Now I know Hitler is the most cited bad guy when someone wants to make a point but this is a "analytical" analysis (sic) not a cry to emotions.
more of this short essay below
Bush site Pearl Harbor as an analogous to 9-11 but Pearl Harbor was a military attack against a military installation. WWI was started by an attack on the unprotected merchant ship the Lusitania where civilians where killed [ correction: actually America entered the war soon after the attack this attack didn't start WWI ]. America entered the war at first as retaliation to "terrorism" but when President Wilson realized this alone couldn't motivate America to forgo isolationism he transformed it into a "war to end all wars" and " a war to make the world safe for democracy". Unlike WWII where we had enough troops to saturate Germany (Western) with troops, in WWI much like in Iraq 2006 much of Germany was left relatively unscathed (at the time the France and Belgium wanted Germany in good enough shape to pay them reparations). Germany still Prussian in character were a proud people and deeply humiliated. Fascism played to this humiliation and even though Germany was a democracy the Nazis won elections (and legitimacy in their eyes) by winning democratic elections.
Hamas (in Palestine and Lebanon), the Muslim Brotherhood (Egypt) and the Clerical Parties in Iran are all winning elections. By making ELECTIONS the benchmark in Iraq and not STABILITY Bush is making a fatal error. Elections reflect the character and the will or the people at the ballot. A chaotic situation weather in Germany in the 1930's or Palestine & Iraq today WILL ALLWAYS PRODUCE CHAOTIC ELECTION RESULTS!
Stability in 1945 Germany as opposed to 1918 Germany was achieved for a number of reasons
1) Germany (and Japan) wanted American troops there not because they immediately loved America after their defeat by them (in fact Nazi/Nationalistic resistance continued until the early 1950's) but because Germany (western) where more afraid of the Russians coming in than the American staying ( In Japan substitute the Chinese for the Russians). It was fear of Communism that binded Western Europe and Northeast Asia to US. Germany and Japan through out the previous 2 decades where both conditioned to loathe and fear communism, Slavics, and Chinese. Nazis where not just anti-Jewish the second cornerstone of there racist beliefs was the idea of "Living Room" and they had a manifest destiny to rule the Slavic lands, the idea of being occupied by Slavic (a.k.a. Russians, Poles, ect.) people terrified them.
Iraq's are not afraid of any of the neighbors to anywhere near this degree. The Shia share a religion with Iran, the Sunni share this with Syria and the Saudi's and the Kurds abut "Kurdistan" in Turkey and Iran. They don't fear their neighbors with the same ethnic hatred so there is less of a survivalist need to keep American troop to protect themselves.
2) The number of American troops was large enough to provide security and prevent the outbreak of wide spread violence. Much like many inner cities in America violence once it is allowed to fester becomes nearly endemic and is very difficult to exterminate. The reason why President Clinton's community based policing was so effective was it prevented criminal activity from starting helping to curtail anarchy.
In Iraq the number of American troops is simply not large enough to provide enough security to provide stability. Therefore the results are Fascist in character.
Bush and his administration are stuck in the Cold war mentality where you had "democracies" against Communist. In the cold war all democracies shared a common danger larger than their difference. IN the 21st century we are seeing in free election in Venezuela, Bolivia, Palestine, and Iran (and to a lesser extent France!) that democracy doesn't mean FRIENDLY to the USA. This only happens when people see a common adversary. Bush tried to make terrorism a common enemy but terrorism is a methodology not a movement and one mans rebel is another mans freedom fighter. Bush has tried to make Islamo-Fascism the common enemy but too many nations see other movement as greater enemies ( in Latin-America it they see free trade IMF/World Bank style as the common enemy).
In closing Bush has created the condition of WWI where election led to the rise of Fascism not WWII where election created liberal-democracies. Chaotic unstable countries elect leaders who reflect these condition even though said elected leader usually promises a "return to stability". If Iraq remain unstable a Hamas style Islamo-Fascist regime will be the result.