democracy is not a panacea.  it's not a particularly good system of governance, in practice.  we have vested it with a spiritual idealism that it doesn't necessarily deserve.  Yet even when it 'works' and elects, via majority or plurality, someone who the people allegedly want in power, it can backfire any number of ways.  From the Italian revolving-door change-gov't-every-three-months, to the 'irregularities' that elected Bush or many other questionable or stolen elections, to even legitimately elected leaders like Olmert who overstay their welcome even after their support/mandate drops to zero and gov't commitions all but demand their resignation.  (I'm trying real hard to not bring up the fact that Hamas and some worse monsters were also elected...)

In Iraq, according to a reporter friend of mine who spent several months there in '03-04, the iraqi people DO understand democracy, and that's exactly WHY they DON'T WANT IT.  They recognize that it means sharing power and protecting the rights and desires of the minority(ies) and/or respecting the will of the (alleged) majority.  So damn straight they don't want it.  They almost all feel that they have more to gain by fighting (and winning) than they do by accepting the consequences of democracy.  Here's the rub: they may be right. 

Kurds certainly would be better off carving out an independent state with its own oil;

Sunnis esp formerly-well-off-under Saddam feel entitled to rule over Shia, fear them, and don't accept the alleged census that Shias are the majority;

and Shias, finally having a chance at power instead of being oppressed majority, want ALL power. 

All of them make a pretty reasonable case.  Add the destabilizing forces of Al-Qaeda and Iran, and i'd give successful democracy a snowball's chance in the hot iraqi sun...