It isn't what saps like Carter said that matters, it's what the Shia and Kurd electors signify that matters. The Shia would walk headlong into the Persian Gulf and drown themselves if Sistani, an Iranian-born cleric, asked them to do so. Likewise, the Shia voted in their numbers because Sistani urged them to do so. Their turnout has little to do with their yearning for democracy and everything to do with their yearning to do what Allah's representative tells them to do. For now, this means to get all the training and ordnance they can get from the U.S., wax eternal about a secular state, and if their aims come to fruition, ultimately linkup with Iran. This makes Iran the chief benefactor of the turnout. As for the Kurds, if they beat out Allawi, and come in second to the 'Sistani party', the Turks will likely intervene militarily in Northern Iraq, most especially in Kirkuk, later if not sooner.
I believe your concerns are legitimate, however, I also am led to believe that the large presence of women voters on Sunday strengthens the likelihood of a secular Iraq that will be reflected in the new constitution. Also, polling has indicated that a majority of Iraqis prefers a secular government as opposed to one fashioned after Iran.
One thing we might agree on is that the election in and of itself demonstrates that US policy has always been strongly in favor of free elections and whatever takes place afterwards will represent the will of the Iraqi people. "No War For Oil" rings hollow.
I don't think the Turks will try to intervene militarily while the US is in country.....that would start a crisis within NATO itself!