Secondly, the Japanese adoption of changed forms was from their top down. While MacArthur directed certain changes, he had the full cooperation, at that point, of the Emperor, who was the spiritual head of the Japanese people. His surrender to the allies and personal relationship with MacArthur, is not a situation possible to repeat in any of the lands, with which President Bush would arrogantly meddle. Also, prior to the Tojo Government moving in a Totalitarian direction, the Japanese did have popular participation in their Government, during the great modernization, which took place in the late 19th and early 20th Century.
The Japanese people are also more homogenious than those currently under-attack. That makes them far more susceptible to successful adoption of popular government. In lands where there is ethnic diversity, "Democracy" is far more likely to result in ethnic conflict, such as in contemporary Iraq, or out-right genocide, such as occurred in Ruanda, over a decade ago. There is no moral imperative in counting-noses to determine policy in artificial nations, such as Iraq.
As for the British "success" in India, I would suggest that you look more closely. While economic reality has moved India somewhat to the Right in recent decades, the India that the British left in 1947, had a socialistic Government, which for the next few decades was more likely to side with Soviet Russia in world affairs than with the United States and Britain.
IQ has little to do with it. If IQ was the barometer of power and good governance, than Japan should be ruling the world. Afghanistan has had more democracy in the past 60 years than China. Peru is more democratic than the Russia. It means nothing.
So what that we had the Emporer surrender and acquiese to our demands. We did not give Saddam that opportunity, instead we pulled his sorry ass out of a spider hole and his own former citizens are going to hang him. What we HAVE had in Iraq is 3 national elections in 3 years. For temporary government, for a constitution (democratic and liberal in comparison to anything in history for that region) and for a new ruling parliament and local offices. And yet you scoff at that, just like the NY Times. There are lines of people applying to be policemen, soldiers, and gov't bureaucrats despite the gang warfare currently going on in parts of the country. NONE of this would have been possible had not that meddling Bush sent our soldiers in to topple a SWORN ENEMY OF THE USA. Japan turned out fine, as did Germany, DESPITE the doom and gloom prognasticators of the day, of which there were many.
As for India, yes they fell under the sphere of Soviet Influence to a large degree, yet they never became Britain's enemy. By the time of the USSR's collapse, the pendulum was swinging towards free markets and modernization, investments and capitalism. All because the institutions that they learned from the Brits held steady. How many ethnicities are in India? Not only that, they have a caste system. Yet they are becoming a world power, regardless, and a responsible member in the international community.