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.
You are offering a purely circular argument, which misses the point. You seek to define what is good in terms of what is Democratic. But whether Democracy is good or bad in any situation, has to do with the realities of that situation, including such things as the intelligence of an electorate, and the homogeniety of an electorate. Simply counting noses to count noses, is an absolutely assinine way to formulate policy.
James Madison correctly reported in the Federalist the dangers of "Democracy." It was because of those dangers, that the Founding Fathers adopted a Constitution intended to protect Americans from "Democracy."
To appreciate just how confused the President is in his approach to this issue, you need to actually analyze his Second Inaugural Address. I have done so: Washington/Bush Debate On Foreign Policy. He uses "freedom" in at least six different and conflicting senses. That is pretty confused.
William Flax