Not necessarily. I can see two possible situations arising in Iraq (and only two). They have democracy for a short period of time before they vote in what amounts to a theocracy, which eventually will remove democractic standards. Or a civil war breaks out where the final resolution is three separate states. Iraq is too diverse to exist as a democracy. It was nothing more than a state created after WWI.
In spite of the fact that the large turnouts convinced me that they want democracy, I don't disagree with you at all on those 2 scenarios. My opinion is that although they likely do want an Islamic state, they don't want a Taliban type of government. Beyond that, the division in 3 makes some sense.
The three separate states idea should have been clear to EVERYONE within a few months of our involvement in Iraq.
I said it myself on this forum about TWO YEARS AGO! So commonsensical, so logical....yet this Administration has got this "Save the Union" concept that dates back to our own Civil War, and we know in Iraq there was no "union" but just the appearance of one, that was held together by Saddam's tyranny. The assumption of "democracy" has always bothered me profoundly as it relates to Iraq. We might at best wind up with something that in some ways resembles democracy if we let the Iraqis divide their own country in 3 parts, with the Kurds living in what we might call "American Iraq". But only if they agree to sell us their oil (heh, heh.....)