"I would have thought that, when discussing Iraq's attempt at making the transition to a democratic government, that more attention would have been paid to the transition that was made by the former Soviet Union. There seem to be valuable lessons to be learned there; certainly more lessons than can be learned from the occupation of Germany and Japan at the end of World War II.
When looking at the difficulty that Russia has had, it would seem obvious that establishing the rule of law is at least as important as giving people the right to vote. Without the checks and balances provided by an firmly established judicial arm of the government, once a party is elected into power, they can alter the laws on a whim to keep themselves there. (Iran also comes to mind in this regard.)
I think that a prudent course of action for the US would be to allow the establishment of an Iraqi constitution, but to retain control of the legal establishment that would rule in accordance with that constitution until a "home-grown" Iraqi judiciary could be put in place.
Lower level judicial positions would be filled with Iraqi judges, while courts of appeal and higher-level courts would initially be overseen by the US. As Iraqi jurors proved themselves capable, they could move up the chain, until eventually they held all of the positions in the judiciary.
Without first establishing the rule of law, allowing democracy is very nearly an invitation to mob rule."