Three Reasons Stable Democracy Not Likely In Iraq

There are three reasons why we should not expect Iraq to democratize under our occupation they way Germany and Japan did after WWII.
1) Germany had established an abortive democracy briefly in 1848, had some democratic reforms under the Kaisers between 1872 and 1919 and then established a full democracy (albeit a sloppy one) between 1919 and 1933. This was overthrown by Hitler, who was democratically elected by the way. But Hitler ruled for so short a time that many of the democraticaly elected local officials of the old 1919-1933 Republic were still alive and able to assume key posts after the war ended. There were even shadow city governments secretly operating inside the concentration camps were many Social Democratic and Christian Democratic officials had been imprisoned. When the Allied troops liberated the camps they were sometimes greeted by committees of inmates claiming to be the entire city councils of major cities. These people were experienced, knew the local community well and had legitimacy in the eyes of both the local Germans and the Allies. Nothing like this exists in Iraq today.
2) In Japan, we did not completely overthrow the Japanese government. Contrary to popular belief we did not impose unconditional surrender on the Japanese. The titular head of the government was Emporer Hirohito. We granted him immunity from prosecution for war crimes, and allowed him to retain his throne as well as much of his ceremonial status. This gave his supporters (an important segment of the Japanese social/political elite) a stake in the post-war regime and enlisted them in our efforts to re-make Japan as a functioning democracy. There is no universally admired figure in Iraq that we can co-opt like we did with the Japanese Emperor. Sistani comes close but he is only admired among some key segments of the Shia population, not the whole country.
3) Most importantly, unlike Japan and Germany in 1945, Iraq has a perversely undiverse economy. Both Germany and Japan were countries involving a wide range of economic sectors and activities. Iraq's economy is nearly totally dependent on oil. Because the wealth of the country is so concentrated in one economic sector, how the profits of that sector get distributed is a huge problem. Suppose Iraq privatizes its oil industry. The most likely result would be domination of the sector by US and British oil companies and most of the revenue from the sale of oil would flow not to Iraq but to the HQs of the major oil companies. Suppose Iraq nationalizes the oil industry in order to more tightly control the way foreign oil companies buy and sell Iraqi oil. Who distributes the profits of the Iraqi national oil company? The Government. Suppose that government divides up the profits proportionally to the three major groups in Iraq. Would the Shia and Kurds who suffered so much not demand a greater share than the Suni? Would the Suni agree quietly to getting less than the 100% they got under Saddam? Ultimately, control over the government would mean the difference between total control of the economy and total exclusion from the politics and economics of the country. Under those circumstances could we expect a sitting Iraqi Prime Minister (or President) to step down from power after losing an election? I suggest that we could not expect that. And so Iraq would have, at best, one election followed by an undemocratic government based on the same kind of command economy that Saddam ran. Whether it would be as violent as Saddam's government is another question but for certain a democracy would not be sustainable until the economy diversifies giving political losers a greater stake in the system. In the long run Iraq will never be moved towards democracy the US Army or Texas based oil/energy related companies like Haliburton. What Iraq needs is factories in as wide a variety as possible and in great numbers!