I really think it is important to separate out the process from the form since the deal with related, but different, cultural factors. Insisting on a "democracy", and a particular form of it at that, was, IMO, one of the greatest blunders in both Afghanistan and Iraq. In my mind, a lot of it comes down to concepts of "legitimacy", which is a slippery cultural perception.
Could one really call the "democracies" in question a genuine "blunder" when the Afghan government still retains legitimacy throughout the country and the current Iraqi government in its present form was never the intended result of U.S. policy, but rather one they were forced into by the Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani, and which came about through a series of negotiations between Sistani, the U.N., as well as the U.S.?