I don't normally like to be political, but...
Democracy is not something that can be imposed. That is against the definition of democracy. Democracy cannot be implemented by outsiders, or forced into place like an ill-fitting shoe. Democracy comes from the people, when the strain of NOT having democracy reaches the breaking point. It is organic. In its very essence, it is natural and develops naturally. Either this happens on its own, or it does not.
It is dangerous and foolish to expect to forcibly impose democracy where it has not, now or ever, taken root naturally and of its own accord. There is just as much folly in that as there is in conquering lands and subjecting otherwise free people to the rule of a demagogue. Both are structurally weak forms of government, and both are, almost inevitably, inclined to fall, either into outright revolution, outside interference, or a cycle of authoritarian coups.
Similarly, it is foolish and dangerous to expect the people of a nation to defend an imposed democracy with any kind of urgency or fervor. To defend a fledgling democratic state is a difficult process, a challenge where success can only be found when it is met with the fervor that comes only out of having nurtured and created that democracy oneself. It must be the will of the people, not the will of a foreign power, that shields democracy while it grows. Others can help, but can do no more than help for, in turn, it is not their own democracy for which they fight.
Continuing to fight alongside an already half-hearted army only continues to weaken them, creating an expectation that the foreign power will always be there to take charge. This is a set up for a failure. Leaving early from the fight also sets the new democracy up for failure. This is the bind, the catch-22 from which there is no escape. The only way to avoid it is to not endeavor to foist change upon those who were unwilling or unable to bring that change about for themselves. Anything else is a terrible waste of time, money, and, most terrible of all, the lives of all involved.
It is dangerous and foolish to expect to forcibly impose democracy where it has not, now or ever, taken root naturally and of its own accord. There is just as much folly in that as there is in conquering lands and subjecting otherwise free people to the rule of a demagogue. Both are structurally weak forms of government, and both are, almost inevitably, inclined to fall, either into outright revolution, outside interference, or a cycle of authoritarian coups.
Similarly, it is foolish and dangerous to expect the people of a nation to defend an imposed democracy with any kind of urgency or fervor. To defend a fledgling democratic state is a difficult process, a challenge where success can only be found when it is met with the fervor that comes only out of having nurtured and created that democracy oneself. It must be the will of the people, not the will of a foreign power, that shields democracy while it grows. Others can help, but can do no more than help for, in turn, it is not their own democracy for which they fight.
Continuing to fight alongside an already half-hearted army only continues to weaken them, creating an expectation that the foreign power will always be there to take charge. This is a set up for a failure. Leaving early from the fight also sets the new democracy up for failure. This is the bind, the catch-22 from which there is no escape. The only way to avoid it is to not endeavor to foist change upon those who were unwilling or unable to bring that change about for themselves. Anything else is a terrible waste of time, money, and, most terrible of all, the lives of all involved.