(A spirited discussion at Sergeant Stryker's brought the following statement to my attention):

I think one obvious difference in the countries you refer [Germany, Japan] to is that there is currently no clear ambition to re-create a kind of Middle-Eastern Marshall Plan.

Not a correct contrast. Let's clarify what the Marshall Plan was, first. It was a broad reconstruction and revitalization program that affected most of Western Europe, from France to Germany to the Netherlands. One would expect that 3% of the Gross Domestic Product would be required to rebuild half of a continent (as opposed to one country, which is the only way your argument would have any traction).

Japan, on the other hand, was not a part of the Marshall Plan; it was run, of course, by General MacArthur and, once the State Department was politically swept aside (at least until Cold War events inviting the San Francisco System loomed), stayed very much an "independent" undertaking under the purview of MacArthur's GHQ. Though America did supply Japan with supplies and materiel and helped to physically rebuild industries, a great deal of Japan's infrastructure was created by employing - altered or not - existing institutions within Japan. The Diet, for instance, remained in session and under four different Prime Ministers (Shigeru Yoshida holding the post the longest by far). The zaibatsu plutarchical industry families, though greatly diminished, were not completely removed from economics. Meiji central planning remained a part of Japan's reconstitution, particularly during the early years.

Reconstruction was dedicated in Japan, but not connected to the immense, multinational price tag of the Marshall Plan. MacArthur used what was in front of him. That's why, though I think Germany holds many examples germane for Iraq, Japan is a much closer parallel.

(Then another question, with rhetorical intentions, but I answered it straight):

If America is so torqued about human rights, why did it do nothing about Iraq for the last 12 years, or indeed any of the other grim regimes in the world (Indonesia, Burma, Iran, Congo...take your pick).

You're separating American actions from the rest of the world, which is precisely what my argument accounts for!

George H.W. Bush faced a "coalition" mutiny if he so much as looked cross-eyed at Baghdad. While I have no respect for his decision that led to the slaughter of tens of thousands and twelve years of toothless United Nations haggling, I completely understand why a Cold War realpolitician (CIA background, no less) balked at deposition and democratization, especially when a world not quite separated from the Soviets was prepared to resist. It's sad, but logical.

And the "Why didn't America..?" question is ahistorical and unfair. You need to put events into perspective and understand the prioritization necessary for the burgeoning doctrine of universal democracy. The Cold War only ended twelve years ago. Before that, a valid concern existed that countries in the very expected, very necessary post-war disarray as Iraq would immediately be taken advantage of by the Soviets. For example, a Moscow-funded Communist subversion was attempted in Japan, culminating in a failed general strike on February 1st, 1947.

Before September 11th, American politics were generally opposed to the idea of nation-building precisely because the United Nations [was] the accepted medium, and the United Nations had spent the last fifty years demonstrating its complete incompetence. But the WTC attack changed many minds, including the president's (mine, as well).

Now, imagine fighting political inertia within the country, within one's own administration (read: the State Department) and the world that works against the idea of removing dictatorships as a means of destroying lawless scourges like terrorism. Add that to the laws of logistics, and it's obvious that threats must be dealt with in order and, at first, under the auspices of general security threats like "weapons of mass destruction" that everyone, including threats like Syria and China, can nominally agree to.