Would it have worked then? Certain things only work when other things are in place. Part of the goal then was to convince the "common people" that we weren't there to colonize the place. The confirmation of that perception, as well as the contradiction of that perception both create different circumstances from a state where people aren't sure.
That's part of the problem with the kibbitzing on the war - like citing the current events as proof that we needed more troops during the invasion, and using that fallacious leap to say that the generals who espoused it were right, and Bush was wrong for not listening. When in a war, the circumstances continually change. We've changed how we're fighting the war every few months - not neccessarily in every aspect, but quite significantly. They change, we change. The thing that hasn't much changed, especially since late 2004, is the Democrat demand for defeat has been pretty open - though even that changed, since early on they were trying to hide it.
I agree that is what we were trying to do, however, I disagree that that is what we should have been doing. We should have locked Iraq down tighter than a drum. Indeed I would have acted not only like a conqueror but exerted our military strength, for that is what these people understand the best. Once they realized that we owned them then we could have eased them into freedom much like we did in Germany and Japan after WWII. I wouldn't have cared what the world thought, I would have been more concerned with results.