<"If it is determined to kill, it will be determined to kill -- not that it definitively will, for it might not be able to -- but if it can be convinced otherwise, it might be used to build a better world for itself -- if it can..."

Somehow, installing a U.S. administered power in Iraq reminds the world of colonies.

The U.S. does not colonize. That was shown with our departure from the Philippines, and our eventual withdrawal from Panama. Colonizing is too expensive, and too stressful on both populations, home and abroad. And I think you'll find that the military postings throughout the world are not examples of colonization, for these populations change regularly on a cyclic system.

The locals won't like it too much and it will therefore be harder and harder for that administration to leave the area as it will either be a catastrophe to the few local allies on the spot or a humiliation to the country that put that administration in place.

Cryptic at best. Are these the only options available? What events do you draw this from?

Let's suppose the Iraqis are pleased (peace is back, commerce is back, people smile again).
But how about their relationship with their neighbours? This is quite different from Japan after WW2: there was only one country at war and all the neighbours were glad it was over and peace came back because Japan alone had to face its past. Now, the neighbouring arab countries have no particular reason to hate the Iraqis (they're all Arabs) and what happens to the Arab relationship between an occupied country and an non-occupied country, both from the same culture? I don't know but it isn't promising.

If, as you say, the Iraqis are pleased, peace is back, commerce is back, people smile again -- why would the "occupation" continue? In recovered/transitioned nations, the U.S. stays when and where invited.

Dan