The reason they attacked the aid organization is because they were perceived to be aiding an occupying power. Your whole position is ridiculous, if it was true then no aid organisation or UN work could ever succeed. They do because they are almost always there with permission from the government of a country, or because of a war where they act as a broker between the sides. In Iraq they are there to squeeze out a humanitarian role under a US occupation and not surprisingly they got attacked. It would be remarkable if they didn't.
To deduce from that that no aid organization is viable anyway is just absurd. They have the proof in their history, your way of occupation also has proof in that it virtually always get thrown out sooner or later. Just like your economic theories you have no basis for any of this either.
It may well be that there are groups like Baathists and some religious groups are fighting, but that's because the US deposed them from power. Likewise the religious groups are fighting because the US refuses to let them rule Iraq. So this has nothing to do with making democracy, the only people allowed to be elected will be the ones the US approves of. And because it won't be the will of the people it won't last. You can argue that religious groups and Baathists aren't the will of the people either but that is for them to work out not you.
What this is all about is crushing the people enough to accept a puppet government like in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. It may or may not work, and a lot of blood will be shed to try and make it work. It has nothing to do with democracy though, just another right wing thug like Saddam is needed to be an ally. Chalabi is an international fugitive for bank fraud, that sounds about right for a Bush ally. But you see none of this which is why the US will fail. Reality has a way of asserting itself. I wouldn't be surprised if Saddam ended up back in charge.
You make these arguments like they are in a total vacuum, that history never existed. Everything you talk about has been tried and failed many times. I'm sure the British tried the same excuses when they occupied Iraq and India. I'm sure the Israelis said the same thing when the occupied Lebanon. The fact is you can occupy a country with this many people without a lot more military and brutality. I see you are leaning toward the Hitler solution in Yugoslavia, where he would eradicate whole villages in reprisals. Not to mention allying yourself with the tactics of one of the most despised war criminals in history it didn't work for him either. You need to look at history, point to something that did work and support that.