But considering that the mandate was just to oust Saddam from Kuwait, would other coalition partners, and the US public, have gone along? The people were for the war but expected a quick campaign followed by an early return of the troops home, not a lengthy occupation.
We probably would lose some Coalition members, but even if say Egypt, Syria, and France refuse to commit forces to occupy Iraq, Coalition forces would still be much larger in 1991 than it was in 2003 simply because the U.S. contingent is so much bigger.
They were never the main source of resistance anyway. It was the sunnis especially ex-baathists.
Maybe, but the better relations the U.S. has with the Shia population, the more political capital the U.S. has to convince/pressure a Shia dominated government to make conciliatory gestures to the Sunni (and the less troops the Coalition has to station in Shia majority areas, which frees up more troops for the Sunni parts of the country.)
Again, not the key source of resistance anyway. Iran may have been weaker in '91 but the sunnis, prior to sanctions taking such a toll, may have been stronger.
That cuts both ways though. No decade of sanctions means Iraq's infrastructure is in much better shape in 1991 than it was in 2003. Better infrastructure makes it a lot easier to keep the lights on, the hospitals open, and the people fed which is important for giving legitimacy to any post-Saddam government.
Ex-baathists would've organized resistance soon enough.
Absolutely, but they would be facing a much larger U.S. military than they faced in 2003. (Plus all the Shia and Kurdish rebels that were killed in the failed 1991 uprising IOTL.)