The trouble in Iraq is that following the advance in Europe during WW2, a corps of 35000 civil-military affiars personnel were able to assume control of government functions until local governments could be stood up. Following the US army into Iraq was a force of some 30-odd mostly political appointees.
And that's not to mention the important force to population ration that keeps a lid on things so that the civil affairs people can do their job.
ZachScape, I'm going to take your post apart a little out of order, just for clarity's sake.
Obviously anybody here may criticize my views, but do it in a way that does not end in a flame war.

You may not get many responses as people may see your post as a troll of sorts, but I'll try and help you through this.
I am having trouble understanding the phrase "properly occupied."
The OTL occupation was a disaster for a number of reasons. First off, the force ratio I alluded to above. Recent (post-WWII) occupations have shown a distinct component of the success or failure is the ratio of forces to population. The "magic" ratio for success is a minimum of 20:1000. OIF kicked off with far fewer than that number.
In addition, as already mentioned here in this thread, the existing plans were scrapped. General Franks was forced to come up with a plan that suited Donald Rumsfeld's diktat rather than one that was appropriate to the situation. And the plan that he ended up with made no real preparation for the aftermath of the war. Once in Iraq, the army furthermore had no plans for dealing with the insurgency that broke out. Note that Franks retired shortly after the initial phase of the war, and appears to have been more concerned about his retirement that the growing insurgency.
L. Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority further made a mess of things by, among other things, the De-Ba'athification program and disbanding the military. The latter was especially damaging.
I was under the impression that it was one of the greatest military moves in history.
Nope, it wasn't. Not even close.
In less than seven years, the culture of a nation completely transformed to suit those of the occupiers. Democracy, though not perfect, was brought to a region where democracy was rare.
Except for the occasional horrific terrorist attacks, the occupiers face no 'Nam' like skirmishes/fighting and are training the domestic police in how to do their job correctly and non corruptly.
I know I sound like the raving mad Glenn Beck tea-bagger senseless old guy stereotyped conservative here when I write this -- but I honestly think the media wont describe or touch the success in the war because they would then have to vindicate a man they mocked for four years.
No matter who led the war, there would be arms trading, terrorism, and crime. How much depends on the success. I would say this could have gone better, but was pretty darn good to begin with.
Honestly, my first reaction to this was that you have been taken in by the neo-con propaganda. You make take that as a flame, but that's not at all the intent. I do not see a culture that's been significantly changed in any way, shape, or form. I remain deeply sceptical
Here are two well written books on the runup to the war, it's execution, and the aftermath,. I suggest you read them if you really want to understand what people are on about regarding a "proper occupation".
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/b...1480000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...-story-of-the-invasion-and-occupation-of-iraq