it isnt Goering that came up with propaganda,
since the beginnings of civilization there have been a number
of ways of controlling a population - through armed power and codified laws, but also through 'educating' the population - which was done by both the ruling political and religious elite.

the US had to 'sell' the war to its population and a number of
factors were needed to convince the people- 1. that there was an imminent threat (ie. wmds), 2. that it could be quickly won with low US casualties (which was one of the main reasons the Vietnam war was lost) as well as minimal Iraqi civilian casualties (we dont actually know how many Iraqi civilians died since the US has deliberately chosen not to publicize the numbers, but so-called smart weapons made it possible to minimize bombing damage)
and finally, 3. that there was an evil ruler who tortured and slaughtered his own people - and built palaces while his own people starved.

plus there was still the residual effect of the 911 terrorist strike - even though there have been no proven links between Saddam and AlQaeda it was the perfect time to go after Saddam.

those were the 'public reasons' but what were the real reasons?
if it wasnt really necessary? Obviously it has been a stated policy that control/influence in the oil producing region of the Middle East is key to continuing US hegemony, plus the fact the US was keen to distance itself from Saudi Arabia, and remove one of the key reasons
that Osama Bin laden gave for attacking the US, that foreign troops, including women, were on holy Saudi soil. Not to mention the fact that distancing itself from the Saudi Police state, and establishing
a new base (ie. Iraq) in the area - were also key reasons..
lets face it if the principal export of Iraq was figs we wouldnt have this discussion (much less this war).
But another possible real reason is to establish some kind of democracy in the middle east to serve as an example. Now this may just be an infantile fantasy on the part of the US administration, but it does seem to be one of the most plausible reasons for the war.

they certainly havent succeeded in proving the wmds, and alqaeda link,
nor captured Saddam. But they did quickly win with few casualties,
and not to belittle the deaths of the occupation troops - when you think about the number of casualties in previous wars - a million Russian soldiers died in liberating Czechoslovakia in WWII, a couple hundred casualties is incredibly small number.
and though US troops are being attacked and killed on a daily basis
there really isnt a huge or well organized opposition.

Kalashnikovs are like toasters over there, everybody has one, there are over 5million people in Baghdad, and yet when there was supposedly a call from the former Baathist resistance for an uprising
nothing happened.

I doubt the US will pull out quickly McGrath, I think they will stick around to make sure the job is done. The low level insurgency right now will be more difficult over time, when the leaders are captured
and a larger trained IRaqi military and police is in place.
lets face it the reporters like a story, but with a 100,000+ US occupation force a few attacks arent much. The more effective attacks are on the international aid organizations, and attempts to draw the shiite majority into a civil war (which so far has failed even with the assassination of a major religious leader).

I think by next year things will have stabilized, mainly because the Iraqi people dont want to go back to the former regime. I also think
Bush will lose the next election to Clark, as the US public is starting to question some of the reasons for the war, and its hard for Bush to attack CLarks patriotism, having been seriously injured in Vietname while Bush sat out the war in a scout camp.