Iraq now is everything that Japan and Germany were feared to be after they surrendered in WWII, and everything they weren’t.
One difference is that the Coalition creamed Iraq militarily in a very short time, but the Iraqi people weren’t subjected to the sort of sustained and destructive battering that Germany and Japan experienced with their troops being steadily killed and injured and driven back over several years, and their nations bombed with great destructive effect.
Another difference is that Iraq was the victim of aggression, rather than the initiator of it, which undoubtedly affects the inclination of a people to resist the aggressor after an invasion or attack. As the French Resistance did in WWII, and the Americans would have done if Japan had landed in the US in WWII.
Does a nation in a modern war have to be battered into submission by attrition on both the military and civilian fronts to avoid the sort of post-victory insurrection that is being experienced in Iraq, whether or not the nation started the war, so that nobody in the militarily defeated nation wants to keep fighting?
If it was most wars up to the end of WWI, the military forces fought exclusively or largely on the battlefield and decided the war there. Now we have two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, which were stunning and complete military victories by the aggressor, with every sign that in the long term the victor can’t convert the victories into domination of the vanquished nation or a solid treaty or peace.
Is a short ‘surgical’ war doomed to fail because, even if it is a military victory, the people in the defeated nation haven’t suffered enough to accept that they’ve been beaten and don’t want to fight any more?
Is the whole problem with a ‘surgical’ war that just defeats a nation’s military that it leaves elements of the civilian population resentful and full of fight?