The problem is that when a country is invaded, not all of the population are going to be overjoyed.
I am amazed how many people were expecting to be welcomed with garlands.
Iraq broadly consists of three groupings, the Shia in the South who were left in the lurch by Bush Senior among others in 1991, and who are close to Iran.
However they did badly under Saddam and were likely to be generally pro coalition. The Sunni's in the middle, who did relatively well under Saddam and who were likely to be anti coalition, particularly arround Tikrit and Fallujah.
Finally there are the Kurds in the North, who did badly under Saddam, who want a Kurdish state, which is something that Turkey will not accept.
The situation is that right or wrong we are in there now.
The way to deal with dissent is to expose the weaknesses in it. The more we try to silence it, the more we look like invaders rather than liberators.
Episodes like Abu Ghaib do not help.
Sorry about the potted history lesson, but a lot of the problems were foreseeable. I am not saying that they were all avoidable, but there has been an impression, if nothing more, that the Occupation was ill thought out.
In the South, We still need to resolve the role of the Imam's, much of the population are not looking for Democracy on the US model.
In the Centre, there was, and is the need to win over hearts and minds. This will mean men on the ground, lots of them. It also means less shock and awe.
In the North, which has gone strangely quiet, we need to think about some form of Kurdish authority, with some degree of autonomy.
Overall, we need a government which is Federal not unitary.
I know that this has strayed somewhat, and you may wish to delete it, (I hope not). But the point that am making, coming back to the topic is that this war, (like most others) needs a political solution, rather than simply surpressing dissent. If Al Jazzera was as out of touch as you suggest, people would not listen to it.