The same troops in the same town confronted with the same evidence that their presence was unwelcome all continued to blame and kill the locals.

Generally when occupying another country or supporting its government with your troops you only care what the frak the locals think in a very limited, well defined and may I say small sense.

If you have decided that all things considered you want your troops in a location that generally takes into account them not wanting you there. The most one can say to local opposition is "noted".

The theory is that American military presence in Iraq is good for Iraqis because it helps them build democracy, or security, or their economy, or some combination. It's moderately challenging to concede that the theory could be flawed.

Sure some selective application of violence might actually benefit the other, but that is not, nor is it ever, the real reason why anyone does it. This is especially true when one needs to invest non-trivial amounts of resources of effort.