The short answer is "No", if by "small number" we mean something no more than "five".
The two characteristics you mention are rather different: "high growth" describes a rate of evolution. Now, it is standard corporate speak to say "we are in an excellent position to grow" to express in a diplomatic way the fact that you have hit rock-bottom. Given the unprecedented fall in Greece's GDP, to obtain some positive growth rate it is not that hard, since the base has shrunk so much.
As for "high employment", if by that we mean reverting back to the country's "natural rate of unemployment" (which was $7-8\%$ for decades), to do that in $10$ years, back-of-the-envelope calculations show that one would need $50$ billion euros additional investments yearly for $10$ years in a row to achieve that. This represents a $128\%$ increase in yearly investments from current level, or almost "two times and a half more" than now. Yearly.
From a structural point of view, what is required is a massive increase in Greek exports, or a massive increase in import-substituting economic activities. These things do not happen "in a small number of years". The first has to deal with international competition, the second requires extended geographical and sectoral relocation of productive resources.
But Greece returning to "high growth-high employment" was not and is not the main concern of the creditors -not unsurprisingly, and perhaps rightfully, since it should be the main concern of the Greeks and their (our) political system.
As to whether the approach taken by the creditors do indeed serve their own interests, is a totally different question, and a very complex to answer -because we would have first to clearly identify "their interests".