The ongoing argument about the meaning of ongoing resistance in Iraq, has to do with the fostered vision of American invulnerability.
All imperial power foster this mythology: it multiplies their hit strength on the ground; it enables the threat of force to stand for actual deployment.
The US wants to foster images of die-hard, foriegn, terroristic fanatics: who when they come up against the trained soldiery of the US, just cannot compete.
Well, not so. These largely local nationalists, posture and deploy professionally. They move fluidly and flexibly. Even only with small arms and light ordinance, they hold their own with all that the armoured backed US troops can throw at them: only air power brings US advantage.
The final myth they have to destroy in Fallujah, before firepower inevitably sees them over-run: has to do with re-supply; have they been able to re-supply during the siege.
It's all a matter of definition and media perception. The US has failed to show it can quickly crush insurrgency. The resistance has shown, that if they can get answer to US air power, then they can hold their own against US ground forces, in urban setting.
The lessons being learned in Fallujah, may be applied beyond Iraq. If the US spreads the conflict to neighbouring countries, as it did in Vietnam1: then US forces may well have to be met in the field in other cities.
It leaves it all dirty of course. Fighting the overwhelming military force of an Imperial power, is always a human tragedy.
