This is the idealization to which I was referring in my opening post. It's more than resistance against foreign occupation.
Its core activity is a war of attrition against the local authorities and military. (Yes, it appears to me that this is even more pervasive than fighting against the occupying forces)
Another key part of their strategy is aggression against representatives of other nations.
And yet another key part is terrorism against the local populace, attempting to dissuade them from doing things like vote, signing up to join the local police forces, working at foreign-owned establishments, or even just interacting with the occupying forces.
It is these activities that lead me to say that this is not a resistance against foreign occupiers.
If it was just against the Americans and local authorities, I could see a reasonable argument that it's a fight against occupation. The argument gets stretched very thin when you account for the violence against third-party nations. Once you consider the general campaign against the local populace, IMHO it doesn't seem very reasonable at all.
No, I don't. I'm serious when I say I don't listen to the media.
No, but that's entirely irrelevant. I want Iraq to "become stable (by force)" because I don't want to see it to fall into civil war.
I'll repeat my question:
What do you think the situation would be like if there were no occupiers -- just the current Iraqi government and the militas?
I think it would be civil war, and that would be worse than it is now. I have the hope that Iraq can "become stable (by force)", and then the U.S. could leave Iraq without it falling into civil war.