As is probably not widely know, there are also different types of "insurgents", or "terrorists", whatever. On one hand we have the real terrorists, sometimes foreign, who fight on idealistic grounds, or with the sole purpose to destabilize Iraq, aka Al Qeada. A substantial part of the resistance on the other hand, are certainly ordinairy Iraqi's who want the foreign occupants out. These people can best be described as freedom fighters.

These two groups don't cooperate, they despise eachother.

The open source side has the advantage of cells and groups sharing techniques analogous to Linux coders sharing code to make the next kernel. The Internet facilitates an insurgency just as it facilitates Linux development. Plus, the open source side always have people join and "retire" at will, making intelligence by the centralised side impossible.

The drug war is just as unwinnable as the police have an open source opponent in the form of dealers who come and go as well as manufacturers and importers who come and go. Neutralise any one, and like Whack-A-Mole, a new one emerges to fill the vacuum and supply the market with the not-so-goods.

History is loaded with cases of insurgencies fending off superpowers. Gangs v. cops, the drug war, our Revolution, the French Revolution, etc. And it's found in fiction like Star Wars with an insurgency in personal planes (their flying cars?) v. a Deathstar.

Another advantage of an insurgency is that they can innovate to seemingly no end. The IEDs are a prime example, along with smuggling methods now surely being adopted from drug smugglers. And the biggese advantage is that centralised opponents NEVER learn. Irony of ironies: Now we Americans are the "redcoats"!

This with insurgencies brings up a nightmare scenario for the UN. In America there are 200 million guns in the hands of citizens, along with people who can make IEDs. America collapses, and an Iraq-like situation ensues. (only way bigger) When the peacekeepers come, well you can imagine now with Iraq being the precedent.