"Dunno about that - the capitalist hyena press, or at least the NYT branch of that beast, reports that the occupation forces have been fairly successful at arresting leaders of the resistance. And it's not likely that they could have captured Saddam himself without some help from the locals."
Possibly, but many popular resistance movements were troubled by informers. The Provisional IRA always found it difficult to secure a majority of the catholic population, let alone any measure of protestant support, while the war was on. But still it was, I suggest, a legitimate anti-imperialist movement, with popular roots, by virtue of its all-Ireland aspirations. (Ironically, it has since become a sectarian organisation having embraced the terms of the Good Friday agreement, making little pretence at being anything other than a partisan for its own community.)
I find it difficult to assess what is going on within Iraq, whether the movement is popular or not. Clandestine activity is not necessarily evidence of elitism - it might just be a necessity. I have been more struck by its comparative audacity and success than its failures. Certainly killing local policemen is not necessarily taboo, if they are widely seen as collaborators.
But as far as I can see the elan of the Iraqis who are taking on the western forces and their local allies does not arise out of confidence in their popular base. Rather they are encouraged by the indecisiveness at the core of the occupation.
No doubt Iraqis read the papers, too. They must have noticed that the US failed to secure Western support for the invasion. They must have noticed the rows over weapons inspections and intelligence. And they must have seen the demonstrations in western capitals as well as arab ones against the war. They will have noticed, too, that their current military rulers keep insisting that they do not want to stay, but to hand over to the Iraqis - a sure sign of insecurity.
It seems likely that some Iraqis are emboldened to take action less by the degree of popular support on their own side, than west's nervous fluttering.
If my assessment is not too far off the mark, it is also what one might expect in the international context. Nationalist movements per se have been in abeyance in the post-Cold War era - except in the imagination of the Great Powers, who were wont to see every local leader as a 'nationalist' challenge to their rule. But the uncertain nature of western domination has tended to provoke conflicts.