When I talk to Bush defense types, they say the Iraqi resistance has no “strategic significance,” by which they mean there is no way it can defeat the U.S. military or force us from the country. This sounds great. It is a cliche on the order of “failure is not an option.” Very comforting. I’m just not sure it’s true. The Iraqi attacks clearly have a strategic purpose, aimed very shrewdly at undermining the U.S. strategy in Iraq. Read this distressing New York Times story about an attack on a sheik in Ramadi immediately after a U.S. general had announced we were going to hand security responsibilities over to him. Such attacks may not defeat us, but they obviously have strategic significance. In fact, they’re aimed directly at our strategy of giving Iraqis more responsibility for governing their country.