Well, the difference -- of course -- is between thinking and thinking well.
I might have agreed with Woo if Arafat, bin Laden, etc., had ever had a single tactical or strategic victory against us. But they haven't. Sucker punches don't count, nor does sneaking a bomb onto a bus full of children. The cold, hard fact for these cowardly murderers is that wherever they've dared to meet us on the battlefield, we've out thought them, out fought them and overpowered them. Saddam and his supporters thought he was a great military genius, too. But they were completely delusional.
So, we're not underestimating them; We're accurately estimating them. They are not game theorists. They're not even chess players. They're not thinkers at all, imo, just cold-blooded, vicious animals.
I agree with you in your first statement. The second one is subjective. One can make a case that tactics in achieving a strategic success have been effective--the way they can beat us is to get the American left to convince Jill and Jane 6 pack to cut and run (Iraq, and the war on terror in general) ala Viet Nam. If Bush wins, they will lose, and they know it. If Kerry wins, It's Katie bar the door.
I do not think that Saddam had "supporters" in the sense that we understand it. He had folks who deathly afraid of him.
I understand that these folks are not game theorists. But to say that they are not capable foes puts us at a disadvantage. Just because they are cold blooded animals does not mean they are not capable of understanding a dynamic and taking advantage of that dynamic.
Look at Spain. That required thought. The fact that it was so coldblooded is part of what should make everyone think. It was not random, it was executed for a very specific political purpose.