I gotta disagree, not that the support functions you're talking about aren't important, but that the rifle isn't the "ultimate piece of gear". Support functions, in this case a propaganda wing, intelligence gathering/analyzing, supply, and command, are fine, and are necessary for the resistance, but are still support. They are designed to provide the "fighters", the combat cells as you called them, with the means and environment that they can launch attacks. I think that both Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that the rifle, or other small arms, are still potent weaponry, even in today's world of high tech smart weapons, drones, helicopter gunships, etc. Combat cells, armed with rifles, don't necessarily have to function as merely riflemen. They also make excellent intelligence gatherers, snipers, and IED teams.

As for what you said about "anti-drone warfare, mass casualty targets and political targets are more valuable than shooting an enemy thug", again, I have to disagree. Those are indeed important consideration, but if that's you're focus, you're loosing out on a lot of opportunities. Attrition is more effective in the long run, and can slowly start liberating areas of the country. Look at Sadr City in Baghdad. Could American forces roll right in there, and grab somebody? Yeah, but they learned that it would be costly, and by 2008, it wasn't seen as a viable option. Guys with guns, and IEDs, supported by an active Propaganda wing and intelligence, made that possible. A similar concept, on a much larger scale, could be used in America.