The other thing that people don’t recognize or want to recognize is that yeah, in a modern urban insurgency the insurgents are going to lose 50 or 100 people for every member of the security forces who is killed. That’s just how the math works for insurgencies. It’s asymmetrical warfare and one of the asymmetries is that the insurgent forces are going to take vastly more casualties than the occupation forces.
There’s also the reverse where the state has to spend 50 to 100 times amount on counterinsurgency. Insurgents can afford to bleed blood while counterinsurgents can afford to bleed money. The faction that wins is the one that bleeds less.
Also an insurgency in the base areas where production and logistics are centered is going to be way more effective than fighting the forces of empire abroad. Likely way more difficult, but any successes would have massive effects
This. An insurgency within the boundaries of the US could strike at key infrastructure and it would be very hard for the police and military to protect everything across such a huge country. If insurgence caused serious disruption at one or two critical factories, or shut down a port, or took out an important rail bridge they could cripple the country.
Look at how much damage the Mohawk did to the Canadians by just blockading rail lines and preventing rail traffic. They didn’t even have to attack any actual people but they caused massive disruption until Klanada mobilized the army and sent tanks to chase them off.
