> not managed to win against a ragtag group of militants.
Those militants are not ragtag. They all receive state sponsorship in the form of finances, hardware, training and logistics.
Your analysis also ignores the reality of asymmetric warfare, in particular the asymmetry of the value placed on the lives of the combatants on the different sides.
Terrorist organizations are far more willing to sacrifice their combatants than the US is, and they have a pool of people who share this outlook to recruit from, which is why they persist.
In the event of an internal armed conflict within a developed country, all sides are likely to value the lives of their fighters similarly.
Those militants are not ragtag. They all receive state sponsorship in the form of finances, hardware, training and logistics.
Your analysis also ignores the reality of asymmetric warfare, in particular the asymmetry of the value placed on the lives of the combatants on the different sides.
Terrorist organizations are far more willing to sacrifice their combatants than the US is, and they have a pool of people who share this outlook to recruit from, which is why they persist.
In the event of an internal armed conflict within a developed country, all sides are likely to value the lives of their fighters similarly.