Substitute Vietnam then, if the point makes you feel better.

Same story. The problem was the US wasn't going to invade the North, and China supplying the NVA added a long tail supply chain that wasnt being touched.

What you might do better to note is both of those conflicts consisted of the US invading someone else's home soil to effect change and being outlasted in terms of public interest - a public who at home were living peaceful, first world lifestyles.

Everyones little civil war fantasy is when the fight is happening on your home turf to start with.

▲

WaxProlix 5 days ago | parent [-]

I don't really agree - a dedicated populous with light arms in both cases was able to ward off a full victory on their home turf, and the US caved to losses and other pressures (60k dead americans in 'nam, hundreds of thousands wounded physically, notorious trauma uncounted etc).

I don't have any sort of civil war fantasy, but I think that holding out against a military deployment in-country until it became socially and politically untenable would be pretty reasonable.

▲

XorNot 4 days ago | parent [-]

Sure...in 20 years. The US stayed in Afghanistan for long enough a whole new generation grew up after the occupation had started.

There's many dictatorships which are considerably older then that, yet weapons are easily available or common - Iraqis didn't lack for small arms during Saddam's rule.

	▲	WaxProlix 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Iraqis didn't view Saddam as an invading force. Some even liked him!