For TPaine: You fail to understand that, if the conflict is not over within at most a few weeks, our Chinese and Russian friends will be more than glad to help the US Government subdue the "terrorists". There are plenty of Perfumed Princes and Princesses in the military to help them, and New York, San Francisco, and probably MANY other major ports will be glad to debark their soldiers. Somebody postulated that the Only Ones will not be willing to do "scorched earth" against fellow citizens. Not sure what ever gave them THAT idea. And let me assure you that neither the Chinese nor the Russians will have ANY concern about war crimes.
The bottom line? When the time comes, we either remove the sewage rapidly, or we lose. But even in losing, it is worthwhile to destroy as many OathBreakers as possible.
There are no "short victorious insurgencies" to speak of. There are "short, victorious military coups" but that requires a very popular General or Admiral who is willing to lead the military into open revolt to the elected civilian government.
But for an insurgency to work, to win, it will be a LONG WAR. Long hard, bloody, horrible war.
The Vietnamese fought the french for over ten years before they fought the US for another ten years. More than twenty years of conflict against two first world military forces. How did they win? By staying in the game. The Afghan Muj fought the Soviets for a decade.
If a US insurgency were to come to pass it would be a miracle if it ended in under a month with the insurgents on the victor side. Most likely it would end in under a month with WACO or Ruby Ridge repeated on a larger scale. The only way an insurgency ever wins against a superpower is with outside support over the LONG term.
There are a lot of fiction books that describe short insurgencies, and a few that describe long insurgencies. History doesn't support the short victorious insurgent. History says that those who take on a superpower have a long hard, but not impossible task.