Terrorism by definition is an attack on civilians. An attack on a military target is not terrorism. Police are a grey area. As an armed uniformed force they ar

Terrorism by definition is an attack on civilians. An attack on a military target is not terrorism. Police are a grey area. As an armed uniformed force they are a legitimate military target. However as they they operate in such close proximity to civilians means any attack will cause heavy civilian causalities. Disadvantage is a strange term. I would have used "operate more efficiently in cost/operation category but loosing in the causality/territory numbers. persisting until the US gets tired and goes home" But that does not exactly roll off the tongue. Specifically, at no point in those conflicts was the US military at a disadvantage. Iraq or Afghanistan were unable to operate as an independent nation after the first week. You know the infamous 2003 Bush photo of him on a carrier with a big "job done" banner. we all laugh at how incorrect that claim was, but he was not entirely wrong ether. At that point there was no real Iraq military left, it was all insurgents, un-uniformed guerrilla troops with no infrastructure that could project no power. The North Vietnamese were more successful, maintaining a government. But could do little to prevent US air superiority. or gain territory until the US left. Korea was perhaps the most successful, managing to restore territory to the original demarcation line. But not past that, leading the the stalemate left in that area today.