While it’s very unlikely that someone has a definitive answer, this question popped into my head after the assassination of the UHC CEO and it’s been bothering me that I can’t shake off this feeling that more is likely to happen (maybe not in higher frequency but potential).
Usually I could provide counter-arguments to myself in a realism/(should I buy apples or oranges comparison) kind-of sense but this one I feel more unsure about.
I wish I had more diverse exp in systems analysis as these kinds of questions that linger in my head really irritates my OCD brain as I just want to know what’s the most likely answer.
Considering the US (and most modern militaries) struggle against insurgencies and irregular militia (Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam) there’s no reason to doubt the american public.
Much of the Vietcong were uneducated, underfed, impoverished rural farmers but they were a devastating force to GIs.
The main US motivation in all wars, is to enrich weapons and oil industries. Winning or losing is both an end to a war. Only the process of losing motivates more funding, because the alternative is that the enemy wins… until the boondoggle seems too hopeless. The US would take civil war more seriously.