Correct, and they also have a multitude of soft power ways to destroy someone as well (freeze bank accounts, push a narrative in the media, imprisonment), as well as define their target as an "enemy combatant", after which all bets are off on lawful treatment.

Anyone who thinks that firearms purchased through their local gun store will do anything to stop a truly tyrannical government is living in a fantasy.

Yeah, but illiterate shepherds with decades outdated weapons have held off the US in afghan for however many years now

The USA won that war — it’s the peace which they’re struggling with, and that’s a very different thing. Doubly so when you’re trying to install a friendly democratic government and the only reason your troops are still there is to support that new government — what would have happened (politically) if the French had kept troops in the USA after the war of independence?

Police and soldiers (should) have different goals and tools.

It's semantics, but I don't think "there are people actively attacking our military, and we are struggling with peace" really counts as "winning the war". But I agree that military is probably not the most effective way to achieve progress at this stage.

They may outgun a single person but they won't outgun a large scale uprising. You're also assuming the police and military will always obey orders, which hasn't always been the case, especially when government goes dictatorial.

We haven't (thank god) had a situation in the USA where actually shooting at law enforcement is a good idea. That is, where you're literally at war with the government and trying to replace it with another one, which will in turn recognise your actions as not against the law. On the other hand, things like home invasions happen daily.