Could, but a lot of modern warfare is incredibly one-sided with one side being technologically superior to the other. They wouldn't even risk deploying snipers if there's a chance of a counter-attack via artillery. Or ground forces for that matter. First and second Gulf War were started by a massive air raid that took out most of Iraq's defenses, tanks and infrastructure.

That said, just because they may have military superiority doesn't mean they can actually win a war on someone else's home turf.

Snipers were pretty frequent in Iraq, despite the US's technological superiority.

"That said, just because they may have military superiority doesn't mean they can actually win a war on someone else's home turf. "

A military superior force can win a war against a enemy population, but it cannot claim then anymore, to fight for those people.

The British did just that during the Boer wars, against an opponent that engaged in guerilla warfare on their home turfeand had access to modern weaponry. They gained control of the country by partitioning it with blockhouses, strongpoints and barbed wire fences, scorched earth tactics, involving indiscriminate destruction of farms, and forced resettlement of many Boers into concentration camps. Fortunately, many of these tactics have gotten out of fashion. Also, this required the deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops for many years, which could be justified economically only by the diamonds mined in not-yet-South Africa.

Sniper units are often deployed behind lines and spend hours or days in observation. They may arrive on site well in advance of their target and be very sure of identity before firing.

Also, a marksman deployed with an infantry unit will support small arms fire (~200 yards) with range extension out to say 800 yards. A dedicated sniper team could be taking targets out as far as 3,000 yards. So perhaps a infantry marksman would be more willing to take a shot at a closer target given they are part of a squad, where a sniper team won't shoot at a tin cup or fake head in case they give away their position. It's worth just waiting another hour and see if that guy patrolling comes by again etc.

Modern day snipers, yes. WW1 snipers were in front trenches and sniped at the opposite trench, a couple of hundreds of meters away if so far.

My favorite part is the part where you smoke a cigarette through the fake head for added versimlitude. The enemy sniper must be thinking, “is that a papier-mâché head? Can’t be, he’s having a smoke”.

Suppressors, not shooting fake targets (spotter optics, possibly IR), having multiple snipers coordinate so they can fire a single round each all at the same time and go somewhere else before they get shot at. The last is probably the most important.

I don't understand how suppressors would work against figuring out the elevation angle of a sniper shot.

Likewise, wouldn't multiple snipers all firing on the same fake target simply give away the number of snipers and all of their individual elevations?

I think the multiple snipers each fire at separate targets. One sniper per target. All at once, everyone fires (killing any threats), then running like hell before someone else jumps up and grabs a gun.

How would you figure out the elevation angle of a sniper's shot? It's not like you can do forensics when you are being shot at.

Did you read the article? They did exactly this.