I wasn't taking an offensive stance, just that merely restricting access to supermarkets in USA means starvation & loss of daily life on a grander scale than the same to the usual countries USA bombs.

And that actual freedom fighters usually arise from non-militant groups (ie not the ones hoarding weapons & dressing in tactical gear, but like teachers & such), ... unless the CIA or KGB directly funds and existing (usually fairly extreme in beliefs) fraction, which usually happens in proxi wars (then the winning daddy crowns their group the government "for stability").

But fighting in USA wouldn't take place in forests and caves. And foreign (food) aid would be really hard to get to individuals hiding.

So I don't think actual USA in-fighting can take place in terms of war-like conflicts you mentioned (where USA was the invader), bcs there would be no contest, but more like IRA fighting for Ireland's independence, or the French Resistance during WWII - individual (covert) strikes that leave the official gov unable to initiate direct conflicts & have to rely only upon their intelligence (and their own terrorist actions to put pressure on the people from the other side).

But it's not like ICE is the only militia, FBI is just one phone call away & even alone both forces can overwhelm any resistance groups, no matter how big, as long as they know where they are.

Now, if there would be a coup that leads to an actual civil war where two organised forces would fight (ie countries with their own militaries & lands), that would be much different, but also a lot would need to happen to get there.

(And I don't think the USA military wouldn't follow orders, they rarely refuse to kill civilians in other countries, so not quite the same culturally (yet! let propaganda cook), but militarily force on USA streets feels like "insubordinate" cities getting the Gaza special.)