@vilageidiotx
France and Algeria. Russia and Afghanistan. The US and France in Vietnam. The US in Iraq. It's a bad idea to underestimate what happens when a group of people are willing to sacrifice everything.
Hold up just a goddamn second.
In every single one of those examples, the loser in the strong invader. That is not what happened in PoW. In PoW, the loser was the strong defender, and the winner, somehow, was the weak invader. The defender in this case is also educated and at least well-armed, where the defender is under-armed, under-manned and with a population that is not as well educated. Not to mention the defender has the automatic advantage of being home, where most people will support the defense
Literally the only thing the invader has going for it in this case is the made-up disadvantage of the defender's leadership being incompetent. But holy hell, how incompetent do you have to be to let this happen? And, like.. really, where the hell are the country's educated people? They're just sitting somewhere while all these weak states pick away at their nation? They're like "well our sultan was stupid so there's nothing we can do
now that he's FUCKING GONE."
In your examples, it was weak, highly uneducated guerrilla fighters successfully fighting off major powers. So why can't a, let's say 'decent', moderately educated nation that is at least partially industrialized, well-armed and at the very goddamn least more organized than just any guerrilla group having trouble stopping all these weak nations from picking it apart?
Sorry dude, but I don't buy it. I am not saying we should fix anything though, I'm just saying I don't see it being 'believable'.