3% of the colonists (actually fighting) was all it took to beat the best army in the world in 1776.
The British lost the war of Independence for the same reason Bush jr lost the Iraq war.
It was simply way too expensive to impose a military "peace" on a place that refused to be occupied by a foreign power.
Do you have a link to back up that claim?
not saying it's not true, but that was never covered in any history book I've read.
Probably because those history books were written before Bush jr's failed warmongering in Iraq.
The British were having wars with other nations at the same time. Subduing a population in an area as huge as America meant a massive commitment of troops and that included all of the logistical support that goes with it. On top of that they had already lost the "hearts and minds" of the rebels by waging war instead of negotiating a settlement.
The parallels are there in plain sight. It was a really dumb move for the Brits to wage war on a former ally. It was an even dumber move to believe that they could be subdued by military force. Invading America was no different to Napoleon and Germany invading Russia. It doesn't matter how big your army is and how strong it is if the enemy can simply disappear and then come back to ambush you whenever it wants.
The only successful suppression of that type that the Brits managed was in South Africa and it still took them two attempts because the Boers used "commandos" to attack the British forces. Eventually the Brists had to use scorched earth tactics and invented concentration camps. In the end they allowed self rule and lost the colony to independence because of the resentment the wars has created.
Stupidity and warmongering go hand and hand and just having the most powerful military doesn't guarantee success.
