So to make sure we better understand you:
You don't like the way they use guerrilla tactics. And they haven't won a single "strategic or tactical battle." Lastly, the reason that the US is withdrawing is because we want to. Let's dissect this, point by point for giggles and because I have nothing better to do at the moment.
(1) And the reason they're lasting for that long is because they do not engage the military in battle. (2)Every time the Taliban have openly engaged the troops in anything resembling large-scale combat, they lost. They haven't won a single strategic or tactical battle, and the only reason we're getting out of there is because (3) we have no reason to be there.
(4)If the US military turns against its own population, it will be much more like Syria or Libya.
(1) Why would they? Head on, they'd get railroaded. Pot shots, IEDs and perhaps most importantly, propaganda are far and away more effective for their purposes. To assume that because they won't willingly throw themselves into a barely metaphorical meat-grinder they're somehow completely beaten is a logical leap of faith that is easily provable to be false. They're willing to fight, as much as they can without risking losing. Frankly, I respect the way they defend their ideals and home as much as I hate what that means - this from a former US soldier by the way. It's a grudging respect.
(2) For your reading pleasure, Afghani Taliban Victories: Uzbin Valley., Battle of Wanat, and while in Pakistan South Waziristan.
(3) Simply put... did we ever? Sure, it was more legitimate than Iraq, but that's not saying much. They've definitely made the cost of staying too high to be worth it. So we killed one guy - now we're leaving, and they're not gone. Their influence has waned, but it hasn't completely evaporated.
(4) I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Is it that regular citizens will have a better chance against the US Government than the Taliban did? Then I want to disagree... Afghani Taliban have been in a constant struggle with $SOMEONE since the 70s. They've had a lot of experience and until the mid-90s, a lot of success. But I digress - if it will be more like Libya or Syria... isn't that what we want? A better fighting chance from having comparable weapons?