But it's not "mixed up" if you start from the premise that a full land war cannot be won. Consider why Saddam was not deposed in the Gulf War. It's because to d

But it's not "mixed up" if you start from the premise that a full land war cannot be won. Consider why Saddam was not deposed in the Gulf War. It's because to depose him the coalition would have to go all the way to Baghdad and endure a guerilla war, something that a conventional army just can't really endure. That's why Bush did not go for it - he knew Saddam would not go quietly into the night, but he also knew he could not win the land war against Iraq. So the operation ended in a withdrawal, much like the second gulf war will also end in a withdrawal, allowing the local elites to re-emerge. Epic fail. That's like saying we "won" in Afghanistan just because the Taliban temporarily moved elsewhere. As long you don't have permanent control of the country, you haven't really "won" anything there. And I don't think you will argue that we have any kind of permanent control there, then or now, or can realistically get it in the future. At least the Gulf War achieved something worthwhile. Later Iraqi and Afghan wars achieved nothing whatsoever.