What was the difference between Iraq I and Iraq II?
Iraq I, had a clear and narrow object and exit strategy. It did not involve regime change.
Iraq II and Afghanistan were rushed plans with no long term strategy which became unstuck once the US / Coalition Forces took control on the ground. There was no military exit strategy. My beef with Iraq (and why I protested against it) was precisely because of that.
Political vaccums are as dangerous as dictators, because you have various groups vying to take that lucrative control.
You cannot have a completed military victory without a political one. Its the whole hearts and mind thing supported by a secure, stable and self supporting new government.
Iraq I and Afghanistan were always doomed to fail for this reason. Its little different in Libya either. Also see Vietnam. And in essence this recognition is whats now driving US foreign policy, because its become apparent that in a modern world, deliberately trying to change regimes by force is very difficult indeed. It has to have internal support and a predetermined alternative in place which relies on internal figures (See China for how its successfully done).
But the reverse is true in terms of successes in Bosnia and the post WWII settlement (including much of the later fall of the Berlin Wall which was ultimately led by the concept of self determination and largely bloodless - with some notable exception).
Putin has invariably made the same mistake in terms of trying to carry out an aggressive military war to ensure regime change. He thought there was much greater sympathy for Russia than their was and underestimated the psychological impact of bombs hitting your house and tanks rolling into your village uninvented.
Wars of true liberation, where there is some sort of natural successor who has broad popular support are a completely different ball game.
Indeed Brexits true failure doesn't lie with the decision to leave the EU. Its failure is due to its lack of thought out plan prior to the vote which there was consensus over. It created a power vaccum and failed very quickly to win over hearts and minds as a direct result of this lack of clear path forward. Instead everyone fought over it (and is still continuing to do so as we can see from this thread).
I think with this conflict, its crucial to keep asking the key question about exit strategy. How do you enable a Russian exit strategy which saves face but satisfies Ukraine and the West enough and preserves a long term peace? Even if this intrinsically a very fragile peace. Equally how does the west plan for a scenario where so many have been displaced with Russia remaining an occuping force.
We don't just need short term promisesbof aid, but also much long contingency planning for the potential of a much more protracted problem.
Many of those who have left Ukraine, will like Bosnians before them, never return to their homeland even though its safe to do so. Many will return, to rebuild. If Ukraine does retain independence and peace returns we have so big questions to answer in terms of how they rebuild because they will be political and economically fragile. Stuff like, cluster bombs that need clearing up (there are international agreements to outlaw their use because they are viewed as dangerous to civilians as landmines and indeed in some ways are even worse because the bomblets look like toys. However both the US and Russia are not signatories to this agreement) and extensive infrastructure rebuilding (to repair not just homes but also the many bridges that have deliberately taken out by both sides).
We need to start doing this now rather than once the war stops. It also highlights why Zelensky himself is so important to both sides and why he is Russia's top priority even if they fail to take land because he represents a continuity of leadership and has popular support. If he goes, a power vacuum opens up, which can be exploited by Putin even with a Ukrainian victory. It is actually a really good sign in this context, that just so many MPs, including women, have stayed and taken up arms, to perhaps mitigate this problem.