Some might say we had clear strategic direction in the first Gulf War, but it was far too short-term in its scope. That's a major problem with a political system and leadership that can only focus on time-frames measured in two-year election cycles.
I don’t think we’re any shorter on strategic goals now than ever before. The big thing we’re doing now is looking at consequences. Sure in WWII we beat the Axis, which by the standards we applied then made for a win. We also beat the Axis in a way that guaranteed the rise of the USSR and laid the foundation for the Cold War and all of its little mini-wars. Which not only clearly shows we lacked strategic goals (if we were thinking strategically we’d have let Patton keep going East like he wanted), it also means when you look at it through the lens we apply today (did the war result in lasting peace) we lost WWII.
On one hand it’s good we now take the long view to our history and see consequences to how we so often half-ass things. On the other we might be over correcting and setting ourselves up to always feel like we failed no matter how many sleazebags we overthrow.