You are looking at it from a purely military standpoint. I agree with you as far as that goes.
What you propose is that we should have violated our commitments to the other coalition partners and changed objectives in mid-stride. In particular, the Arab members of the coalition would be understandably concerned if an outsider suddenly decides he has the right to change Arab regimes at a whim.
The big question is what happens after Saddam’s army is destroyed and he is dethroned.
Did we want to occupy Iraq at the time? No.
If we destroy a government, are we responsible to do something to handle the situation we created? Yes. I believe this is actually part of international law. The winning party is responsible for maintaining order until a replacement government can be stood up.
IOW, the issue was not whether we could overthrow the Iraqi regime, it’s what comes next.
“Did we want to occupy Iraq at the time? No.”
Do we want to occupy Iraq now? NO.
And where are we now???? hmmm.
Do you really think that NOW is better then in GW 1?
We smashed their army and will to fight as we routed them.
In GW 1, we did not just run Iraq out of Kuwait.
We went well INTO Iraq.
We should not have stopped just short of Baghdad.
We brought all the hardware and troops home after GW1, only to start it all over again, after Saddam had rebuilt everything.
As far as the USELESS NATIONS, to hell with what they thought then, or now.