Many people do not understand warfare. Look how long it took us to achieve rather limited goals in Korea, and at what cost! And again in Viet Nam many blame the politicians, and certainly there is blame to go around. However, our military strategy was incapable of stopping supplies and men from flowing south. To do that we would have had to expand the ground war into Laos, Cambodia and Thailand. It wasn't in the cards.
I think that a quite significant victory against Hizbullah is in the making here. It will not be absolute or final, however. There will not be an end to the overall conflict until the Iranian Islamic Republic is destroyed.
"However, our military strategy was incapable of stopping supplies and men from flowing south."
That's pure bullsh*t. It was a political war where Johnson would not allow the military to win it. And it could have been done very quickly by bombing Haiphong harbor, the Red River dykes, and the railways by cutting off they're supplies from Russia.
Political constraints stopped that from happening, not military ones. Bombing ships at the pier and blockading and mining harbors would have stopped many supplies before they even got started south.
THe decisions not to do so were political ones. Militarily, it made the utmost sense to destroy the materiel before it was disseminated.
In Korea as well, the objectives and 'limited goals' were under constraint by political forces. Had LeMay and Mac Arthur had their way, there would have been a decisive victory.
Both situations had one thing in common, They were not decided on the battlefield by soldiers so much as at the conference table by politicians. Make of that what you will, but I'd let the soldiers do their job.