In war, it's not enough to justify. You also have to win

“…the capacity to kill the enemy does not necessarily mean you can defeat him,” is the point Stephen Chapman makes in his piece comparing the situation in Iraq with the current Israeli war. He writes,

When he chose to go after Saddam Hussein, Bush made several mistakes:
rejecting less comprehensive means of addressing the danger, dismissing the
danger that locals would turn against us, underestimating the challenge of
fostering political progress and exaggerating the utility of military force.
When he chose to launch a campaign against Hezbollah, Olmert made the same
errors.

But those blunders were not the result of ordinary miscalculations.
They were the product of the neoconservative mindset, which habitually confuses
what is desirable with what is doable. In their exaltation of military might,
neoconservatives also imagine that having a moral cause for war is the same
thing as having a feasible plan.

Yes, the United States had numerous grounds for toppling Hussein,
just as the Israelis had ample basis for acting against the terrorists in
Lebanon. But in war, it's not enough to justify. You also have to win. Lebanon,
like Iraq, is a reminder that the capacity to kill the enemy does not
necessarily mean you can defeat him.