It seems like the modern militaries are probably already well aware of these two separate things, to the point where there are probably two different conversations about Horizon 1/2/3, one for projecting the appearance of power for diplomatic leverage, and the other for wartime efficacy.
I guess that's probably true if your objective is to wage war and kill.
If your objective is to prevent or minimize those things than it's probably not your biggest problem at all and is actually your biggest accomplishment.
I'm saying that if you're going to fight a war in Vietnam, you should land the Marines at Haiphong and capture Hanoi, rather than idle away ten years and tens of thousands of American lives on a failed adventure, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians that died along the way.
If you're going to topple the government of a middle eastern country, you need to actually stick out the occupation and build a structure that will stand on it's own, rather than descending into anarchy when you pull out. If you're not willing to invest in that, then perhaps you shouldn't invest in the initial "Shock and Awe" portion of the campaign.
Moreover, 3000 years of history should be enough to convince anyone that invading Afghanistan is a terrible idea, maybe one step down from "launch an invasion of Russia in late summer."
Even though the Chinese troops were poorly armed and poorly trained relative to US troops they had undergone some degree of moderization since the Korean War where they had fought the UN to a standstill. Given the logistical advantages of the Chinese to mass men and material (it was on their border vs half the world away) it isn't obvious the US would have prevailed in a escalated conflict. China was also a nuclear power by 1965 which was not true during the Korean War.
But I don't think any of this disagrees with the main point of your comment which is don't intervene where the rules of engagement prevent you from winning.
Both Gulf wars saw thorough and decisive military victories by US and Coalition forces. That wasn't the problem.
Are you referring to something like WW2, where the entire population is mobilized in the production of material for the war? Do you mean "total war"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection
You just have your terminology wrong.