"Neo" has some troubling thoughts on the nature of twenty-first-century warfare, defining what winning is, and whether we're capable of doing what must be done to win.

Most wars don't have a "victory"

The Korean War was a cease-fire, not a strategic defeat for russia,
china or North Korea.

The Great War was an armistice. Germany got lousy terms,
but, was able to avoid occupation.

The American Civil War didn't do much for the african slaves
that was so much the cause of trouble.

The War of 1812, sure wasn't victory.

The Barbary wars were very unappealling.

The question wasn't victory, it was "success". Success can be had without all out, unconditional "victory". The first Gulf War was a success in that it met it's objective of restoring Kuwait sovereignty, but it wasn't a total victory over Iraq as the Iraqi government(Saddam) was not felled.

As for your "examples" not being victories, they certainly were not defeats.

Korea: North Korea pushed back to pre-war borders and South Korean independence maintained. Not a defeat.

WWI: Britain, France, Belgium etc. borders restored. Germany forced to pay reparations, disarm etc. Not a defeat.

US Civil War: The Union restored. Not a defeat.

War of 1812: US maintained and even strengthen its independence. Not a defeat.

Barbary Wars: End of tributes being paid, Barbary states become/revert to being colonies of European powers. Not a defeat.

I'll agree, many of our wars have had success, not victory,
not defeat. But it also meant definining success
very narrowly.

1812: "Initial condition" On to Canada.
"Armistice" No loss of territory"

The Great War :Initial "Destroy the kaiser's threat"
Armistice :"Peace and reparations"

Korean War Initial : "To the chinese Border"
Armistice: "Hold at the 38th parallel"

Iraq :Initial Condition :"Destroy the WMD"
2008 "Peace and Reparations"

Your knowledge of history is either very limited, purposefully narrow minded or both.