In all of those cases there is one or more nations with an much stronger claim to victory then the US.
The cold war was an implosion by economics and the vast bulk of the preasure came from western europe who alost harvested nearly all of the victory gains, and that happened years before the first gulf war.
The US Acted as a poorly paid mercenary force for the houses of Said doing the first and second gulf war and the long term strategic goal went in Iran's favor when the US/Saudi backed puppet government of Iraq imploded and someone else had to step in and deal with ISIS(that someone else originally turned out to be Iran's republican guard backed by Russian advisors and hardware).
Kosovo again had Europe playing they leading role in the diplomacy both post and doing the war and harvesting most of the benefits.
Outside of late western Roman empire, i can think of few nations where the army was as impotent in terms of actually backing the diplomatic game or rather where the diplomats where as incompetent that despite having the best trained/funded army no tactical victory was too great to turn into an strategic defeat.
Iraq was concurred in 2 months the 2nd time. That was the war. If the leader of an enemy was hiding in a dirt hole in the ground and then hanged and that isnt a win to you then your definition is wrong. You are confusing nation building with war.
