It's how battles have been won for thousands of years. The two army's approach each other and take minor casualties until one sides moral collapses, they break, and route. 90% of the deaths happened after the route.

Reminds me of the sinking of the General Belgrano during the Falklands War. The story at the time was that the Belgrano, an Argentinian warship, was leaving the Falklands to return to Argentina, when a British submarine sunk her; there were many in the UK who considered this an outrage, on the grounds that she was no longer contributing the occupation of the Falklands, so should have been left alone.

That analysis never made much sense to me, and apparently it later came out that the Belgrano wasn't leaving the Falklands anyway, and much later on the captain of the Belgrano said he thought that the British were quite right to sink it [1]!

[1] https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-was-right-to-sink-th...

Well, it probably saved Kurdish lives to some degree. Remember that Iraq is a British Empire construction of three opposing ethnic groups (Shia, Sunni, Kurd) and Saddam was a Sunni oppressing the other two.

Wiping out his best soldiers may have reduced his ability to suppress the other two ethnic groups.

Or it made Shia and Kurds more active and sowed MORE conflict. Who can predict such things.

But from realist international puppet string wannabes, it neutered Saddam's military and ability to threaten Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. The US was just a mercenary army for the Kuwait and Saudi royal families in this "war".

It is obviously a matter of context. Russian army in Kyiv is indeed able to regroup and attack again. Iraqi army was by all means a defeated force that was running for its life into Iraq where civil war just started. The risk of it attacking Kuwait again was zero.