I can't prove this as it is only a theory and something I put up for discussion. I could be wrong, but I would like to know what others think the implications were and are. I also wanted to see if anyone knew of any writing or research I could reference to learn more about the consequences of Korea in relation to Vietnam and future conflicts.
In terms of historical analysis, you are leading with your conclusion rather than surveying the literature or sources to determine what your conclusions should be. This technique was also used in recent "Feith-based intelligence analysis."

Like the others I see your definition of victory as essentially one dimensional, centered on destruction of the enemy rather than defeat of the enemy. It is also quite limited in duration, especially since you are essentially taking Korea out of the Cold War continuim and tacking in some sort of causal relationship with Vietnam. Meanwhile there were conflicts elsewhere that shaped the thinking concerning the Vietnam conflict, Cuba being one and the Congo being another.

As for Gulf War 1, that conflict was limited and was done so deliberately--at least until the end when the White House issued calls for rebellion and did not back them up. There were significant reasons for not crossing into Iraq; if you have any doubt as to their validity, look at events today.

Tom