I find that list self serving, particularly the following:

(2) Combat, if agreed upon, should be undertaken with the intention of military victory, using whatever forces and resources are needed to achieve that goal; (3) Political and military objectives must be clearly defined before entering a conflict; (4) The relationship between military means and diplomatic, military, and political objectives "must be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary," not just established at the beginning of the military engagement
(2) is in direct conflict with (3) and (4) and seems to stand in violation of the idea os using military force in a limited manner to deter further agression, a perfectly reasonable use of the military. Military victory may be independent of political objectives. In addition, if you begin a fight with the intent of finishing it that stands in contradition to the idea of reassessing the situation and adjusting the means you use to achieve your goal.

While it seems like a platatude that you never start a military fight without the intent of military victory, I think it is better to say that you should never start a military action without the realization that you may have to take it to its natrual conclusion.