setsneedtofeed

Just send more weapons

All of your examples were of supporting existing local insurgencies in order to help them frustrate foreign conventional occupying forces. The occupiers did not have to choose between victory or death, but could at their leisure withdraw. Having that option creates increasing political pressure to withdraw over time. The is exacerbated by military conscription to an unpopular war and a lack of ideological unity in the occupying nation. This is not the circumstance with Hezbollah.

Watch a Tom Hanks movie

Read 'Mao Zedong's Principles of Peoples War' to understand the dynamics of a mid-20th century insurgency, and have a foundation for how that has adapted with technology.

What?

Those conflicts were conventional forces being extended to achieve friendly political stability in nations with a large enough population that was hostile to be a problem to root out. Vietnam had a conventional force element with the NVA, though the issue for the U.S. was still one of creating political stability in the south for a regime that was locally unpopular.

In your suggestion the U.S. is supposed to play the role of the Viet Cong in Lebanon, and Hezbollah is supposed to play the role of a foreign occupying conventional military.

The U.S. (and the Soviets in Afghanistan) always had the option of withdrawing to their home countries. This was easily doable at any time they wished, so the calculation of these fights for the opposing side was running the occupying side out political patience. That's not really the same situation with Hezbollah. Defeat was not about racking up a body count enough to collapse the occupying military's ability to exist, but to frustrate their efforts until local politics became fed up with the war.

So, how exactly would this be done?

How would you propose that?

The League Of Nations and the UN briefly existed at the same time in 1945-1946.

The League Of Nations had primarily been a European organization which the US never joined. It had also been ineffective at doing much of anything about conflicts in the 1930s, and during WW2 it continued to exist but was basically just in stasis. The UN was conceptualized during WW2 as a beefed up version of the League to accomplish the same general goal of international stability for a post-WW2 world. The UN included the US and USSR as permanent members, the two global superpowers. In the changed dynamic of the post-WW2 world, that gave it a much more global sort of reach than the League.

While the League Of Nations squabbled uselessly and failed to prevent wars and atrocities the UN on the other hand

Actually in the 90s it was known as Joint Operational Readiness Training Scenarios, or JORTS.

JORTS was the name of the game in the 90s and everybody wanted to bag the most training time. Baggy JORTS were a sign of being very cool.

Oh, I'm not going to lie to you.

Stupid carbon rod. It's all a popularity contest.

Pro-Tecs are cool.

He died while many never truly live.

That's a half truth!