Regime change

The second one is the only one with any semblance of an argument, the other two are just asserted. 

For the first one there's not much to work with. Futile with regards to what? Iraq was attacked because "that man tried to kill my pappy" and resulted in the execution of that man. It would seem the goal was met completely. The attack on Afghanistan was to remove the Taliban to deny Al Qaeda a safe base of operations. Al Qaeda no longer have a base of operations there, so in that sense a goal was met, even if the goal of removing the Taliban was a catastrophe.

What isn't taken into account is that going to war with the intention of regime change is against international law. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a fact. Also neither aggression was sanctioned by the UN security council, both were illegal. 

All that aside, I see no fallacies. 

These are just a collection of claims. If there is any fallacy,

Regime change is futile, just look at efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

this comes the closet to a Hasty Generalization fallacy. "Futile" is an absolute position. If the claim were "regime change often fails" this would be less fallacious.

This is a good example to ask clarifying questions such as:

Are you claiming that regime changes never work and always fail? How are you defining failure here?