Only rich clubs have won recent Champion Leagues, yet hyper-rich ones have not. That doesn't mean Manchester City or PSG won't, but if large amounts of money are necessary, why aren't obscene amounts a guarantee?
Jonathan Wilson's analysis (including second-tier clubs like Manchester United) is convincing. Hyper-rich clubs are built to win as part of promoting sponsors with more money than reputation or realistic expectations. This requires hyper-celebrities, and, although hyper-celebrities are generally world-class, casts of stars don't guarantee a good movie if they don't fit together.
The technological constraint here is that you need money to deploy world-class talent, but there's a ceiling above which throwing more money at an Mbappé doesn't make him better. Rich-enough clubs compete on both strategic focus and hiring advantages, but because the richest ones are more influenced by non-operational considerations, this "levels up" the field - we have a handful of Champions League candidates, not two.
The application to the Afghan War is obvious: resource dominance in the absence of (or even hindering) strategic focus is at best problematic. But it's also a lesson for huge companies and their competitors. The advantages of huge resource inequalities and lobbied-for monopoly barriers are very powerful, but the ability to pay for the good-enough experts and technology, although necessary, is not a substitute for a realistic strategy.