mhrr wrote:Ah, point taken. However, there is a general anti-war sentiment among the general American public, wouldn't you agree? There aren't very violent anti-war protests. yes, but I think there is that mood.
The same can be said about the late 30s to early 40s. There was a lot of popular resistance to having the military intervene in Europe. The US government/military spent a number of years playing "tippy-toe", trying to support its allies while remaining largely on the sidelines of what was perceived as "someone else's war". Once the match was lit by the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor (partially in retaliation for our embargos), however, public sentiment in the US began to change. I don't think generalized anti-war sentiment can necessarily be used as a sign of an unwillingness to get caught up in the wartime frenzy. It just takes the right catalyst.
Case in point, I think the US will try to stay largely noncommittal with respect to the events in the Middle East until somebody does something undeniably atrocious, such as nuking a city. Yes, the politicians worry about our supply of imported oil, but any military intervention for political reasons will be half-hearted and semi-effective at best. It will take something like a moral/ethical atrocity to spark public sentiment. At that point, if we go in we will go *all* in. Even the "nuclear option" will eventually make it onto the table.