A little halftime diversion: Patrick reminds us that the American public was less supportive of intervention in Iraq in 1991 than it is for intervention today, when the case for intervention - Saddam's unprovoked aggression against Kuwait - was much more obvious in 1991. The anti-war effort, he reports, is clearly fading over time.
I think there's a big reason for that: anti-war sentiment in 1991 was driven in large part by the specter of Vietnam, the notion that we'd go in and get our backsides kicked and come crying home. Since then, the first President Bush waged a hugely successful military action in Iraq, Clinton got our boys killed in Somalia, and this President Bush eliminated the Taliban almost without breaking a sweat and with relatively few American casualties.
The American public has learned its lesson. America can and should win these types of conflicts at a relatively low cost so long as our Commander-in-Chief understands the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force.
Very few Americans today oppose the war in Iraq out of fear we might lose. Some oppose it because they oppose all war; some oppose it for fear of offending our allies; some oppose it for other reasons. But unlike 1991, there is almost no one who credibly claims to oppose a war in Iraq because they think Saddam will win it.