"And the difference between success at achieving national strategic goals... and failure, Imperial over-reach, partisanship dividing the American public, unrestrained government and deficit growth, etc."
From what I've read, the US has never entered a conflict without substantial domestic opposition. Even right after Pearl Harbor, there were many voices raised against entry into the war. Of course, in 1941, they were shouted down rather energetically. The Revolutionary War was only supported by a minority of Americans. There were huge riots and protests in the North before and during the Civil War. Pacifists almost stopped the ships that carried TDR to San Juan Hill. Woodrow Wilson was only re-elected because he claimed to have kept the US out of WWI, and promised to stay out of that conflict.
Americans are never united in a decision to go into battle. That's who(and what) we are, collectively. What you call the Congressional Act that takes us to war is less important that the fact that it is passed and accepted by the President.
Governments are always governments, and will always "over-reach," be "partisian," and try to grow without bounds. Again, the title of a bill authorizing the use of military force is immaterial, and will have no effect on those traits. |
