Mzsmbs makes an excellent point. World War II (aside from being a victory, which helps), was viewed by the American public through the occasional still photographs, gov't controlled newsreels, etc. Though US deaths weren't light (except when compared to everyone else), it wasn't in our faces. Vietnam saw the media as unleashed as they ever will be in a war zone, with day-old footage from firefights on the evening news every night. U.S. deaths were much lower, but the war was in everybody's face (and we lost, which didn't help). That contributed to a two decade aversion to war.

Think of the images you still have from Gulf War I - for me, it was the targeting videos for the smart bombs, with narration - "here it goes, here it goes (boom), the target is destroyed". War was pretty much a video game, where nobody (on our side at least) was actually killed - never mind the tens of thousands of Iraqi conscripts buried alive in their trenches. The war over Kosovo was the same - we didn't lose a man, and it was all a video game to the public.

I don't disagree with the direction the military is going. In America, we have lots of money and the value of the voters' children is high - so we spend more on defense than the next 10 or 20 countries combined, much of it to train our military better than anyone else (except the Israelis and maybe the Brits) and to develop high-tech gear to let our military deliver firepower as far away from the enemy as possible, and to keep them safer when they have to get close. I've got no qualms about that at all. The policy effect is significant, though. I don't know that the lack of visible blood and guts makes us more bloodthirsty, but it absolutely makes the military option seem relatively painless and antiseptic when compared with diplomacy, economic sanctions, etc. Madeline Albright, the former Democratic bridge troll (excuse me, I mean Secretary of State) illustrated that when she asked Colin Powell "Whats the point of having this superb military you're always talking about, if we can't use it?" That's somebody who's divorced policy decisions from their consequences.