But our predilection to get involved with other nations conflicts to somehow make it better for "balance of power," "Containment," "Defend our interests," etc., is predicated on our superior armaments and the latest "Shock & Awe." Those conflicts are settled by cruisers, carriers, ICBMs, M1 Abrams, and B-52s. They are settled by fighters with small arms and other toteable equipment.

Native Americans were defeated by other reasons than weapons, which were on a par with U.S. troops, and sometimes better. But the point you are missing is that American regular forces when facing irregulars are not assured of victory. And here we are, still in Iraq and environs. I don't know of any force, domestic or foreign, who would want to deal with a decent network of home-grown militia equipped with contemporary weapons.

Yeah, the Vietnam was was unpopular politically. But war is politics in the extreme, and a victory is a victory.