Dear Flavius, you're the one going passive agressive pedantic on me.
Dear bergamer, I've no need to be passive aggressive, and choose to instead go straight to aggressive because I'm not a babyback bitch, you myopic fuck.
Your "classic example" has absolutely no bearing on what I was speaking to. Did Fabius's actions cause the Roman public to protest en masse and demand Rome cease hostilities with Carthage? Of course not. The only thing his political rivals were bitching about was his use of asymmetric warfare, rather than the conventional "duke it out like a man. let's fight head on" style of war they preferred. At no point in time were they so distraught by their losses that they considered capitulating and giving up. All they did after Fabius lost his dictatorship was switch gears to the style of warfare they loved. That's, in fact, the exact opposite of what the US did, and it had more to do with political machinations of the establishment than anything else.
Furthermore, the public, especially in this instance, served as nothing more than pawns. Metilius was out there convincing people to support Minucius, solely to bolster Metillius's powers. I mean, really, the army wasn't allowed to conduct the war the way they wanted? Minucius controlled half the goddamn army. He's the one who wanted to fight aggressively. He's the one who got Minucius to ensure he got what he wanted. The army, HIS army, got exactly what they wanted. This was a row between the elite, not between the people and their generals.
What is the relevance of this to Rome having no problem completely and utterly crushing their opponents knowing full well a great many of their people would die vs the US choosing to back off because its people were squeamish? I'll tell you. It isn't. At all. Where in there are you seeing a parallel between the American public protesting, on their own, and without provocation by the elite, in the streets and demanding an end to the draft and war, ultimately leading to the US ending the war without victory simply because people back home couldn't stomach it, and the Romans deciding to stop fighting asymmetrically, which would actually decrease their casualty rates, and instead fight more aggressively? Because you think the people weren't manipulated into supporting one general over another? Holy hell.
Again, you're completely misunderstanding what I was saying in favor of trying to counter a point I never tried to make. Where Rome had no qualms about absolutely crushing an opponent, even going so far as to double down with Hannibal not that far from Rome, itself, the US chose to give up because it didn't like that its people were dying in a war. That's my point. That's been my point since post one. It's the point you keep choosing to ignore.