Our military's purpose is not to serve the "international interest." Its purpose is to protect this nation from enemies, foreign and domestic. There is no such thing as a common international interest, because that interest would have to include the interest of our enemies. Therefore, your hypothetical situation is irrelevant, and a rather poor attempt to distract me from the fact that you have no firm argument on which to stand.
You attempted a nice appeal to pity with the story about your friend, but I frankly don't care if she went into the military because she felt the military needed the service of liberals. The military doesn't need conervatives or liberals. It needs soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who put their country ahead of themselves. If she can put her job as a member of the military ahead of her inherently anti-American liberal prinicples, then I applaud her. If she entered with the belief that, in serving as a liberal, she could help transform the military into some liberal fantasy of what a military should be (i.e., traipsing around the world giving aid to the "downtrodden," et cetera), then she is just as poorly informed as you are.
I've little patience tonight for those who waste my time. Goodbye.
This doesn't answer my question, which was, if we actually were to engage in a mission most conservatives opposed and regarded as a mistake, would it not still be possible for them to support the troops while opposing the mission?
I believe that is what the U.N. is for, not the U.S. Military.