How was the Gulf War consistent and/or different than the US' diplomatic/military actions since WWII?

Question

How was the Gulf War consistent and/or different than the US' diplomatic/military actions since WWII?

How was the United States government's role preceding and during the Gulf War consistent with its diplomatic and military actions since WWII? In what ways was it a departure? (To what degree does the Gulf War represent part of the "American Political Tradition"?)

Answer 1

During WWI and WWII, the US was cautious.  It didn't want to engage in foreign entanglements.

But since WWII, the US adopted a "world police" attitude.

So it was a departure since the first world wars, where we had to have a compelling reason to get directly  involved, like the sinking of  the Lusitania or the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

However, if you look at American foreign policy since then, it is consistent.  We got involved in Korea and Vietnam when we didn't have to, for purposes of containing Communism.  

Curiously, we didn't invade Iran during the hostage crisis of 1979.

Answer 2

In WWII: the whole League of Nations had failed. The US didn’t take a real military action before it was attacked in Pearl Harbor. & it built its military forces & upgraded its military industry during the time of the war.

In the Gulf War: The American led coalition was built with the support of the UN. The war itself was authorized by a UN resolution (a unique case). America didn’t wait for Saddam Hussein to take over more countries. & the US military was already at a peak point since the Cold War had ended little before the Gulf War.