I am not disputing the fact that many people may be cautious or even opposing the war. But that things does not concern them directly - it is something that is going on in a distant land that they have problem finding on a map. Now contrast that with a very tangible alternative - the prez wrapping himself in a flag and asking people to either march with him or to support the people who brought us 9/11, your neighbors questioning the patriotism of those who publicly express their doubts - in a word, an considerable peer pressure to conform. In addition to this stick, the powers that be can also offer a "carrot" - an opportunity to exercise power (normally not available to most lowe class people) by kick ass of someone else. So having to choose between standing for something most people have only a vague idea about and conforming to considerbale peer pressure here and now or experiencing the thrill of power by kicking ass without being punished - it is a no brainer which choice most people will make. That is exactly how fascism works - people start march in a goose step not because they support fascist ideology, but because they care more about them being ostracized by their society than about a well being of an Arab or a Jew they have never met.
That balance willstart to tip only if their _personal_ cost/benefit balance of supporting the war will be outweighed by that of opposing it - i.e. if they directly experience the consequences of the war, e.g. by their kid being drafted and then coming back in a body bag. The ruling class understands that logic very well (which btw, underlies the work of current Nobel laureates in econ, discussed on this list) and that is why they are so successful in mobilizing public support for their adventures.
Wojtek