[quote=@Pepperm1nts]
[@Dinh AaronMk] 

That comparison to Vietnam would be valid if Vietnam had been invading the US, but that's not what happened. The American people grew tired of fighting a costly war overseas, because at the end of the day no one cared as much about Vietnam or communists if it meant losing thousands upon thousands of American lives on some foreign land.

The situation with the Turks here is way different. They were fighting off an invasion. And because they believed Anatolia to be their land, they should have fought harder for it. The heavy cost means a lot less when you are fighting for your own home. I think the Vietnam example you brought up is a bit silly in this context but if we're really going to use it, then the Turks fit the role of the North Vietnamese more than they fit the role of the US, since they were the ones being invaded. Armenia would be the one with the role of the invader. The problem then becomes that, since they both believe the land to be theirs, there is no "the cost is too high to prolong this war in foreign land". They would both want to fight hard for what they believe is theirs.
[/quote]

Even Vietnam excluded we had parties who wanted to end a war even when the enemy was on the home turf here in the US. In particular the Copperheads who wanted to end the war with the Confederacy with immediate peace, goals or direction be damned.

The simple fact is war wears people out and even if at home or abroad the longer a conflict goes the more it'll grind on people's ability to endure the policy and take the weight of the stress brought by war. At some point they will simply cease to accept it and the governments ability to wage it will deteriorate if continued combat will lead to social unrest at home.