I would think that the Israeli scenario is somewhat different than ours however. Israel's threats are only a rocket launch away since their enemies live among and beside them. We have not faced an enemy capable of sustained attacks on our country. We always take the fight to them. Does this make a difference?
Echoing WM somewhat I would add that in looking at threats to the US (especially pre-missile age and to a certain degree pre-strategic airpower) those threats were often naval. We were and still are in many ways a clone of our British heritage (my Black Irish ancestors just flopped like a frog leg in a skillet over that one); we were/are a maritime power. Even as we broadened the reach of our airpower with the B17 we sold it to Congress as an extension of our martime defense (the flying fortress was a metaphor for extending "fortress America"). During WWII one could swim at the beach on the Gulf by the light of the burning tankers. And as a kid I remember doing the crouch and cover in the elementary school hall way over missiles in Cuba. Strategic reach of the Soviets was quite a reality.

I would also agree with WM that Desert Shield/Storm was very much a strategic coalition-based punitive action.

Best

Tom