RETURNING to the office after lunch, I passed stacks of the London Evening Standard, fresh from the printing presses. "Cameron Sends in Warplanes" shouted their front pages over a giant colour photograph of two RAF Tornados, underbellies heavy with bombs and missiles.

The British like a bit of a war, there is no way round it. The daily newspapers—even leftish ones—like seeing Britain taking a lead at the United Nations, too.

A "personal diplomatic triumph" for David Cameron says the Guardian. "Hesitant Obama made up his mind thanks to European resolve", says the Times (paywall). Says the Daily Mail: "The move is a diplomatic coup for David Cameron, one of the first leaders to advocate intervention despite President Obama's reluctance to allow the US to be drawn into another Middle East war." Here is the Spectator:

David Cameron deserves huge credit for tonight's Security Council vote. He has kept plugging away for a no fly zone and has succeeded in moving the Obama administration's position.

Cameron's decision to have Britain table with the French and the Lebanese a Security Council resolution without the support of the Americans or even having talked to the president was a bold move that has turned out to be a game changer. The Prime Minister has proved himself an effective and courageous actor on the world stage.

Yet  British newspapers are filled, week after week, with reports of casualties from Afghanistan, not to mention talk of painful public spending cuts. Opinion polls (such as this one from December 2010) show a majority of Britons say they wish troops had never been sent to Afghanistan.

So why the enthusiasm for a fresh military adventure?

Here are eight thoughts (this is a blog posting, not a news article, so these are first thoughts).

The prospect of air strikes in defence of Libyan rebels has evolved out of something close to a perfect political storm, when it comes to galvanising British opinion. Why?

1. Britain is, deep down, quite a martial nation. It is one of only two European Union countries that views the second world war as a positive, proud memory (the other being Malta), and never bought into the pacifist consensus that reigns over much of the continent. Despite the huge protest marches against the Iraq war in 2003, do not forget that just before the fighting started, the British were evenly divided for and against the invasion. Shortly after the invasion, polls showed majorities in support of the invasion. Even two years later, despite majorities calling for troops to be brought home, many in Britain were willing to leave troops in Iraq until the situation had stabilised.

2. Where the British are more European than American, in contrast, is in the deference that even conservative opinion pays to international law. The British feel much happier going to war with United Nations endorsement for the use of military force (or failing the UN, the backing of some other multilateral body like NATO). On which note Julian Astle, a think-tanker close to the Liberal Democrat leadership, has a good piece today on the Telegraph website about how it is a mistake to think of the Lib Dems as an anti-war party. Once the UN has spoken, he argues, British Lib Dems are happy to go to war.

3. Despite the widespread resentment of Tony Blair for leading Britain into so many military adventures, his doctrine of liberal interventionism chimed with something deep in the British psyche.

4. Despite Britain's reputation as America's poodle, especially in Europe, there is an undercurrent of anti-Americanism in British public opinion that runs from left to right. On the Tory benches, that undercurrent looks something like Gaullism: a sort of nationalist disdain for and resentment of the American behemoth over the water. Just look at the gleeful headlines above about Cameron stiffening the spine of Mr Obama. Pedants will note that this glee is also pretty hypocritical, as the same British patriots cheering on Mr Cameron also fully expect America to provide the lion's share of the actual military kit in biffing Colonel Qaddafi.

It is striking that some of the few dissenting voices today include Daniel Hannan, a Conservative member of the European Parliament whose dislike of the European Union is matched only by his deep admiration for America. Mr Hannan notes that Margaret Thatcher was loudly criticised when she allowed American planes to use British air bases to launch bombing raids on Libya. His argument is that bombing raids in punishment for Libyan support for terrorism are easier to justify than today's plans for air strikes to save civilians from a brutal regime. I think he is proving my point about anti-Americanism as a force in British politics.

Put simply, the idea that Britain has shown America up over Libya is definitely icing on the cake for some.

5. Despite British grumbling and sniping at the French, we have a sneaking admiration for France, and certainly believe that the French are the only other serious military player in Europe. True, the tabloids have largely ignored the leading diplomatic role played by the French in this latest showdown with Libya. But we feel oddly comfortable fighting alongside the French. The French are cousins (albeit chic, annoying cousins who make the British cross, disdainful and a bit envious, all at the same time). Other Europeans are merely neighbours.

6. The Germans and the European Union have behaved weedily over Libya. This is a cherry on the icing on the cake.

7. This is expected to be pretty painless. There are few voices, if any, calling for British boots on the ground. Even the most hawkish Conservatives, who think that air strikes are not going to prove enough to stop Colonel Qaddafi, merely want to arm the Libyan rebels.

8. If something goes wrong, British public opinion will turn on a sixpence (see point 7).