This is a particularly bad time to sell the American people a war, and make no mistake: we are being sold, and this “military action,” in another time and place — and in some quarters, here and now — would be called an act of war.

Americans are not only weary of war, they’re weary of the politicians who commit us to it.

According to Gallup, only 10 percent of Americans now have a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in Congress, a record low since Gallup started tracking the measure in 1973.

Only 36 percent have the same level of confidence in the presidency.

Furthermore, the degree to which Americans trust the government in Washington to do the right thing at least most of the time has tanked since peaking in the jingoistic, post-9/11, post-traumatic-stress era.

According to Gallup, the percentage of Americans trusting the government to do the right thing always or at least most of the time hit a high of 60 percent in October 2001.

That high level of trust mixed with a high level of patriotism, a clear attack on American soil and a clear enemy who publicly took credit responsibility for the attacks made going to war in Afghanistan an easy choice. President George W. Bush could do no wrong. His approval rating soared to 90 percent.

Then came Iraq, and so began W.’s disaster. The focus shifted from the country harboring the terrorists who’d just finished an attack on an American business center to the country where W.’s father had left business unfinished.

So while American patriotism was at a record high — according to Gallup, the proportion of people in this country who said that they were extremely or very proud to be American reached 92 percent in 2002 — the Bush administration, with its nest of warmongers, set about selling a trumped-up war with trumped-up “facts.”The Bush administration led us to a well that they knew was poisoned. Skepticism began to displace trust as the lies came into full resolution. Our faith had been misplaced; our confidence had been betrayed.

We were promised that the war would only last a few months, but it stretched on from one miserable year to another and the bodies of young American men and women stacked up or came home mangled.

We were told that Iraq’s president, Saddam Hussein, had a stockpile of “weapons of mass destruction.” None were ever found in our war of mass deception.

We were told that the Iraqi people would see us as a “hoped-for liberator.” We would come to be seen as a nightmare occupier.

How could the government have sold us such distortions? How could so many of us have bought them? Never again, we said.

Now here we are with another administration coming to Congress and to the American people, asking for approval to strike another Middle Eastern dictator over weapons of mass destruction.

But this time, the facts on the ground in America have been altered. The aftertaste from Iraq still lingers. Trust in the government to do the right thing at least most of the times has plunged to just 19 percent. Congress is divided on how we should proceed. And the international community has yet to rally in favor of intervention.

Striking Syria has given Americans a chance to exhibit and exercise the caution that they eschewed in the lead-up to the Iraq war, and they are doing just that.

According to an ABC News/Washington Post poll released this week, 6 in 10 Americans oppose launching missile strikes against the Syrian government even if the United States says it has determined that the Syrians used chemical weapons.

People are questioning everything — as they should. Are we absolutely sure of the evidence? Are there no options other than military options? Can we be guaranteed that we won’t face retaliation and that we won’t be drawn into a protracted engagement? Will bombing ease the refugee crisis or exacerbate it? Is this really about sending a message to Syria about its use of chemical weapons, or is Syria just a proxy, a small state on which we can make a big statement, a way for us to send a signal to others that our word is absolute? Is this an act of humanitarianism or militarism?And what do we hope to accomplish? The president has said that he’s not interested in regime change with this action, and many fear that deposing Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, at this moment could cause more problems than it would solve. We are wary of terrorist elements within the opposition who would love to get their hands on Syria’s weapons. In this community of thought, the Syrian civil war is a war among demons with few angels.

And yet, Syria’s civilians still suffer. More than 100,000 are dead, seven million are displaced (that’s a third of the country’s population), including two million refugees.

Something should be done, but what? And why must we do it? This is not an easy issue, but committing this country to military action never should be. President Obama is not President Bush and Iraq isn’t Syria, but trust is trust, and when certitude melts into uncertainty, it is hard to reshape.