It has become acceptable, even popular, to talk about ending the war in Iraq. A majority of those opposed apparently would prefer a scheme involving a phased withdrawal with the last troops coming home in 2007. Then there are those who would have us end our involvement as quickly as possible.  Both approaches are appealing to a war weary public.

The opponents' reasoning is straightforward.  One group sees this conflict as a civil war characterized by growing and intensifying sectarian strife—the Sunnis versus the Shiia.   The argument is that we serve no useful purpose by being there because these groups have been fighting for centuries. The second camp believes that the cost in American blood and dollars has been too high irrespective of potential outcomes.  While most in this camp have opposed the war since its early days, they are adverse to John F. Kennedy's admonition that we "should pay any price, bear any burden" in the effort to achieve and sustain freedom.

It is not difficult to understand why so many hate this war. Few wars in the last 60 years have been universally supported.  There was anxiety about Korea and there certainly was hostility toward our involvement in Vietnam during the later part of the war.  These conflicts may have lacked a moral clarity that it is necessary to build and sustain public support for war.  It was easy to support World War II because of the obvious evil of Hitler and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.  On the other hand, encounters like Iraq, Vietnam, and Korea are harder to understand.  When an unpopular war becomes protracted, public support wanes irrespective of what really is the truth.

Demanding moral clarity in a world marked by nuance and complexity is naïve.  We live in a complex world where conflicts are like giant chess games involving players both seen and unseen.  We are seeing this played out now with Israel which obviously is battling not only local terrorists but Iran and possibly Syria, who are using the local "liberators" as proxies. 

In this case, the curse of Vietnam hangs over the war in Iraq.  Opponents who see both as "quagmires" now often compare Vietnam and Iraq.  Unless we can see light at the end of the tunnel, the thinking is, our support is guarded.  In the case of Vietnam, a significant part of the public used atrocities like the My Lai massacre (where 504 civilians were murdered) to generalize to all of those fighting in the war.  When I came home as a Marine, it was commonplace for people to ask me if I had killed a baby.  The hostility toward Vietnam veterans was so intense that the Marine Corps planned West Coast returning troop arrivals at 2 a.m.   Interestingly, the war was not what we thought.  In “losing” this war, we won it. Today, Americans are universally popular in Vietnam.  Nike, oddly, is one of the largest employers in Vietnam.

I share this history for a purpose.  Events are often distorted in the fog of history. How will history see our involvement in Iraq?  More importantly, how will history see this war if we pull out now?

It is clear to me that Vietnam and Iraq are distinguishable because the war in Iraq, like Afghanistan, is a cultural conflict.  Extremists have called for a jihad against the United States and the West for the last twenty years, with the first alarming act in 1982 against the Marine Barracks in Beirut that killed 242 men. These shrill voices of extremists have downed out those of moderate Muslims.  The jihad will continue irrespective of the war in Iraq, but will most likely accelerate and grow if we pull out.  Look at the victims of jihad beyond our shores: Russia, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, France, Germany, Spain and still others.  We must ask:  Is there a discernible difference between those we are fighting in Iraq and the 19 terrorists who flew jets into the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 9/11?  Is there evidence that those we are fighting will stop their efforts if we pull out of Iraq?  We might even dare ask if there is a measurable difference between those we fight with the enemies of Israel.  If we send the wrong signals, jihad could continue in another form in still another venue including, possibly, a locale very close to home. 

Some wish to focus the fight in Afghanistan.  The war there has gone more smoothly for two reasons.  First, we were able to destroy much of the leadership of the Taliban in the early days of the war. Second, Afghanistan lacks the sectarian strife that we have encountered in Iraq.  Sectarianism is the most difficult issue that we confront in Iraq, and it is possible that the country may eventually be partitioned.  But that may not be necessary.  There is reason to believe that our enemy is incapable of sustaining its leadership over time and that jihadists will lose energy as the leadership is removed.   This most certainly has been the case in Chechnya where the Russians have slowly crushed jihad leadership.

One final note:  How wars end has an impact upon those who fight them.  We have invested the blood of 3,000 warriors in the battle to free Iraq.  If we pull out, we will be tarnishing the spirit of the greatest warriors on earth.  As a former Marine, I can guarantee you that this matters in the soul of every man and woman who has fought for this nation.  If we end this war inappropriately, a heavy price will have been paid. We will have failed President Kennedy's admonition to "pay any price, bear any burden" in the name of freedom.

Don't kid yourself, shutting down this war would carry a heavy price.