The war in Iraq will continue with or without the active involvement of the US military. Most everyone agrees that in the short term, a complete and immediate withdrawal of US forces would cause a chaotic bloodbath. When people talk of "ending the war" by withdrawing American forces, they are not being completely honest. A US withdrawal cannot "end the war"; it only can end the scope of American involvement in the war. That may well be a proper goal. I would prefer, however, that any discussion of the issue acknowledge that an American withdrawal would not necessarily "end the war," any more than the US withdrawal from active military involvment in Viet Nam, ended the war in Viet Nam. What ended the war in Viet Nam was the victory of the North Vietnamese Army. Many who opposed the war in Viet Name recognized that the consequence of "Vietnamazation" and American military withdrawal would be a continuation of the war and a North Vietnamese victory in the continued war. In the current discussion of the Iraq war, I do not find many who favor American military withdrawal from Iraq who are willing to be honest about the consequences - or at least honest about predicting the effects of the withdrawal. In the case Viet Nam, the anti-war view was that it did not matter if North Vietnam won the war. In the case of Iraq, do the anti-war proponents care if those killing American troops win the war?