There are many millions of them worldwide who would do just that given half the chance. The point i was making is that wars arnt won by the winning side deciding to end it, they are won by forcing the loser to surrender. Passing a bill to end the war without forcing the enemy to surrender is losing.
Right now there's no real way to "win" in Iraq; the best we can do is establish a stable government and allow the Iraqis to take it from there. On that same note, there's never going to be a genuine "end" to the War on Terror as we've seen in Vietnam, World War II, or even the Cold War. The first few were wars of people versus people, nations versus nations, with a distinct goal in sight that would allow one side or the other to win (i.e. forcing the Communists to withdraw from Vietnam, causing the collapse of either the US or the Soviet Union during the Cold War).
The War on Terror is purely a war of ideas, and ideas, as V for Vendetta stated, are bulletproof. You can only expect to win a war of ideas by convincing the other side that they're wrong, not by beating them senseless or killing them all. If this were a war purely against Saddam's regime, or purely against the Taliban government in Afghanistan, then we really would have won a long time ago. It isn't though. We're dealing with a much larger force; an idea, not an enemy.