Tom Friedman is less worried about Jordan or Egypt or Turkey than he is about you:

I think I get this war, and, on balance, I think it is a risk worth taking — provided we have a country willing to see it through. But it is time the president leveled with the country — not just about the dangers posed by Saddam, but about the long-term costs involved in ousting him and rebuilding Iraq. This is not going to be Grenada.

This war has two purposes — one stated, one unstated — but both require the same means. The stated purpose is to disarm Iraq. The unstated purpose is to transform it from a totalitarian system that has threatened its neighbors and its own people into something better. It won't be a perfect democratic state. That will take years. But it can be a more decent state — one that doesn't threaten its own people or neighbors. And it can serve as a progressive model to spur reform — educational, religious, economic and political — around the Arab world. This is the audacious part.

Friedman’s worry is that the American public hasn’t been told enough by President Bush to have the stomach for a prolonged rebuilding of Iraq – and he makes a strong case. If there is anything “imperial” about this Administration’s policies, it’s a penchant for keeping too tight-lipped on vital matters.

But I also think Friedman underestimates the American people. If we start seeing years of body bags and no real progress, then, yes, we’ll lose heart. Remember, though, that it wasn’t until late in our Vietnam effort that a majority of the population turned against it – we seem only to remember the rather vocal minority.

If – as looks likely – we see the streets of Baghdad lined with Iraqis armed with American flags, and we see real progress in making something decent out of a wrecked country, then Americans will rally to the cause.

The fighting? It won’t last long enough to generate any protest, except from the usual sad suspects.