McCain's "100 Years" In Iraq

Today, some new language from Sen. John McCain on the length of the United States's military commitment to Iraq.

Listen to it, here.

The Iraq War, Mr. McCain said, will be over "soon."

He continued: "...the war for all intents and purposes, although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years, but it will be handled by the Iraqis, not by us, and then we decide what kind of security arrangement we want to have with the Iraqis. ... "

The full context:

“And by the way, that reminds me of this hundred year thing. I was asked in a town hall meeting back in Florida, how long would we have a presence in Iraq? My friends, the war will be over soon, the war for all intents and purposes although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years, but it will be handled by the Iraqis, not by us, and then we decide what kind of security arrangement we want to have with the Iraqis. ... "

Meanwhile, VoteVets.org has a new ad; they'd bought small 00 only on DC cable... so the ad is designed to influence the influencers.

Comments

Sounds an awful lot like - mayor combat operations have been concluded - to me.

Posted by Claus | February 25, 2008 2:55 PM

In all seriousness, what the hell is he talking about? Maybe I'm unclear on the definition of the Iraq War -- which, as a conflict between nations, I would have thought had been over for some years now.

If he's conflating the war with the insurgency, then his statement is completely inconsistent. The war (Iraq War) will be over soon, but the war (insurgency) will go on for "years and years and years"? This I don't understand.

If he's conflating the war and American troop presence in Iraq, then his statement would no longer be internally inconsistent, but it sounds to me like he's saying the troops will be home "soon," and the war will be over at that point -- unless of course we decide we want to keep them there longer.

New language, indeed, but I'm not sure what it clarifies.

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 25, 2008 3:01 PM

It means Penn's firm has polled and found out that 100 yrs of war McCain isn't popular w/the independents. It means he's trying to take a more Obama like stance in Iraq. It means he's a flip flopper.

Posted by Eh? | February 25, 2008 3:17 PM

There are two issues here so let me address the first one - this notion that Obama can speak for veterans and that what he is hearing is that veterans are against McCain and want the war to end.

Look, everyone knows there are some vets who are Dems. That is not a surprise. But there are some objective facts to look at.

First of all, when Obama asks if we are doing right by our veterans the fact is that John McCain has done more for veteran's issues than anyone. Hilary Clinton, for that matter, has done more for vets than Obama - she teamed up with Lindsey Graham (an Iraqi veteran himself) to pass a great bill improving soldier's health care.

Secondly, there is a huge support for John McCain in the military and amongst veterans. Here is a page that lists veteran support for McCain:

http://veterans.johnmccain.com/

I have yet to see a similiar show of support for Obama from vets. My understanding is that morale is now at its highest with the new surge strategy. Deaths are down by 80%, McCain's son Jimmy was thrilled that instead of getting blown up by IED's his team was able to hand out soccer balls to Iraqi children.

What we owe to our veterans is victory in Iraq and to let them come home (soon) with honor and not in the shame of surrender, getting shot at and blown up as they try to leave the country.

Posted by Jesse | February 25, 2008 3:17 PM

Flip-Flop.

Maybe John McCain will pick Kucinich as his running mate?

What has changed?

He now has the nomination.

This just shows that contrary to the media meme, John McCain lacks core beliefs and will say and do anything to win just like HIllary.

Pro-war for the primary, anti-war for the general.

Posted by RKA | February 25, 2008 3:19 PM

Now for the issue in this post about McCain's statements on Iraq. There is nothing surprising here. This line of thinking is entirely consistent with what he has said all along.

100 years in Iraq is not one hundred years of WAR. He was refering to the possibility of leaving some troops in the country as a security arrangement like we have in other countries. I believe Obama himself has said he wouldn't remove EVERY last soldier from Iraq either - we do need people to guard the embassy after all. Granted, McCain would be willing to leave a lot more if congress agreed but both would essentially be in Iraq one way or another for the entire eight years of their presidency.

The Iraq war itself will be over soon.

Allow me to translate what this means for you Jeff Larson.

What most people think of as the Iraq war is American soldiers engaged in combat with insurgents. Soon the Iraqis will be taking this over and the war will be over. Will we still have troops there? Yes. Will there still be an insurgency? Yes. Will American troops be engaging in combat with that insurgency? No.

Now when McCain says soon lets have some perspective. The surge ends this summer so troop levels are down to 100,000. Petraeus wants a pause in withdrawals, something McCain (and Joe Biden) will probably support. Those troops will transition to primarily training Iraqis and doing joint combat mentorship missions with them. As those Iraqi units come online American units come home.

All of this will probably happen within the first McCain term.

Posted by Jesse | February 25, 2008 3:37 PM

This angry old man named McCain has no clue about what he is talking about. He was a maverick when he was bit younger and could think rationally. But with his old age and in his eagerness to please neocons McCain has gone insane.. may be dementia?

Once a corageou man McCain is now a coward. He is the same guy who claimed that Baghdad is safe while walking on a Baghdad street surrounded by hundreds of troops, humvees and helicopters. He loves to send our kids to die in Iraq for no good reason.

When a once-proud man becomes a joke, it's a sad thing to watch.

Posted by Matt | February 25, 2008 3:46 PM

This is McCain feeling comfortable with his relations with the conservative base (Thank you, NYT) and conducting a general election campaign. You know, the one with the largely anti-war electorate.

Personally, I thought the war was over five years ago. You know, Mission Accomplished and all that. Then, oh yeah, there's that insurgency that's been in its last throes for how long? Apparently it will be in its last throes for the next century. I can't wait.

Posted by Lynn | February 25, 2008 3:47 PM

Jesse: Military donors back Ron Paul and Barack Obama. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/military-donors.html

Objective fact.

Posted by south side | February 25, 2008 3:51 PM

McCain has NO credibility.

McCain, in February 2008:

"Iraq War will be over soon".

McCain, in January 2008:

"Iraq war will go on for 100 years".

McCain, in September 2007:

"Americans are sad, they're frustrated, they're angry, and they want out. And I understand that; there were four years of failure under Rumsfeld. As you know, I spoke out early on, in November of 2003, saying that strategy was doomed to failure."

McCain, in December 2003:

"This is a mission accomplished. They know how much influence Saddam Hussein had on the Iraqi people, how much more difficult it made to get their cooperation."

McCain, in March 2004:

"I'm confident we're on the right course."

McCain, in December 2005:

"I do think that progress is being made in a lot of Iraq. Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course. If I thought we weren't making progress, I'd be despondent."

When war supporters like McCain wonder why they have credibility problems when it comes to Iraq policy, this might offer a hint.

Posted by Brett | February 25, 2008 3:53 PM

McCain is such a dumba** that he says that he knows how to capture Osama but he won't tell it to the administration.

So, what does McCain know that President and the Pentagon don’t about how to sweep up America’s most elusive enemy. When asked about it McCain say that, “One thing I will not do is telegraph my punches".

So McCain only cares about himself and does not care about safety of Americans.

Posted by WE | February 25, 2008 4:09 PM

Jesse,

I think that you are making the assumption that people think it is 100 years of war. People want to extricate themselves completely from Iraq before year 2108. And moreover, McCain sounds hollow when he says the Iraqis will defend themselves when currently the Iraqi troops and police officers are poorly trained. So how does McCain sound different from Bush?

Posted by Micheline | February 25, 2008 4:10 PM

Jesse,

I think that you are making the assumption that people think it is 100 years of war. People want to extricate themselves completely from Iraq before year 2108. And moreover, McCain sounds hollow when he says that the Iraqis will defend themselves when currently the Iraqi troops and police officers are poorly trained. So how does McCain sound different from Bush?

Posted by Micheline | February 25, 2008 4:10 PM

One more reason why McCain is so dangerous is his temper. He simply can't control it. He may one day start a new war because of it.

Investor’s Business Daily, a conservative economic publication, asked recently, “Can McCain Control His Temper?”

" John McCain claims his temper is not an issue. “I don’t think I would have the support of so many of my colleagues if that were the case.” Who are these supportive colleagues?

They certainly do not include Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss. Over the weekend, he announced he cannot endorse his colleague for the White House and is endorsing Gov. Mitt Romney instead.

“The thought of him being president sends a cold chill down my spine,” Cochran said. “He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.”

Perhaps Cochran can’t appreciate the maverick in McCain. But the same can’t be said of Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, a noted reformer and friend of whistle-blowers. Grassley said in a recent interview that he was so upset by a McCain tirade that he didn’t speak to him “for a couple of years.” McCain got in his face and shouted an obscenity at him. […]

It seems McCain goes ballistic on anyone who disagrees with him. And he’s not just verbally abusive, but physically threatening."

Posted by sally | February 25, 2008 4:14 PM

It is very clear that McCain sees 100 years in Iraq. Here is it in his own words:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk

Posted by evid | February 25, 2008 4:16 PM

Looks like one of Marc's colleagues was just as confused as I was about these remarks:

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/over_soon_but_then_lasting_for.php

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 25, 2008 4:53 PM

It was disclosed prior to Bush getting into office that he was an alcoholic, albeit in recovery, yet he refused to talk about it and while the signs of alcoholic behaviors have been apparent as is the case in a number of dry drunks, it is seldom discussed. Likewise, McCain's own mental status as an ex-POW should be more closely examined. I may believe him to be heroic but also believe he is as mentally damaged by his experience as a prisoner, as Bush is damaged by his years of alcoholism. I don't want another mentally damaged man running and ruining the government of the U.S. Add five years of trauma as a POW to an aging man with questionable ability to think rationally and it adds up to a very scary scenario for us all.

Posted by Ben Smart | February 25, 2008 8:30 PM

McCain is a good man; you assholes are not.

Posted by Maj Bill | February 26, 2008 4:03 AM

Jesse, Maj Bill,
I keep hearing people talking about "winning" in Iraq. What does "victory" look like? How are we going to know it has happened? Before we commit to a goal somebody ought to be able to define it. I also think the lessons of my generation's war are apt. Could someone explain to me how the world would be different and better if we had "won" in Vietnam?

Posted by Hoosier Vet | February 26, 2008 5:58 AM

south side and Brett:

My thoughts exactly. Military donors favor Barack Obama.

McCain has consistently said that the Iraq War is almost over for literally years now. Why should we believe him now? He also said yesterday that if Iraq goes poorly, he will lose, so he has a huge incentive to continue to pretend that it's going well even if it's not.

Posted by bob | February 26, 2008 3:07 PM

McCain promises 4 years of the same no-reason-for-being-in-Iraq mentality. Then another 96 just for good measure.

Posted by dae | March 25, 2008 11:46 PM

John McCain's call for a 100 year war or occupation of Iraq is just plain crazy, but I'm not sure what the alternative is. If we leave now we are just going to destabilize the country for good, leaving Iran there to pick up the pieces and cement their hold on another large oil reserve.

Posted by John McCain's 100 Year Iraq War | April 15, 2008 7:16 PM

John McCain's call for a 100 year war or occupation of Iraq is just plain crazy, but I'm not sure what the alternative is. If we leave now we are just going to destabilize the country for good, leaving Iran there to pick up the pieces and cement their hold on another large oil reserve.

Posted by John McCain's 100 Year Iraq War | April 15, 2008 7:17 PM

dgjzs nctzi igahvso orugpxec wabmycxoi oadb ylvxd

Posted by ejbpq kapghse | June 19, 2008 10:35 PM