100 Years Of Solitude? McCain And Iraq

It's fair to say that John McCain has said that some measure of U.S. troops might stay in Iraq for as long as 100 years. Or something like that.

It's not fair to say that McCain wants to war to continue for 100 years.

There is a school of thought that holds that the presence of troops contributes to and feeds the instability and so, it may well be fair to link the presence of troops to a perpetual state of war. But that's an argument one has to make and not simply assume into evidence.

When, in Derry, New Hampshire, McCain uttered the phrase "make it 100," he was comparing the U.S. presence in Iraq to the U.S. presence in South Korea.

Clearly, this comparison implies a healthy amount of troops in the region and continued high-level military cooperation and self-defense treaties. That should be enough for Democrats. "100 years" -- even in the correct context -- is just one of those phrases that politicians were invented to exploit.

Watch here.

Instead, Democrats imply that McCain wants to keep US troops in Iraq for 100 years under the same conditions they're fighting right now.

Which is simply not what McCain said. McCain explicitly said that US presence in Iraq long-term would be predicated on the absence of violence and on the establishment of stability in the region.

Now -- Democrats might pursue this avenue. In November of 2007, McCain seemed to reject the Korea model, arguing that the conditions in Iraq were different. He now accepts the analogy.

Comments

On some metaphysical level, you may be correct, but come on. This is politics and if you say, "Why not 100?" it's perfectly fair for opponents to take you at your word. The Democrats could fairly go even further and accuse McCain of wanting to institute a draft. After all it's seemingly impossible to continue the current force level in Iraq indefinitely as McCain seems inclined to do without a military draft. In short, if there is some length of time less than 100 years after which McCain will withdraw from Iraq regardless of whether a pony has been found, then by all means he can say so. And if he does not say so, then... he wants to stay there 100 years. Or a thousand. Or a million.

Posted by Ron | March 31, 2008 3:31 PM

Which is simply not what McCain said. McCain explicitly said that US presence in Iraq long-term would be predicated on the absence of violence and on the establishment of stability in the region.

Okay. So what has McCain said he'll do if violence continues and stability remains elusive?

Posted by DaveWoo | March 31, 2008 3:32 PM

The question is, will the US have to stay until the holy places of Christianity is recovered from the non-believers?

Or should a better standard be for the US to stay until petroleum is no longer necessary for the US?

Posted by D | March 31, 2008 3:35 PM

I don't buy this post at all. When things get worse, McCain says stay in Iraq. If things get better, McCain says we should...stay in Iraq. We completely deserves to be bludgeoned with that 100 years line until he tells us that he would withdraw if conditions don't improve. Does anyone think he'll do that?

Posted by Chris O. | March 31, 2008 4:10 PM

Agreed with everyone who commented. The substance of what the Democrats are saying is obviously a fair interpretation of McCain's attitude toward Iraq.

Of COURSE John McCain can't literally keep them there for 100 years. No one thinks that. He can only be president for 8 years maximum, for Christ's sake.

But he has no plans to draw down troops, no plans to end the war whatsoever. The "100 years" remark is reductive, it's a sound byte, but it's not as though it misrepresents John McCain's feelings about Iraq. He wants to stay. Obama wants to leave. I mean, Jesus.

Posted by Joe Drymala | March 31, 2008 4:24 PM

But the idea that Iraq's ever going to look like South Korea is crazy. We're not propping up a corrupt government and helping it fight a civil war against its own people in South Korea. McCain ought to know this, just like he ought to know that Iran's not funding al-Qaeda, so he's either lying about what he meant, or he's just ignorant of the realities on the ground.

Posted by EarBucket | March 31, 2008 4:35 PM

So you're saying the Dems are taking something and blowing it up until it looks far more sinister than it really is. Or in other words, they're doing to McCain what the GOP has been doing to Dems for a generation. The only difference here is that McCain may actually be fine with a 100-year war, while very few Dems I know actually want al Qaeda to win.

Posted by NHCt | March 31, 2008 4:40 PM

I love it. I expect this level of careful, thoughtful, rational explanation and deconstruction for every single GOP distortion of Obama as the GE revs up, too. Such care taken !

It brings a smile to my face -- how funny if this level of care had been taken with Gore, Kerry, or this cycle thus far with Obama/Clinton . . . or even the haircut/mansion stuff with Edwards . . . sigh . . .

Posted by SamSinister | March 31, 2008 4:53 PM

Anyone who understands the history of the middle east knows that the comparison of Germany,Japan,South Korea to a possible permanant military presence in Iraq is absurd. For someone who claims to be a student of military history he is proving to be more senile than I thought.

Posted by Brent | March 31, 2008 5:06 PM

Ooooh...all the concern that poor old John McCain might be getting misrepresented.

At one of the debates in the summer, Hillary, Edwards, and Obama all refused to guarantee that every troop would be out by 2013, citing the need to guard an embassy and do limited strikes against Al Qaeda.

The media had a field day and completely distorted what they were saying to imply that the dem would continue the war fully until 2013.

In the summer Obama correctly said we would take out Al Qaeda tagets in Pakistan regardless of Musharraf's agreement.

The media distorted what Obama said and tried to leave an impression that Obama planned an iraq style invasion and occupation of Pakistan.

Tell me, Marc...why aren't you wringing your hands about distortion of these statements by democrats.

Why is it that you seem to only speak out when poor old John McCain is benig somewhat distorted?

Please.

Posted by RKA | March 31, 2008 5:16 PM

The guy sitting in from on McSame opened his mouth in disbelieve of what he was hearing...... Much like "I did vote for the resolution before I voted against it" moment.

Posted by TheDonald | March 31, 2008 5:18 PM

"Instead, Democrats imply that McCain wants to keep US troops in Iraq for 100 years under the same conditions they're fighting right now."

I don't get it? That is an accurate characterization. Unless Iraq becomes alarmingly stable rediculously fast we have two options
1. maintain 100,000 + troops there
2. completely withdraw.

Your suggestion seems to be that McCain represents a realistic vision of Iraq with 10-20k soldiers attacking AlQueda in a stable country. That idea is about as realistic as being greeted as liberators and uncovering stockpiles of WMDs.

Posted by KevinQ | March 31, 2008 5:43 PM

Alternate world Aminder: "It's clear that McCain didn't say we should do nothing about the financial crisis. He clearly said he'd fly around on his magic pony sprinkling pixie dust."

Look, everyone gets that McCain inhabits a fantasy world in which he can just wave his arms and Iraq will look like South Korea. But if he can do that, we can fairly call this 100 years.

Posted by Justin | March 31, 2008 5:53 PM

The flaw in McCain's thinking is that there's never a point where we say, "Gee, this isn't turning out anything like Germany, Japan or South Korea, where we had a government surrender to us and we maintained a military presence along with new governments". The moment for the establishment of such a presence is long gone, and from here on out it's an endless cycle of violence and tamping down violence.

The notion that the US has the ability to have a presence in Iraq similar to the one it has in Japan or Germany is nuts. Just look at the Green Zone last week...does anyone think US military forces stationed in Iraq would not respond to such attacks during their leisurely 100-year stay?

Posted by JFY | March 31, 2008 6:03 PM

Marc:

Instead, Democrats imply that McCain wants to keep US troops in Iraq for 100 years under the same conditions they're fighting right now.

Since, as events of the last week demonstrate, the USA does not control conditions in Iraq, McCain is either hallcinatory or lying.

How do we get Iraq to be "like South Korea"? How many of the 100 years will that take?

Posted by jfxgillis | March 31, 2008 7:05 PM

EarBucket: Really? You do understand that our military presence in SK was the result of a war, right? It was far more bloody and difficult then this war, but we stayed. Because of that effort SK is a free, democratic nation instead of an oppressed, communist nation.

Iraq could become a free, democratic nation. It could fit into the model of SK. We just have to help them, just like we did SK.

Posted by Ben | March 31, 2008 7:19 PM

jfxgillis: Lying, huh?

You are taking this to the point of the absurd.

McCain's point is that if conditions improve, he would be happy to maintain a permanent presence going forward. That is not the least bit controversial.

To answer your question: If conditions never improve we would one day leave. Well before 100 years. Unlike Obama, however, McCain thinks we can improve conditions and create a stable environment in Iraq. If he is right, we will have won a great victory, for ourselves and for the people of Iraq.

(If you want a good analogy for success, take a look at the formation of Israel. There were Jewish militias to be dealt with there, too. It has been done before, and it can be done again.)

Posted by Ben | March 31, 2008 7:26 PM

In Germany and Japan we had the luxury of creating new govts from scratch due to our overwhelming military victory. There was a point of clear surrender by the enemy which made our rebuilding possible.

In South Korea we already had a functioning democratic govt, which we were protecting from N. Korea.

In Iraq, we don't have either. We have a civil war. We don't have the moral imperative to choose a side and give them victory. In fact, given the flaws of both sides, we wouldn't want to do that.

And we don't have an allied democratic govt already in place, like we did in SK.

The big problem is that we undertook an elective, "preemptive" war. That has deprived us of both moral authority and broad allied assistance.

Only Obama can make something good of this war, for it will require a leader who ideally was against the war from the beginning, and at the very least, one who admits to the world that the war was a mistake. Obama is the only candidate remaining to fit that description.

Only with Obama can we be cleansed of the sin of this war.

Posted by cm | March 31, 2008 9:09 PM

Our troops weren't getting shot at and having bombs slid under their vehicles on a daily basis in Japan, Germany and South Korea. There is one hell of big difference from maintaining a presence in a pacified country, and one where you are in the middle of a different civil war every month or so.

Let's not compare oranges to apples, okay?

Posted by Mark | March 31, 2008 9:31 PM

Obama wants to keep our troops at the embassy and fighting al queda in iraq.

McPeak Obama's co-chairman said we could be in iraq 100 years if we get it right and compared it to south korea. McPeak wasn't talking about combat for 100 years he was talking about training iraqi forces just like McCain.

McCain was against leaving our troops in Lebanon.

McCain hates war he said in ohio he would bring our troops home and let iraqis deal with the insurgency and he said it would be up to them to patrol the roads.

Posted by Jason | March 31, 2008 9:54 PM

No matter who is president we will still be viewed as an occupier.

Obama, Clinton, and McCain want to keep our troops guarding the embassy in the green zone and fighting al queda. Clinton said she will even keep troops there as a buffer against iran. Who will guard the supply lines? Will Obama allow fire against the rocket squads firing at the green zone.

Wake up team McCain and fight back and stop being so out of it.

To the sadrists and al queda even one troop in iraq is viewed as an occupation.

Obama is being hypocritical attacking McCain when his own top advisor general mcpeak said if we get it right we will be in iraq for 100 years. Mcpeak compared it to south korea. Call Obama out on his hypocracy regarding McPeak. McPeak wasn't talking about 100 years of combat yet Obama distorts McCain.

It shows how dense McCain's press shop is that they haven't used this. McCain has the worst press team of any major candidate I can remember.

Posted by Jason | March 31, 2008 9:58 PM

McCain hates war.

McCain voted against troops staying in Lebanon.

McCain wants to shut gitmo, sign kyoto, and bring u.s into the internation criminal courts.

McCain is not a neocon.

McCain said he will turn areas over to the iraqis, bring troops home and leave it to the iraqis to deal with the insurgency.

I got to give the media and the dems credit though you have taken an internationalist like McCain and made him out to be a warmonger some distorted remarks from youtube. McCain in reality has a foreign policy much like Bush Sr. He has talked about using pressure to get two states in the middle east.

McCain overcame torture but he will be taken down from the distortions of youtube. In that same townhall which youtube doesn't show McCain said it would be a post military buildup enviornment and he would withdraw almost all our troops. He said they would be left there to train iraqi pilots and provide air cover.

What is the old saying if you repeat a lie often enough people believe it as the truth.

McCain hates war he had his arms hung and his teeth knocked out. His 19 year old son passed up going to college to serve in the military and just came back from 7 month tour in iraq.

McCain is too honorable to ever be elected. Sites like Huffington Post love distorting McCain.

Posted by Jason | March 31, 2008 10:04 PM

Ugh, thanks for laying this out Ambinder. As an Obama supporter, it's something I wish Obama would stop using in his stump speech. If Democrats don't present a plausible argument against McCain, and just try to hit him with this inflatable swift-boat, it gives the impression that they don't have a plausible argument.

Posted by socctty | March 31, 2008 10:10 PM

A lot of the commenters are right to point out that McCain hasn't defined "victory", hasn't laid out the conditions that would enable us to exit, and hasn't even indicated that he thinks we should exit at some point in time. The commenters are also right to point out that we'll forever be viewed as an occupier.

But I think you're stretching it to say that McCain wants us there for another 100 years - and that's what Obama is claiming in his speech.

Obama would do better to point out that McCain has no plan whatsoever about an exit strategy or a "path to victory", and seemingly doesn't understand some of the basics of the conflict there. He should definitely hammer McCain on this as hard as he can, but I don't like that he suggests that McCain prefers war ad nauseum.

Posted by socctty | March 31, 2008 10:30 PM

Here's what we do know about McCain:

McCain voted for this disastrous Iraq war and was a major cheerleader for it. He is on video plainly stating that it would be easy. Years later he reversed that and pretended that he always thought it would be hard.

McCain wants to follow the Bush strategy of leaving our troops in Iraq indefinitely, with no exit strategy. Part of the reason why this 100 years comment can gain so much traction is that McCain's strategy, like Bush's, is unclear. It's unclear because there is no clear definition of victory or exit strategy.

And let's face it: McCain repeatedly equates any removal of troops with "surrender." That is an unfair statement for him to make, of course, but then one is left to imagine that he would indeed keep troops there for a very long period of time, in the length of several years, several decades, even a century.

Add to that the fact that McCain constantly confuses and conflates all sides in the Iraq conflict: Sunni, Shia, and Al Qaeda. It seems that in McCain's mindset, all Muslims in the Middle East are equal, and that means to him that they are all equally terrorists.

McCain has made many bellicose statements regarding Iran, and of course, in that famous video, even joked about bombing Iran.

I believe that McCain genuinely hates war, but he seems to always be for them. And when it comes to the Middle East, his ideas are just plain scary.

Posted by cm | March 31, 2008 11:05 PM

McCain comparing a (permanent) presence in Iraq to South Korea is insanity. We don't even want South Korea to be like South Korea indefinitely, and every time it's implied we do, it harms our relationship with South Korea. What we actually want is to keep a large presence in Korea for as long as it takes to stitch the country back together, and not a day longer. We are (were) not imperialists. We are not the Chinese, we are not the Japanese; we have no designs on Korean territory. And the fiercely independent and nationalistic Korean electorate will remember every deviatio we make from this stance. McCain seems to not know this, which speaks ill of his foreign policy credentials.

Posted by michael | March 31, 2008 11:19 PM

cm - As usual, well said.

Posted by socctty | March 31, 2008 11:20 PM

It's a typical misquote to feed the presuppositions of those who think in bumper stickers. Blood for oil, Bush lied people died, etc.

Posted by John | March 31, 2008 11:36 PM

We are not imperialists?

That'll get a good laugh from Mexico all the way to Chile, across Southeast Asia and the Middle East.

Posted by Eric | April 1, 2008 12:43 AM

michael: SK's capital is shelling distance from a communist nation run by an insane person. The government and people of SK want us there, and they in fact pay the bulk of the cost for us to be there.

We have a very good relationship with SK, and the principle reasons we do is we have made it clear that we will protect them from NK, and trade with them to reduce their dependence on China.

In a generation, this will be the case with Iraq as well, only they will not need nearly so much protection.

Posted by Ben | April 1, 2008 9:45 AM

Right, he WANTS them to peacefully submit rather than shooting back at us when we occupy their country for 100 years. And Bush & Cheney wanted them to greet us as liberators, and wanted democracy to flower in the desert (provided that it was the right sort of democracy), and wanted it to be as cheap as they promised. But, in real life, if we stay that long, they are going to continue to shoot at us. And while there is shooting, McCain wants to stay indefinitely. And Obama is perfectly right to call him on it.

You people are so in the tank, it's embarrassing.

Posted by Katherine | April 1, 2008 5:48 PM

Predicated on the absence of violence?

Think about that for a second. Violence is pandemic across Iraq so we must stay longer for that reason. But violence is not subsided enough for us to leave. However, we will only stay there if the violence has subsided.

That is flat out contradictory.

Posted by Mick | April 1, 2008 11:43 PM

Ben:

Well, I did offer alternatives. I suspect McCain is delusional rather than dishonest.

I love this part:

McCain thinks we can improve conditions and create a stable environment in Iraq. If he is right, we will have won a great victory, for ourselves and for the people of Iraq.

Why does McCain think that? What's his plan beyond "staying as long as it takes to win victory"? IOW, staying the 100 years? And if he's wrong, we'd have wasted another 100 years of blood and treasure.

Posted by jfxgillis | April 2, 2008 2:21 AM

Sometime after the stressful exchange in the New Hampshire town meeting, McCain was given the opportunity by David Corn to coolly revise his hundred-year vision. He told Corn that a thousand years or a million years of American occupation would not be unthinkable. The following week, McCain, even cooler and more thoughtful than before, told Bob Schieffer that ten thousand years would not trouble him, dead though he surely will be before such an era is well underway. This is the mentality for which the poster above and myriad GOP operatives are making excuses.

Posted by Alan | April 8, 2008 6:38 PM