John McCain’s 100 Years In Iraq Has Cons Worried

Published April 7, 2008 in Iraq and John McCain.

They’ve decided that bullying the press is the way to beat back Senator McCain’s claim that we need to stay in Iraq for at least 100 years.

None of that changes what McCain said: We need to stay in Iraq for 100 years.

Digg This!

37 Responses to “John McCain’s 100 Years In Iraq Has Cons Worried”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address

1 Sean D. Martin
Apr 7th, 2008 at 2:44 pm

Is the actual quote that we need to stay, or that it might last that long?

It’s been referred to so often that I’ve forgotten the exact verbatim, but my impression is it was more along the lines of “We may need to stay 10 years, we may need to stay 100 years.”
2 Duros62
Apr 7th, 2008 at 2:51 pm

I fail to see a distinction, Sean. In the video, he says it’s fine with him. All I needed to know.
3 Sean D. Martin
Apr 7th, 2008 at 3:02 pm

It is a small distinction, no argument there, but worth noting. There is a difference between saying “We will need to stay 100 years” and “We might need…”

Alas, can’t hear sound in this computer so can’t hear what was said in the clip. But since it seems he actually says it’s fine with him, yeah, more reason to NOT want him to be president. It might be (refreshingly) realistic for a politician to note we may need to be there a ling time, but one should not be “fine” with it.
4 Scratch
Apr 7th, 2008 at 3:13 pm

His other examples were Germany and Japan. If our hypothetical 100-year stay in Iraq were the same as our stay in those countries, as explicitly explained by McCain, then there is no problem with that. We have troops stationed here and there around the world for many reasons which support our interests and those of our allies.

And in case it has not been made clear in the thread, he did not say that we need to be in Iraq for 100 years, and any suggestion that he did is a deliberate falsehood.
5 Quaker in a Basement
Apr 7th, 2008 at 3:26 pm

Here ya go:

Questioner: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for fifty years…
McCain: Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.

Rightwingers are crying foul on two points:
1) McCain did not say “war for 100 years.” He cited Japan and Korea as examples where the U.S. has maintained a presence. He adds the conditional phrase, “as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.”

2) McCain is sometimes paraphrased as saying he “wants” U.S. troops (or war) for 100 years. He said “That’s be fine with me,” not that he “wants” this to happen.
6 Oliver Willis
Apr 7th, 2008 at 3:37 pm

Right, John McCain says we should be in Iraq for at least 100 years.
7 Sean D. Martin
Apr 7th, 2008 at 4:00 pm

How do you get from him saying he’s “fine” with it in the context other places we’ve been for decades to him saying we “should” be there.
8 Quaker in a Basement
Apr 7th, 2008 at 4:08 pm

Sean, I don’t think it’s a stretch to get from “fine” to “should” on the strength of McCain’s next statement:

I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.

One could argue that McCain said “100 years would be fine” in one sentence and “hope it would be fine with you” in another. Now that’s a stretch.
9 Jay Tea
Apr 7th, 2008 at 5:15 pm

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Quaker, of all people, gave the full quote, and still the usual suspects are either too dumb or too blinded by their ideology to understand plain English.

Questioner: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for fifty years…
McCain: Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.

Let’s take it almost line by line:

Questioner: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for fifty years…
McCain: Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred.

Point: McCain is solidly rejecting any withdrawal based simply on the passage of time.

McCain: We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so.

Our presence in both South Korea and Japan in the time frames listed are with the consent of the hosting governments, and have been conflict-free.

That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me.

A clear REJECTION of “100 years of war,” or even “100 years of resisted occupation.” What part of that sentence escapes you morons?

I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.

“a very volative part of the world” where Al Qaeda, among numerous other terrorist groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, are “recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.” Yup, that sounds like a dead-on description of the Mideast.

And McCain wants to keep a sizable US military presence right in the center of that, not actively fighting or being attacked, but merely making sure that everyone knows that should the US find it necessary, we have the forces ready at hand to exert its will?

Around the world, nearly every nation that has a sizable US military presence welcomes it. It’s a great boost to its economy and its security. And in the few times when we’ve overstayed our welcome and our host nation has asked us to leave, we have done so without hesitation — the Philippines and Saudi Arabia come to mind.

McCain’s statement is simple: we ought to keep a sizable force in Iraq for the foreseeable future — but ONLY if it is not engaged in active combat on a regular basis and ONLY if the Iraqi government continues to welcome us.

To twist his words into “100 yesrs of war” is far, far beyond stupid. It is a willful lie, a knowing fraud, and beyond disgusting. And if a single one of the regulars around here had a molecule of decency, they’d admit it — or, at least, stop lying.

J.
10 Duros62
Apr 7th, 2008 at 5:20 pm

McCain: We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so.

Is it worth noting that we are, technically at least, still at war with North Korea?
11 Sean D. Martin
Apr 7th, 2008 at 5:25 pm

I’m not fine with McCain’s being “fine” with our staying in Iraq for 100 years. But I can understand a willingness to stay and, apart from the “fine” attitude, I don’t really see a major objection to what he seems to be saying in the quote above.

- We’ve maintained a presence in other parts of the world for long periods of time.
- If Americans are being injured we may decide not to stay in an area but
- We should maintain a presence in a volatile part of the world where an enemy is working against us.

What else would we do? Ignore a region where danger against our national interest is brewing?

(Oh, god. Am I agreeing with McCain on something? That explains that flying pig I way this morning.)
12 Jay Tea
Apr 7th, 2008 at 5:33 pm

Duros: not really worth mentioning. We’ve had a cease-fire for almost 55 years that, by and large, has held, but there hasn’t been any open fighting since.

I think it relates to the utter insanity of trusting North Korea’s leaders to keep any peace agreement, and the utter insanity of North Korea’s leaders in general.

The South Koreans have gone warm and cool on our presence, but they aren’t likely to ask us to leave any time soon. If they were to do so, though, I strongly suspect we’d try to talk them out of it, then leave as requested.

Sean: Careful. You might get yourself drummed off of the Obama bandwagon if you keep talking like that. That’s the kind of truth that’d dangerous.

J.
13 Sean D. Martin
Apr 7th, 2008 at 5:40 pm

Sean: Careful. You might get yourself drummed off of the Obama bandwagon if you keep talking like that. That’s the kind of truth that’d dangerous.

That hazards of trying to keep an open mind. Don’t worry, I’m used to it.
14 Quaker in a Basement
Apr 7th, 2008 at 6:09 pm

Quaker, of all people, gave the full quote,

Careful, sonny. That’s not unusual.

Here’s the rub. McCain says:

That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.

We have a ways to go before we reach the point where “Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.” Before we can realize Mr. McCain’s vision of a long-term, peaceful presence in Iraq, the injuring and harming and wounding and killing will have to stop. Until that day comes, he’s proposing an indefinite period of continued combat.

He doesn’t sound hopeful that the end of the fighting will come soon. His rationale for the long stay is that Iraq is in “a very volitile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equippin, and motivating people.” If that’s the reason we need to stay, the end of the fighting isn’t plausibly on the horizon, is it?

The relevant question is: how many troops for how long? Mr. McCain won’t say, but he will say that it might take us 100 years to see the end of it.
15 midderpidge
Apr 7th, 2008 at 6:38 pm

The parts you guys don’t get is that

1. McCain says we could stay 100 years if it weren’t violent. McCain himself admits that it is violent and it is likely to remain that way. In other words, McCain is just blowing hot air. The key question McCain should then be answering is how long is long enough given the situation isn’t improving?

2. McCain doesn’t seem to have a grasp on what is going on in Iraq. He doesn’t know the factions, their ties, or even who wins what battles. And this is his KEY issue?

3. Al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq until we invaded. The US presence is serving as a recruiting poster throughout the muslim world, as well as providing terrorists with training opportunities, targets, money and equipment.

4. Our continued operation in Iraq is seriously degrading the readiness and abilities of our military.

5. I’m sick of the price of oil being so high. That is having an effect on our economy.

6. We haven’t built up any goodwill in Iraq. Other than factions we directly prop up, the rest of the country has little use for us.

7. Our continued presence in Iraq threatens Iran. Given Bush’s and McCain’s desire to bomb Iran, Iran has every incentive in the world to keep stirring the pot in Iraq. Given that some of the more powerful factions look to Iran that spells trouble.

8. McCain just sucks. He at first claimed the war would be short and it would pay for itself. Now he wants us to believe he said something else. Also, McCain never called for Rumsfeld to be fired, but now he likes Rumsfeld for a scape goat so he wants us to think he said something else.
16 fafaroo
Apr 7th, 2008 at 8:43 pm

” … where Al Qaeda, among numerous other terrorist groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, are “recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.” … And McCain wants to keep a sizable US military presence right in the center of that, not actively fighting or being attacked … “

This is the central problem with McCain’s plan to maintain a permanent US presence in Iraq.

What do you think is the single biggest issue that the cited terrorist groups, especially Al Qeada, will be using to recruit and motivate people “every single day”? The answer is our very presence in Iraq. For every day of the 100 years were there, those terrorists groups will be able to use our presence to convince young muslims and nationalists that the US is an imperialist nation bent on destroying Islam. Doesn’t matter what else we might do while were there, our mere presence in Iraq will be enough to fuel the rhetoric and convince people to sign up for jihad. And as long as we’re there, smack dab in the center of that “very volatile part of the world” our military personnel will always be the targets of attacks, rising and falling in frequency and severity no doubt but constant nevertheless.

The point being that McCain’s criteria that we’ll stay “as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed” will never actually be met.

McCain’s vision of a peaceful, cooperative military presence ala Germany, Japan and South Korea is based on a false analogy and a total misconception of the dynamics driving the violence in Iraq.

Furthermore, as midderpidge notes, Iran has a key strategic interest in Iraq itself and right now, it holds more sway with the Iraqi government and other interests in the country than we do. The idea that we could arrange a long-term peaceful, cooperative military presence with an Iraqi government that has an open friendly relationship with our biggest rival in the region is just a disaster waiting to happen. We’ve never had to worry that Germany, Japan and South Korea were working with our enemies behind our backs or out in the open.

In the case of Iraq, not only the government, but the majority of Iraqi civilians have would stronger ties to Iran than to us. Which is why it should be noted that our presence in Germany, Japan and South Korea has, at various times in all three countries, sparked sometimes massive civilian protests and conflicts over the years.

Anyone want to guess who a story like this from South Korea (http://www.iacenter.org/Koreafiles/korea_teens-campaign.htm) would play out in some future Iraq if something similar happened? You think it would be met with peaceful protests and letter writing campaigns?

McCain’s Iraq policy is nothing but a fantasy.
17 midderpidge
Apr 7th, 2008 at 9:33 pm

You know the sad thing is:

-our economy has been trashed, our treasury looted, national debt has sky rocketed, the deficit has swelled, our civil rights have been trashed, the environment has been trashed, the EPA gutted, the government bureaucracy has become the playground of partisan extremists, the DOJ has become the stomping ground of Jesus first law second idealists, our parks have been opened to mining and such, regulatory bodies have been sold to the industries they regulate, we now torture.

Hell, Iraq is probably the area of biggest success the republican party has had under Bush that McCain can try to ride to the White House. And it is a complete clusterfuck. Good luck Johnny.
18 Rheinhard
Apr 7th, 2008 at 10:12 pm

Since Jay is clutching his pearls at how mean these people quoting McCain and not entirely buying his roundabout explanation of why he didn’t mean what he said:

I will repeat this statement as many times as necessary because the simple fact is McCain = more war. Period.

Don’t forget jay, McCain wants us to stay another 100 years in Iraq in exactly the same way that Al Gore invented the internet.
19 bill l.
Apr 7th, 2008 at 11:53 pm

Yes, the man who sang “bomb Iran,” who said we have to stay in Iraq because it’s too unstable and dangerous, who went on to say we have to stay to keep it from becoming dangerous again (note: It never really wasn’t dangerous, the surge was a fraud), and who declared the region safer than the U.S. while wearing a flak jacket and being escorted by 100 soldiers with air cover envisions 100 years of peaceful military occupation … starting … now …no …okay …NOW …hmmm …now?

Stupidity from the wingers I expect, but some of the comments from normally clearer heads here is really baffling. It’s amazing how the constant drumbeat of propaganda from even despised criminals like Bushco can cloud otherwise wiser souls.

“Terrorists!” “Boo!”
20 Haplo9
Apr 8th, 2008 at 12:38 am

You know Oliver, I think you have evenhanded takes on things sometimes, even if I don’t agree with you. But for whatever reason, you seem to really enjoy doing what you are very obviously doing here - take the words of an opponent and streeeeeetch them past the point of reasonable interpretation.

That is par for the course in politics though, so I guess that’s the level you want to operate at - because I have a hard time believing that you truly believe that you are accurately representing what McCain said. Ah well.
21 Jay Tea
Apr 8th, 2008 at 1:46 am

Rheinhard, all I did was take McCain’s own words and actually READ them. Why don’t you do the same, and show where they say what you want them to say?

To the rest of you, I say this: the problems of the Middle East did not suddenly emerge on 9/11. Nor did they burst, fully formed, on the day Bush came into office. The presence of the US is just a convenient excuse for the nutjobs, the latest in a long line of “Western provocations” that they trot out for their domestic audiences whenever they need to whip them into a frenzy. If it isn’t “US forces in Iraq,” it was “US forces in Saudi Arabia” (at the invitation and request of the Saudi Government) or “US forces in the Persian Gulf” (keeping THEIR oil tankers safe from Iraninan mines and boats and planes) or “US supporting governments like the Shah and the Saudi monarchy” or some other perceived attack.

And if all else fails, there’s always Israel to fall back on.

Catering our foreign policy to the lies the nuts tell the masses is beyond dumb. But it seems to be the linchpin of things around here…

J.
22 fafaroo
Apr 8th, 2008 at 2:45 am

“The presence of the US is just a convenient excuse for the nutjobs …”

Jay Tea, before you start doling out the history lessons, you might want to try taking a longer view.

The US has been fucking around in the Middle East for decades, from propping up the corrupt Shah of Iran to supplying weapons to Saddam Hussein to counter the radicals who took power after the Shah was overthrown. We are, however, only the latest in a long line of colonialist/imperialist powers who have been the targets of nationalist and islamist movements going back to the beginning of the 20th century and before.

There are ways to positively engage and influence the politics and societies of a region and there are negative and counterproductive ways to do it. If history has shown anything, it’s that long term occupations of hostile civilian populations only makes things worse until finally the occupiers are forced to withdraw because eventually the cost of occupation always eventually outweighs whatever initial benefit the occupation was supposed to bring. Populations grow increasingly radicalized and resistance, whether passive or aggressive, becomes the norm.

Suggesting that military invasion and occupation is a bad way to win the trust and support of a population is not to “cater to the lies of the nuts.” It’s recognizing the vicious cycle of history and trying to change it.

Conservatives see the direct and overwhelmingly negative consequences of military occupation and suggest that it’s a reason to continue the same policy. We may seem dumb to you Jay but the conservative way of thinking is the very definition, as they say, of insanity.
23 fafaroo
Apr 8th, 2008 at 2:54 am

“The presence of the US is just a convenient excuse for the nutjobs …”

To put it another way, the presence of the US is not just a “convenient excuse” for radicals. The existence of the radicals themselves is the direct consequence of the US presence. They don’t just “trot” out Western Provocations. Western powers have actually, in fact, acted provocatively! We have, in other words, provoked these people! Are you arguing that preemptive war is not provocative? Really? I guess that depends on what side of the guns you’re on. But then again, that’s the whole point.
24 Jay
Apr 8th, 2008 at 7:50 am

The interesting thing Haplo is that if a Democrat had said something like this, and the GOP was all over it in the same way, Oliver would have link after link to Media Matters pieces that would break down how everybody was “distorting” what the person had said.

The bottom line is, McCain did NOT say “we should be in Iraq for at least 100 years.”
25 midderpidge
Apr 8th, 2008 at 8:05 am

The problem is that what McCain said is not a reasonable thing,given that he doesn’t think it’s possible.

If McCain wants to keep us in Iraq, McCain needs to come up with a plan that stops the violence. Since all McCain wants to do is rehash the failed Bush plans, we can assume Iraq will continue to be a fuck up with no end in sight if he’s elected.

So when McCain says 100 years in Iraq and attaches a fairy tale situation he has no plan to bring about, we can just assume he’s playing to the wingnuts and really means he will stay in Iraq despite the violent fuckup that it really is.

So bottom line is, McCain did say “we should stay in Iraq for at least 100 years.”
26 jr
Apr 8th, 2008 at 9:27 am

Mccombover won’t sponsor the new GI Bill but gets “pro-military” billing from his cable news fanboys
27 Quaker in a Basement
Apr 8th, 2008 at 10:41 am

The bottom line is, McCain did NOT say “we should be in Iraq for at least 100 years.”

Very well, Jay. What he DID say was, “Make it one hundred…That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.”

Let the hair-splitting begin.
28 Rheinhard
Apr 8th, 2008 at 10:43 am

OK Jay, something I’d like to know.

“We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me.”

So it’s fine to stay 50-100 years if Americans are NOT being harmed. Can you tell me how long St. John thinks it’s OK to stay if American troops ARE being harmed? For bonus points, if that number is the same or longer, how is this semantically different from flat out saying he “favors staying 100 years in Iraq” unconditionally?
29 Duros62
Apr 8th, 2008 at 10:48 am

We’ve had a cease-fire for almost 55 years that, by and large, has held, but there hasn’t been any open fighting since.

Thus, the “technically” part. Cease-fires are notoriously tenuous.
30 Duros62
Apr 8th, 2008 at 10:49 am

Sean: Careful. You might get yourself drummed off of the Obama bandwagon if you keep talking like that. That’s the kind of truth that’d dangerous.

That hazards of trying to keep an open mind. Don’t worry, I’m used to it.

Sean: I have heard Obama say essentially similar things.
31 Duros62
Apr 8th, 2008 at 11:00 am

They don’t just “trot” out Western Provocations. Western powers have actually, in fact, acted provocatively!

If you keep poking that dog with a stick, you are likely to get bitten.
32 fafaroo
Apr 8th, 2008 at 11:09 am

“If you keep poking that dog with a stick, you are likely to get bitten.”

Yes, and Republicans are like the kid on the block who poke and kick dogs then cries to mommy when he gets bit: “Mommy i was just playing with it …” And then never feels any responsibility when the dog is put to sleep …
33 Sean D. Martin
Apr 8th, 2008 at 11:28 am

Sean: That hazards of trying to keep an open mind. Don’t worry, I’m used to it.

Duros: I have heard Obama say essentially similar things.

Really? Gee, I may have to end up voting for that guy!
34 Duros62
Apr 8th, 2008 at 11:45 am

fafroo: Win. You just summed up the entire Neo con movement.
35 Enlightened Liberal
Apr 8th, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Rheinhard, that’s a good point. If there are no U.S. casualties, he is ok with 100 year presence. But what if there are? Any good wingnut will tell you that we can’t capitulate to the evildoers and leave because they are attacking us, so that leaves about 1000 years presence in Iraq.

Either way, McCain= war, if for no other reason than to save face. It’s all good as long as the wingnut yipping dogs aren’t forced to fight it.
36 fafaroo
Apr 8th, 2008 at 5:57 pm

I think i’m going to give the win to EL. That’s the perfect encapsulation of McCain’s policy:

We can’t leave until the violence subsides but even when the violence recedes, we’ll stay forever anyway.

Basically, we’re never leaving Iraq as long Republicans are in charge.