McCain's 100 Years Comment: Not a One-Time Gaffe

Part of the Republican pushback on McCain's 100 years comment are claims that McCain simply misspoke or is being taken out of context. That's ludicrous. Here's video of the moment — he takes the time to elaborate on why he thinks a 100-year long occupation is acceptable. He was given an opportunity to walk his comment back by our David Corn immediately after this event; instead, he said he is okay with troops in Iraq for "a thousand years" or "a million years."

And he has said some version of this over and over; the instance above is just the most famous example. Here are some others:

McCain on CBS's "Face the Nation," 1/06/08: "We've got to get Americans off the front line, have the Iraqis as part of the strategy, take over more and more of the responsibilities. And then I don't think Americans are concerned if we're there for 100 years or 1,000 years or 10,000 years."

McCain at a Florida town hall event, 01/26/08: "I'd like to look you in the eye and tell you there's not gonna be any more wars. I'd like to look you in the eyes and tell you that this terrible evil called radical Islamic extremism is defeated. I can't do that. I've got to tell you that we're gonna be in this struggle for the rest of this century because it's a transcendent evil."

McCain in a New Hampshire speech, 1/7/08: "We are in two wars. We are in a greater struggle that is going to be with us for the rest of this century... These young people that are in this crowd, my friends, I'm going to be asking you to serve. I'm gonna be asking you to step forward and serve this nation in difficult times."

McCain to the Detroit News, 1/3/08: "We're still in Kuwait since the first Gulf War. If we can continue to show this progress, we could be there for 100 years, for all I know, as long as Americans are not dying. It's not a matter of American presence; it's a matter of success so we can beat back this adversary."

So if you have any Republican friends who dismiss the significance of the "100 years" comment, tell them that it is a fundamental part of John McCain's foreign policy world view. It is naive, dangerous, imperialistic, and militaristic. And we've seen where eight years of that has gotten us.

Comments

Let me share my view of Mr. McCain’s comments.

The “struggle for the balance of this century,” as Mr. McCain stated and in many peoples’ minds, is with radical Islamic extremism.

The battle line was drawn when Jihadists killed Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, then continued with airplane hijackings, bombing our Marines in Lebanon, attacking the World Trade Center the first time, embassy bombings around the world, and of course, 9/11.

These people hate us for who we are and what we represent, not what we have done. Their determination to annihilate us will most likely continue for several generations, or “the balance of this century.”

As far as U.S. troops stationed for a prolonged period in the Middle East, consider the mission of our troops in South Korea and Germany. Both successfully prevented aggressors from overrunning new democracies – democracies that struggled for many years before becoming strong both economically and governmentally.

Was this investment worth it? Ask any German, or any citizen of the old Soviet Eastern Block countries or any South Korean if they are pleased we stood our ground with them since 1945/1953 respectfully.

Mr. McCain understands that in the light of history, sometimes U.S. presence is necessary to nurture democracies and help nations succeed, and if we are there for "100 years," that might mean we have succeeded in helping and stabilizing another country, another region.

We are still in South Korea, we are still in Europe – 63 years after WWII. When you hear statements of prolonged military presence, think of these success models.

If you do not agree with this model, then protest as loudly regarding U.S. presence anywhere outside the geographic boundaries of our country, not just the Middle East.

This was tried once before, you know. Look again to first half of the 20th century for the results of that strategy.

I do not like war. I do not want war. I wish to live in peace. However, I am a pragmatist. Regardless of how peaceful you and I want to be, the history of mankind is clear – be strong or die. I see no change of that on the horizon, so I choose to be strong.

Posted by: Michael on 04/29/08 at 10:34 PM Respond

Posted by: laptop battery on 08/28/08 at 3:51 AM Respond