What McCain meant to say.
Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:20:11 AM PDT
There's been a lot of discussion about McCain's "promise" of 100 years of war in Iraq.
What did he mean by his comment? Was he saying the Iraq war will go on for 100 years? Or, did he simply mean that we are likely to have a "presence" in Iraq for 100 years (as he is now explaining), like we could well end up having in Korea, etc.
My own take on this? I think we are making a mistake if we try to convince the American people that McCain wants 100 years of war. But, there are bigger fish to fry here...
The American people want to know what kind of commitment and sacrifice that these candidates are asking of American troops. That's Priority One on this issue. They won't get worked up over gaffs; they will get worked up over 100 years.
I do not think McCain was intending on promising the American people 100 years of war in Iraq. I agree with him on that. The American people will tire of us trying to turn this into some sort of verbal "gotcha." In fairness, McCain truly believes (or wants us to believe) that we can hold on in Iraq for a little while longer (stay the course - but he'd never use those terms), the Iraqi people will come to their senses and embrace a relatively calm western style democracy that is not sectarian or pro-Iranian. The factions will become mere political parties who will fight with bumper stickers instead of bullets. In other words, we'll somehow find the magic pony and all will be well. Then, Iraq merely becomes another American outpost to "project power" to "protect our interests" and "ensure democracy." Like Korea, or like the Philippines used to be. Or, whatever.
I don't personally like the imperial presumptions underlying McCain's neocon dream of passive military outposts in the middle east. I think they will inflame the region [understatement anyone?], even if Iraq is somehow "pacified." But, I don't personally see the American people reacting that strongly against it. We are so conditioned to seeing imperial American outposts around the world that it will take a major paradigm shift for the American people to begin reacting strongly against the concept.
I believe that the bigger issue here, for purposes of this election, is to push McCain on "how" this magic transformation in Iraq is going to take place. How exactly will we go from "hated occupiers in a strife torn country" to "beloved protectors of a burgeoning democracy?" And, when will this happen? Unless he has a real plan, that is somehow different from the 5+ years we've already suffered through, then he has no way of assuring the American people that this mythical "victory" that he seeks is anywhere in our future. So far, I've seen no plan, no difference, just four more years of GWB.
So, did McCain think that he was saying "100 more years of war"? No. But, unless he knows where the magic pony is that will fix Iraq and make all of the warring factions lay down their arms and quit killing us and each other, then we are, indeed, in line for 100 more years of war under McCain. THAT is how the "100 years" comment needs to be argued in this election.
Permalink | 12 comments