(Crossposted at Old Man McCain)
In the past few weeks, John McCain and his Republican sycophants have been trying to push his "100 years" comment into the memory hole. They know this is a devastating attack, that Americans don't want to stay in Iraq forever, and the Republicans are pissed that Barack Obama hits McCain over the head with this every time he makes a speech.
This video by Josh Marshall offers a pretty good analysis:
It is absolutely crucial for all of us in the progressive blogosphere to understand this issue, and know how to defend against it. The "100 years" comment is death for McCain's campaign, so we can't let them wash it away. More on the flip:
The national press, which has been in the tank for McCain since 1991 or so, have done their best to play along with the Republican spin. They imply that John McCain didn't really mean 100 years, or that he only meant 100 years of playing patty-cake, or some other such nonsense. Even Frank Rich, who should know better, has fallen hook, line and sinker:
Really, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain. As a growing chorus reiterates, their refrains that Mr. McCain is “willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq” (as Mr. Obama said) or “willing to keep this war going for 100 years” (per Mrs. Clinton) are flat-out wrong.
What Mr. McCain actually said in a New Hampshire town-hall meeting was that he could imagine a 100-year-long American role in Iraq like our long-term presence in South Korea and Japan, where “Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.”
Sorry Frank, you are making a distinction without a difference. Point number one, John McCain did say that he is "fine" with American troops being in Iraq for 100 years. There is absolutely nothing libelous about hitting him over the head with this: he spoke the words, he supported the idea. McCain's defense is that he said the troops would be there for some sort of bloodless, non-conflict situation ala Germany or Japan -- not war.
But this is a ridiculous defense on many counts. One, we aren't really fighting a "war" there as it is -- this is technically an occupation. We are battling insurgents and local militias, not a foreign army. According to McCain's definition, he is just fine with an occupation that goes for 100 years. But if we are calling the current occupation a "war", why not call McCain's occupation a "war"? It's the status quo, isn't it?
"No no," McCain would say, "it wouldn't be a war because nobody would be dying." But this is a dumb argument. First, how can he predict that nobody would be dying? Would the Sunnis and Shiites suddenly abandon their 1000 years of sectarian hatred? Would the Iraqis suddenly come to love us, throw down their weapons, and turn into the Germans or the Japanese? Only somebody with zero knowledge of history or foreign policy would equate Iraq with post-war Japan, Germany or South Korea, which were homogenous well-educated societies without recent histories of civil war.
Anyone who says we could occupy Iraq for 100 years without anyone dying is totally ignorant of Middle East history, Iraq's history, and the most recent history of this Iraq war. But it's no surprise coming from Old Man McCain, who said we would be greeted as "liberators" and that this war would be short and "fairly easy".
Ultimately, Obama and Clinton are the realists here. They are the truth-tellers. Because there is no such things as a 100-year occupation of Iraq that is not "war" in the sense that we are using it today. Either the Iraqis will continue to fight each other, they will continue to fight us, or they will mix it up with one of their neighbors in the region. I mean, if Iraq was completely peaceful, why would we need any troops in Iraq at all?
Which brings up the final point: if McCain thinks that withdrawal from the current conflict is surrender, but that we shouldn't withdraw even if nobody is dying or being wounded, what are the conditions under which he sees us pulling out? For the life of me I can't think of any scenario where he sees troops leaving Iraq. It is either too dangerous to leave, or so peaceful that we're happy to stay.
Ultimately, the press needs to ask McCain some hard questions about his stance. He puts up smoke and mirrors, he lies, he obfuscates, and too often he gets away with it. Bottom line is that he wants us in Iraq forever, and no amount of spin can erase that.