Monday, March 31, 2008

McCain and the 100 Years Comment

The Democrats are off and running with McCain's comment that we may have a military presence in Iraq for 100 years:
  • “He (McCain) says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq” (Barack Obama, Feb. 19).
  • “We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years” (Obama, Feb. 26).
  • “He’s (McCain) willing to keep this war going for 100 years” (Hillary Clinton, March 17).
  • “What date between now and the election in November will he (McCain) drop this promise of a 100-year war in Iraq?” (Chris Matthews, March 4).
  • McCain promises “an endless war in Iraq.” And “McCain’s strategy is a war without end. . . . Elect John McCain and get 100 years in Iraq.” (Howard Dean, fund raising letter)
Charles Krauthammer argues in National Review that these are very dirty lies. What did McCain actually say?
Asked at a New Hampshire campaign stop about possibly staying in Iraq 50 years, John McCain interrupted — “Make it a hundred” — then offered a precise analogy to what he envisioned: “We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so.” Lest anyone think he was talking about prolonged war-fighting rather than maintaining a presence in postwar Iraq, he explained: “That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.”

Is there any doubt that McCain was talking about having a troop presence in a peaceful Iraq, like our presence in Japan, South Korea, or Kuwait? Will the Democrats demand an end to our 67 year war with Japan? Maybe Obama should consult one of his leading military advisers and his campaign co-chairman, Gen. Merrill McPeak. Five years ago McPeak, although he is a war critic, suggested that “we’ll be there a century, hopefully. If it works right.”

Our military presence around the world projects power and gives stability to vulnerable countries. In the future it's possible that Iraq could pay most of the costs of our military presence, like Japan does now.

Our country needs to have a real debate about what to do in Iraq. Should we stay and keep Iraq on the road to peace and democracy or should we cut and run, leaving the country to terrorists (including Iran)? Is the prospect of a free and peaceful Iraq worth the cost to us in lives and treasure? The Democrats' lies about McCain's plans for Iraq do not constitute a serious debate.

1 comment:

Rudi said...

General McPeak... or General "Mc-Betray-us"?