The Other Klein gets this right:The problem with John McCain's 100 years in Iraq formulation isn't that he's calling for 95 more years of combat--he isn't--but that he thinks you can have a long-term basing arrangement in Iraq similar to those we have in Germany or Korea. That betrays a fairly acute lack of knowledge about both Iraq and Islam. It may well be possible to station U.S. troops in small, peripheral kingdoms like Dubai or Kuwait, but Iraq is--and has always been--volatile, tenuous, centrally-located and nearly as sensitive to the presence of infidels as Saudi Arabia. It is a terrible candidate for a long-term basing agreement.But to go a bit deeper, it also betrays McCain's emotional commitment to the continued deployment of American troops and projection of American force. I was in the room when McCain made his infamous "100 years of war" comment -- it wasn't solicited. He was raising the questioner, forcefully emphasizing his comfort with endless missions. It was, in other words, a point of pride, not a policy judgment. There's no reason to imagine that we should be in Iraq for 100 years, and McCain didn't offer an strategic reimagining of the conflict that suggested such a strategy. His comments were less about Iraq per se than his personal relationship and comfort with American military power. A hawkish leader who, on the one hand, is ignorant of the basic dynamics in Iraq and, on the other, has a pride- and tradition-based approach to military deployment is a dangerous thing indeed.
