Politico reports:
Though it's not exactly an accurate representation of McCain's views, Democratic strategists view the "100 years" remark as the linchpin of an effort to turn McCain's national security credentials against him by framing the Vietnam War hero as a warmonger who envisions an American presence in Iraq without end.
We've all known this was going to be a problem for a while now. On February 13, I wrote that "neutralizing this particular line of attack will be a top priority for the McCain camp." It only took them six weeks, but they are finally going to try and do just that when McCain gives a major speech on Iraq tomorrow. It was a foolish thing for McCain to have said, but it was also precisely the kind of straight talk that earns him so much affection--and it had the added benefit of being true. American forces, when they are victorious, set up permanent bases. But here's the question. If we're going to "end the war in Iraq," the Democrats favorite euphemism for declaring defeat and going home, what about Afghanistan? Has anyone asked Barack or Hillary how long they plan to maintain U.S. forces in that country? If they really plan on fighting on to victory in the "good war," a straight answer would probably be something like 100 years. It would seem that any honest debate on this point would lead to a rather simple conclusion: victory takes 100 years, defeat takes 18 months. Give or take. Update: JVL wrote a column on this for the Inquirer a few weeks ago. He runs down the countries that have based U.S. troops long after combat had come to an end, including Iceland. Well worth your time.