Here's my question: where does anyone get the idea that any presence for the next century is ok, with or without casualties?  Are we going to fund this 100% peaceful base with oil revenues?  The walkback itself is a ridiculous position.

When McCain was asked by Sauerkraut about "50 years", McCain interrupted "make it a hundred".
That flippancy is a scary sign of the hair trigger temper that resides inside McCain.

I really don't want someone who's on the edge of being unhinged anywhere near the nuclear launch codes.

Beautiful question from Matthews!

My take has always been that the full and fair context is damning because it shows unrealistic, Bush-like optimism for something they've been trying and failing to achieve for the last five miserable years.

100 peaceful years may be acceptable, but why is it so goddamn desirable that we're willing to die for it now?

they're right, he plans to occupy Iraq that long and have bases there. Seems Obama may also, but call the bases not permanent. Iraqi's will see it as occupation and not being Japan or Germany or Korea, in that we didn't wage war on them, but on their government that they also wanted toppled, and given that they did not first aggress against us, we will have no rational or legal basis for staying past our welcome, which was about four years ago, or more?  So, they're right, but Hillary is on the stronger ground, because her plan is to outlaw mercenaries and cancel Bush's no-bid contracts and get all Americans out and all Iraqi's who've helped us, which is the only rational plan that will allow that violence to someday end, and allow us to be seen as honest brokers for peace, and not some dull witted empire.  

Josh Marshall's analysis, more than anything I have read to date, effectively explains why McCain's 100 Years comment is both dangerous and disingenuous.

I listed, and am listening to, General Petraeus and Amb. Crocker testify.  It is clear that these men are honorable men trying to do their very best under horrible policy paradigms.  Petraeus admitted that there is no light he can see, as yet, at the end of the tunnel (but does not give up hope).

Until there is light at the end of the tunnel, McCain's agument is distracting and misleading.  It is an argument that presupposes continued existence until we reach victory or success, which I understand that Petraeus understands to mean a stable nation that can effectively, if not perfectly, govern itself.

But it is clear from the testimony today, which has been overshadowed by events on the ground while testimony was being given, that to get to the starting point for McCain's 100 Years we may need to continue sacrificing blood and treasure for the benefit of what has proven so far to be incremental gains, and small incremental gains at that (as both men have, without admitting as much, reluctantly allowed today before Congress).  

McCain's 100 Years scenario envisions a time when what is happening in Iraq is not happening in Iraq.  And what is his plan for getting us to the starting gate for the 100 Years?  More of the same?  Staying the course?  I have yet to see his plan or thoughts on how we get there that does not involve not deviating from the present trajectory one iota.  

And, ironically, if we get there, if we reach the success needed to ensure no casualties, well that's when--based on Petraeus's testimony today--we will no longer need a significant presence of troops in Iraq.  Making the 100 Years scenario ethereal and imaginary as an inherent notion.

And yet there are those vocal in the minority of Democrats who think that this plan and this man as President is preferable to a plan of graduated withdrawal advanced by Clinton or Obama or by either candidate (if their candidate doesn't win).

That is a wholesale abandonment of Reason that makes the brain somersault back upon itself in contemplation.  

I do agree that both Obama and Clinton have been disingenuous in how they've used the "100 years" comment.  He's talking about a small-scale, relatively cheap, minimal-casuality facility, not unlike those that we have in many countries throughout the world.

Not "100 years of war", the way the Democratic candidates falsely spin his sound bite.

I mean, does anyone claim that the first Gulf War is still ongoing?  We still have troops in bases in Kuwait, right?  Obviously Kuwait is a much friendlier nation and keeping a presence in Iraq is vastly more complicated.  If they want to challenge his statement, they need to point out how unrealistic it is to think that we can have a long-term presence in Iraq without high casualty numbers.  Acting like McCain thinks that 100 years of the current conflict is just fine is really intellectually dishonest.

We're overplaying this comment by McCain.

McCain doesn't actually want a war with no end -- he foresees a situation like that with Korea and Japan, which is obviously acceptable to the general public.

There are other points to nail him on, and this one is getting tired.

If the Iraqi Kurds invited us to establish a permanent military base on their territory and the Iraqi government consented, I would be in favor of such a move.  I don't see the idea of a long-term, peaceful, presence in Iraq as a scary boogieman.  Of course how to get from here to there is the question.

Well, let's see, the U.S. already has a military presence in 73 countries around the world.  What's a few more?  I think if we really try we can get that number up to 80 or so.