100 years in Iraq?

I take a backseat to no one in my support of the mission of overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

I take a backseat to no one in my support of our troops in Iraq.

I take a backseat to no one in my support of a national policy of defeating the No. 1 foreign threat to our national security today – Islamo-fascism.

However, when I hear John McCain justifying his statement that U.S. troops need to stay in Iraq for 100 years, I say the guy should have his head examined.

Not only was this an extremely impolitic remark for a Republican presidential candidate to make, it is downright ridiculous, foolish, wrong.

In fact, despite my own hard-line credentials, given the choice between keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years or pulling out right now, I would have to opt for the immediate pullout.

Thankfully, if cooler heads than Barack Obama and John McCain prevail, we won’t have to make such a Hobson’s choice.

We don’t need to stay in Iraq for 100 years.

And we don’t need to withdraw immediately.

But we do need to find a sensible exit strategy – the sooner the better.

We don’t want Iraq to fall into chaos and civil war. But we can’t protect Iraq from Iraqis for another century, either.

It’s time to kill the bad guys and get out.

Fortunately, it appears we are finally doing that under the able leadership of Gen. David Petraeus. Let’s get the job done and get out. We shouldn’t stay in Iraq one day longer than necessary.

McCain is now saying his words were distorted. They weren’t. And that’s the most disturbing part of the controversy.

The comment was made in New Hampshire in response to a question by a student who asked about President Bush’s remark that U.S. troops might need to remain in Iraq for 50 years.

“Maybe 100,” McCain chimed in. “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”

That’s what he said. Nobody put the words in his mouth. And his explanation and rationalization for his comment doesn’t make me feel any better about it.

“Of course, that comment of mine was distorted,” said McCain. “Life isn’t fair, as Jack Kennedy said. I was talking about American presence after the war.”

After the war, during the war – Americans do not have to be in Iraq for 100 years. Period. End of story. Americans will not accept it. Americans should not accept it.

McCain continued: “No American argues against our military presence in Korea or Japan or Germany or Kuwait or other places, or Turkey, because America is not receiving casualties.”

Again, I take issue. No American argues with our military presence in Korea, Japan and Germany? I argue with it. From what are we protecting Germany today? The Soviet Union is gone. It has been gone for more than 15 years.

These kinds of endless missions should hardly be our model for military engagements in the future. We cannot and should not be the world’s policeman. We cannot occupy the entire world – unless we want to go the way of Rome.

It almost sounds like McCain is looking for a reason to stay in Iraq.

It almost sounds as if he thinks it’s a good idea to stay in Iraq.

If he wants to ensure he loses the presidential election by a landslide, he’s saying exactly the right thing.