No War In The Middle East Worth Winning Will Take Less Than 100 Years

Krauthammer complains that the liberal media has twisted John McCain's statement that the United States may need to keep provisional forces in Iraq for 100 years into a statement that John McCain wants to fight in Iraq for 100 years.

I responded:

I agree with you that the Democrats tried to turn McCain's statement about 100 years of ancillary U.S. presence in Iraq into 100 years of War, but --

If John McCain does not expect us to be actively fighting in the Middle East for the next 100 years, then what definition of "winning the war" is he working with?

Another way to state the same question:

How long does McCain (or even you) think it will take to reach the "win" he (or you) seek(s)? If that win takes less than 100 years to achieve, is it really a win worth the fight?

And the ancillary question:

How does McCain propose to staff the war with soldiers and to pay for the war financially while still maintaining the moral system he is so keen on defending?

The War in Iraq is not enough without the War in Afghanistan, the War in Iran, the War in Pakistan, the solution to the Middle East conflict, and perhaps, the solution of the energy crisis. The United States is not just in Iraq, now, we are in the Middle East. We cannot leave the Middle East with a "win" unless we win everywhere

I propose this "win"

We can not leave the Middle East until the earlier of the time when (a) there is no risk of occupation of anti-United States forces in Iraq and Saudi Arabia (which includes not only Iran, Syria and/or Turkey, but also Russia and China and whatever surrogates they engage) or (b) we are energy self-sufficient in a manner that does not harm our environment (at which point we can leave the Middle East and let the devil take the hind most).

I say that win could take 100 years of real war. It is worth the fight. If John McCain, of all people, has no stomach to commit to that, then maybe he should look for the fastest way out.