# Fork Hillary 3: The Final Forking **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 18, 2008, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726 "2008-03-18T00:01:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 56
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/1101 "2008-05-03T15:11:19Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] I have found you to be a reasonable guy for the most part, even when we disagree. Surely you aren’t really suggesting that this is McCain’s position? [/quote] Yes, I am. > [@](#): > > I’m quite sure there are aspects of his actual position that people can reasonably disagree with, but this isn’t another “McCain wants 100 more years of war in Iraq” misstatements, is it? McCain doesn’t _want_ 100 years of war. What he wants is for us to stay until we bring peace to Iraq, then stay for a long, long time after that. Then the question becomes, what would it take to convince him that our bringing peace to Iraq through means involving large numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq is impossible? Given the extent to which he’s supported this war through thick and thin (with his main criticism, pre-surge, being that we needed to send more troops there), the presumption has to be: it would have to get a lot worse than it’s been. I think the difference between the simplified characterization of McCain’s Iraq position, and this more nuanced version, is pretty minimal. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/1102 "2008-05-03T15:30:14Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] For one, there is more to McCain’s campaign positions than you stated, and that he differs from Bush on some policy issues. [/quote] True, but on the whole, there isn’t a whole lot of daylight. On some issues, he’s to the left of Bush, and on some issues he’s to the right. On some issues where he’s to the left, he’s likely to be constrained by his own party. But mostly, they’re pretty much in the same place: if you’re among the 28% that are happy with Bush, you’ll probably be satisfied with McCain. > [@](#): > > Also, there are legitimate criticisms of Obama’s positions, beyond the Rev Wright issue. Nonetheless, that’s the basis on which people are being asked to reject his candidacy. Meanwhile, his policy proposals are at least honest attempts to grapple with difficult issues. McCain’s positions pretty much boil down to militarism, tax cuts that dwarf Bush’s, and the free market as a solution to the very things it isn’t taking care of now. Let’s just say that I take it for granted that Obama easily wins an honest policy comparison between the two men - that if the American people don’t fall into the trap of deciding this thing on the basis of Jeremiah Wright or other matters that are far more trivial than the problems we face as a nation, McCain hasn’t a chance. But we can’t seem to get to that debate because of garbage from Wright to lapel pins to bowling to orange juice. There’s going to come a point at which America’s willingness to decide elections on the basis of sighs and brown suits, nutty pastors and Swiftboaters, is going to get us into a lot worse trouble than we’re in now. And it isn’t that far off. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/1103 "2008-05-03T15:50:14Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] True, but on the whole, there isn’t a whole lot of daylight. On some issues, he’s to the left of Bush, and on some issues he’s to the right. On some issues where he’s to the left, he’s likely to be constrained by his own party. [/quote] In what way would he be constrained by his own party? If you mean constrained by the Senate, then Obama or Hillary will be, too-- even more so. > [@](#): > > But mostly, they’re pretty much in the same place: if you’re among the 28% that are happy with Bush, you’ll probably be satisfied with McCain. And yet McCain polls about equal with Obama or Hillary, so you’re clearly missing something. Unless, of course, you’d like to place a little wager on whether McCain will get more than 28% of the popular vote. > [@](#): > > Nonetheless, that’s the basis on which people are being asked to reject his candidacy. No, not the basis. You’re trying to tell us that the only negative Obama has is Rev Wright. Sorry, but that’s just incorrect. You may be on board with all of Obama’s position, but plenty of Americans aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/1104 "2008-05-03T16:26:34Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] I think the difference between the simplified characterization of McCain’s Iraq position, and this more nuanced version, is pretty minimal. YMMV. [/QUOTE] Yes, I guess MM does V. McCain said he’d support a long-term, peaceful presence in Iraq, akin to South Korea or Japan, so long as there are no U.S. casualties. He also has a position on how to achieve that peaceful state, a position I acknowledge reasonable people can agree or disagree with. His position bears no resemblance to a preference for “staying in Iraq forever, no matter how it goes.” To sum his position up thusly, as it so often has been, is a grossly simplified, politicized, unsupportable assertion. It is not a difference of nuance between these positions; they are contradictory (according to my mileage estimates, anyway). ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/1105 "2008-05-03T16:31:43Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] In what way would he be constrained by his own party? If you mean constrained by the Senate, then Obama or Hillary will be, too-- even more so. [/quote] The difference is that McCain can’t try to dislodge the obstructionists of his own party in 2010. Obama would be able to run against them. > [@](#): > > And yet McCain polls about equal with Obama or Hillary, so you’re clearly missing something. Unless, of course, you’d like to place a little wager on whether McCain will get more than 28% of the popular vote. _That’s my whole point_. > [@](#): > > No, not the basis. You’re trying to tell us that the only negative Obama has is Rev Wright. Sorry, but that’s just incorrect. You may be on board with all of Obama’s position, but plenty of Americans aren’t. OK, on what major issues is the American public more on McCain’s side than Obama’s? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/1106 "2008-05-03T16:34:52Z")
An anonymous blog poster wrote [this](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/192778.php) , which I think is persuasive: > [@](#): > > I haven’t ever understood what context the famous 100 years sound bite is really lacking. When McCain is given a chance to provide the missing context it seems to me to boil down to, “I don’t want you to picture it as staying in an Iraq like the present one, I like to picture it being easier and more fun.” > > But if you look at each instance of the McCain 100 year boast, he is saying it to make the point that we mustn’t leave the hard, deadly, actual Iraq. That’s the whole context that he is, I think, being mercifully spared. The entire, nuanced version seems to me to be essentially this: There’s no point to leave Iraq once we’ve turned it into Korea. (In fact, he says, it would likely prove a handy base.) But, furthermore, it is unconscionable to leave until then. So there exists in the McCain Doctrine, as I understand it, absolutely no level of violence, no level of stability, no turn of events under which he would advocate leaving. > > For him to want to amend the 100 years sound bite by saying, “yeah, but picture it being much less awful” isn’t really a substantive amendment when he means for us to stay in either event. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/1107 "2008-05-03T16:40:02Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] An anonymous blog poster wrote [this](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/192778.php) , which I think is persuasive: [/QUOTE] Well, it’s persuasive in the way that speculation on another’s motives can be. If we accept as givens that, (1) McCain cannot possibly achieve a peaceful state in the manner he suggests, and, (2) “So there exists in the McCain Doctrine, … absolutely no level of violence, no level of stability, no turn of events under which he would advocate leaving,” then, yeah, what an awful guy that McCain is. Surely you’re not suggesting that this is the only reasonable supposition one can make though, right? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/1108 "2008-05-03T16:43:47Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] Well, it’s persuasive in the way that speculation on another’s motives can be. If we accept as givens that, (1) McCain cannot possibly achieve a peaceful state in the manner he suggests, and, (2) “So there exists in the McCain Doctrine, … absolutely no level of violence, no level of stability, no turn of events under which he would advocate leaving,” then, yeah, what an awful guy that McCain is. Surely you’re not suggesting that this is the only reasonable supposition one can make though, right? [/QUOTE] I think it is a fair presumption that McCain does not have a vision of a level of violence or instability which would cause him to advocate withdrawal. He seems to be tied to the Bush doctrine that “victory”–undefined–is an absolute necessity and withdrawal is simply not a strategic option. So I think it is entirely fair to say that, in the context of the 100 years quote, while he would like for that 100 years to be peaceful, there is no indication that he would withdraw before then if it were not. I agree that people can disagree as to whether a peaceful state is possible. But since many, many Americans do disagree, the question is what bearing they are to believe McCain’s hypothetical has on what he will actually do. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/1109 "2008-05-03T16:59:53Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] I think it is a fair presumption that McCain does not have a vision of a level of violence or instability which would cause him to advocate withdrawal. He seems to be tied to the Bush doctrine that “victory”–undefined–is an absolute necessity and withdrawal is simply not a strategic option. [/quote] Why? Why do you conclude that “there exists in the McCain Doctrine … absolutely no level of violence, no level of stability, no turn of events under which he would advocate leaving,” if in fact you do? Why does anything except an immediate withdrawal strategy equate with a position of limitless violence and unquestioned carnage, when McCain’s words contradict this notion? Do you believe there is no change in events that would lead McCain to withdraw? For that matter, is there nothing that could lead Obama to postpone withdrawal? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/1110 "2008-05-03T17:10:14Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] Why? Why do you conclude that “there exists in the McCain Doctrine … absolutely no level of violence, no level of stability, no turn of events under which he would advocate leaving,” if in fact you do? Why does anything except an immediate withdrawal strategy equate with a position of limitless violence and unquestioned carnage, when McCain’s words contradict this notion? [/quote] I believe that because it is consistent with what he has said about Iraq. McCain has never said he would withdraw if, on some set amount of time, the surge has not achieved its goals. To the best of my knowledge, McCain has never outlined a scenario in which he would withdraw. McCain has said that withdrawing means the terrorists win, and has not qualified that statement by saying that he’s only talking about immediate withdrawal (whatever that means). So, like I said, I think it is a fair presumption that he has no such level in mind. If, as you say, he has said something to contradict this notion, I’d love to hear it. > [@Stratocaster](#): > > Do you believe there is no change in events that would lead McCain to withdraw? For that matter, is there nothing that could lead Obama to postpone withdrawal? No, I don’t believe either of those propositions. I think that is a bit of hyperbole. I do think it entirely fair to believe that McCain would remain in Iraq _at the current levels of violence_ and political divide for an indefinite period, and that is reinforced by the 100 years quote. That is what troubles most Americans. ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/1111 "2008-05-03T17:40:38Z")
I know territories don’t count --except perhaps Puerto Rico if they vote right-- according to some, [but Guam looks like it’s going Obama’s way.](http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/03/obama-holds-guam-lead-with-largest-precincts-still-to-be-tallied/) How do the percentages work for pledged delegates again? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/1112 "2008-05-03T17:43:03Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] I do think it entirely fair to believe that McCain would remain in Iraq _at the current levels of violence_ and political divide for an indefinite period, and that is reinforced by the 100 years quote. That is what troubles most Americans. [/QUOTE] Then most Americans are misunderstanding what he proposes. He does not propose never-ending violence. In fact, he has specifically disavowed it. He does believe that setting a date for withdrawal is a recipe for chaos and increases the possibility that we’ll need to go back into Iraq as a result of the effect this would produce. You can disagree with this conclusion, of course, but it does not, to me, equate with, “I would never, ever, ever withdraw from Iraq.” It is not equivalent to “staying in Iraq forever, no matter how it goes.” It just isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/1113 "2008-05-03T17:44:46Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] Then most Americans are misunderstanding what he proposes. He does not propose never-ending violence. In fact, he has specifically disavowed it. [/quote] Again, where has he done this? Where has he said that he will not stay in Iraq indefinitely, that he will only stay if things get better? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/1114 "2008-05-03T17:53:56Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] Again, where has he done this? Where has he said that he will not stay in Iraq indefinitely, that he will only stay if things get better? [/QUOTE] Sorry, we’re doing the same dance, it seems. He believes it’s foolish to state a withdrawal date, foolish strategically for the effect that will produce. That’s not the same as saying, “I am OK with this level of violence going on indefinitely.” That may seem like splitting hairs to you, but I don’t agree. Again, it’s a different question, IMO, to argue whether or not the current level of force will result in a peaceful end in any reasonable time frame (or at all). But asserting that it can produce such a result, while refusing to identify the time frame, is not the same as saying, “forever.” He has also said that the long-term presence he would support is a peaceful one, akin to Japan, where there are no U.S. casualties. It’s one thing to say you believe his strategy unwise, that it won’t produce the success he envisions. It’s another thing entirely to say that McCain wants 100 more years of war in Iraq (as Obama did), or that he’d prefer “staying in Iraq forever, no matter how it goes.” ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/1115 "2008-05-03T18:01:50Z")
Well, if we’re not making any progress in this hijack, I’ll make this my last post on the issue and give you the last word (but not O’Reilly style where I jump back in :D). I don’t think it is splitting hairs to distinguish between withdrawing and setting a date for withdrawal. But there is also a difference between setting a date, and discussing the general tactical/strategic concerns that might lead to withdrawal. It is his failure to do the latter, while simultaneously arguing that withdrawal would be catastrophic, which suggest very strongly that he has no vision of when withdrawal would be appropriate. If he has no vision of when it would be appropriate, then it is accurate to say “there exists in the McCain Doctrine, … absolutely no level of violence, no level of stability, no turn of events under which he would advocate leaving.” That isn’t the same as saying McCain would never withdraw no matter what. It is saying that under his stated doctrine, there is no level of violence or stability under which he advocates withdrawal. [QUOTE=Stratocaster] He has also said that the long-term presence he would support is a peaceful one, akin to Japan, where there are no U.S. casualties. [/quote] But where, like S. Korea and elsewhere, we continued to spend billions of dollars. How much do you think 100 years in Iraq would cost? The answer is trillions. It also commits troops to the region that are needed elsewhere. Those are entirely legitimate point to bring up even if you read his comments in the most charitable light. And that is what Obama has emphasized when discussing the issue. ---
**Author:** ![stolichnaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bcef8e/32.png) [@stolichnaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stolichnaya)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/1116 "2008-05-03T18:07:32Z")
I think that the 100 years thing is being mildly unfairly used, and that it’s a lie of omission. However, it’s true that McCain is essentially saying NOTHING when you see it in context. He’d be fine with 100 years in Iraq as long as nobody is getting killed. OK, great. I’d be fine with 100 years in Iraq as long as nobody got killed, too. I’d be even better with 100 years in Iraq if nobody got killed and also every few days a fully formed American Soldier burst forth from the ether, served his tour honorably, and came back to invent a cure for a major disease. It’s a valid question to ask- how do we get to this hypothetical future point in which nobody is getting killed? Will people get killed on the way to that? It would seem so. So his answer avoids a realistic question about how long we stay in Iraq. MCain essentially invents a strawman war and then tells us how he will fight it. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/1117 "2008-05-03T18:07:54Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] He believes it’s foolish to state a withdrawal date, foolish strategically for the effect that will produce…Again, it’s a different question, IMO, to argue whether or not the current level of force will result in a peaceful end in any reasonable time frame (or at all). But asserting that it can produce such a result, while refusing to identify the time frame, is not the same as saying, “forever.” [/QUOTE] Has McCain ever outlined conditions under which troop withdrawal _would_ begin? If not, is it that big a leap to say that there are none? And if there are no (acknowledged) conditions under which withdrawal may commence, is that not effectively “staying forever”? I’m not really making an argument here; it’s simply that I’ve not heard of any such conditions. I would be greatly relieved if you might bring them to my attention. ETA: effectively what **RP** says, but I think I’ve been more succinct. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/1118 "2008-05-03T18:44:03Z")
This _is_ still the “Fork Hillary” thread, is it not? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Phlosphr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@Phlosphr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phlosphr)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/1119 "2008-05-03T18:55:20Z")
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99] This _is_ still the “Fork Hillary” thread, is it not? 😕 [/QUOTE] Well - let’s get in character if this still is the Fork Hillary thread - I saw one of [these](http://conservativebuys.com/cgi-bin/shop/shop/scaryhillary.hillaryscaresme.1668653+lifes-a-bitch-dont-vote-hillary-gear.html) recently..that ought to get us started… ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/1120 "2008-05-03T19:02:01Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] Well, if we’re not making any progress in this hijack, I’ll make this my last post on the issue and give you the last word (but not O’Reilly style where I jump back in :D). [/quote] Feel free, jump away! > [@](#): > > I don’t think it is splitting hairs to distinguish between withdrawing and setting a date for withdrawal. But there is also a difference between setting a date, and discussing the general tactical/strategic concerns that might lead to withdrawal. It is his failure to do the latter, while simultaneously arguing that withdrawal would be catastrophic, which suggest very strongly that he has no vision of when withdrawal would be appropriate. McCain’s position is that success is defined by conditions in Iraq, not by arbitrary domestic timetables. Success is a function of political and military stability in Iraq, achievable via added troops employing specific strategies. [Among other things](http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm), he advises that… > [@](#): > > More troops are necessary to clear and hold insurgent strongholds; to provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies; to halt sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias; to dismantle al Qaeda; to train the Iraqi Army; and to embed American personnel in Iraqi police units His point is that the time to withdraw is not a function (or shouldn’t be) of how much Hillary or Obama dislike our presence, it is a function of conditions on the ground, conditions that he has a pretty specific vision for, however likely you might think it that he’ll realize that vision. > [@](#): > > If he has no vision of when it would be appropriate, then it is accurate to say “there exists in the McCain Doctrine, … absolutely no level of violence, no level of stability, no turn of events under which he would advocate leaving.” That isn’t the same as saying McCain would never withdraw no matter what. It is saying that under his stated doctrine, there is no level of violence or stability under which he advocates withdrawal. Again, he does have a vision for what constitutes success, but he will not assign a timetable to that success, considering that an unwise strategic decision. > [@](#): > > But where, like S. Korea and elsewhere, we continued to spend billions of dollars. How much do you think 100 years in Iraq would cost? The answer is trillions. It also commits troops to the region that are needed elsewhere. Those are entirely legitimate point to bring up even if you read his comments in the most charitable light. And that is what Obama has emphasized when discussing the issue. Obama has flat-out mischaracterized McCain’s position. That said, this is a different debate, isn’t it? Whether a long-term peaceful presence in Iraq is strategic and cost-effective is not the same question as to whether or not such an objective amounts to “100 more years of war in Iraq.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726.md?page=55) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726.md?page=57)