I understand what McCain meant once he had a chance to explain them. His view is that we Americans won't care if our troops are there but not fighting. That is, have the Iraqis doing the policing, etc. and we be there as backup. He uses Korea, Germany and a few other locales as examples, stating that so long as no American blood is shed, it should be okay with Americans. Unfortunately, I don't agree with him.

In Korea, those at the DMZ were receiving combat pay to at least the year 2000, possibly longer (I know they don't get it now). American blood was spilled in Korea long after the "official" war ended in 1953. Air Force pilots were offered some pretty hefty incentives, including an additional $300/month, to re-enlist for another tour in Korea in 2005. Most Americans didn't know (and still don't) that their young men were being put in the line of danger there long after the war ended. I wonder how many would have protested had they known the facts? I sincerely hope Iraq doesn't become another Korea, no matter what McCain's idealistic idea of us being there in the future might be.

Germany was a different situation. Once the peace treaty had been signed, the fighting stopped. Germans were happy to have the war end.

I believe Iraq would be more in the vein of Korea -- at the very least, there would be spots that would be war zones as long as Americans were there. Odds are that all of Iraq would always be a war zone and American blood would be shed there so long as we're a military presence there.

To me, McCain's statements that Americans won't care that troops be in Iraq for 100 years are naive at best, ingeniuous at worst.