With the Republican nomination all but officially awarded to Senator John McCain, it is likely that Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will increase their attacks against him, especially as they pertain to his infamous pledge to support “100 years of war” in Iraq. However, in an election that will undoubtedly prove critical to America’s development in the 21st century, I believe that it is important for voters to understand not only what McCain actually said, but also what he meant.

At a town hall meeting in Derry, N.H. in January 2008, John McCain answered a question by stating, “Make it 100 [years in Iraq]. We’ve been in Japan for 60 years, we’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so; that would be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me ... if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al-Qaida is training and equipping and motivating people every single day.” If we rely on Senator McCain’s words, and not on the political spin of the Democrats, it is pretty apparent that he is not, in fact, advocating 100 years of war. Rather, he is proposing the establishment of permanent American bases in Iraq similar to those that exist in South Korea, Japan, and more importantly, in neighboring Kuwait. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have opposed this policy. However, I believe it is essential to the long-term interests of America that it be implemented.

Virtually everyone who has followed the conflict in Iraq agrees that the current situation is grim but that a pullout would also lead to serious negative consequences. An open and bloody civil war among Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish Iraqis is one gruesome scenario, yet I believe that there is another even more dangerous outcome that could result from a total pullout. With the United States leaving Iraq en masse within the short time span of a year, it is probable that a destabilizing power vacuum will be created, one that could lead to two detrimental scenarios. The first is that Iran provides tacit support to the Shia majority and allows them to effectively crush the Sunnis and establish Iraq as an Iranian proxy, similar to Lebanon’s relationship with Syria. This, ironically, is probably the better of the two possibilities. The other is that Sunni Arab states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia stand up to the Iranians and spark a regional conflict that could severely destabilize the American economy via the price of oil. Unfortunately, barring the unlikely possibility that Iraq will become a stable democracy in the next few years, these are the only two realistic options for Iraq’s future without America.

Regardless of the legitimacy of going to war, or its subsequent conduct, I believe that every American should be able to agree that a geopolitically stable Iraq and Middle East is in America’s best interest. A total pullout, however, does not serve such an interest. What John McCain is advocating—the establishment of permanent military bases—is a well-thought-out solution to the problem of keeping Iraq stable while reducing American casualties and military spending. A long-term military presence would enable the United States to assure stability in the region. Moreover, it would give the United States the ability to tactically support the Iraqi government without incurring the large casualties currently being experienced.

This plan depends on the ability of the Iraqis to provide for their own security. I believe that this is possible, although perhaps not immediately under the onus of a free and democratic government. In order to stabilize the country and end the sectarian violence, Iraq may have to suffer authoritarian rule for a period of time. However, two points must be considered. Firstly, the regime that ends the current period of strife in Iraq will not be democratic, regardless of America’s actions. Secondly, America has faced this choice and made it before—South Korea was ruled by dictatorships for decades after the establishment of an American presence there.

The future of Iraq looks bleak, but without America it is certain to be considerably darker. When weighing options for future involvement in Iraq, Americans need to recognize that the United States created the instability by invading and now has a moral obligation to remedy the situation. The establishment of permanent bases provides this remedy. Thus, when John McCain proposes a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq, perhaps he is not envisioning 100 years of war, but rather 100 years of peace.

The author is a Columbia College sophomore.