I will give Brown partial credit for saying the following:Brown rejected President George W. Bush’s urging to “stay the course,” as well as the so-called “cut-and-run” strategy that war supporters have accused Democrats of suggesting. Neither strategy works, he said, and the chances of a resolution with U.S. troops on the ground are slim.But his solution is equally flawed if not more so than the President's "stay the course" option:
“It doesn’t serve our national interests to be in a civil war,” he said.
Without Iraq to serve as a natural check on Iran, that country has grown more belligerent, which has led to growing problems in other parts of the Middle East, including Lebanon, Brown said.
He wants the military to set a withdrawal deadline 1½ to two years away, which he believes will force the Iraqi government to speed up the training and deployment of its own forces.If you tell this enemy when we are leaving, they will wait us out and then take over after we're gone. How many times does this scenario have to play out before liberals like Brown get it? I thought we had already decided awhile back that setting a timetable for withdrawal was a bad idea...did Sherrod Brown miss that meeting?
At least Sherrod Brown isn't advocating "cut and run" but I still don't think Brown can be trusted with this vital issue...his solution tips off the enemy and surrenders a vital ally in a key region of the world.
Mike DeWine understands that...
