In which Sam Brownback talks sense

GOP Lawmakers Divided About 'Surge' in Troops:

Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan.) … said in an interview Saturday that he could favor more troops if they were a "precursor" to political stability. But he added: "A short-term buildup in troops, if it simply is to impose military order without the possibility of political equilibrium, that doesn't seem to me to be too farsighted."

I would go further. It was a mistake to send troops into Iraq in 2003. In part, that mistake resulted from the total absence of a clear plan for getting them back out – the lack of clear goals led to a lack of any exit strategy, so troops are just stuck in the midst of ethnic cleansing.

It should be the policy of the United States not to send any additional forces to Iraq until there is a clear and achievable strategy for bringing those troops home. If escalating our the combat in Iraq is really a solution, it should be made clear exactly how additional troops are going to make things better, and when levels can be reduced.

If insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results, what do we call it if the President sends troops into Baghdad without an exit strategy, again?