Sunday, February 04, 2007

Inverse Sunk Cost Fallacy - Iraq

What is the value of a stable Iraq?

Democrats might accuse the Bushies of committing the "sunk cost" fallacy with respect to the Iraq war, particularly not wanting lives already lost to have been lost "in vain". However, Democrats seem to be committing the opposite fallacy. Dem Presidential candidates are falling over each other trying to get out of Iraq - "it's not worth another life."

Oh really? Not one more life? What if it was just one more life to make it all work out, then would it be worth it? What if it was 100, or 500? The Democrats seem to be saying that leaving behind a reasonably stable Iraq just isn't worth anything at all, which it clearly is. Has it been worth 3000+ KIA's? I suppose that's a matter of perspective. Is it worth something? Absolutely.

Most recently, "Her Royal Thighness" Hillary Clinton says she will end the war in 2009 if it hasn't been ended by then. Well, maybe things will be different. Maybe they won't. I'd like to get a look at Hillary's magic 8-ball to see what sort of info she's been getting about the future. I just hope it's better than the info she got in the past. (Past info: Code Pink video -start it at 6:30, you won't be missing anything-, Code Pink Website)

(Aside: In the video, Hillary says cutting taxes while going to war was irresponsible. History has proven her wrong.)

No comments: