Riffing off of Veeshir’s post,
So the only way we “shouldn’t have gone into Iraq or Afghanistan” is if we have decided we’re going to be wimpy loser who hide under our beds when the bad men come out.
I think in the future we will need to weigh the difficulty and likely duration of any military task against the perseverance of the American voting public. Which is to say that we probably won’t be doing things that maybe we should, just because political reality will set in and we’ll bail out.
In a similar vein, I’d like to quote myself on what I termed the “inverse sunk cost fallacy” back in 2007:
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.
Clearly Obama did not value what was left him. He put no effort into a SOFA. He put no effort into Sunni-Shia political reconciliation. He allowed Maliki’s government to so abuse the Sunnis that many are running into the arms of the guys who Al Qaeda thought were a bit over-the-top.
Heckuva job, Barry.