"Liberal hawks" say things that make the skin crawl. Steve Gilliard quoted this, from The New Republic:Maybe these people are right that withdrawal is necessary, but I don't think we should underestimate the consequences of it. By consequences, I don't mean anything as concrete as the prospects of a possible Al Qaeda sanctuary in Anbar provence or the abandonment of thousands of Iraqis to certain death. I'm talking about something more nebulous: what are the consequences of America losing a war--which is, after all, what withdrawal will mean? What will it do to our position in the world? What will it do to the national psyche? And what will it do to the people who fought in that war? (Yes, they'll be out of harm's way, but they'll also be left to conclude that all their efforts--and their sacrifices--were in vain.)
Granted, these are all things Bush and supporters of the war should have thought more about before we invaded Iraq; but now that we're there--and we're all so sick of this war that many of us want to get out--we can't afford to ignore them again. The question about the surge [escalation --tm] to me is: are the consequences of defeat so dire that it's worth one final attempt to avoid it?
I don't know the answer to that. I'll watch Bush's speech tomorrow night; I'll listen to what Kennedy and Biden and any other Democrats have to say in response; and I'll try to come to a conclusion. Maybe that's not a position of "moral seriousness." But I can't help but thinking that it was certainty--on the part of supporters of the war--that got us into this mess. And I'd hate for such certainty--on the part of opponents of the war (some of whom were actually certain in their support of the war not that long ago)--to get us into another one.
--Jason Zengerle Translation: "It's our oil now."
In financial analysis there's a term "sunk cost". When you examine the return on making an investment, you aren't supposed to look at what you've spent already. That money's gone already, and should be part of the calculation of risk/benefit.
Putting it in human terms, the sacrifices made by US troops were in vain, because Bush invaded without any justification, and then committed a series of strategic errors that will be studied in West Point for generations as "what not to do". Using the fact that lots of people have died in vain as justification for sending more people to die in vain is sociopathic at best.
|
"Liberal hawks" say things that make the skin crawl. Steve Gilliard quoted this, from The New Republic:Translation: "It's our oil now."
- tom moody 1-10-2007 8:53 pm
In financial analysis there's a term "sunk cost". When you examine the return on making an investment, you aren't supposed to look at what you've spent already. That money's gone already, and should be part of the calculation of risk/benefit.
Putting it in human terms, the sacrifices made by US troops were in vain, because Bush invaded without any justification, and then committed a series of strategic errors that will be studied in West Point for generations as "what not to do". Using the fact that lots of people have died in vain as justification for sending more people to die in vain is sociopathic at best.
- mark 1-11-2007 10:36 am