February 2008

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29

Free speech, exercised both individually and through a free press, is a necessity in any country where people are themselves free.

-Theodore Roosevelt

Sunk Costs and Iraq

It always pains me to see an author follow a well constructed argument with a poor conclusion. Bruce Wydick did exactly that in a recent editorial that tackled the question of what our plan should be in Iraq.

He starts out well – as I said, my complaint is only with the conclusion. His opening paragraph should apply equally to the Left or the Right:

Our inability to think clearly about sunk costs is impeding our ability to make clear decisions about our involvement in Iraq. Failing to correctly identify sunk costs (those that are irretrievable), and deal with them properly, biases our decision-making in favor of prolonging the war.

Wydick addresses how those in favor of extending the war (his words) fail to properly discount sunk costs. The problem with this is that I never hear anybody making the argument Wydick dissects – that failure to extend the war would “dishonor the memory of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice”. I’m pretty sure this argument is made of straw. Given that Wydick never provides any other arguments for dissection, the implication is that those in favor of extending the war are the ones not thinking rationally – like a kid pumping ever more quarters into an arcade. By not dissecting any opposing views, he implicitly endorses their reasoning. He never actually says that he supports an immediate withdrawal, but that certainly comes across as the favored conclusion.

That’s a shame, because Wydick is absolutely correct in later saying that

The correct way to think about whether or not to proceed is to weigh the costs and benefits from pressing on from this point forward.

The lives lost will not come back to us, whether we extend the war for several years or withdraw today. The 3600 dead American soldiers (and counting) are sunk costs – emotionally powerful ones, but irretrievable nonetheless. The better part of a trillion dollars Wydick references is also gone. It’s an extremely strained argument to suggest that the money be thought of as an investment that will eventually have positive financial returns – I hope nobody would seriously suggest that. Thus, this money and these sacrificed lives are just as inappropriate arguments for withdrawal as they are for extension. They have nothing to do with the costs and benefits from pressing on from this point forward. I don’t believe Wydick’s article properly conveyed that. The real wisdom in this piece would be found by letting the final sentences stand alone:

The correct way to think about whether or not to proceed is to weigh the costs and benefits from pressing on from this point forward. What value do we place on victory? What are the chances that we will prevail if we do press on? And what will be the costs of pressing on in terms of lives and resources? Our country may be divided on this issue, but we owe it to those who may yet be called to make the ultimate sacrifice to properly count our costs.

The discussion has to start there. Nothing else is rational.

Of course, I don't expect that to get us very far, because the country is not just divided on this issue, but heavily divided. Still, Wydick could have made an excellent point about rational decision making if he had approached the editorial without having his conclusions about this example already in hand.

Posted by Wulf on August 21, 2007 at 01:45 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.atlasblogged.com/cgi-bin/mt/mtb.cgi/553

Free speech, exercised both individually and through a free press, is a necessity in any country where people are themselves free.

-Theodore Roosevelt

Sunk Costs and Iraq

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment