It always pains me to see powerful leaders fail to understand the concept of sunk costs. In this case, the leader I refer to is Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division in Iraq, who recently expressed [1] the mistaken belief that America’s past death toll of U.S. troops in Iraq should somehow influence future strategic plans. To quote Lynch, who is reportedly pleading to keep his troops in Iraq: “To me, it would be wrong to take ground from the enemy at a cost – I’ve lost 80 soldiers under my command — 56 of those since the fourth of April – it would be wrong to have fought and won that terrain, only to turn around and give it back….”
Sorry, Lynch, but the men you have lost simply do not bear on any decision to maintain a bad policy in Iraq. The *only* thing that justifies keeping troops in Iraq is having a plan which requires those troops to be there, and right now there is no such plan. Past losses of lives, money and equipment are completely and utterly irrelevant, just as it is irrelevant to point to, say, the lives, money and equipment lost on 9/11 to somehow justify building the Freedom Tower. Building the Freedom Tower makes sense only if there is a valid strategic *future* reason to build it, not because of the destruction that happened at the site six years ago. Likewise, keeping U.S. troops in Iraq makes sense only if there is a valid strategic *future* reason to keep them there, not because of the lives that have already been lost. Unfortunately for the nation, including Maj. Gen. Lynch, the other U.S. troops in Iraq, and all Americans back home, President Bush also fails to understand this principle, and we are all going to pay dearly for it.
Print this post [2]
[3]