Posted on 01/08/2020 4:35:50 AM PST by Jim Noble
We are there because Cha-Ching!
And the saudis don’t want a bigger closer iran.
Military-industrial-oil-Deep State complex.
I can believe that’s the Deep State/D’rat plan.
We ARE experiencing a coup attempt - against America’s heart.
and I’m totally fine with that because being involved there is a ruinous endeavor, as we experienced
Yer mom
Something we've known since long before going there.
Flimsey Grahamnesty is not alone, despite McCain’s passing.
There’s Rubio and a bunch of other Bush League Republicans.
Most stocks were rising 2 days before the terrorist was killed. And President Trump didn’t “lie.”
I’m now waiting upon the iraqi parliament to swiftly pass a resolution calling for the ouster of all iranians and their militias from iraq because of their violation of iraqi territory and sovereignty!-)
I was talking about Roosevelt, Churchill, & Stalin. Lay this whole mess at their feet.
My finance professor in business school called this the “sunk cost” fallacy.
We’ve invested trillions of $ and sacrificed thousands of lives in the Middle East, and if we pull up stakes and walk away, it would all be for nothing, right?
But according to sound investment theory, that thinking is irrational. What was invested in the past is completely irrelevant in making an investment decision. The question of whether or not to remain invested in an asset you already own is EXACTLY the same as the question of whether or not to invest in that asset today, if you don’t already own it.
For some reason it doesn’t feel that way though, and a lot of people choose to “go down with a sinking ship” because they invested so much in the past, and they don’t want it all to be for nothing.
Whenever the subject comes up of closing all the embassies and military bases and bringing everyone home from the Middle East, you hear about how many have died and were wounded in the past, how much was spent on the war effort and aid to our allies over the years, how much the embassies, landing strips and bases cost to build, etc.. You hear how much ground would be lost that we fought so long and hard to gain.
All of that SHOULD be irrelevant - the only question should be - what should we do right now? If we weren’t over there at all - no embassies, no bases, no troops - would we go? I think the answer is that we probably would not. Usually our justification for going is to defend our existing positions - our existing bases, embassies, etc..
Unfortunately, avoiding the “sunk cost” fallacy goes against human nature for most people - even the most disciplined among us are tempted to dwell on how much blood and treasure has been committed, and find it extremely hard to walk away.
And given that most people think that way, it is really tough for a politician to get a broad consensus for completely pulling out of foreign entanglements, even when they ran on that promise.
Look what happened when President Trump started talking about pulling 5K troops out of Syria. Almost everyone - even the most dovish of Democrats were suddenly war hawks and accused Trump of abandoning our allies to be slaughtered. When our troops are over there, the consensus is - “bring them home”. But as soon as Trump whispers a word about bringing troops home, the consensus is - “don’t you dare”.
Imagine President Trump’s present dilemma - he wants and deserves credit for eradicating ISIS. He ran on extracting the US from endless ME wars.
But at the same time, he knows the power vacuum from leaving the ME now would undo everything he achieved against ISIS overnight.
It’s a paradox every US President faces and one reason why the US still has a military presence almost everywhere we’ve ever fought - even a hundred years later.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.