Two words: Pyrrhic victory.
A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice.
Thomas Paine
But it may be the best possible solution in the real world.
Finding rationalizations for sitting out the entire war is known as cowardice. The enemy must be engaged, even at great risk.
Warriors know this already. They plan endlessly so that those chosen battles advance the prime goal - to win the war. We need winners who are prepared to fight, not snipe from the sidelines.
The difference here, though, is either fight a possible Pyrrhic victory, or lay down your arms and be slaughtered wholesale like is happening in Congress now.
You cannot avoid the war or the battles, so you fight each one as best you can. Trying to sit out just guarantees you lose everything.
And remember the lesson the Pyrrhic victory - you cannot overreach in battle, over-extend yourself as you are marching forward. Basically, you cannot advance faster than your supply lines (either materiel or men) permit. There is a governance of wars. Pyrrhus said his famous words in response to losing men faster than he could replace them, but for every soldier he lost Rome lost two. Of course, the battles being fought in Italy, Rome was able to re-build its armies faster.
We must make sure we can draw more to the party than we lose, or we WILL lose, regardless of what battles we pick and choose. Rome won because it could replenish its armies, not because it fought with more passion or better tactics.
And, Rome finally turned back Pyrrhus not because Pyrrhus lost battles (he didn’t), but because they forged an alliance with their arch-enemy, the Carthaginians. Who are the Carthaginians we can lean on if needed, which enemy would you choose to align with if you need the support?