'Sunk costs' and the war

Remove all ads!

A really interesting article by Bruce Wydick I found in the forum in the USA Today:

I thought this was really interesting...worth consideration whether you support the war or not. Lost lives are lost. While it may sound callous, the lives we have already lost shouldn't have any bearing on how many more lives we are willing to lose.

 

Unfortunately I believe certain people (i.e. pretty much any politician you care to name) are more interested in the loss of face and the cost to their ego than the sacrifice of human lives. As such, if they were to pull out they would be removed from power ASAP (People won't vote for a perceived loser) - the only chance they have of saving face and clinging onto power is to somehow win this thing.

But Hey, maybe I'm just a cynic.

 

I never thought of it that way, but now that I have, I think I agree.

However, I also agree with Carcaroth - that no politician is willing to look at it in those terms.

 

I'm not as convinced. Remember, the democrats, who are lobbying for us to pull out, authorized the war, too. They live it down by arguing that they (along with the entire international community) were lied to....that they were tricked into supporting the war. House and Senate Republicans could easily make the same argument if they wanted to.....and it would probably work just as well for them.

 

Yeah, Carcaroth's right.

 

As an accountant, for years I have had problems with people forgetting about sunk costs. When I read that an aircraft carrier battle group is costing "$X" per day to maintain in the gulf, it always seems to imply that we are wasting "X". However, if the battle group was sailing up and down the east coast it would probably still cost pretty close to "X" anyway.

 

Sure. But that's an aircraft carrier. In the Navy, ships go 6 months in, 6 months out...whether a war going on or not. ** Soldiers, on the other hand, are not usually deployed. They do cost a lot more money deployed than they do staying at home. Also, the "sunk costs", in this case are lives.

* Nevertheless, I'm still skeptical about your assertion. If the Sailors are firing off weapons, than the costs are much higher. Mounted shipboard guns are expensive to fire. The sailors are also being paid more, and if the Navy has accelerated their ops tempo, then costs will have risen severely.

 

Oh dear. I find myself in total agreement with Monty.

I think I need to rethink my life.

 

This really isn't true. First of all, we always have carrier groups are always in or near the Gulf. During times of war, however, ops tempos are usually increased, and a carrier group that's docked for the better part of 6 months is a lot less expensive for the Navy than a carrier group which is at sea. If the carrier group is now going out for nine months out of the year instead of 6, it costs the Navy more money. Also, if the gulf has become a war zone, it also costs the navy more money, because all the sailors now get hazardous duty pay. If they are actually firing off their ammunition, that costs the navy more money, too.

 

True, but the cost is only the incremental cost, not the cost of the entire thing.

 

Of course. But it's a really big increment. The helicopters, the tanks, the fuel needed to run them, the combat pay for enlisted troops, the salaries of reservists and contractors, and the rebuilding of Iraq is costing more than $300 million a day, according to estimates made by Scott Wallsten, an economist in Washington.

That translates into a couple of billion dollars a week and, over the full course of the war, an eventual total of $700 billion in direct spending alone.

Link

EDIT: Grammar

[ August 25, 2007, 16:59: Message edited by: Drew ]