AFGHANISTAN IS SUNK COSTS

An earlier blog SUNK COSTS IN BUSINESS AND IN POLITICS [2010.02.16] dealt with the topic of sunk costs . Now, an editorial in The National Post of April 6 clearly reveals that the concept is not well understood even by well informed editorial writers. The key point of the editorial is in the following paragraph.

"While we still have doubts that Afghanistan will ever even partially achieve those goals, Ms. Clinton’s request is a reasonable one. Canadians have tired of war and have paid a heavy price in blood — 141 Canadian soldiers have been lost in that distant land. But certainly, having already come so far and sacrificed so much, Canada can continue to contribute in a demonstrable way to Afghanistan’s security". [Editorial "We can still contribute" . [National Post 2010.04.06
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/04/06/national-post-editorial-board-we-can-still-contribute-in-afghanistan.aspx ]

Put simply their analysis says.
1. Canada has "..come so far and sacrificed so much…"
2. There are anticipated future costs "Canada can continue to contribute in a demonstrable way to Afghanistan’s security"
3. Those future costs will not result in any benefit, "we still have doubts that Afghanistan will ever even partially achieve those goals."

Past deaths and past spending are sunk and are entirely irrelevant to the present decision. Point 1 is irrelevant.
We are where we are regardless of how we got there. Part of where we are is what has been learned, if anything.
If the prognosis is that we will not even partially achieve goals then further sacrifices of lives and resources is unwarranted.

The future costs [point 2] exceed the future benefits [point 3].

Logical decision. Quit while we are behind because we are never going to be ahead.