Afghanistan and the Sunk Cost Fallacy

[JoeB131]

Watching all these hand-wringing about Afghanistan, I am forced to think about the Sunk Cost Fallacy.

The sunk cost fallacy is when because you have invested time, money and effort into something, you should keep doing so even though it isn't working.

I can't think of a better example than Afghanistan.

Let's be honest, we went in there with the best of intentions, to help the people of that country, but then again, the Soviets probably thought the same thing when they invaded in 1979.

While we see Democracy, Freedom and Equality as virtues, they see them as just words by western invaders, and they've been dealing with western invaders for centuries. They were never going to embrace western values.

Our problems began 42 years ago when the Soviets invaded, and Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan were talked into arming religious fanatics to fight them. But because the CIA really didn't have anyone who understood Pashtun or Tajik or Uzbek cultures, they decided to recruit a bunch of Arabs to fight over there instead... And we all know how that turned around to bite us.

The wise thing to do was to limit our mission over there to just killing Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorists who the Taliban had sheltered. Instead, we took on the role of Nation Building, even though Geo. W. Bush had denounced Nation Building when Clinton tried to do it in the Balkans.

Bush further lost the opportunity when he diverted resources from finishing the job to go after Saddam. That gave the Taliban a chance to regroup as the people we supported failed to live up to the promises. It didn't help that the people we put into office were notoriously corrupt. The mid aughts saw a spike of Heroin in Europe because Karzai's cronies were flooding the market with opium that the Taliban had burned.

I don't hold Obama blameless. While Obama called Iraq a War of Choice, he called Afghanistan a War of Necessity, when it really wasn't. The only thing he was trying to do was avoid getting labelled as soft like Dukakis did in 1988. When Hamid Karzai stole the election of 2009, it became apparent to everyone that "democracy" in Afghanistan was a fraud. Yet he persisted.

Ah, and then there's Trump. You know, the guy who knew more about war than all the generals. His brilliant scheme was to sign a deal with the Taliban if they pinky swore not to topple the government we had spent 2 trillion propping up over the last 20 years.

So here's Biden, being the guy who rips the Band-Aid off the wound. He'll take the heat for it. Maybe he shouldn't have signed on to Reagan's scheme to arm the Muhajedin or Bush's war or Obama's surge, so his whole career has kind of led to this moment.

But the foolishness would be to invest more time, money and lives into this enterprise.

 

[Blues Man]

We need to pull our military out of every foreign country.

Time for them to fight for themselves right?

 

[Muhammed]

Let's be honest, we went in there with the best of intentions, to help the people of that country,

No we didn't. We went there to destroy al Qaeda.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Watching all these hand-wringing about Afghanistan, I am forced to think about the Sunk Cost Fallacy.

The sunk cost fallacy is when because you have invested time, money and effort into something, you should keep doing so even though it isn't working.

View attachment 525456

I can't think of a better example than Afghanistan.

Let's be honest, we went in there with the best of intentions, to help the people of that country, but then again, the Soviets probably thought the same thing when they invaded in 1979.

While we see Democracy, Freedom and Equality as virtues, they see them as just words by western invaders, and they've been dealing with western invaders for centuries. They were never going to embrace western values.

Our problems began 42 years ago when the Soviets invaded, and Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan were talked into arming religious fanatics to fight them. But because the CIA really didn't have anyone who understood Pashtun or Tajik or Uzbek cultures, they decided to recruit a bunch of Arabs to fight over there instead... And we all know how that turned around to bite us.

The wise thing to do was to limit our mission over there to just killing Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorists who the Taliban had sheltered. Instead, we took on the role of Nation Building, even though Geo. W. Bush had denounced Nation Building when Clinton tried to do it in the Balkans.

Bush further lost the opportunity when he diverted resources from finishing the job to go after Saddam. That gave the Taliban a chance to regroup as the people we supported failed to live up to the promises. It didn't help that the people we put into office were notoriously corrupt. The mid aughts saw a spike of Heroin in Europe because Karzai's cronies were flooding the market with opium that the Taliban had burned.

I don't hold Obama blameless. While Obama called Iraq a War of Choice, he called Afghanistan a War of Necessity, when it really wasn't. The only thing he was trying to do was avoid getting labelled as soft like Dukakis did in 1988. When Hamid Karzai stole the election of 2009, it became apparent to everyone that "democracy" in Afghanistan was a fraud. Yet he persisted.

Ah, and then there's Trump. You know, the guy who knew more about war than all the generals. His brilliant scheme was to sign a deal with the Taliban if they pinky swore not to topple the government we had spent 2 trillion propping up over the last 20 years.

So here's Biden, being the guy who rips the Band-Aid off the wound. He'll take the heat for it. Maybe he shouldn't have signed on to Reagan's scheme to arm the Muhajedin or Bush's war or Obama's surge, so his whole career has kind of led to this moment.

But the foolishness would be to invest more time, money and lives into this enterprise.

Try and figure out how much you paid for that mess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)#Long-term_costs

$2,000,000,000,000 dollars How much of that is yours?

 

[rightwinger]

Watching all these hand-wringing about Afghanistan, I am forced to think about the Sunk Cost Fallacy.

The sunk cost fallacy is when because you have invested time, money and effort into something, you should keep doing so even though it isn't working.

View attachment 525456

I can't think of a better example than Afghanistan.

Let's be honest, we went in there with the best of intentions, to help the people of that country, but then again, the Soviets probably thought the same thing when they invaded in 1979.

While we see Democracy, Freedom and Equality as virtues, they see them as just words by western invaders, and they've been dealing with western invaders for centuries. They were never going to embrace western values.

Our problems began 42 years ago when the Soviets invaded, and Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan were talked into arming religious fanatics to fight them. But because the CIA really didn't have anyone who understood Pashtun or Tajik or Uzbek cultures, they decided to recruit a bunch of Arabs to fight over there instead... And we all know how that turned around to bite us.

The wise thing to do was to limit our mission over there to just killing Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorists who the Taliban had sheltered. Instead, we took on the role of Nation Building, even though Geo. W. Bush had denounced Nation Building when Clinton tried to do it in the Balkans.

Bush further lost the opportunity when he diverted resources from finishing the job to go after Saddam. That gave the Taliban a chance to regroup as the people we supported failed to live up to the promises. It didn't help that the people we put into office were notoriously corrupt. The mid aughts saw a spike of Heroin in Europe because Karzai's cronies were flooding the market with opium that the Taliban had burned.

I don't hold Obama blameless. While Obama called Iraq a War of Choice, he called Afghanistan a War of Necessity, when it really wasn't. The only thing he was trying to do was avoid getting labelled as soft like Dukakis did in 1988. When Hamid Karzai stole the election of 2009, it became apparent to everyone that "democracy" in Afghanistan was a fraud. Yet he persisted.

Ah, and then there's Trump. You know, the guy who knew more about war than all the generals. His brilliant scheme was to sign a deal with the Taliban if they pinky swore not to topple the government we had spent 2 trillion propping up over the last 20 years.

So here's Biden, being the guy who rips the Band-Aid off the wound. He'll take the heat for it. Maybe he shouldn't have signed on to Reagan's scheme to arm the Muhajedin or Bush's war or Obama's surge, so his whole career has kind of led to this moment.

But the foolishness would be to invest more time, money and lives into this enterprise.

The Taliban were never going to just go away and embrace Democracy.
They actually live there and were going to lay in wait to exploit weakness.
Freedom, Democracy and Western values are not generic to Afghan culture and they do not seem willing to fight for them.

The Taliban are willing to fight for their values

 

[Blues Man]

The Taliban were never going to just go away and embrace Democracy.
They actually live there and were going to lay in wait to exploit weakness.
Freedom, Democracy and Western values are not generic to Afghan culture and they do not seem willing to fight for them.

The Taliban are willing to fight for their values

So the South Koreans should fight for their values too.

Let's get out of that country too.

 

[rightwinger]

We need to pull our military out of every foreign country.

Time for them to fight for themselves right?

We need to reassess the mission of our military. It hasn’t been involved in our nations defense in 200 years.
The mission today is to project our global power and protect our global interests
As such, we are now the worlds policemen sticking our noses into every remote conflict.

 

[JoeB131]

So the South Koreans should fight for their values too.

Let's get out of that country too.

Not really the same thing. Also, having the Second Infantry Division there has benefits... A lot easier to send troops from there to a hotspot than to ship them from the US.

Nothing wrong with having an effective military acting as part of a world order to keep the peace.

The problem in Afghanistan was the inability to set attainable goals and to see them through.

 

[Blues Man]

Not really the same thing. Also, having the Second Infantry Division there has benefits... A lot easier to send troops from there to a hotspot than to ship them from the US.

Nothing wrong with having an effective military acting as part of a world order to keep the peace.

The problem in Afghanistan was the inability to set attainable goals and to see them through.

Of course it is.

We are protecting SK from the big bad Commies because they won't protect themselves.

 

[Desperado]

The Taliban are willing to fight for their values

Unlike the Afghanistan Army

 

[Polishprince]

The Taliban were never going to just go away and embrace Democracy.
They actually live there and were going to lay in wait to exploit weakness.
Freedom, Democracy and Western values are not generic to Afghan culture and they do not seem willing to fight for them.

The Taliban are willing to fight for their values

The "values" of the Taliban are that they refuse to allow their officers to engage in gay marriage and refuse to pay for the sex change operations for their enlisted men. Further, they allow the bakeries in their zones of operation to refuse to bake cakes for LGBTQ events and don't close them down.

Why do libs think that its ok for the Taliban to be so homophobic and transphobic?

 

[Desperado]

So the South Koreans should fight for their values too.

Let's get out of that country too.

Yes, Let the Koreans fend for themselves. No need for the US to di it for them

 

[JoeB131]

Of course it is.

We are protecting SK from the big bad Commies because they won't protect themselves.

If you ever served with ROK troops, you'd realize what a stupid statement that is.

 

[JLW]

I don’t disagree with much of the OP except that Biden’s mistake in this instance was the timing of the withdrawal. As I understand it, there is a fighting season and a lull season that has developed over the past 20 years. Late summer is the height of the fighting season before the Taliban retreats to its safe havens in Pakistan for the winter. Biden should have waited to November or December to withdraw despite Trump’s deal with the Taliban to withdraw by May, 2021. Withdrawal at the height of the fighting season was, to be put it kindly, not well thought out.

 

[EMH]

No we didn't. We went there to destroy al Qaeda.

We knew al Qaeda was bullshit, we knew col tim osman was a CIA/Mossad.

Pat Tillman told the truth


There was NO TARGET


And then Zionist traitors in the army Rangers took pat out on a mission where pat was "shot by al Qaeda," another treasonous Zionist lie, as pat was shot by

Jew supremacist Zionist traitors

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Watching interviews with Afghans the other night. They blame their corrupt government and not the US.
This is what happens when everyone in the country has guns.

 

[Desperado]

If you ever served with ROK troops, you'd realize what a stupid statement that is.

So if they don't need us why are we there?
Even more proof that we should remove our troops from there

 

[Muhammed]

Our problems began 42 years ago when the Soviets invaded, and Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan were talked into arming religious fanatics to fight them. But because the CIA really didn't have anyone who understood Pashtun or Tajik or Uzbek cultures, they decided to recruit a bunch of Arabs to fight over there instead... And we all know how that turned around to bite us.

And of course you're wrong again, as usual. The CIA supported Afghan mujahedeen by supplying them with Stinger missiles, long range 120mm mortars, GPS and the training to use those systems. They did not recruit Arabs to fight in Afghanistan.

 

[JoeB131]

So if they don't need us why are we there?
Even more proof that we should remove our troops from there

We are there because it benefits us to have bases in the region.

And of course you're wrong again, as usual. The CIA supported Afghan mujahedeen by supplying them with Stinger missiles, long range 120mm mortars and GPS. They did not recruit Arabs to fight in Afghanistan.

They did a lot more than that.

Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In 2000, an article in The Guardian alleged that the Central Intelligence Agency helped build an underground camp at Khost, which bin Laden used to train Mujahideen soldiers.[4] The United States would later attack this camp in Operation Infinite Reach, when bin Laden was held responsible for the 1998 bombings of United States embassies in Africa.

In a 2004 article entitled "Al-Qaeda's origins and links", the BBC wrote:

During the anti-Soviet war Bin Laden and his fighters received American and Saudi funding. Some analysts believe Bin Laden himself had security training from the CIA.[5]

Robin Cook, Foreign Secretary in the UK from 1997–2001, believed the CIA had provided arms to the Arab mujahideen, including Osama bin Laden, writing, "Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the '80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage war against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan."[6]

In conversation with former British Defence Secretary Michael Portillo, two-time Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto said Osama bin Laden was initially pro-American.[7] Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia, has also stated that bin Laden once expressed appreciation for the United States' help in Afghanistan.


Sir Martin Ewans stated that the Afghan Arabs "benefited indirectly from the CIA's funding, through the ISI and resistance organizations,"[24] and that "it has been reckoned that as many as 35,000 'Arab-Afghans' may have received military training in Pakistan at an estimated cost of $800 million in the years up to and including 1988."[25]

Some of the CIA's greatest Afghan beneficiaries were Arabist commanders such as Haqqani and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar who were key allies of Bin Laden over many years.[26][27] Haqqani—one of Bin Laden's closest associates in the 1980s—received direct cash payments from CIA agents, without the mediation of the ISI. This independent source of funding gave Haqqani disproportionate influence over the mujahideen, and helped Bin Laden develop his base.[28]

Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, an associate of Bin Laden's, was given visas to enter the US on four occasions by the CIA.[29] Rahman was recruiting Arabs to fight in the Soviet-Afghan war, and Egyptian officials testified that the CIA actively assisted him. Rahman was a co-plotter of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.[30][19]

One allegation not denied by the US government is that the U.S. Army enlisted and trained a former Egyptian soldier named Ali Mohamed, and that it knew Ali occasionally took trips to Afghanistan, where he claimed to fight Russians.[31][22][page needed] According to journalist Lawrence Wright, who interviewed U.S. officials about Ali, the Egyptian did tell his Army superiors he was fighting in Afghanistan, but did not tell them he was training other Afghan Arabs or writing a manual from what he had learned from the US Army Special Forces. Wright also reports that the CIA failed to inform other US agencies that it had learned Ali, who was a member of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, was an anti-American spy.[22][page needed]

 

[Blues Man]

If you ever served with ROK troops, you'd realize what a stupid statement that is.

You're a hypocrite.,

We need to get the fuck out of all these foreign countries