History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
How would you know you had 'seen it through'/'finished the job'? Seen *what* through? 'Finished' *what* job? This is a recipe for indefinite occupation:there are no criteria to tell us what 'the job' (or 'it') is.Moreover this view presumes that Iraq is a blank slate; the complexities of the historical reality are not even remotely suspected.
That argument is particularly ironic if made by classical liberal economists who should not be falling for the sunk cost fallacy that way. I'll gladly play poker with anyone who thinks we should be "in for a penny, in for a pound."
Another variation on this theme is the following: some libertarians(and leftists) concede that U.S. intervention in Iraq was a bad idea but then argue we now have an obligation to "see it through" and "finish the job." I could never see the logic of this antiwar pro-occupation position. If intervening produced negative consequences, wouldn't staying in Iraq only compound these negative consequences?