And the Germans are not the only ones to fall in love with war

Before I swivel my, er, 'gun' in the direction of America, let me admit that we Brits too have a long and less than distinguished history of fighting unwinnable wars of which the American war of independence was merely one such example!  However, I was very impressed with an article by John C. Hulsman at the 'CAPX' site today.  In it, Mr. Hulsman points up the syndrum suffered by America in forever doubling down on "the losing gambler syndrome" when it comes to unneccessary wars.

The losing gambler syndrome, better known in economic circles as the sunk costs fallacy, is a fact of human nature that casino magnates well understand. When someone losses big at the tables, invariably they have an overwhelming urge to invest ever more resources to make good on their catastrophic losses. Dad cannot go back to Mom telling her he has lost the kids’ college fund. So he keeps playing…and keeps losing. The reason for his demise—the terrible odds—is never analytically addressed.

I saw this doleful process up close and personal in Washington. From Vietnam, through Iraq, to the endless war in Afghanistan, the propensity to keep strategically gambling even as the losses pile up is perhaps the single greatest intellectual error the United States has made in the past 50 years, and it largely explains all three debacles. Yet, tragically, in the increasingly lame excuses the military has presently made to stay in Afghanistan, the US seems to have learnt almost nothing from their trio of calamities.

It is a doleful read, and for me, as a former supporter of American efforts in Vietnam and in Iraq, especially embarrassing.  To be fair, I was doubtful about Afghanistan but that was based on our own less than successful efforts in previous centuries!

Anyway, I must take the 'Memsahib' to her weekly 'keep fit' class whilst I do some shopping.

 

 

 

Comments

[Whyaxye]

At least the "Sunk costs fallacy" seems to have been understood by our government, who announced this morning that they are re-appraising the money-pit called HS2.

[missred]

I say that the reason the Americans are not winning so many wars in the last 50 years is because they are now run by politicians rather than generals.

[JK]

https://www.amazon.com/We-Meant-Well-American-Project/dp/0805096817

[Whitewall]

It is one thing to win a conventional war against an identifiable enemy actor- person or state. It is another thing entirely to win a conventional war against a bad ideology- lingering communism or ongoing Islam.

[Hank]

Miss Red

Way to go!

[Glesga]

George Patton would have sorted out a few situations. The man who set up the fictitious army in England and sorted the Germans in the Ardennes.

[Hank]

David

If I may disagree, I was less than impressed by that article.

With a little more eradiation than usual he is putting out a basic left-wing narrative.

Ok there is a small amount of “Sunk cost” fallacy.

A larger amount of bureaucratic desire to avoid change, if the war ends that is a change.

A desire by some politicians and diplomats to keep a hand in so they can be part of the action.

But not really a love of war.

The big problem is that his narrative avoids what actually happened on the ground, but that would not support the narrative.

For example, Viet Nam.
http://eclecticmeanderings.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-tet-offensive-occurred50-years-ago.html

[Jack the dog]

I suspect there is also a considerable amount of the fact that a considerable proportion of the endless trillions swilling around remains stuck to the hands of DC legislators.

Less war means less defence spending means less (sorry fewer) jollies for the DC lads.

THe sunk cost fallacy is a convenient excuse. The truth is without these costs half the DC great and good are themselves sunk.