Blog powered by Typepad

« Sorry to bore on but . . . | Main | The New York Times is not worth wiping your arse with! »

Wednesday, 21 August 2019


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

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.

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.

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.

Miss Red

Way to go!

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.


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.

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.

The comments to this entry are closed.