The Sunk Cost Mentality in the White House

Once again Mr. Bush & Mr. Rumsfeld are asking the military to bail out their bad decisions. And I truly don't understand why Rumsfeld keeps insisting we don't need more military there, or altogether. This is way past the point of personal egos.

In business, we use the term "sunk costs.” For Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz etc., they have poured so much into the sunk costs of their past decisions, that they don't know how to get themselves out without saying they screwed up (and forfeiting the next four years to Mr. Kerry) - and that problem is more important to them than anything else. Is this some kind of macho bravado? With our kids lives at stake?

The difference in the business world is that at some point you swallow your ego and cut your losses - a concept, ironically, that is apparently foreign to the big business mentality controlling the White House.

Veterans – you know that without adequate forces, we increase the risk to our troops every day – and the casualties will increase because of egos. I wonder how many administration decision makers have kids in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Mr. Rumsfeld continues to try to convince us “they” can get the job done without further troops. But, we don't have enough replacement active duty troops and we are also wearing out the Reserves and National Guard. Returning Oregon Guard troops were interviewed yesterday. Several said, “I am not going back, period.”

Our adversaries have their strategy: keep threatening us with terror attacks up to the election and disrupt Iraq in order to force us out. We still don't have a strategy, or said another way, our strategy continues to be one of "reaction." If the administration refuses to fully support the troops, get them out, now. Otherwise give them what they need to do the job at minimum casualties - and get them out as soon as possible. Remember, the words are "exit strategy," Mr. Bush & Mr. Rumsfeld. Try developing one, when you aren't thinking about how to save your own tails.