Originally Posted by
Johnson85
You're misusing the sunk cost fallacy. The sunk cost fallacy doesn't mean you say 17it and make a bad situation worse. It means you ignore costs that are already incurred when weighing your decision.
"We've already shed a lot of blood and spent a lot of money in afghanistan, 17it, let's leave without a plan and make sure we leave tangible and human assets for the Taliban" is how a 17ing moron applies the sunk cost fallacy.
"It doesn't matter how much blood and money we've spent in afghanistan, the benefits don't justify a continued presence, let's establish a plan for an orderly withdrawal, coordinated with allies, that ensures we get important assets out and destroys any military equipment that can't removed" is how a person with functioning brain cells would apply the sunk cost fallacy.