"As many of you know, I opposed this war from the beginning - in part because I believed that giving this President the open-ended authority to invade Iraq would lead to the open-ended occupation we find ourselves in today. Now our soldiers find themselves in the crossfire of someone else's civil war. More than 3,100 have given the last full measure of devotion to their country. This war has fueled terrorism and helped galvanize terrorist organizations. And it has made the world less safe.
That is why I advocate a phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq to begin no later than May first with the goal of removing all combat forces from Iraq by March 2008. In a civil war where no military solution exists, this redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve the political settlement between its warring factions that can slow the bloodshed and promote stability."
Barrack Obama in a Speech delivered March 2, 2007 to the AIPAC Policy Forum
One of the fundamental principles of decision making is that sunk costs should not be considered. That is, decisions about the future should depend on the current situation and anticipated events. Senator Barrack Obama (D - Illinois) illogically uses sunk costs to justify his position on the situation in Iraq. Whether one agrees with the Senator's position or not, the stated rationale is based on the past. Is this type of reasoning we desire for our President? Shouldn't the Illinois' Junior Senator and current candidate for the Democrat's nomination for President focus his decision making on the strategic goals he would like this country to achieve?
No comments:
Post a Comment