stephen walt argues that the u.s. should pull out of afghanistan because the cost of staying is high and the likelihood of success is low. these kind of cost-benefit analyses are far too rare among the articles about foreign policy that i read, especially cases involving armed conflict. in my mind, they're all about "is it worth it" type questions and not absolutes.
of course, when it comes to war, the answer to the "is it worth it?" question is often "no". war is expensive, in terms of money, lives, general risk, and everything. that's probably why people inclined to military solutions don't like asking the question. and it's also why the most warmongering people are the ones least willing to see the world in terms of trade-offs rather than absolutes.
