On sunk costs

For all the talk about Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page's report on the costs of combat in Afghanistan to date, the most important point should be the one related to the future costs of the mission:

Mr. Page's report concludes that the "incremental" costs of the military mission — the extra cost of being in Afghanistan over and above what would be spent anyway — have run between $5.9-billion and $7.4-billion between 2001 and 2008. Once all costs, including veterans' benefits and foreign aid are included, the total is $7.7-billion to $10.5-billion.

If Canadian troop levels remain the same, the military mission will cost another $5.7-billion by 2011, the report concludes. And the total costs will rise to somewhere between $13.9-billion and $18.1-billion, the report concludes.

Consider by way of comparison that the $5.7 billion number in future, avoidable Afghanistan costs is more than the Cons plan to spend on their entire domestic platform between now and 2011. Given the choice between sinking that money into a mission which most people recognize to be past its best-before date or finding a way to make sure as much as possible can be used in Canada instead, is there much room for doubt that the more sensible fiscal decision would be the latter?

Of course, it's an outrage how much has already been lost in Afghanistan - and the money sunk into the combat mission is far from the only problem in that respect. But while it's too late to change what's already been squandered, there's still plenty of time to vote for a party which will put us on a path toward better using our resources at how and abroad.