I think it depends on the quality of the nation-building that happens afterwards.
IMO merely defeating IS shouldn't be that expensive, but I can imagine the nationbuilding bit being very expensive and I can imagine IS going underground and executing a suicide bombing campaign, just like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Still, militarily defeating IS counts under the "benefits" column of the analysis - as a pure point of rationality - even if the cost is too great.
I think it depends on the quality of the nation-building that happens afterwards.
Why would the answer be any different from "the usual"..?
militarily defeating IS counts under the "benefits" column of the analysis - as a pure point of rationality - even if the cost is too great.
True. And just as true for North Korea.
Here's my op-ed that uses long-term orientation, probabilistic thinking, numeracy, consider the alternative, reaching our actual goals, avoiding intuitive emotional reactions and attention bias, and other rationality techniques to suggest more rational responses to the Paris attacks and the ISIS threat. It's published in the Sunday edition of The Plain Dealer, a major newspaper (16th in the US). This is part of my broader project, Intentional Insights, of conveying rational thinking, including about politics, to a broad audience to raise the sanity waterline.