If it makes things better, decide if the level of improvement created in such cases is worth the cost in dollars and dead people.
That is a tendentious way of comparing the two: a cold, abstract "level of improvement" against the more concrete "dollars" and very concrete "dead people". It suggests the writer is predisposed to find that intervention is a bad idea.
But what is improvement, but resources then available to apply to better things, and live people living better lives?
And why the reference class "Western"?
And why the reference class "Western"?
Presumably, Wiblin is talking about Western bombing of ISIS in Syria. If one finds that Turkish interventions have been effective and American interventions haven't, say, then that's an argument that Americans shouldn't intervene now (but Turks should).
Another month, another rationality quotes thread. The rules are: