I think we are talking about two different questions here.

Since you bring up strawmen, the idea that I said we'd reach some number and immediately come home is one hell of one. Or just a misrepresentation of what I said.

My point was that, if BEFORE DECIDING to start the war, you knew -- knew -- it would cost X amount of lives and treasure, you would think carefully about whether the strategic gains of the objective were greater than X. Some wars would be worth it only for a small X, some even if X is gigantic. In the case of World War II, X could have been hugely big and I would have advised FDR to go for it. At the low end, a pretty small expected X would have convinced me to stay out of Kosovo.

You can argue that way of thinking gives the enemy a say on whether we'll fight the war or not -- horrors!! But of _course_ the opponent has an influence! If Milosevic had developed ICBMs (i.e., a war would involve big American losses) we'd never have tried to save the Kosovars. If China only had rubber rafts and muskets, we wouldn't even hesitate to announce our intention to back Taiwan to the hilt.

Even in WWII, American commanders showed significant concerns for casualties relative to the Germans or Russians. There was no threshold at which we'd go home, but you bet casualty sensitivity influenced the conduct of operations. Ike didn't quite have the manly obliviousness to losses that you seem to recommend.

Alternatively, what I'm talking about is looking back and asking, given what we know now, was it worth it? The fact that you answer "no, it was not worth it" does not imply that you think the best strategic option open to you today is to run and hide. Given that you already started the war, the best option might well be to finish it. I happen to fall into that camp -- where exactly did I argue for pulling out tomorrow? Or staying might not be the best idea; the French were right to conclude in the 1950s that holding on to Vietnam would bankrupt them, with even more dire strategic consequences for their nation than abandoning a far away colony.

Put that way, "was it worth it?", the answer of plenty of military officers I know is "no, it wasn't", but since they can't go back in time and change the decision to invade, the best option today is to stay. I know a few who do think that staying isn't worth the continued cost and who would want ot pull out soon.

I was certainly not arguing that there should be some fixed threshold, set before the war, at which you cut and run no matter what the situation at the time, and I think that was reasoanbly clear to anyone not looking to score points instead of addressing the argument.