It looks like the coming debate over Iraq will focus on whether "progress" is being made as a result of the troop surge (see, for instance, Mary Matalin's comments on Meet the Press). Administration officials and their surrogates are trying to lower the bar by suggesting that because the situation may be slightly improved compared to January (ie "progress"), we should stay. In other words, the expected utility of staying is now greater than it was back in January: E(staying at time=9/11/07) > E(staying at time=1/10/07).
But from a sunk cost perspective, all that matters is whether the expected utility of staying in Iraq going forward is greater than the expected utility of withdrawing. And, sadly, E(withdrawing at time=9/11/07) > E(staying at time=9/11/07). Whether things have improved slightly since January is irrelevant.
However, none of this really matters because of the configuration of the gridlock zone in Congress. All President Bush has to do is keep enough Republicans on board that a veto of a bill cutting off funding won't be overridden. To give you a sense of how easy that will be, preliminary estimates from the 110th Congress indicate that the veto pivot in the Senate (the 67th most liberal senator) is Pat Roberts of Kansas. Vague claims of "progress" and references to unspecified troop reductions should be enough to keep him in line.
Comments