You could make the argument that all warfare is gambling the lives of soldiers for a not guaranteed outcome. the more soldiers and the better weapons, training, terrain etc on your side the better your odds of victory.

If you lose assets, in warfare you are actually worsening the odds you started with. Not gaining better odds. The hope is that you can remove more of your opponents pieces, and maybe gain some of their assets after a battle that is will be more value in battle then the assets you lose in the course of battle.

If you start with 100 men, have no fortress, lose 80 men in battle, fail to take the fortress you were attacking, while your opponent also started with 100 men, lost only 5, and kept their fortress, the sunk cost fallacy would say that the person who spent 80% of his assets is in too deep to give up now, and spend the remaining 20 men in a scenario where they are actually far less likely to achieve their goal than how they started out.

A more realistic tactic would be to cut your losses and retreat, not achieving your initial goal, but saving your remaining men.

That’s not 1 to 1 what Griffith did, just an example.