The term 'sacrifice' is used in different contexts. A 'sacrifice' to a god for whatever reason is a literal sacrifice, talking about the 'cost of war' in terms of 'sacrifice' is a metaphor.

Only because we now know that human sacrifices don't please the gods and improve our fortunes. Otherwise, it breaks down in exactly the same way: We kill some children, but we're okay with that, because it will benefit us.

If it's a metaphor, it can only be because there's no sacrifice at all, the death of non-citizens don't factor into the cost-benefit analysis.

"the death of non-citizens don't factor into the cost-benefit analysis"

This is absolutely false.

It can easily be "worth it" if by sacrificing half a million children you get to save half a million and one child. Despite what you might want to believe, Mrs. Albright is neither stupid nor evil.

It's also really an unfair question because you don't get to see the result of your policy before enacting it.

Moreover, those deaths probably never happened, at least not in those numbers, and they were used as an argument for war:

https://psmag.com/news/the-iraq-sanctions-myth-56433

Like the supposed 1 million deaths from the Second Iraq War, those numbers are based on surveys which are highly flawed.

Further, the poor perception of the Second Iraq War supported the lack of action in Syria under the Obama administration. Nobody knows how many lives could've saved (and how many sacrificed) if there had been an early intervention in Syria.