site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 3, 2022

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

24
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A Tale of Two Presidents: Why the last two years should finally put "Credibility" to bed as an argument in foreign policy

Argument Summary: "Credibility" is the argument that sometimes great powers have to engage in actions with tangible negative expected value in order to achieve an intangible benefit of being perceived as credible by enemies and friends. The last two years has proven this completely wrong: Biden ripped a multi-decade bandaid off and bottomed out America's credibility with the image of Afghans falling off landing gear, while Putin has stuck to his guns no matter what in Ukraine rather than take the L. A year later America and NATO's credibility is at an all time high, with valuable prospects joining the US centric alliance for the first time in years. Putin, meanwhile, has cratered Russian credibility just a year later, losing control of his near-abroad and failing to project strength. This sequence of events suggests that credibility probably does not exist as a useful concept, or that if it does it is so mercurial that expending significant costs to obtain it is foolish.

Credibility arguments are nearly always someone explaining to you why you should keep doing the thing that was a bad idea to begin with: because you need to prove you are not deterred by things like rational calculations, you will follow it through to the end long after you should have given up. This will convince others not to mess with you, you're loco, you'll do things that are bad for you just to make it worse for them. Ben Friedman discusses a history of the concept here, Daniel Larison discusses further here. It can be compared to deterrence, but based on projections of behavior rather than projections of physical might. Examples abound in failed American colonial ventures of the past decades: Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan. Focusing on one example, the infamous "Red Line" on chemical weapons use by Assad. The Credibility part of the argument is that because Barack Obama said there would be consequences, it doesn't matter if it is in America's interest to attack Syria, the US has to attack Syria to prove that Barack Obama wasn't a liar. It punts on proving that the attack is a good idea in favor of the principle that nations must always back up their words with actions, for fear that showing weakness could be fatal to US interests.

Considered in the light of Credibility, the last two years have proven the argument completely wrong.

America's credibility in foreign policy was never lower (in the 21st century) than the start of 2022. America had repeatedly since 2016 renegged on commitments to putative allies the Kurds, secular afghanis, various other partners. America had elected Donald Trump, which represented a tremendous shift in foreign policy on a dime. Trump threatened to pull out of long standing treaty obligations if other members didn't pull their weight, declared trade wars on long time allies etc. (Love him or hate him, it is obvious that the shift back and forth again lowers the reliability of US foreign policy even if you agree with the shift). America then elected Joe Biden, who (whatever your opinion on his character and performance) had been described as mediocre by people as varied as his former boss/running mate and the nation's boogeyman, and his own supporters earlier in the election season. Biden then proceeded to cut and run in Afghanistan, accepting the international opprobrium of failed US foreign policy consensus as the consequences of a series of presidents being unwilling to.

A year later, American credibility in foreign policy is higher than it's been since before Iraq II. Neutral, wealthy European countries are jockeying for space under the USA's nuclear umbrella. Local allies that don't suck are sticking it to geopolitical enemies. As Hanania points out Fukuyama has been proven right: America is the indispensable nation for its would-be allies, accept no substitutes. (I'm aware that the Baltic countries have contributed more to Ukraine as a %GDP, but that proves the point: even doing their best Poland and Estonia just aren't big enough to shoulder the weight) What happened?

Arguably, what happened is that Putin tried take advantage of America's weakness. Putin himself built his credibility in the Syrian war, where he stood by his man at some cost despite no obvious benefit to Russia. I don't want to get into kremlinology motive arguments, but Putin's actions match what credibility proponents argued would happen, so it doesn't much matter whether that was really his motive or not, the results will match the scenario. The apparent weakness of the West is part of any positive Russian war plan circa February: the West is too weak and divided to support of Ukraine, while the West lacks the prestige for Ukrainians to want to be part of it badly enough to fight for it. Both those postulates have proven disastrously incorrect.

Putin has then repeatedly doubled down on the failed invasion. I've argued in theMotte that circa March/April Putin could have declared victory in a punitive Denazification fight, brought his men home, and there wouldn't have been much NATO could do about it. Would there have been any will to hold Hungary/Germany back from buying Russian gas to punish them for something that already ended? Instead Putin has repeatedly upped the ante, doing the kinds of things Credibility-mongers argue the US ought to have done in Afghanistan/Iraq/Syria: institute a draft, loosen rules of engagement (I think there's an argument to be had about whose were looser to begin with though), knock out infrastructure of neutral parties that support the enemy. Putin keeps pushing farther with each reputation-shattering defeat to get all the credibility he has lost back and more. Once again, I don't want to get into Kremlinology, but his actions resemble what a Credibility theorist would recommend enough that it doesn't matter if it is his "actual" motivation or not. He is behaving as though he is doubling down on a lost cause to prove a point to the international community.

The results speak for themselves. America is riding higher than ever. Finland and Sweden joining NATO is a plum, Germany increasing military spending is a gift, and allies around the world are happy to align with America. There's been no shortage of allies screaming for American aid, despite what happened to the Kurds, because A) America is the only nation that can provide that kind of aid in that volume and B) the kind of native allies America wants are the psychotic idealists who would light themselves on fire just to blow smoke in Russia's eyes not the kind of people who make cautious reasonable decisions.

Meanwhile, Russia's efforts to gain credibility appear to be losing it credibility. We've walked it back from "Russia could maybe beat NATO in a straight up fight" to "Russia can't handle NATO supplied farmers without mobilizing the whole country;" from "Russia will roll Ukraine in days" to "Russian forces can't stand against Ukrainian forces face to face." From "Russian Wunderwaffen demonstrations" to "Russian Rust." Lyman has fallen, Kherson and Severodonetsk could be next soon. Russian brokered and guaranteed peace deals between Armenia-Azerbaijan and Tajikstan-Kyrgyzstan are falling apart with no sign of Russian intervention, and the Russian sponsored collective security and trade agreements seem to be either failing or leaving Russia behind. Countries are not impressed by Russian power, because Russian power is being drained by a failing and flailing war in Ukraine, the costs lead them to think they can get away with messing around on Russia's borders right now.

The lessons:

  1. Credibility is a silly, temporary concept; more apt to Twitter discourse than to serious decision making. Ideological actors that want US/EU/RF/PRC support are still going to want the same things whether they think their partners trustworthy or not; their convictions come first the means are whatever they can get a hold of. Credibility is so temporary that it isn't worth taking significant risks or incurring significant costs to obtain, it might evaporate before it gives you anything of value. This of course goes both ways: the USA might piss away the Western good will it has garnered before anything of value is gained, and Russia has a very good chance of turning the war around if it is still in the game when 300,000+ fresh troops are trained and equipped.

  2. Inasmuch as credibility is worth pursuing, the way to pursue it is by maximizing power and the ability to project it. Getting tied down in increasingly costly quagmires drains power and the ability to project it. Cut loose losing positions, and take that capital to invest opportunistically. Don't get tied to the Sunk Cost Fallacy and keep pushing further, showing more and more weakness. If it isn't working, don't waste more lives on it.

  3. Because credibility is temporary and unreliable, you can't make decisions based on an opponent's perceived credibility either. Thinking he looks weak so pounce is likely to end poorly for you.

Well said - whether it's spun as 'face' or 'prestige' or 'credibility', ultimately what matters is power and money. China is constantly embarrassing themselves with ludicrous overblown rhetoric and saber-rattling - their envoys still get received gratefully in the courts of the world, because they have money.

The thing is that a talented wordcel can always spin any course of action as being somehow conducive to 'credibility'. The Iraq War was originally intended not as nation building, but as a muscular demonstration of American military power and willingness to use it unilaterally against their enemies. Such a demonstration was hardly necessary - the destruction of two skyscrapers, though tragic, was not read by anyone as proof of imminent collapse of American hegemony. Once the war was concluded, the Credibility Fans simply shifted their reasoning. Now, rebuilding Iraq was necessary to restore American cred in the wake of disaster.

Meanwhile, Russia's efforts to gain credibility appear to be losing it credibility.

Would allowing Ukraine to join NATO without a peep have restored credibility? No, I think not. Rather, Russia is being exposed as weaker and more fragile than anyone supposed.

is constantly embarrassing themselves with ludicrous overblown rhetoric and saber-rattling

Why do you think they are "embarrassing themselves"? I mean, it's not what is considered respectable in the West, but would it be embarrassing for a Chinese person to behave this way?

Internationally, yes. I understand that this kind of bombast does well domestically, though.