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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The Crusades
I read Thomas Asbridge’s history of the Crusades recently. Its an excellent narrative history covering the theological and social developments that prompted the ‘armed pilgrimages’, the military campaigns, politics, and the changes in the Arab world that ultimately destroyed the crusader states.
A very brief history:
In 1095, the Pope called on Europeans to liberate the Holy Land from the Muslims in exchange for salvation. Over the next 150 years hundreds of thousands of Europeans, including kings, set off for Palestine and Syria. The timing was perfect: the First Crusade arrived at a point of maximum discord among the Muslims and managed to capture Jerusalem against significant odds. The Crusade’s leaders, always with an eye to personal gain, created 4 quasi-independent states. For the next century the small Frankish-Latin elite ruled over a religiously mixed native population and skirmishing regularly with Arab armies. In 1187, the Muslims unified under Saladin, defeated the crusaders at the battle of Hattin, and reconquered the Holy Land save for a few outposts. The second crusade was a damp squib, but the third – the “Kings Crusade” – was led by the Kings of England and France and succeeded in reconquering some of the lost territory.
From here it was downhill: The fourth crusade diverted to sack Constantinople (and critically weaken Byzantium), the fifth crusade was annihilated in Egypt, the Sixth crusade negotiated a partial return of Jerusalem, the seventh crusade was again annihilated in Egypt, and the eighth crusade attacked Tunisia of all places. While the Latins floundered around, the Mongols slowly devoured Mesopotamia and the Mamluks, slave mercenaries of Arab armies, seized Egypt. These two new powers fought over the middle east and as the Mamluk’s got the upper hand, they destroyed what was left of the Crusader states almost as an afterthought.
The critical factor that hamstrung the crusader armies was their leadership and rank and file wanted to fulfill their oaths to capture Jerusalem and so obtain absolution, not conquer a kingdom. Once a crusade arrived in the holy land, win or lose, the troops involved would immediately begin to go home. No sustained effort to recruit Latin soldiers for the long run was undertaken. The permanent, professional armies that did emerge were the military orders who developed their own internal logic and interests. The Crusaders made little attempt to manage relations with their neighbours to avoid conflict. It wasn’t fully appreciated at the time, but the existence of these small far-flung Crusader states owed entirely to (1) the lack of unity among the Muslims and (2) a set of theological arguments that could motivate Western Europeans to fight. Once the Muslim’s unified and Western European understanding of how sins were absolved changed (to wit: indulgences rather than pilgrimages), the Crusaders were doomed.
Israel
Does this remind you of Israel today? It does to me. The parallel isn’t perfect, but there are a few common elements that stick in my mind. Obviously, the location is the same. Israel is an outpost of the West. It’s a religious state which limits the extent it can peacefully coexist with its neighbours. Its existence, from 1948 onwards, owes to the ineptitude of Arab armies. At critical moments in its history, military aid from the United States saved it from defeat. Two peoples assert their right to land and both look to religious justifications to buttress their claims.
The disanalogies include Israel having populated its land with its people rather than ruling over an alien ethnic majority, Israel having nuclear weapons and a highly competent military (with exceptions, the Crusaders generally did not).
Nukes may always be the trump card of course, but it looks to me like Israel’s long term existence is precarious -- current economic and military power notwithstanding. A change of heart in the West or unity among the Arabs could easily spell its doom. Israel has a decisive technological edge over its enemies, but it draws its armies from 7.5 million Jews compared with a combined 149 million among its neighbours. If it came to a war of attrition and Arab resolve was (unusually) solid, Israel would be in trouble. I think the history of the crusades has caused me to update my priors on how Israel should behave to its neighbours. If it is playing the ultra-long game for civilizational survival, it has to find a way to achieve a peaceful settlement with its neighbours and the Palestinians. Because you never know when the winds will change: No one in 1177 thought that in 10 years Saladin would retake Jerusalem and no one in 1210 had heard of Mongols. The unexpected nature of history makes me think we should do a lot more geopolitical risk management than we do.
But what? You leave off without saying what nuclear weapons mean to the Crusader metaphor, almost like it was inconvenient and should be ignored rather than acknowledged.
Why does a change of heart in the west spell the doom of Israel, when Israel doesn't need the west to have or maintain nuclear weapons?
Why would unity among the Arabs spell its doom, when unity among the Arabs doesn't remove Israel's nuclear weapons?
Why would a united Arab state commit to a war mutually assured destruction by invading a state with nuclear weapons?
Why does a population of 7.5 million versus 149 million matter when relative population numbers actually increase the value of nuclear weapons?
Why would Israel's survival depend on a war of attrition when Israel has nuclear weapons?
Moreover, your historical analogies don't really address how history would have differed without, and let's say it together, nuclear weapons.
Why would Saladin have been able to retake Jerusalem in 10 years if the holders of Jerusalem in 1177 had nuclear weapons?
Why would anyone in 1210 have had reason to hear of the Mongols had the Mongols targets had resort to nuclear weapons?
And that is why some states invest in nuclear weapons, and other states don't try to mass armies and overrun states with nuclear weapons.
South Africa's nukes didn't help much. France lost Algeria despite having been there longer than israel has existed despite France having nukes. Turns out nukes aren't that great at subjugating a population, especially when your country is tiny and the people you subjugate are your neighbours. The Palestinians don't have to defeat Israel in a big war, they just have to put Israel in the same position as Rhodesians were in. There aren't even six million non ultra orthodox Israeli jews. Populationwise Israel is roughly equal to Slovakia. In terms of land, they are smaller than Belize. The Palestinian population is now a quarter of the size of the population of Iraq when the US, Britain, Australia, and the Netherlands invaded. They left because it turned into a hopeless quagmire. Palestinians are more united against an enemy than the Iraqis were.
South Africa was not facing existential threat from invading armies.
France was not facing existential threat from invading armies.
Israel doesn't need (or use) nukes to subjugate a population. It can use nukes to mitigate existential threat from invading armies.
Unlike Rhodesia, the Israelis have nukes that can be used to mitigate existential threats from invading armies.
Unlike Slovakia, Israel has nukes that can be used to mitigate existential threats from invading armies.
Unlike Belize, Israel has nukes that can be used to mitigate existential threats from invading armies.
None of which mitigates them from being nuked if they pose an existential threat as an invading army.
If the refrain seems repetitive, it's because every argument you are making is a matter of the power of other states to create invading armies, or the risk to a small state from invading armies. Despite the claim, Israel is not an apartheid state in which a minority is attempting to rule over a much larger majority that dominates the demographics of the interior of the state. It has coherent borders and sufficient strategic depth that a military sufficient to overwhelm it will also give it time to use it's capabilities to prepare a nuclear retaliation.
Now, if you want to argue that doesn't matter because the Palestinians / Arabs / choose your protagonist here are willing to get nuked anyway, we can work with that... but now we are stepping decisively away from any Crusader State metaphors, which were not MAD contexts.
How effective would nuclear weapons by a relatively small nation be against an invading army? It’s not a scenario we’ve ever seen play out.
The standard nuclear war scenario involves a 3-prong nuclear strike combined with standard missles to assist with saturation and eliminate all enemy industrial and military centers approximately simultaneously. Does Israel have the capacity to hit so many targets at once? Or is it more of a tactical-use scenario? Or maybe just a “whoever attacks first gets their political capital eliminated” scenario?
These aren’t rhetorical questions, I’m just genuinely not sure, and I feel like smaller scale one-sided nuclear warfare looks very different than the Cold War images most people think of.
I do think a lot would come down to how competent the Arab alliance could become in the lead up to an invasion. Even a comparatively old-fashioned but reasonably equipped army should be able to win by sheer numbers in this matchup, but they’d have to get the corruption under control and actually build a lot of equipment.
The last couple wars seem to show a severe lack of competence, but I don’t think that’s inherent or will always be true. After all there have been some very effective Arab conquests in the past.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link