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 -
Why do you think in any way it's a good idea to directly compare mass protests and regime change in Iran to Russia's invasion of Ukraine?
Those are not analogous scenarios. You've essentially provided a Gish Gallop of incredibly wrong military analysis.
It's actually something of a prevalent myth that strategic bombing in WWII didn't have a major impact on the outcome of the war, but that's also not an analogous situation.
I love that you leave out "China" when discussing the Korean War.
I don't know what evidence I could possibly provide here to change your mind, given all the available evidence you've presumably had the chance to encounter.
Seriously? I thought they didn't want weapons? What are they waiting for?
Where were they last June?
Ensuring victory of the opposition and reducing the chance of protracted conflict and bloodshed.
Imagine if you will how you would feel if Venezuela had been undergoing mass, violent protests?
At least when people bring up Libya they're conceding that air power in support of on-the-ground opposition can be quite effective at regime change.
You haven't provided military analysis at all, all you say in your little substack post is 'bomb and good things will happen'. At no point do you investigate the value proposition, the historic success rate of these air campaigns, consider relevant factors such as 'what are the risks of starting a major war in a key energy exporting area'? Go read a RAND report, there are far smarter ways to be hawkish.
Ukraine was in the middle of a civil war when Russia invaded, the rebels there had gotten FAR further than in Iran. They actually controlled territory, were well organized into their own mini-states in Donetsk and Luhansk. And even with the Russian bombing... Even with the Russian invasion... It's still turned into a mess for Russia because Ukraine (considerably smaller than Iran) is not easily toppled. Ukraine has outside support, so would Iran.
Yeah, the Chinese provided the ground troops that retook North Korea. They fought the bulk of the ground campaigns. Ground campaigns matter, I have stressed this. But the US destroying 75-90% of the standing structures in North Korea still didn't bring them to the negotiating table, do you think a few measly missiles are going to knock out Iran? Israel has bombed the shit out of Gaza and marched in troops several times, it took a long long long time to achieve a draw. And that's all they've achieved! Hamas is still in charge on the ground.
It's insanely dumb to go 'yes, the Israelis have managed, after years and years of shelling and bombing and ground invasion against a tiny poor state they outnumber and totally encircle, to get back their captives, while Hamas is still in charge - so the US and Israel can bomb a mountainous country 50x bigger than Gaza in population, 80x the size of Israel in size, a country with much greater military resources and somehow this will overthrow the regime, without even a ground invasion since even in my fantasy world that's still too far'
There's no reason why this would work!
Sending military aid takes time and depends on the situation, whether it's a tit for tat squabble or a major campaign. We've been through over 20 years of interventionists proposing 'easy' campaigns in the Middle East that almost always turn out to be long, expensive, failures and yet no lessons seem to be learnt. Iran is not even an 'easy' campaign, it is an extremely difficult campaign in a mountainous, highly populated, huge territory. It is the hardest campaign.
You understand the concept of theory of a hypothetical scenario, right? If it's warm, I don't need a coat. But if it's cold, I'll wear a coat. I might bring a coat in my bag if I think it'll suddenly get cold enough for me to need it! I'm a latent coat-wearer.
What opposition? Led by who? Can you even name them? What are their goals and ideologies? Have you justified that an air campaign would result in the success of this amorphous political grouping, as opposed to tarring them with comprador status (presumed to be in alliance with foreigners trying to bomb the country)?
'Feelings' are not supposed to come into it. Strategy via 'feelings' is stupid and usually immoral too in its final outcomes, inferior in all respects compared to sober analysis.
You continue to demonstrate you have no ability to understand reality.
You're still peddling "if we attack Iran they will really go for the bomb" AFTER the US and Israel attacked them six months ago.
You're still peddling "if we attack Iran they will get support from China/Russia" AFTER we've seen them do nothing to help Iran when it was getting pummeled six months ago.
You talk a big game about "sober analysis," but you are incapable of recognizing the use of the word "feel" in a context where I'm simply proposing you consider an alternate scenario. Instead of thinking about the posed alternate scenario--which would be inconvenient for you--you jump to a lecture on "feelings" not being a great way to analyze things.
At least the people who bring up Libya concede that air power in support of protests on the ground can be effective at toppling regimes.
Come back when you've worked out the difference between 'skirmishing' and 'attempted regime change'. You have no idea what you're proposing, an incredibly simplistic or outright ignorant view of the relevant dynamics.
Russia and China do not care much about skirmishes, they care more about regime change. The response would be different.
Hypothetical Venezuelan protests have little to do with the situation, unless they're well-armed enough to be credible threats to the state. I already addressed this but you don't seem to understand it.
I have a pretty good idea of what I'm proposing since I've spent some time in the Middle East, uh, working on US foreign policy.
Russia and China will not stick their necks out for Iran. Any support would be a mere token.
You have demonstrated you'll just throw analytic spaghetti at the wall even when it makes zero sense.
I don't think you grok my point about the Venezuela operation, were it to have been done in a context of a mass popular uprising.
It all makes sense now. Reflexive support of a totally unknown opposition. Great confidence in intervention, despite a poor track record. Complete assurance that this time, they really are developing WMDs... Very little interest in detail (what carrier groups are there to use for this attack, there aren't any deployed in CENTCOM right now) or any consequences of the attack. No attempt to weigh up pros and cons.
Yes, I can completely believe you worked on US foreign policy in the Middle East.
If the Venezuelan operation were done in the context of a mass uprising, who knows what would happen? A civil war, a new government or just more chaos? How does that help achieve US goals, how does that secure the oil Trump wants? These are totally different situations with different goals.
I'm not arguing this time they really are developing WMDs. Iran has long had an active nuclear research program with an at-least-latent weaponization angle. How close they are to break out capacity is hotly contested of course, after the Fordow bombing.
You were arguing that they would pursue the bomb if we intervene ... more than we already have of late. I don't think that's actually a real risk in that it's already baked in before this.
The opposition is not totally unknown in terms of its characteristics. They aren't Al Qaeda affiliates, for example. They aren't commies.
The US and Israel have a large number of potential options without a carrier group, FYI. I don't need to publish an OPORD to advocate for the basic idea of something we and Israel have a proven capacity to do.
We already have a good idea of potential blowback from Iran, since we just bombed them six months ago. They're worse off considerably than they were before.
We can also estimate the plausibility of various outcomes from toppling the regime and evaluate the costs and benefits.
You seem unwilling to do that in any reality-based way, since you lack a command of very basic facts about Iran in particular and military strategy in general. I think any objective observer who isn't suffering from Iraq Syndrome or a committed isolationist can see this is a good case for it.
Funnily enough, Iran also has a good deal of oil and gas. My point is just that in Venezuela Trump had Delta swoop in and rendition the leader, leaving everything else intact. Which is a strange situation! Will they get democracy? Who knows! In Iran, the mass protests for regime change are ongoing. If we were to assist with that regime change, the boulder is already rolling down the hill.
Any observer who does not suffer from "Iraq Syndrome" is not thinking objectively. The GWOT destroyed the Republican party as an institution, and arguably destroyed America as a nation. It was ruinously expensive by every possible measure, for little to no perceivable benefit. Those responsible have taken no accountability and have suffered no consequences, and there is not even the slightest reason to be confident that Lessons have been Learned. And that was before we entered a fundamental revolution in military affairs, wherein it is questionable whether our comically expensive military is actually capable of surviving, much less dominating.
You should not need to stick your dick in a blender three times (four? Five?) to learn not to do that, but apparently some people need to go all the way down to the angriest inch.
Good lord no it didn't. If anything, since it became a bipartisan thing to criticize it ought to be a unifying factor, right? Plus, it's pretty ironic Trump was a major GOP critic early on and now he's the one doing some foreign policy interventions after making Marco Rubio his SecState right?
But also, intervening in Iran doesn't have to involve an invasion and occupation. That is learning.
We just saw our and Israel's military fucking dominate a second-tier power and you're questioning whether we can simply bomb that power again? Get a grip man.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link