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 -
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.
I watched it happen. I lived through it happening. The GWOT drove me into the Blue Tribe for a decade, and I only returned when the existing Red establishment was driven out in turn. 2000s republican leaders now mostly vote democrat.
As for the destruction of America...
We don't have to appeal to theory when we can observe what actually happened. The GWOT burned the Reagan coalition to the ground and supercharged progressivism. Progressive overreach has, in turn, destroyed the nation. The Constitution is dead. Our system of government is pretty clearly dead. Tribal values are now mutually-incoherent and -intolerable, and the stress of tribal conflict is blowing out what institutions remain to us one after another. Reds and blues hate each other, wish to harm each other, and are gleefully seeking escalation to subjugate each other. This process takes time, but the arc is not ambiguous, and neither is where it leads. At some point in the next few years, it will be Blue Tribe's turn to wield federal power, and Red Tribe's turn to resist it, and at that point, if not sooner, things will get significantly worse. It is insanity at this point to think either that the tribes are going to coordinate a halt to the escalations, or that our society can survive another decade of accumulated escalations. The peace is not going to last.
As we have previously discussed, Libya also did not involve an invasion and occupation.
You appear to be assuming that the general population of Iran is some sort of generic huddled mass, yearning to breath free, that the problem is just the Mullahs and if we sweep the mullahs out of the way Iran magically transforms into Michigan. But Iran is not Michigan; at this point, even Michigan is not Michigan. Iran's current government are not alien space invaders, but rather Iranians who emerged from the population of Iran, and are thus at least somewhat representative of the sort of leadership that population produces. The Shah was an Iranian leader who operated torture dungeons. He was overthrown by Iranian Muslim communists(?), who... then also operated torture dungeons. Why do you believe that radical change in the government will produce a totally new sort of government, when it did not do so previously?
Your confidence that an intervention likely leads to a better situation for all involved is contradicted by recent experience, which you are dismissing out of hand. I have no reason to believe that "this time, it will be different", because it has not in fact been different any of the previous times. I do not care that the mobs are crying out for our aid; mobs cry out for lots of things when such appeals are obviously in their immediate interest, but that does not mean what they are crying out for today is a reliable indicator of their future preferences, and intervention has a grim track record.
I am not questioning whether we can bomb a second-tier power. I am questioning whether bombing will do any good, with the full knowledge that if I and people like me consent to bombing, and things go sideways, next we will be arguing over whether we should bomb them more, or maybe send just a few troops, and then just a few more. I note that the US and Israel "dominated a second-tier power" less than a year ago, and yet here you are, demanding we bomb them again. Did we not dominate them hard enough last time? If so, why are you claiming that this current domination will succeed where the previous domination failed?
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