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 -
If you don't count lost wars because they don't matter, you have to not count won wars that don't matter either, which leaves out almost every otherwise relevant US war.
I think his flippant dismissal of those two wars was perhaps poorly worded, but the point stands.
The USA could have obliterated Vietnam or Afghanistan if it had wanted. In many ways, it did! You can do a whole "yadda yadda soft people didn't have the guts to glass vietnam so they lost haha" but it's not a very useful lesson.
The USA lost the war due to politics and modern beliefs about the justification around ultra-violence. A USA where the people had the morals of Ghengis Khan would have won Vietnam.
And saying the USA are "weak men" because they "lost" Vietnam or didn't have the balls to genocide them (technical victory) or whatever is pointless, because the American Army could still absolutely demolish any other army on the planet easily. So "haha USA loses wars" has literally 0 predictive power as to whether or not the USA can kick your ass.
So the USA didn't technically 'lose' Vietnam- it extracted a promise from North Vietnam not to invade the south if the US withdrew. They reneged on this promise as soon as the US troops were out of country, but South Vietnam actually won that round, so the US then didn't intervene when they tried again after South Vietnam removed its most capable general for political reasons.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know about Vietnam, but the Soviets went all-out scorched Earth in Afghanistan and still lost, despite their military having no concept of "war crime", and not having to worry one iota about how the optics would play back home.
This whole "we wulda won if we actually tried" rationalization comes dangerously close to cope.
You're also forgetting the context of the Cold War. North Vietnam was supported by two nuclear-armed superpowers. Nuking Hanoi wasn't some free action that would be totally devoid of consequences. The US wouldn't have done it even if they wanted to.
Everything you said is true. I think the USSR also didn't go hard enough by "law of the jungle" iron age war standards i.e. genocide.
The USA couldn't have nuked Hanoi without MAD yes. They, had they irrationally chosen to, could war economy their way into building a massive invasion force and roll over Vietnam.
We've gotten very far away from the strong>weak cycle lol
That's called the Korean War. Americans like to pretend it never happened.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
America's Imperial wars of the past 100 years are best compared against various efforts to control uncontrollable hinterlands which were a constant feature of imperial history among the ancients. The Persians tried to subdue the Scythians, Varus tried to conquer the Germans, Pharaohs seemed to send an army to disappear into the south periodically, a powerful Chinese emperor would try to subdue the steppe. It's always part of the imperial rhythm to try to control economically marginal hinterlands, with mixed success.
I'm sure there's a term in military theory for what I'm talking about, but we're stuck in a thinking about wars that is primarily about peer wars, and we've lost concepts like the raid and the punitive expedition, which were much more common throughout most of history.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sure. That's not an issue at all. What was the last war where the continental US faced an existential threat? The Civil War? The War of 1812? The country would probably have survived a defeat in WW1 and 2 back-to-back and everything that came since, it's the perks of being an island fortress the size of a continent with enormous natural resources.
The fact that WW2, a conflict that killed somewhere between 75-80 million people still had no chance of causing serious catastrophe at home is probably the greatest testament to American superiority around. You can't blockade America, you can't starve America, you can't even cut off oil supplies because you make enough to get by, albeit with austerity measures. The only thing that can put a dent in you are nukes, and you have nukes of your own.
I struggle to identify another historical Great Power with that kind of domestic security and free license to do whatever the fuck they want abroad without it following them home. Even Britain at its peak had to seriously worry about neighbors in Europe, for good reason.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link