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 people in the middle east aren't going to like Israel more if they do nothing either, so that's something of a moot point. Iran is also not particularly popular with large sections of the middle east due to religious differences and the fact that Iran has been funding proxies and trying to destabilise the region to their advantage for decades now, to the detriment of Israeli/US interests as well.
You are nakedly a partisan on this issue and therefore probably emotionally obliged to try and spin this as both a massive blunder and an act of unprovoked evil from Israel, but what they are doing now is entirely logical from a military/geo-political perspective given the circumstances, Iran is probably Israels greatest long term enemy and they're on the ropes, they would be stupid not to attack now.
As a wise man once said, "If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight".
How popular do you think dragging the middle east into a major war is? People hate Israel from the start, now their tourist business in Dubai is shut down because of Israel.
I would guess that the leadership of the UAE is pretty ecstatic about the relatively modest price they are paying as a result of two powerful nations attacking and damaging Iran.
People have this fantasy that without Israel, the Middle East would be all peace-love-dove. The reality is that the UAE correctly perceives Iran to be a significant threat.
Yeah the Shia/Sunni split is a huge catalyst and the local residents aren't particularly peaceful people at the best of times.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Agreed, given that Iran has been relentlessly attacking Israel (through proxies) for many years now, it's difficult to see how anyone could reasonably see this as "another Israeli war of aggression." To be sure, many people will (unreasonably) see it that way, but those people already hate Israel and there's nothing Israel could do (short of disappearing) which would change their minds.
Will this activity make Israel less popular? For the same reason, I tend to doubt it. But even if it does, it's far more important for Israel to be feared than to be loved.
Hasn't everybody and their dog been propping up militias in the region for decades? I'm pretty sure I remember reading a headline about the US fighting the very insurgents they've been funding, for example.
One of my favorite snarky comments about US foreign policy in the Middle East during the early teens went like this:
More options
Context Copy link
I think that was during the ISIS saga, and it was that the Army and Air Force backed different militias materially
More options
Context Copy link
I would imagine that's true for some definition of "propping up" and "militia" and "everybody" But I doubt Israel has been doing what Iran has been doing, namely having an organization like Hezbollah, which is effectively controlled by Iran, to engage in terrorism against Israel.
But in any event, assuming for the sake of argument that, as you say, everyone and their dog has been propping up militias in the region for decades, the claim on the table is that the recent strike constitutes a "war of aggression" by Israel. To me, "war of aggression" means military activity which is substantially unprovoked against an enemy which poses no substantial threat. Pretty clearly this was NOT a war of aggression by Israel.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The actual quote from Sun Tzu, is "If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight, even though the ruler forbid it; if fighting will not result in victory, then you must not fight even at the ruler's bidding."
I was about 50/50 on where that link was going and I was not disappointed ;-)
Was the other 50% chance Sabaton?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight"
And how do they know it's sure to result in victory?
The Israelis and Americans seem to operate in this Star Wars school of warfare where they just have to blow up the bad guy, the Death Star, the Emperor and that's it, war's over and they can go home.
That's not how it works. Israel has blown up all these Hamas leaders, they've bombed the hell out of Gaza... and yet Hamas is still running Gaza. Years of intense bombing and no regime change of the smallest, closest easiest possible target Israel could have. America bombed the Fordow nuclear facility, said they totally destroyed it... and that did nothing, 6 months later they come back and say Iran is about to acquire nuclear weapons, need a new deal, new disarmament... Bombing is not going to be effective this time either.
To win real victories you need to win a ground campaign that actually destroys and crushes the enemy force from the bottom up, secures the territory and directly installs a new administration. Bombing an enemy from the top down looks impressive, doesn't work. They just replace the Ayatollah or whoever else it is that gets blown up. Only very fragile states can be endangered by bombing alone and despite all the breathless media coverage of Iran, it's not a very fragile state. Unlike Venezuela, they know how to maintain their own oil infrastructure, they can make their own weapons. Even in Venezuela, there's been no fundamental change to the state, just a change of faces.
A ground campaign is not going to happen, Trump lacks the desire and the means. So this war isn't going to work out.
And bombing will impede hopes of regime change in that dissidents are going to be tarred as Israeli assets, the enemy within subverting the nation when the country is under attack.
I agree strongly with what you wrote. Bombing for regime change generally does not work.
Well, at this point, I think it would be fair to count the Shah and the people who are campaigning for his return as Israeli assets. One can always hope that Mossad knows what it is doing.
On the other hand, the interests of secular Iranians are not perfectly aligned with the interests of Nethanyahu. For Israel, anything which reduces the power of the Ayatollah regime is a win. The Shah taking over would be the best outcome, but they will also take a descent into civil war a la Syria. And even if it fails and the regime stays in control, it can hardly hate Israel more than it hates them now, so no reason not to throw the dice.
I tend to agree with this, although it's worth noting that Israel almost certainly has agents on the ground in Iran.
That being said, I think the more important question is what is the downside for Israel in attacking? Iran's leadership and its supporters and allies already maximally hate Israel. So as another poster pointed out, why not roll the dice? If nothing else, it's a free chance to destroy a few more strategic targets in Iran. In fact, I would guess that Israel's leadership has already determined that regime change is pretty unlikely.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link