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 -
Sounds like more bad news for oil prices.
At worst we are seeing a slow but emerging strategy of just running Iran into the ground like with Syria and all the rest. Where sub par targets get selected due to a lack of better options. The decision makers have to make decisions, after all.
Iran deserves it way more than Syria did. They are one power I would not mind being run into the ground. If Europe decides to let all their retaliatory terrorists in, that's their fault.
This sounds like genocidal lunacy. What on earth did the average Iranian or Syrian do to deserve any of this? What should Europe do in the face of a giant refugee crisis? Create a humanitarian disaster in Jordan and Turkey? Let them starve at the border? Shoot them if they do anything else?
Maybe I'm being to hasty and my instinctive revulsion to your point of view is just a matter of ignorance on my part. Why do you say such things?
The average nobody did anything. I don't know of any nation ever where, from top to bottom, every single person was wicked. You can say they voted for it, they tacitly supported it, whatever. Germany, Japan, the Serbs, the Koreans, the Vietnamese, none of these countries were filled with vile people who "deserved" carpet bombing, starvation, embargoes, displacement, whatever. It's the nature of nations that when they get involved on the world stage, war is often the only way to get what you want.
The question is what you want, and how badly.
People roll out the World War 2 examples because they're pretty cut and dry, and the closest example in a western, developed sense we have to the present. "We want you to stop invading and conquering others, and our roughly evenly matched forces will make a push all the way into your country to make you stop." Superpowers with precision munitions (remember this part) did not exist. A global economy, such as we have now, did not exist. Cheap travel and the resultant mass migration did not exist!
Oh, and live broadcasting of the war didn't exist either.
But to the point, people will defend those wars as just - and I agree with them - despite the fact that the civilian tolls are so staggering they don't even register even with an aid. The lasting debate of civilian casualties from that war, the nuclear bombings of Japan, often dies in its throat when many of the people who consider it an atrocity don't even know that the firebombing of Tokyo produced around as many casualties as a nuclear bombing in a single night (I would much rather die to a nuclear blast than an incendiary firestorm, for what it's worth). This is to say nothing of the bombing campaigns across Germany, which were specifically designed - given the failure of precision bombing promised by the Norden bombsight and massive air casualties the Allies endured as a result - to reduce a city to being ineffective. They didn't want to kill civilians. Okay, maybe Harris did after the Battle of Britain. But generally, the purpose was not to inflict needless and horrifying casualties. It was all they could do to prosecute the war until the Germans and Japanese capitulated. Note that in Germany's case the bombing alone did not do this and it took massive ground movements to do so all the way into Berlin itself, but the bombing made those ground advances easier.
Did those civilians deserve it? It's a rhetorical question, because of course they didn't. But it's just irrelevant once you are the citizen of a nation that another nation has determined it has just cause to prosecute war against you. No amount of justification of geopolitics will make it okay to the people who die in the crossfire. They suffer and die and all their dreams are lost for something impossibly bigger than they are, that they could have not possibly changed on an individual level.
This is the reason I brought up superpowers with precision munitions, global economies, cheap travel, and the media. Because by Vietnam we lost the stomach for the same type of campaign pretty much overnight. I will find the source, but there has been a lot of talk about how North Vietnam was desperate by the early 70s. Bombings of Hanoi were driving their nation, not the guerillas, but the nation, into disaster. Had the US bombed them as mercilessly as Japan or Germany, they likely would have caused the nation of North Vietnam to fail. Whether that's enough to have killed communism in Vietnam is up to debate, and I'd say it's unlikely, but it would have prevented the immediate rolling of the conventional NVA over South Vietnam after the US withdrawal. But at this point, the war was broadcast, and things like napalm girl and the Saigon Execution photos made people see how awful geopolitics is on a micro level. Weapons were becoming actually precise, and people were asking if such things were necessary. I'd say they're only necessary if you want to actually defeat the nation you're fighting.
This is not, by the way, a defense of the Vietnam war or that it was a good idea from the outset. But once you're in the fight, and you have the objective to defeat one nation and preserve another, there's a cost. The US, via politics and bad strategy (read up on William Westmoreland if you're interested) did not do what needed to be done, so all that happened was South Vietnam fell anyway and the US took a huge hit to its credibility on the world stage.
This debate persists to now, and is even more pointed. Everything is livestreamed, and weapons are so precise that we now expect zero civilian casualties, and anything more is a massive scandal. To the point that Obama is considered a maniac because he killed an estimate of 116 civilians with drone strikes. Tell that to the average American from 1945 and they'd call him a genius on no other level.
This is, again, not a justification for untargeted mass bombardment. This is also not a defense of bad intel, or misusing precision weapons in a way that kills innocent bystanders. Again, even down to one person, what difference does the geopolitical or military targeting situation make? They're dead. They've lost everything for nothing. But I ask what a nation is supposed to do if it has determined that another nation is an enemy, and diplomacy has failed, and it has determined that it must proceed militarily to, put coldly, get what what it wants. If the idea that a civilian death is a tragedy that invalidates the righteousness of the cause, then in a sense I am happy that the average person who thinks these things is so far removed from the idea of war being an existential threat. Certainly it is not for someone living in the US or most of Europe at this point in time (the situation is different for Israel, regardless of your position; it's a fact that they have enemies within and without that are in striking distance and I suspect it's a large reason that the population wasn't clamoring for the war to slow down after October 7th). I don't mean this as a jab, either; it's a miracle we live in the world we do. But at the end of the day, going to war is going to kill a fair bit of people who have nothing to do with it in any meaningful way, because you won't achieve your objectives otherwise.
Make your accusations of Israeli excesses and I'm going to agree. Denounce bad US intel for strikes, or a bad overall strategy, and I'm game there. But this is an argument that is rolled up in more practical criticisms of wars in general and I don't find it compelling, horrible as it may sound. At the outset we know a war is going to kill innocents. But if there's an objective that can only be achieved militarily - and given the constant abuse of diplomatic agreements and funding of militias throughout the Middle East, I'm going to say there's a fair argument for Iran - that's the price.
As to your other questions, I don't have an answer. It's up to Europe to decide what its border and refugee policies are, though if I lived there I'd definitely be in "turn them back no matter what" mode no matter what. I also don't find the idea of Iran splitting into a bunch of ISIS-style warlords very plausible. It's a country that is much more united in religious and racial demographics. You aren't going to have Sunni paramilitary groups gobble up the country, nor are you going to have massive racial violence (and if you did, the Persians would just win). Syria was the last gasp of Ba'ath/pan-arab/secular dictatorship against the tribal infighting and Wahhabism that is inherent to Arab nations. I don't see them collapsing the same way.
Again, it all falls onto whether Iran is a valid target, and if it's worth the squeeze. The comment you're replying to does, and I'd be pretty happy to see the regime fall too. Civilian casualties (let me edit this and say civilian casualties on any sort of normal scale) just aren't a reason not to do it. Call it cold, but geopolitics is fuckin' cold.
That wikipedia article was an interesting read, thanks. The most fascinating thing to me is how he jumped around in rank. He went from O2 -> O4, O6 -> O3, O4->O7->O5->O8. I can't fathom a military career like that these days.
Military promotions used to be absolutely insane, especially in World War 2 with rapid replacements and battlefield commissions. Vietnam was less, to my knowledge, but chosen ones like Westmoreland still existed. For the life of me I can't understand why he was a chosen one, though.
I saw some really good talks about Westmoreland. The one that really opened my eyes is here.
More options
Context Copy link
It says (temporary) under a lot of those. Temporary because he was demoted later on, or temporary by initial intention?
After all the temporary ranks he goes back to the "normal" rank. These read like wartime field promotions to me where they need someone to fill the spot and he's the only one available. I just never heard of anyone getting demoted after those. Going from colonel to captain, or general to major is mind blowing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
We have established two important things that we agree on:
Civilian casualties bad, but will happen in war.
We need a good reason to go to war, partly because civilian casualties bad.
The two points of contention were:
Why do the Iranians and Syrians deserve civilian casualties.
What will be the result of Europe turning the refugees away.
Neither of these were answered.
What I'm looking for is a distinction between the good and the bad. Why, for instance, was Oct. 7 bad? Or 9/11? If genocide is a militarily winning strategy, was the holocaust bad?
You might want to stop me here and mention that these questions don't need to have moral answers. Things happen. The causal chain of events that drives us towards our next disaster is too vast and complex for such simple terms. And I'm perfectly willing to recognize the salience of that position. But until that is done consistently, is there any reason for me to do so? Because the mainstream line has been that all of the above were bad, Iran also bad and that America is morally good. It is especially when America is doing morally bad that geopolitical realism is trudged out, claiming that, in reality, America needs to do bad to ultimately do good!
But even then. If we set morals aside, this Iran incursion can hardly be considered a positive move on the geopolitical side of things. If worst come to wear and there is a big refugee crisis, everyone knows Europe wont say no. They will let them in. Nations that are in a very precarious position demographically. Economies facing all manner of crises. This is practically every single modern ally the US has. How can this be justified?
I touched on it a bit for Iran, but in short:
Points 1, 3, and 5 also applied to Syria, and back to geopolitics I like for there to be less nations that are economically and militarily aligned and supported by Russia and China. I am explicitly for American dominance on the world stage because that means I am more likely to keep enjoying the benefits of a giant and very defensible united land mass that is far from war in all its forms.
Presupposes a tide of refugees which I am not inclined to think will happen (I touched on this in my first comment). I'd also mention that even if it did happen, overall Iranians are a good bit more westernized, less Wahhabist (that's a Sunni thing!), less tribal, and less teen-rapey than the current stock in Europe (to oversimplify, Syrian in the mainland, Pakistani in the UK), so a few refugees from there are more likely to integrate unless they do the whole "we'll just import young and pissed off men" thing again. Even then, I doubt they're nearly as bad as what we see now.
Persians are not Arabs, and will proudly tell you so, and that's for the better.
To be clear you only oppose this on the grounds that this is harmful to US interest in the region, which you support based on personal prosperity, not that these attacks were unjustified or unrelated to US provocation that might have caused them.
To that extent I'm having a hard time aligning myself with your position from a geopolitical point of view. Iran, and tell me if our history does not match up here, wanted the same thing you want for yourself. Peace and prosperity. To that end they wanted control over their natural resources. Resources that the US and UK were making use of. This leads to a very clear incursion into Iran by these nations. Which ties into reason 3, 4 and 5. What else is a nation to do when foreign entities so clearly disrupt their process of self determination?
I get it, 'aw shucks, sucks to suck, now give us the oil' but given the cost, past failures and losses, and how far the US has moved forward, and how quickly and drastically technology has bettered our standard of living, can any of this be rationally justified anymore? It feels like a giant sunk cost fallacy. Where a list of old grievances gets trudged out to justify an evergoing tit for tat that is of no tangible benefit to American or Iran.
I don't think it will happen either. Which is why I said it would be a worst case scenario. But even then, we are comparing potential cost and benefit. The cost being overloading Europe with refugees. And there is no contingency or plan. Americas allies in Europe will be weighted down even more. Further carrying the indirect cost of American incursions in the middle east. I ask, how can this be rationally justified? I get that personal prosperity is important, but at some point the calculus stops adding up. I have a genuinely hard time believing that you believe that America is having its interest served by risking their already weak allies and their precarious position for whatever it is you think is being gained by this campaign into Iran.
To my knowledge there has been no "give us our oil, we're going into take the oil back" discussion from any level of the (admittedly scatterbrained) Trump administration. The fact that the discussion is so scatterbrained makes me more likely to believe it's not the intent, not less. In fact, given your own rundown of history, it looks a lot more like Iran was the one that said "sucks to suck, now give us the oil" when they nationalized it. I'm not personally hurt by that, in fact that's par for the course when you play in other countries. No one I can see in a decision-making position is using that as a casus belli.
Also, both your "process of self determination" and this
line do a lot of work to reframe what Iran was doing. Soldiers in Iraq were killed by rocket strikes from Iranian backed militia groups. In what way were soldiers in Iraq (during a huge drawdown, mind you) doing to Iranian self determination? Self determination in Iraq?
It also ignores the Houthis, Hezbollah, the support to Hamas, all of which lie far outside Iran's borders. Was Yemen's government part of Iran's self-determination? Was Lebanon's? As far as I'm keeping score, there has never been a strike within Iran. The last time there was any firing on Iranian infrastructure (i.e. not Soleimani in Iraq, again far outside of the self-determination defense) was the accidental shootdown of the Iranian Airliner in 1988. Which is indefensible, but that doesn't really read as "we're destroying your country for self-determination".
At some point, it all regresses to the original Iranian revolution and overthrowing of the US-backed Shah. Is that an eternal defense from any meddling the nation commits? Where would you draw the line at their self-determination? I'm not defending the US strikes as a support of our own - it's our geopolitical strategy. Iran wanted to play at that too, and so now we're fighting.
Also, again, it's an oppressive theocracy that kills its own people, but again, that's not a casus belli. It does undermine me feeling bad for them not being able to self-determine themselves in other countries, though.
That's my mistake, I did not properly express that I was talking about what started the conflict, back in the 50's. From that point of view America is in the region for reasons that are considerably hostile to Iran. And outside of the coup and other meddling, the support for Iraq during their 1980 invasion of Iran feels like it provides a very rational reason for Iran to start funding its own proxies to fight against American presence.
Thankfully we got to that point regardless of the confusion I caused.
No, I feel they should be afforded the same defense any other country would be afforded. Considering the history and the reasons you gave, I don't see how they are not acting within reason.
Whilst the Iranian government is bad in many ways, the US can hardly position itself as competent judge after their handiwork in the region.
But even in a domestic comparison America can fall short. For instance, Iran executes drug dealers amid rising levels of drug abuse. Meanwhile in America the Sacklers get to die in peace with around 10 billion made from intentionally killing potentially hundreds of thousands of Americans.
Both regimes play dirty politics at the cost of their citizens lives and others. I am more partial to Iran being excessive with regards to 'popular uprisings' due their history and recent events in the region. By comparison I see no reason why rural Americans are being flooded with pharmaceutical or imported drugs that are killing them in droves. But that comparison may be too far afield, I don't know.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Are you comparing the holocaust to "deaths caused by military bombing/heavy weapons"?
I'm comparing things generally considered to be bad by Americans with the morally neutral geopolitical framework supplied by LazyLongposter. Which I think he is using to selectively justify Americans doing things we all known are morally bad.
As he stated, the US could have won the war in Vietnam had they just intentionally bombed the civilians harder. But because doing such things is too awful in the eyes of the public, the US stopped. Using that morally neutral standard, what is the problem with the holocaust? Killing your enemy is a winning strategy. Is it better to starve to death in camp than it is to be burned alive in a firestorm that was intentionally created by dropping incendiary bombs on wooden residential areas?
Yes, by ignoring my central point of "all of it's a disaster, you better have an objective you are accomplishing by doing so, and that better be worth the deaths", you can twist the tragedy of any intentional death into equivalence with genocide.
I also reject the "morally neutral" framework. The circumstances of what a country's objective is matters more than anything. It's the exact reason I support US and allied interests and do not support the objectives of hostile nations. It's not merely that they're opposed to me (though that is my personal stake in foreign policy, as I admitted earlier); it's that they're nations that do bad things and make people suffer. I can't think of a modern adversary that we've had where the opposing nation is hunky dory, and we're just going to war because we failed to resolve things in any other way (in fact, that is the great advantage of the post-World War II order we live in). It's not like we're bombing Canada over border disputes.
Again, object to the feasibility, justification, or alignment (if you dislike the US) of the use of force all you want. I'm just saying that if you're going to object to even a single civilian casualty in cases where the regimes are both actively operating against the US and are pretty nasty in and of themselves, you're not going to sway me.
Because if it's all a disaster and the only barometer to judge actions is our own self interest then we aren't twisting anything when we chalk up our collateral damage at the end of the day. It was all in the service of the objective we believed was worth the deaths. I'm sure the 1940's Germans wrt jews were as heartbroken as you are when you suggested Europe just turn away millions of refugees.
If the entire thing you wrote earlier boils down to your personal alignment with US foreign policy and you believe America to be morally superior then I'm not sure what lesson you were trying to parlay.
For instance, if you can't achieve your objectives without murdering millions of civilians or destabilizing entire nations, by what token are you morally better?
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
Sub par targets? Kharg Island is one of the most important targets in any Iranian scenario because it’s where all the oil gets processed. Please stop thinking in hour-long news cycles and imagine what an Iranian operation would look like if it was planned to take five weeks and we were only halfway into it.
I like this game we're playing where there's definitely a plan that's been clearly communicated, if you ignore half of what POTUS says, a third of what the SecState says, and two thirds of what the SecWar says.
Why do you think that press releases are a reflection of the true plan? I'd argue the opposite - that the Trump admin uses deliberate strategic ambiguity in their public statements. To quote 2016 candidate Trump: "I don't want to broadcast to the enemy exactly what my plan is."
Because that's been the expectation of every American president in wartime basically forever. That the president and his administration would clearly communicate the causes of the war, the motivations behind the actions of the war, the aims of the war. To do otherwise is morally unacceptable to me.
To accept that Trump has a plan but is lying to us about it repeatedly is to accept the status of subject rather than citizen, to be a slave rather than a man. "L'etat? C'est lui!" You seem to draw some line that Trump is lying to the press, he isn't lying to the press, he's lying to us.
I'm not anti-Trump or against regime change in Iran in principle, but I'm not going to "trust the plan." That's un-American.
Congress has the power to declare war (a point I agree on), but do the people? Should we hold a referendum before we attack our enemies?
I consider this perspective naive to the reality of military conflict. Apparently a big reason we struck when we did is because we had accurate intelligence that multiple Iranian leaders were in one place, and we had to act quickly to take advantage of the opportunity. There's a reason the executive is in charge of this - because it requires decisive action.
I'm sorry, but the expectation that the military explain its goals to you during the conflict is inane. Not just military goals, but diplomatic ones too, are closely held secrets. Why? Because we are in conflict with an adversary and denying them information is the obviously correct thing to do. Trump is refreshing in this aspect.
Too many of our Presidents are afraid to take action because of their fear of poll numbers. Talk to me in a few months when we actually know the results.
What comment are you replying to exactly? It sure ain't mine. Either that or you're truly arguing for a system of periodic slavery. Nowhere did I ask that the president share targeting information or war plans, just
That's not a big lift, if you have clear justifications for the war.
Maybe you missed that part. The state department has publicly facing documents describing our goals in our relationships to different countries, but they also have secret documents for the same, because the true motivations behind many of our actions are not the same as the gloss that political actors put out in press gaggles.
Beyond that, you're asking for
In other words, what our military objectives are. This is exactly what I'm objecting to. If we said 'our aim is to take out Iran's missile program' or 'to find and destroy nuclear facilities' or 'to kill XYZ leaders' or 'to stabilize oil shipping in the Strait' etc. etc. - now the enemy knows exactly they need to focus their strategy on to stop us. Surely you can understand that?
Even beyond that, the US has communicated the causes of the war, you just apparently don't think they're being clear enough. E.g. "Which is it? Are we taking out their nuclear capability or are we helping protestors?" When in reality, there are many interlocking reasons for the conflict and many of the actors, even within the US government, have different motivations. It is an error to try to simplify and say "This is the real reason," but it does appeal to people to try to do so. That's a big part of why many people say things like, "It's all because of Israel," or "It's all because of oil," and cease thinking further. It absolves them of the difficulty of weighing multiple factors.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is exactly what "democracy" meant, when it was meant seriously.
Current breaking news arrive that Athens and Sparta are at war again. The men of the city gather at the agora, debate the recent habbening, and vote whether the city joins with Athens against Sparta or the other way around.
Democracy requires informed citizenry with skin in the game, which was the case in these times. Everyone knew basic geography and political situation, everyone roughly knew where is Athens, where is Sparta and where is their city, and how strong they are. Everyone knew from direct experience how war looks like, and what will happen to you and your loved ones if you pick the wrong side.
Now, pollsters asking populace "Should we bomb Iraq, Iran, both or neither?" is akin asking five years old "When you grow up, do you want to be astronaut, accountant or garbage truck driver?"
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
Two more weeks, trust the plan? Short term pain, long term gain? It feels like I'm tuned in to the news cycle alright.
The US bombs or captures Kharg Island, halting 90% of Iran's oil processing and then what? The Iranians throw in the towel? Strike a peace with the US and Israel and we can all go home to for peace and prosperity? Genuinely, maybe that can happen. One can hope. But it sounds silly.
Or will it be another slow grinding down of conditions for human life in Iran, just like in Syria? Or will we repeat Iraq? How many women and children did those sanctions under Albright kill? Half a million? We're not even counting the invasions yet. How many refugees did Syria net the world?
I'll reserve me some pessimism, if based on nothing other than the cavalier attitude people can have toward human life and the future of their own allies.
This has been going around on Twitter so forgive the link to the slop account:
https://x.com/sethjlevy/status/2032516317866029535?s=46
Contrary to a lot of discussion here Trump has been aware of Kharg Island for 40 years (it would be hard not to be, it’s one of the central points in any war game over Iran)
You are welcome to still be skeptical or pessimistic or believe whatever you want… but clearly details about what to do with Iran are not news either to Trump or to the people running the military.
Given that the number floated recently by Trump was “five weeks” I’m willing to wait that long at least before proclaiming that Kharg Island constitutes some kind of spiraling out of control when — it was probably always going to be targeted. Because it has to be, because it’s one of the most important chokepoints on the map.
And like it or not there actually is a capital-P “Plan” that the 24-second news cycle isn’t really capable of judging.
Trump has known about Kharg Island for 40 years so therefor I should not be skeptical or pessimistic about the still undetermined goal of a plan that would be drawn together by the same institutions that brought us Iraq one and two, Afghanistan, Lybia and Syria.
I'm willing to wait five weeks and be proven wrong. As I said before, worst case scenario they are throwing shit at a wall hoping that it sticks. That doesn't change the underlying contention here. Which is that there is no stated goal with regards to this invasion. So how would one be able to judge the strategic salience of any action?
I think you mean the same institutions that brought us Venezuela. Iraq and Afghanistan began over two decades ago, which is a complete replacement cycle for the US military. Literally thousands of people have no other job than to analyze those conflicts and figure out what went wrong and how to do better.
No, it's the same institutions that brought us Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. Made obvious by how vague and obscure everything about this conflict is. Which is one of the problems highlighted in the Afghanistan Papers, but was also intuitively obvious regarding Iraq. Why invade Iraq? Because of 9/11. Except they had nothing to do with 9/11. Well, the WMD's! Except there were none and Saddam had already accepted investigators to confirm they had gotten rid of all of those. Well, the oil! Saddam was already providing regional stability and selling it internationally. I could go on.
The US was using the exact same tactic back then as they are now, except the Venezuelans allow themselves to be bought, whilst the Taliban did not. Iranian officials seem to not be accepting any bribes at a broad scale. So what alternatives do US strategists possess?
We are still waiting on the results of this conflict, but as it stands I see no reason to believe there is anything different going on. A thousand people can analyze a hammer, that won't make it any better at screwing. All we've seen so far is the hammer. I'm still waiting to see the screwdriver.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's a chokepoint for oil I guess, but I haven't seen anyone claim that it's a chokepoint for e.g. maritime traffic.
Let's say another three weeks go by. What kind of situation will make you say that you were wrong about everything going according to some reasonable plan? What are the strategic objectives that are supposed to be accomplished in the next three weeks, the failure of which will indicate that things are going off the rails?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'd imagine if the plan was always to seize islands in the Gulf that you wouldn't wait two weeks after the beginning of your air campaign to start transferring Marines in from out of theater.
Conversely, we have a lot of reason to think the current administration thinks in terms of short news cycles and poasting.
Trump has been aware of Kharg Island for 40 years:
https://x.com/sethjlevy/status/2032516317866029535?s=46
Again and politely: I think this is a form of TDS. Every reasonable expectation of how a war works is thrown out the window because Donald Trump is in charge. How long is it supposed to take to invade Kharg Island? Did they wait to destroy Iranian air capabilities first? Were they waiting on other intelligence? Did the Americans already have war plans for this contingency? The Israelis? The Saudis?
Well, since Donald Trump is the one in charge all these questions disappear. We know from our vaunted backseat driver theoreticians’ armchairs that the invasion of Kharg Island was unexpected, or should have happened sooner, or later, or has unimaginable consequences, or can’t possibly be a good idea. Or whatever. I heard the war plans were drawn up in crayon and Trump had to have explained to him what “oil” is. Hegseth is so evil he made the plans worse, but he was also too drunk to make them effective. If only we had General Milley back he would have saved everything
So our argument in favor of sane war planning is that it incorporates an idea our 80 year old president first fixated on 40 years ago, when he had no military experience or advice. Gotcha.
If you’re not aware of the obvious importance of Kharg Island and the fact it would trivially be in any war plan with Iran you are actually displaying a disqualifying level of ignorance here. I don’t even mean this as a personal attack: you clearly do not know the first thing about which you speak.
Acquiring the site where Iran processes 90% of its oil is just a weird fixation of Trump’s? I don’t know how to parse this except as another form of TDS.
That fact that Trump is and has been aware of Kharg Island demonstrates that he does know what he’s talking about, that US military plans were not made up in the 24-second news cycle, and that the hyper-cynical take pursued by ultra-skeptics is more based in emotion than anything else. You’re wrong, the US military does have a war plan and denying that is a conspiracy on par with denying the landing on the moon.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why risk ground forces' lives by taking them earlier?
Because they're not significantly at risk and they're actually ready to go.
Aren't they at greater risk at the beginning when Iran's ejaculation capabilities were not yet degraded and they could reasonably overload whatever temporary AA the marines were able to build at the island?
I think you misunderstand me. If the plan was to have the Marines seize Kharg Island, you probably wouldn't send them in right away. But you'd have them staged nearby; you wouldn't wait two weeks then move them in from the Pacific.
Ahh fair
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
wat
The new Supreme Leader is rumored to have been impotent.
More options
Context Copy link
Missile launches. They way they use them - without plan, goal, control or success makes the analogy apt.
More options
Context Copy link
I’ve heard of demographic warfare but not of that particular metric…
There was a plan back in the Kennedy admin to drop leaflets on Cuba warning the men that the presence of nuclear weapons on the island would cause so much radiation that it would make them impotent.
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
Do you have a conception of what the original US plan might have been; and how it might have changed due to events thus far? Just curious.
That's something that's bothering me about this entire enterprise. I'm not the most plugged-in person when it comes to geopolitical events, but I like to think I can read and understand the news, at least.
As it stands, I don't know quite why we're there, or what we want to accomplish, or how we plan to do it, or what our win condition is.
It makes me long for the days of desert storm, when that was all clearly laid out before lead started flying.
I think this piece from Ross Douthat is the most likely explanation. Trump is a bully, and while he's obviously no military expert, he has an uncanny sense for knowing when someone is weak. Iran was weaker than they'd been in a long time, so he seized the chance.
More options
Context Copy link
Why?
Look what Iran is doing - shutting down the global economy, launching missiles at and deliberately attacking civilian infrastructure and the economy (oil, travel, etc etc) of its neighbors. They've always been interested in doing this in all likelihood, but didn't think they could get away with it. They also had their civilian terror networks temporarily defanged.
What happens if they get the bomb? What happens if they rebuild the missile capacity and expand the drone capacity?
What if two years from now they wanted to close Hormuz and were a nuclear state? We'd have to just accept it or much riskier things.
The U.S. and Israel absolutely have classified timelines on missile production, they may have timelines on the nuclear stuff.
Iran can't be allowed to do what it wants to do, because it would do this. We know this, we can see now exactly why that is.
It just happened Trump was sitting in the chair instead of a cowardly president who might end up just waiting and praying.
Why now, specifically?
Trump made his threats and it was clear something was going to happen eventually, it appears to have gone off a bit half cocked but I imagine that's because the Iranians foolishly put enough of the government in one room together.
Why don't people understand this?
The government has been very explicit with stated public war aims and reasons, and has a number of private elements that are easily guessable. The media has landed on a meme to criticize this conflict as "they weren't clear" so people think it isn't clear when it is.
Which time were they extremely clear?
Was it when Rubio said we didn't really want to do this but we had to because the Israelis were doing it either way? Was it when Trump said their nuclear program was completely eliminated a few months ago? Was it when Hegseth said there would be no ground troops involved? Was it when Trump said that the whole thing was pretty much wrapped up last week?
More options
Context Copy link
Iran can’t be blamed for defending themselves from an unjust attack by Israel. I would hope Americans would do the same if they were in Iran’s place; if they wouldn’t, I think they lack courage and a moral compass. If Israel decided to start targeting the homes of every American service member, and our only hope was to shut it down, then that’s what America should do. This is the proper response to an Israeli attempt at your national annihilation, something they have a track record of doing in the past 80 years.
Israel does this
This applies to Israel
Israel has the bomb. Every accusation is an admission when it comes to Israel. The Israelis, with a straight face, will tell you we should “help the Iranian people have their voices heard” while they keep three million Palestinians under a military occupation and prevent them from voting and moving freely in violation of international law.
Can you point out the inciting incident of which Israel was the aggressor - and thereby justifies the characterization of a 'unjust attack', rather than a series of mutually aggressive tensions and accumulated causus belli between Iran and Israel that have flamed into war? Has Israel ever made 'justified' attacks? Can you name a single one, or is this another case of selective demands of rigor?
Or is everything Israel does illegal by definition, and we're playing wordcel games?
More options
Context Copy link
Iran has been waging proxy war against Israel for 44 years via Hezbollah, Hamas and their other paramilitaries. it has a literal doomsday clock counting down the days until Israel's destruction. If the regime didn't want a war with Israel, they've been going about it a funny way.
And it's not as if Israel is a threat to Iran. They're seperated by two countries and hundreds of miles. If Iran wanted peaceful relations with Israel, all they would need to do is stop funding Hezbollah and Hamas and stop threatening to nuke Israel.
There is a lot to criticise Israel about regarding Gaza and the West Bank, but Iran's conflict with Israel is one of Iran's making.
Their official stated policy goal is to leave the fate of Israel up to a democratic referendum which includes displaced Palestinians. Oh the horrors of justice and the rule of law! Is our heart so small and our palate so delicate that we should ignore three million Palestinians in the West Bank living in a dehumanizing and disenfranchised state as Israel’s state-sponsored proxy settlers (some labeled terrorist groups in the US) torture and torment Palestinian women and children nearly every month? I hope not. America should be unironic social justice warriors (not the gay kind).
Israel has been waging a proxy war upon much of the Middle East through her greatest proxy America. I hope I don’t need to list all of the atrocities and damage caused by this proxy in the region. We are literally their proxy. We do their bidding because their supporters pay us to. You can pick up a copy of the Israel Lobby and read about it. If it weren’t for Israeli lobbyists it is unlikely that Iraq and Afghanistan would happen, and we likely would not have taken out Assad (half a million dead), and so on.
Other proxies include the South Lebanon Army which caused the Sabra and Shatila massacre. You can read how “prior to the massacre, the IDF took [their proxies] to training camps in Israel and showed them documentaries about the Holocaust. The Israelis told the Lebanese fighters that the same would happen to them too, as a minority in Lebanon, if the fighters did not take action against the Palestinians”. And “as the massacre unfolded, the IDF received reports of atrocities being committed, but did not take any action to stop it. Instead, Israeli troops were stationed at the exits of the area to prevent the camp's residents from leaving and, at the request of the Lebanese Forces, shot flares to illuminate Sabra and Shatila through the night during the massacre.” Another group that Israel has funded is MEK which carried out assassinations in Iran.
It is completely reasonable for Iran to fund proxy forces against an expansionist power which has a history of oppressing their neighbors. You may have noticed that America has been doing the same thing, as we fund Ukraine because of the territorial ambitions of Russia. The difference is that any Ukrainian left in Russian territory will eventually be given full rights; the Israelis cleanse the land of every Muslim and Christian they can before acquiring it, and any remaining non-Jew is oppressed and cannot participate in Israeli democracy. Horrifying. Do you think Russia has the right to target American scientists sleeping in their homes with their children via ballistic missiles, because we funded a proxy group to defend against their expansionist ambitions?
Did you just...add a word to my quote? I don't know if that's against the rules or not, but it's definitely poor form.
I genuinely don't know what this is based on. I've Googled around and all I can find are articles about Iranian proxy war strategy. That is, a war with guns and bombs and rockets. Nothing about referendums. Indeed, I'm curious how exactly invading Israel and destroying its military could lead to a peaceful referendum?
Iran is not the Middle East, Iran is Iran. And the Iranian regime has been dedicated to the destruction of Israel since it took power in 1979. The idea that Iran is standing up on behalf of the greater Middle East seems like a stretch, given that Iran is currently bombing every Middle Eastern country it can reach, and has spent years funding paramilitaries in them.
More options
Context Copy link
This sounds very nice when put in such anodyne, bureaucratic terms. A rhetorical tactic you are very practiced at, phrasing horrendous or risible propositions in superficially reasonable ways.
"Iran just wants democracy and for the Palestinians to be granted suffrage! Who could be against that?"
Gosh, indeed, who could be... if one ignores the undeniable and immediate consequences of letting Palestinians vote on a "democratic referendum on the fate of Israel."
This is just how people who think Israel shouldn't exist say Israel shouldn't exist without saying "Israel shouldn't exist."
It's always amusing watching the Jew-haters suddenly become bleeding hearts over Palestinians. You don't care about Palestinians. You wouldn't want them in your country. You don't care about their enfranchisement or dehumanization. You are well aware of the lengthy history of Arabic atrocities carried out against each other, against Iranians, and against Africans. No one has treated the Palestinians worse than other Arabs. In fairness, that's because the Palestinians have had an unfortunate tendency to destabilize every country in which they are admitted. This sucks for the vast majority of Palestinian civilians, who as several people have already pointed out at length, are the unfortunate victims caught up in every war in which a nation undertakes aggression that the women and children and old men never signed up for. But the Israelis aren't refusing a farcical Palestine/Israel one state purely out of ethnic/religious exclusion (though that is certainly part of it). They reject your proposal (again, hilarious to see you pushing a proposal only advocated by the most deluded leftists in the West, only because it's something that would stick in a knife in Jews) because they can see what has happened in every country in which Palestinians become a political force, and because the Palestinians make no secret of what they want to do to Israelis. The idea that admitted as full citizens of Israel, Palestinians would proceed to coexist peacefully with the Jews as fellow citizens is not something anyone actually believes. I don't think even those deluded leftists really believe it, they just won't say out loud that what would result is something they think the Jews have coming.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I am pretty sure that the anti-Israel crowd has two arguments in response:
Proxy attacks don't count.
Hezbollah was formed to resist Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon; and therefore (a) Hezbollah has carte blanche to do whatever it wants against Israel, including acts of terrorism; and (b) other countries can freely make use of Hezbollah's carte blanche by funding and directing terrorist attacks, and it doesn't count.
Both of these arguments are so ridiculous on their face that anyone reading this will naturally suspect that I am strawmanning, however these arguments were really made and I can demonstrate it with quotes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I appreciate your response but I won't be engaging with you on this. I've personally found the anti-Israel/anti-Jewish posters to be too laser focused on that end of the conflict to the point where it makes the conclusions questionable and discussion unrewarding.
My apologies if I have you pegged incorrectly on the Jewish front.
What a coincidence! I too find people who post on the topic of Israel to be incapable of rational discussion because they fail to agree with me and my obviously correct points - just with the opposite political valence to you.
As I made clear down thread, I'm perfectly willing to engage with criticism of Jews, Israel, and this war. I find plenty of people capable of rational discussion about this topic including people I deeply disagree with.
However some of the posters here are clearly just angry, hateful, and blinded by some sort of intense and specific dislike that will never make sense to me and is clearly objectively irrational despite being historically common.
What's the value in discussion with someone who is going to blame the Jews every time? You already know they are going to blame the Jews. They aren't going to say anything novel. They might even be right occasionally but you won't be able to tell because they say the same thing every time.
I've never had any significant interaction with anti-semites in person or in real life prior to this conflict and I now get while growing up the Jewish people I know just automatically assumed anyone who was anti-Israel was anti-semitic.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Then don't reply.
I mean it's a tough situation, I'd prefer to not be rude and both options are rude.
I think many people here have something interesting to say for or against this conflict but at this point I've started to find the anti-jew posters aggressively one note on anything that can be blamed on jews. On reddit I'd tag people with RES so I could keep track of things like this, but I don't know how to do that here and I wasn't 100% if he was one of those...and well he made it clear.*
If you are more irked by my lack of response to you, well I watched mainstream media on the recent events, personally heard the talking points in real time, felt convinced I understand the public justification and aims, then watched the dem talking heads land on a narrative of "not clear" and people download that.* I am happy to explore how valid my thought process is on this with a curious party like OP, but your stance suggests a fixed position and willingness to use disingenuous talking point to affirm your stance.
Ex: At this point Trump has been in the public sphere long enough that unwillingness or inability to adjust to his administrations communication style is the fault of the interlocutor. The lack of professionalism is a reason to critsizie them for lack of professionalism, it is not a reason to fail to appropriately engage with their communication.
*Plenty of reasons to dislike Israel and its recent actions, but if what you are saying tries to make Israel seem worse than or equivalent to Iran+terrorists than the complaints just aren't credible and I think discussion is unlikely to be fruitful.
*Seen many times in recent high quality political discussion like with Mark Halperin going "here are the aims! They said that in this speech! Stop pretending it wasn't clear" and talking heads just not engaging.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The Israeli strategy has long been to confine American discourse to a narrow passage of acceptable comparisons and permitted moral indignations, so I do not find this response surprising.
My guy, I implore you to consider the ramifications of our interaction going like this: "I'm worried you make everything about Israel" "of course Israel made you say that."
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
A shattered Iran in civil war would have to be terrible for sea traffic right? I mean there's always going to be one faction shooting at tankers.
And the gulf countries have enough money to have couple of airplanes and many drones patrolling 24/7
More options
Context Copy link
It remains to be seen whether the IRGC are actually capable of guerilla warfare. Iran isn’t Yemen or Afghanistan or even Iraq. Iran fell below replacement level tfr 25 years ago. Iran is more developed and educated than those nations. It lacks the strong tribal loyalty upon which the Taliban and Houthis rely. IRGC officers are used to creature comforts, not living in caves.
It is still a very high risk, of course, but it’s not guaranteed that a collapse leads to a Houthi style Shia Islamist insurgency.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link