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 -
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/more-marines-heading-to-middle-east-as-u-s-continues-relentless-strikes-on-iran
To my knowledge, US ground forces have not been meaningfully involved in the Iran conflict. It appears that this might be changing.
What strategic objectives would 2,500 marines be able to achieve in the context of this conflict? Are the islands in the strait important enough to capture but far enough from the Iranian mainland to actually hold? I'll admit that I am no expert in this. At the moment all I can do is hope none of my relatives get deployed and hope for the best.
Trump just announced they destroyed all military targets on Kharg Island, so, presumably they'll conquer that?
Kharg Island, I have learned through situation monitoring, is the way Iran processes 90% or so if its oil for export.
I have no idea how sane this is. Maybe it'll be fine?
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.
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
wat
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.
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.
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