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.
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.
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
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