site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 23, 2026

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.

3
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Philip Zekilow, someone who would know more than anyone about the true motivations for the war, admitted it was just for Israel:

https://archive.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2004/0329israel.htm

Third. The unstated threat. And here I criticise the [Bush] administration a little, because the argument that they make over and over again is that this is about a threat to the United States. And then everybody says: ‘Show me an imminent threat from Iraq to America. Show me, why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us?’ So I’ll tell you what I think the real threat is, and actually has been since 1990. It’s the threat against Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it’s not a popular sell.

We are replaying many of the soundbytes used for Iraq: https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

  • seeking nuclear weapons

  • supports terrorism

  • practices terror against its own people

  • “possesses ballistic missiles”

Why is this narrative making the rounds? Yes, okay, Netanyahu and a few of his allies wrote articles supporting an Iraqi invasion, and Israel shared some intel with us, but there's also a pretty large body of evidence suggesting that a lot of Israelis (especially government officials as opposed to pure politicians) felt like it was a distraction from the 'true threat' of Iran, the Axis of Evil member they cared a lot more about. No one seriously believed that toppling Iraq would weaken Iran, after all. And as history proved this notion was indeed idiotic; Iran profited greatly from Saddam's downfall and Israel pretty directly suffered as well as Iran-sympathetic militias and religious groups gained greater control. On the whole there's really no good argument that Israel puppeteered us into Iraq.

Afghanistan? Sure, Israel supported it (happily). So did almost everyone though (at least in general). Other countries and their populations disagreed about how militaristic the response should be (and how quickly the US should have reached for that option), and certainly weren't as gleeful, but the notion that Israel effectually egged us on is extremely skimpy on evidence. In Afghanistan we had invoked Article 5 with NATO, had UN backing, had an obvious grievance, etc. and it's absurd to suggest Israel possibly could have meaningfully moved the needle there.

It’s the threat against Israel

I think this is a factor, but certainly not the only factor or even the biggest factor. Western nations have been getting involved in the sandbox for centuries before Israel came into existence. It's a place with oil resources and a travel route for a preposterous amount of commerce and a geography that lends itself to sectarian conflict. If israel was established in brazil or wherever else they were considering I think we'd still be seeing conflict in that region and I expect the US as hegemon would be involved.