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 -
I was in a hot tub the other weekend arguing with a French man about politics while his wife was hopped up on fertility pills and flirting with every available man at the party, she was really into one of my best friends whose chest she kept asking to feel. The man argued with me that Trump's North Korea policy was disastrous, and I remember what North Korea was like before when they were launching missile tests every few months and nobody could solve that perpetual crisis. It seems obviously better to me now, trivially obviously better, but I guess I can lead a horse to water but I can't make it think. Anyways he ended our conversation by proclaiming that Obama was the greatest president America ever had and my friend ultimately decided not to fuck his wife.
So when I read this:
I don't know, what do you want me to say? I think you're wrong about everything. I think this entire forum is wrong about everything, frankly, scrolling idly the contents of discussion about the war today. Iran won? America lost? What planet are we living on? I guess 8 years on nobody can agree whether it was good or bad for Trump to open normal diplomatic relationships with North Korea, and last week on this forum I argued against the position that nothing changed in Venezuela. I guess I can lead a boar's two trotters but I can't make them sync. What else am I supposed to say?
For the sake of argument let's try this anyways: In a span of weeks America: eliminated Iran's entire leadership class, replaced with new leaders who know we could kill them too at any time; destroyed a significant portion of Iran's missile industrial base; destroyed a significant portion of Iran's nuclear program; achieved total air supremacy; had one plane hit by missiles and land safely; had another plane hit in which an American soldier fell into Iran so that we had to airdrop dozens of men into the country and build a secret military base from behind enemy lines including an airship, and Iran couldn't stop any of this; decimated Iran's navy; destroyed Iran's ability to project force in the Middle East.
Yeah yeah details of all this stuff is ultimately classified so I guess you can squint and argue that we didn't actually destroy anything significant. I can take a Norse to water but I can't make him sink. I can't really stop you from interpreting events however you see fit. But let me state clearly that literally everybody I know in the military with any knowledge of how war works and how this war has worked is not of this opinion. There are a lot of opinions about strategic success but the idea that Iran Giles Corey is jerking off in the corner going "More weight Daddy! More weight! I can take it! I can take it all!" is something I only see on social media, and basically only from people ideologically precommitted to point sourcing some water and not taking a drink.
I guess the other argument is that the American military achieved tactical success, but not strategic success, because Iran played its hidden trap card to summon a monster in attack mode. I think this is silly. But there's a lot of misinformation floating around so let me emphasize one point: Iran did not ever control the strait of Hormuz. This goes so counter to what everyone is taking for granted that I want to repeat myself to affirm that I know what I am saying and I know how crazy this will sound to you and I'm saying it anyways: Iran did not control the strait of Hormuz. Ships have been passing through Hormuz this entire time, albeit at an obviously reduced rate. Distinction without a difference? Not at all. Iran could not actually exert control over the strait. It was able to increase risk substantially such that most ships refused to run the strait, and many did pay a bribe for extra safety. But some ships also ran the supposed blockade and Iran couldn't stop them. It's been happening in the background all along. And I would like to insist again that there is a big difference between "Iran controls Hormuz" and "Iran lashes out". Because the latter implies a lack of ability to really control the situation or escalate in any other way, which matters if say President Trump were to escalate by say bombing say all of Iran's electrical infrastructure. -- ?
Because that's what happens next. Trump threatens to wipe Iran back to the Stone Age, and weirdly Iran at this point wants to negotiate peace. Weren't they winning? Well, I guess the next layer is to argue that the Peace Deal is going to give Iran everything they want, and this is all a face-saving exercise for Trump, except that we all know that really he lost egg on his plate bacon on his face etc. etc. But this is also what happened with North Korea. Trump tweets that his nuclear button is bigger and it works, twitter hyperventilates that nuclear war is on the horizon, then Trump and Kim are shaking hands. And there are still people arguing that Trump lost. I can take a horse to slaughter but I can't take a twink.
We don't have a real peace deal yet and the ceasefire could fall through and anything can etc. etc. etc. But I don't see how you argue that Trump is coping and Iran is preening without also believing absurd tall tales about Iran's military prowess. We killed them all and we can kill them again and there's still a lot of bombing left to do!
So I think I can confidently make quite a few predictions that will be vindicated, because these are American non-negotiables and because America won (America is winning):
In exchange we might lift sanctions on Iran and start to negotiate with it as a normal country again. And many will complain that this is exactly what the Obama Deal did (which is not true) and that Trump capitulated (which will not be true). But, ultimately, this is how the Middle East is going to go. Trump and Kushner negotiated the Abraham Accords, the Middle East is going to transform from an endless sink of blood and treasure to an oasis of peace and prosperity and bad taste. Iran is the only regional power not integrated into the framework of the Abraham Accords. It will be made to, implicitly or explicitly. Once that happens most of the rest doesn't matter. They can continue to be a theocracy, or whatever. Britain is still a monarchy. Canada too. Does it matter?
But I have no hesitations in declaring that America won and Trump is right about everything. Can I say that? Because probably we'll continue to have all these same arguments forever because our basic ability to deny reality is a constant. I can't make anybody remember what news out of North Korea was like 10 years ago. I can't actually convince you that the Obama deal was much worse. I can't actually show you rockets and moon bases and satellites and make you a believer. I can coat your pores in flour but I can't make them stink. Trump can bake a course in Qatar but he can't rake a sink.
I was waiting to read your take from God-Emperor Trump's Naruto-world.
So look- it was never in doubt that the US could inflict massive amounts of destruction on Iran, and that any military conflict would be one-sided in our favor. This is not news. Of course we can bomb Iran's infrastructure to rubble. We've always had that capability. No one thought Iran was going to pull a rabbit out of its hat and clear the skies of US planes or take out a carrier group.
Hell, we could invade, conquer, and occupy Iran if we really wanted to. It would be enormously costly, but I don't think anyone doubts that the US could do that if we were willing to pay the cost.
Your definitions of "victory" seem limited to "We hurt them worse than they could possibly hurt us," along with a lot of wild predictions that the Iranians are so completely cowed now that they will be good boys and do none of the things they've been doing for the last 50 years that have so aggravated us. No more sponsoring of terrorist groups, no more inflaming regional conflicts, no more threatening oil shipping, no more trying to build nukes.
The problem with your triumphal narrative about how Iran got totally recked is this: yes, they did. We have totally recked countries before. Vietnam. Iraq. Afghanistan. (I'm not reaching back for WWII, because those countries we actually occupied and changed regimes and turned into the good boys they are today.) The US is very good at wrecking countries.
As events play out even today, we know that Iran can and will rebuild, even after losing most of its military capability. And it's still capable of firing missiles at its neighbors, it's still got oil money which will still go to Hezballah and the Houthis, et al, and as for tolling the Strait of Hormuz, let's just say it seems that what the US is saying and what Iran is saying are two very different stories.
I know you do not believe it's possible to doubt Trump's glorious divinity without suffering from TDS, and that no one who does not bask in his aura will ever do anything glorious, not even sit in a hot tub contemplating fucking another man's wife. But I just read your confident predictions about how Iran will totally no longer be in the nuclear or terrorism or troublemaking game at all, followed by you denying that any continued conflict with Iran could possibly be evidence that perhaps they have not been brought to heel quite as throughly as you insist they have, and all I can say is -
What the fuck? Seriously. What the fuck.
What did we accomplish? Yeah, we kicked the shit out of Iran. Whoo-wee. Never doubted we could do that. It's ridiculous in one sense to say the US "lost" the war when Iran is the one with a bunch of dead leaders and sunk ships. But what was our objective? What was our win condition? All the things you say we have already achieved, which Iran is denying we have achieved at all, and which you are tacitly admitting we will still have to fight them again in the future to prevent them from achieving. Spending all this money, causing all this destruction, for an end-state that appears to me to put us in no better a position than we were before it started, at great economic cost, if not "losing," certain does not look like "winning" to me.
We "won" in the same sense that we "won" in Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan. No one would argue those countries scored any kind of military or economic or political defeat against the US. And yet. Does anyone really think we "won" those conflicts? That we achieved our objectives and it was so worth it that we'd do it again if we had it to do over? That we couldn't have spent national treasure on better purposes?
When the war started, I was not enthused, but, well, I also do not like Iran. So if we actually toppled their regime, or at least crushed them so thoroughly that they became a non-player in the region, and we will never, ever have to worry about an Iranian nuclear program again, I'd have considered it a questionable but at least definable victory.
Instead, right now I see a Trump TACO and you still insisting he's the greatest thing ever with the fervor of a Maoist admiring mangos.
You are right. You cannot make other people see reality. What do you even want me to say?
!remind me 1-3-5 years
(And don't think I don't notice how much weasel-room "unilateral" gives you.)
I will make an argument by analogy.
Suppose that if, in the opening days of the war, Russia's special forces and air wings assassinated Zelensky - with standoff munitions, ballistic missiles, FSB agents, what have you - as well as all the senior generals of the Ukrainian armed forces and many members of the Rada. That all of the Western aid was blown up in its arsenals, and Russian biplanes were flying freely over Ukrainian airspace with impunity.
This is, by all accounts, a Russian nationalist wet dream. If it actually happened, it would have been a crushing defeat for Ukraine even if not a single Russian soldier took a step further south. Ukraine would no longer be a threat to Russia in any military sense. Similarly, Iran is no longer a threat to the United States. They may try to return to that state, but such measures are expensive and long in the making. And the Americans can always come in with the Israelis again. It's a little sad that the regime did not change, but that was a nice to have, not an explicit war goal.
The Iranians can continue to hate the West, but they can do so impotently. If that is all this operation accomplished, then it was a worthwhile investment.
Okay. So if the Russians did all that, and Ukraine was still threatening to join NATO, Russians would credibly ask "What was the point of all that?"
Of course, if Russia did all that, they could literally walk into Ukraine and annex it with barely a whimper. This is manifestly not the case for Iran.
So again, if we are back here again in a couple of years, then what was the point?
Have we destroyed their nuclear program? Have we really?
Are ships sailing through the Strait of Hormuz without any concerns about Iran?
I would like the answers to these questions to be "yes." Instead, the answers to these questions are carefully hedged.
Why is periodic warfare not an acceptable outcome here?
I'm not even particularly interested in this question because of this whole Iran War thing (IMHO it's too soon to tell, I will probably have more opinions when the dust settles but right now I think I have a lot of the exact same concerns you do about this specific conflict) but I see this very common way of thinking everywhere, as if wars are pointless unless you forever and always solve all of the problems that led them to begin. Perhaps that is a bit of an exaggeration, and it's not what you said, but I think you see my point.
I am wary of this thinking because it seems to me it was part of what drove GWOT-era maximalism. Now, maybe that's true! But it seems like an unconsidered assumption and I am interested in why it exists and if it is defensible.
Because it's expensive and kills people and destroys things. In other words: war is bad.
At the risk of repeating myself for the slow kids in the back, that doesn't mean I am always against all wars. But I am against fighting wars just because we can.
I especially don't want American lives lost and American property destroyed, but as little as I think of the Iranian regime, I would also prefer not be killing Iranians and wrecking their shit without a good reason, one that benefits me and my fellow Americans.
You've gone from "We totally won, Iran is over, this was worth it!" to "What's the big deal if periodically bombing Iran is just something we do now?"
Sure, agreed.
But historically winning a war permanently is much more costly than fighting a war and then hammering out a peace that ends up being a breather. Periodic warfare is a historical norm. And the last time we decided "you know what, we're not doing that again" we (or at least our allies, if you want a narrower definition of "we") ethnically cleansed the losers and then we militarily occupied them for an indefinite period of time. And it's paid off for seventy years and counting.
So are you saying that should be our victory condition in all wars? Or do you think fighting smaller wars that kick the can down the road is acceptable ever?
Are you confusing me with my twin?
Whoops. Yes, apologies.
Flashback to when @ZorbaTHut banned somebody for having a confusing username.
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