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 -
What does the anti-war side in the US want in the Iran conflict? I'm woefully ignorant on this point of view, so I'm wondering if I can get some steelmans here.
The special military operation has not necessarily turned in the US's favor. And I understand why a majority of people were against getting into this absolute mess in the first place. But now that this mess has happened, it doesn't seem so easy to just pack up and go home. Assuming that the US passed a war powers vote, or otherwise just decided just to drop everything and go home, what next? It's a total capitulation, and to me it seems braindead obvious that Iran isn't going to stop harassing and extorting nearby shipping. I mean, what have they got to lose, meanwhile the more they extort the more money they get. So it seems like the only way that the shipment of oil can return to a normal state is if Iran is backed into a corner and is forced to stop what they are doing.
So I don't really understand the point of view of the anti-war side, such as the Democrat establishment
If their vote actually succeeded wouldn't this be pretty much the worst possible outcome? Iran commits piracy and extortion and the rest of the word twiddles their thumbs and just lets Iran do it? I can see a few hypotheses, but none of them seem to be a principled anti-war stance:
I'm sure I'm missing something here. What are the strongest ideas that make the anti-war side's case in terms of what should be done about the situation?
Does a politically-viable path to victory exist? If, not--if this is going to be how it ends anyway-- isn't it better to get it over with as soon as possible, rather than after years of fighting that don't actually accomplish anything? The decapitation campaign has clearly failed to break the Iranians. What's next? Boots on the ground? Bombing civilian infrastructure? Nukes?
Iran is short material to wage a war and is being blockaded. They lack the capacity to continue to function as a state. By the latest reports the IRGC has staged a coup to depose the faction that was willing to surrender. (There is a faction that is willing to surrender.) Their Supreme Leader is a cardboard cutout. Every day that the status quo continues the Iranians become closer to permanently unraveling. Apparently, even so, the Iranians are willing to release political prisoners at Trump’s request because they’re scared of escalation.
If you are right, then in a few weeks the north coast of the Strait of Hormuz will be under the "control" of a failed state and anyone who wants to create havoc can set up shop there and harass shipping with cheap land-based drones (with the Houthis being the proof of concept that this is technically feasible, and hard to counter without boots on the ground). This is one of the predictable bad outcomes of a successful war against Iran, and a large part of why conventional wisdom (including among non-leftists) was that the war was to avoided if possible.
The chance of Donald Trump, as the Oracle would put it, invading Persia and destroying a great empire, continues to rise.
A non-state level actor trying to commit piracy in that area won't be able to reliably collect the spoils.
More options
Context Copy link
We destroyed a large part of Iran’s capacity to build cheap drones. We can destroy the rest if hot war resumes. We can inflict far more harm on Iran than they can inflict on us. This is why Iran seemingly already contains a faction willing to negotiate with and surrender to us.
If this were the case we would expect American power to be declining, not growing.
For example, someone I know predicted to me that American ships blockading Hormuz would be sitting ducks, and Iran would shoot them all down. Worst naval disaster in American history. This hasn’t happened yet. But at least it’s a theory that looks like America losing. Right now we have Iran half-destroyed, begging for anything but Bridge and Power Plant Day, cardboard cutout of a supreme leader, possibly now an IRGC coup, America is exercising control over the strait, increasing supply of oil from other sources to compensate for what’s being blocked, total air superiority, working with Israel and Saudi Arabia for a final resolution — and I guess America is losing because the price of oil is a dollar higher than it was two months ago or something.
We can't destroy Iran's capacity to build cheap drones without blockading land routes from China and every garage where they can be assembled in Iran. Russia can't do it to Ukraine, Ukraine can't do it to Russia, and we couldn't do it to the Houthis. Shahed type drones (not to mention mines) will always pose a threat to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz unless the Iranians on the coast no longer want to launch drones or are no longer there (read: invasion).
More options
Context Copy link
The Houthi threat to shipping is not based on the Yemeni drone industry. Failed states do not have domestic armaments industries. Somehow they still seem to be lousy with weapons.
And? If the US inflicts a lot of harm on Iran an Iran inflicts a little bit of harm on the US, that looks like a bad outcome for both the US and Iran. War is a negative-sum game, and "neither side gets a good result" is a possible outcome, indeed probably the default outcome.
Right now America is doing worse than they were doing in Iraq in 2003. Not much worse - I am happy to concede they are still "winning" in the way they "won" in Iraq. But all you are saying here is that US forces are closer to the "Mission Accomplished" moment than some war-sceptics think they are.
The technical ability of the US to administer air-power-based punishment beatings to Iran is not in doubt. The argument is about what political goals, if any, can be achieved using punishment beatings alone, and whether they are worth the consumption of materiel and damage to the world economy.
This is the problem in the analysis. Maybe this is worth exploring.
The potential benefit to America winning this war is huge. We defeat an ancient enemy that has killed American soldiers for fifty years. We create a new order in the Middle East that turns a black hole of money and blood into an oasis of energy and peace. America acquires a dominant controlling position over global energy markets. We control the major global choke points of shipping. America eliminates the artificially cheap source of oil China was using to industrialize at our expense. America eliminates a major provider of arms to Russia. America remakes the entire global order and neutralizes one of our most intransigent foes.
The return on investment here is immeasurable. It almost can’t be measured in money because it is the thing on which money itself has value. America will be in the most dominant global position it has ever been, a new apogee of power.
If you run the Expected Value calculations here, Iran would have to impose tremendous costs on America for this to not be worth it. Collapse of the empire level costs. Thousands of soldiers dead, navies destroyed, American tech revealed as a pipe dream scam, territory lost.
People are talking as if this is happening, but mostly all Iran is able to do is bottleneck the strait and disrupt the supply of oil. This is already being solved. The part that can’t be replaced is so far being digested by global markets.
I’m somewhat aware that as I make this case I sound sycophantic as if denying the costs of war and I suspect this is why may deny my analysis. What I am saying is that in the big picture these costs are rounding errors. Iran is not hitting America where it hurts and probably can’t. Maybe planes shot down and bases attacked are high costs to pay but in the broader context the operation has been extremely successful.
It might not look this way read from European headlines about the chaos Trump is causing and kvetching about oil being a dollar higher than it was before. But overall Trump is playing for all the marbles and has every reason to keep going
This is getting sad.
Russian drones are made in Russia (with Chinese components). Modern Gerans have little in common with Shahed-136, Iran provided the initial IP, not current supply. You're literally just regurgitating propaganda headlines, in this case "primitive Russians can't make drones and depend on Iranian industry".
And what "at our expense"? You mean at the expense of sanctions you put on Iranian oil, making China the buyer of last resort?
Very well, let us see.
This style of argument would be a lot more productive and interesting if you didn’t make what I said artificially dumb
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