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 gonna quote that second instance where Graham boasts about how he was helping Netanyahu persuade Trump, getting 'special intelligence' from Mossad but I thought my post was getting too long.
But Trump did have the CIA and NSA and military to advise him. He has agency and bears responsibility for ignoring their warnings and favouring Israeli 'intelligence'. US intelligence has been reporting for years that Iran was not actively seeking nuclear weapons. An indictment on the system, that key information doesn't make its way to decision-making circles. It's a little like how in the late Soviet Union, Gorbachev couldn't even get access to the real military budget and Politburo ministers did not understand inflation at a basic level.
CIA/NSA/State Dept/Shadowy Deep State Inc. have been vocally wanting to attack Iran for like half a century -- I find it highly implausible that Trump went to them and said "Bibi says we should bomb Iran", and the response was "Noooo" or even "one does not simply bomb Iran" rather than "hell yeah, warm up the fleet"!
There was skepticism about attacking Iran from the CIA, they came under lots of political pressure to take a more hawkish tone about Iran's nuclear capabilities:
https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/static/2007-Iran-Nuclear-Intentions.pdf
It was the same story in the later 2019 reports and everything up until the war itself, no imminent threat from Iranian nuclearization - but Trump and the hawks hated this intelligence. Tulsi Gabbard was also pressuring against the 2026 war. The military wasn't too keen either, Caine said the attack was risky:
https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2026/02/23/trumps-top-general-foresees-acute-risks-in-an-attack-on-iran/
And previous CENTCOM commanders had been against an attack as well, years prior, Gates warned against an attack. The general US deep state attitude is more like 'this is a very courageous decision, on your head be it' than genuine enthusiasm.
The hawks are more in the 'think tanks, FDD, political aides and Israeli officials' sort of genre.
What reports are those? And what in the world makes you think that the Deep State is putting its true goals in reports on the internet? That seems like the very opposite of their MO, no?
Tulsi Gabbard is strongly against frivolous warmaking and diametrically opposed to the Deep State on most any matters that come to mind; it's kind of her whole deal! Trump was clearly not listening to Tulsi on this one.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/33199-document-33-office-director-national-intelligence-worldwide-threat-assessment-us
The 2019 Worldwide Threat Assessment says this:
And its the same since then in later reports, with politicians. US intelligence said Iran was not racing towards a bomb. If they wanted a bomb, they'd just get one.
Iran wants optionality, to be able to quickly acquire nuclear bombs if they decide they want them.
If you want a more narratival version of what I'm saying, here's Amerikanets, he lists a bunch of sources to justify his point, the US military and intelligence forces have not been eager for this conflict: https://www.amerikanets.com/p/they-saw-it-coming
I don't think the Deep State wanted a war with Iran, they wanted to focus on China and Russia rather than get bogged down in the Middle East again. They were somewhat embarassed by the last politically motivated WMD story and it also really damaged the US position, they weren't keen to let the politicians bully them into making up false intelligence to justify a war again.
More options
Context Copy link
No, and I'm not sure what could possibly make you say that. The deep state isn't about putting a smoke generator in a room, because smoke-filled room consoiracies are fun, it's just the unelected parts of the government coordinating enough to become their own faction. In our managerial system "here's a report written by experts (us) saying you should do exactly what we want you to do" is the textbook case of their MO.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is another one of those lazy Trump myths that needs to be challenged. Trump ignored American intelligence and only listened to the Israelis? You were there in the Situation Room? What did the American intelligence reports claim? Did the Israelis say Trump should do a naval blockade?
More options
Context Copy link
Hard disagree. Obama or GWB or Clinton could have all gotten honest capability assessments from the military/intelligence community. So could Trump, if he wanted. I am not a fan of the CIA, but I do not think they would push a president they dislike into a bad war just to harm him domestically. I also do not think their median employee is a pink-haired lesbian with a gender studies degree.
While Obama and GWB have fired some high-ranking generals, under Trump 10% of the top brass was fired or sidelined. I surmise this is not conductive to an atmosphere of honest feedback. "Mr Hegseth, I think engaging Iran on this scale will not result in regime change, but drag the US into a long-winding and unpopular war" is unlikely to be received very well -- probably he would tell you to get your testosterone levels checked because you are lacking the Spartan warrior spirit or something.
Trump got the presidency twice because he is good at influencing public perception -- who cares if his claims are bullshit as long as the people believe them. Unfortunately for the US, neither the economy nor the military run entirely on vibes.
The system which really failed is not the US intelligence apparatus, but the electorate which decided to elect an egomaniac who believes he is better at everything than the long-serving domain experts.
This is where I think you are wrong. I don't think capability assessments are the issue here, its all about willpower assessments, which long time employees and generals appear to be the worst at.
There is no way to think there exists some "deep state" (for lack of a better word) general or civilian in the DOD circles would have told Trump that if Iran pirated French vessels in response to airstrikes the French would do nothing. Who would have been that guy? Such a person with such a low opinion of the French would have been driven out by the establishment years ago. They'd never make general while openly stating that NATO is a bunch of wimps who would rather just mail Iran nukes then lift a finger to stop them obtaining nukes.
I agree this feedback would be risky under trump and hegseth, but I just disagree that it is relevant. The Iran war is a military success despite having no real end date. In fact, if the question is the lack of end date, it is the lifelong employees that will be advocating against the best ways to bring about an end date, such as destroying power plants, Kharg Island, "bridge day" as it was once floated as an idea, etc.
And on the other side, its not like there was a lack of people telling Trump not to do the war, almost all reporting indicates that Vance was opposed to the war on the grounds it would be unpopular.
More options
Context Copy link
I was a little unclear there, I was sort of gesturing more at what you were saying about 'neither the economy nor the military run entirely on vibes.' Obviously it didn't come out that way.
I agree that there's a problem in that US decision-making circles include a bunch of flatterers, lightweights and foreign agents who can crowd out the sober analysts.
More options
Context Copy link
They already lied to Trump during his first term to keep doing shit they wanted to do in the Islamic world (Syria and Afghanistan). I sincerely believe the Afghanistan pullout was deliberately sabotaged to punish Biden for taking away their medal farm.
And the fundamental question that the Hegseth shakeups are attempting to address is "Are these generals good at war, or are they good at slide decks that brownnose the right people and don't rock the boat"? The core criticism is that for the last 20 years, the top levels of the military have, in fact, been running on vibes. Directly disagreeing with your boss is, in fact, high-T behavior.
More options
Context Copy link
Those “long-serving domain experts” got us Afghanistan and Iraq. Your premise that Trump firing generals is bad for war fighting falls apart when they are generals like Milley.
Clinton oversaw the blowback to the Tailhook Scandal which ultimately purged the military command structure far more severely than anything Trump has done so far.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link