domain:mattlakeman.org
sockpuppet2
7hr ago
John Psmith reviewed "Leap of Faith," about the institutional failures or collective "non-decision" leading to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The review begins:
There are two stories from the run-up to the American invasion of Iraq that I can’t get out of my head. The first is that in the final stages of war planning, the US Air Force was drawing up targeting lists for the sorties they expected to make. They already had detailed plans for striking Iraq’s air defense systems, but they worried that they would also be asked to disable Iraqi WMD sites. So the Air Force pulled together a special team of intelligence officers to figure out the right coordinates for all the secret factories and labs that were churning out biological weapons and nuclear materials. Try as they might, they couldn’t find them. So…they just kept on looking.
The second story comes from an anonymous source who described to Michael Mazarr, the author of this book, the basic occupation strategy that the National Security Council was settling on. The concept was that once you “cut off the head” of the Iraqi government, you would witness a “rapid and inevitable march toward Jeffersonian democracy.” What I find amazing about this is that nobody even stopped to think about the metaphor — how many things march rapidly and decisively after being decapitated?
By his description, everybody involved wanted to invade Iraq, but the dynamic that resulted in an invasion seemed to be that of the Abilene Paradox. He links it to CW issues, with discussion of "moralism" in American foreign policy and due to it being a major issue about which American government went against the overwhelming preference of the populace, and Trump being an outlier critic of the war being a big part of his early appeal. A handful of thoughts:
-
Coincidentally, I just listened to a long interview with an early American casualty in the "First Battle of Fallujah" - it's worth a listen
-
It's hard to square the Powell Doctrine with the description of Powell, which raises a lot of questions
-
I'm skeptical of the accuracy and/or probative value of the psychoanalyses of the people involved, more generally, and it's unclear if it's Psmith's own interpretation or him relaying that of the original author
-
One point raised is that the perceived easy success in Afghanistan was a major factor, which makes me wonder if military campaigns should be deliberately made to seem more difficult than they are
-
I don't remember any defenses of the war to contrast against Trump
-
While one can debate the merits of NATO Expansion, which Psmith criticizes at the end, I don't remember anyone advocating it on moralistic grounds (or the basis of specific alleged strategic threats) or think it's a good parallel, in general (you could say that it's an issue with a disconnect between government policy and the preferences of populace, but the disconnect would be in the general vein of the proverbial man on the street not following that area of foreign policy)
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
8hr ago
OP’s a woman
Yes but this is a topic that comes up with some frequency and there are certain male posters who have strong opinions on it as well.
they’re more upset that the women aren’t being promiscuous with them
Yes but the point is that they care about it at all, regardless of their motivations. (The motivations are at least somewhat complex and multilayered. Yes at the end of the day it’s really about “all the women should belong to me” but I think there’s at least some genuine pro-social concern mixed in as well.)
hanikrummihundursvin
8hr ago
Almost. Here's the tidbit I replied to and my reply:
Sure he could hire personal assistants and prostitutes, but he's got a company to run and it's just easier to have a wife.
I've never had a single person tell me it's easier to have a wife. In fact it's the one thing I hear most guys complain about at work.
Now, maybe that connection wasn't clear to people, even if I directly replied to that short comment, thinking it did not need a quote to be clear. So I clarified in this comment chain:
I understand the point but in relation to Jeff Bezos you are not explaining how having a wife is easier than having paid assistants do all of the things that need to be done.
Is it easier having a wife than a paid assistant if you are a billionaire? (Maybe if that assistant has a termination clause of 36 billion dollars.) Queue the wifeguys talking about how great their personal marriages are and how good of an arrangement it is for them. Now, was I to assume they are billionaires or middle class joes when interpreting their comments?
I wouldn't really care but I get the feeling of... I don't know, groupthink and fallacy? when getting a reaction like this:
You have a coworker who is just a bitchy wuss of a person. You can identify this by all the bitching he does. You should exclude his bitchy opinions from your mental map of the opinions of capable people.
This sort of internet tough guy talking coming out of thin air just seems like a silly overreaction to me. Like... You don't know my coworkers. Same with some other comments. What are these people trying to prove and why? I don't see the reason why one would assume that marriage was a necessary or hold the same or similar utility for people like Bezos compared to the average joe.
Tree
8hr ago
OP’s a woman, so from this single garden-variety independent sample this subject is 100% female-originated.
But there are also a lot of atheist manosphere types who get REALLY upset about female promiscuity.
They do, but I would postulate that they’re more upset that the women aren’t being promiscuous with them, than with the concept.
hydroacetylene
8hr ago
The better way to think about it is that the religious right is the second string faction in the coalition ruling thé GOP, regardless of who’s on top. Populists on top? The Christians are #2. Libertarians? Again, Christians are #2. Thats part of why GOP infighting is relatively less destructive of the party- thé second most powerful faction will literally never lose their coveted #2 spot.
People can defect in various ways to each other all the time; I think we can regard these as fungible to a reasonable degree. It seems weird to say that I am free to punch other people (who don’t want to be punched) any time I like since they can always get their own back by slugging me in return.
You seem to be gesturing at a system of tacit acknowledgement where it’s okay for me to sometimes take apples from your garden because I let you sometimes take peaches from mine, but such an understanding requires prolonged contact in a stable society and also agreement on both sides, which seems to be lacking here.
If what goes around comes around as you suggest, shouldn’t we make sure that what is going around is largely respect and cooperation, rather than deceit and defection?
Do you think employers and employees have any moral obligations to each other beyond those dictated by law and contract?
I was raised to believe that employers should be loyal to, and supportive of, their staff. It seems to me that this leads to a better world than a world where employers can be as fickle and unreasonable as they like as long as they pay enough, and happily fire their staff for failing to anticipate their whims.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
8hr ago
Christianity is particularly attuned to women’s petty intrasexual concerns, with its emphasis on female promiscuity.
I think this is far more complicated a topic than a single sentence can do justice to, but the Christian tradition, as much as it would like to attribute everything to Jesus, wasn't written in stone at the Ascension or Pentecost. Most of the "emphasis on female promiscuity" parts I can think of are from Paul, and were written a bit later.
I'd also point to the context of family matters in Rome at the time: Augustus rather famously enacted some policies that encouraged fidelity and "family values" before Jesus was born (and were continued on and off again with later emperors), and it's difficult to fully extract the existing Roman cultural context from the Christianity that took off there.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
8hr ago
Clearly on TheMotte, it’s the men who are writing most of the posts about the ills of promiscuity. (I have specific names in mind.)
That attitude may ultimately stem from their Christianity. But there are also a lot of atheist manosphere types who get REALLY upset about female promiscuity. You can’t dismiss it as a purely female concern.
Corvos
8hr ago
If the victim did not object to such things, they would not have hired staff to prevent it and said staff would not be in danger of getting faired for failing to prevent it. If they wanted local notables, they would have invited some.
How does the good-fun principle generalise? People have fun jumping turnstiles and prank-calling and shoplifting and getting drunk & disorderly in a public park in the middle of the day. Not to mention all sorts of antisocial but not actually illegal stuff.
It seems to me that you can oppress the worst behaviour of the bottom 10% without too many complaints, but beyond that you either have to allow ‘good-fun’ exemptions for 90% of the population, resulting is an adversarial and low-trust society, or else say that the rules are different for gentlemen, which I regard as being immoral and long-term corrosive to society, or else be clear that ‘local notables’ are required to model good behaviour for everyone else.
Rov_Scam
8hr ago
That argument might make sense if this were like any other wedding where they're essentially relying on the honor system that uninvited guests don't show up, but this wasn't the case. This is a wedding that was held at a secret location that was difficult to get to and guarded by staff checking names. There's no trust involved here. It's also worth mentioning that even though the grooms weren't celebrities, there seems to be an epidemic of celebrities crashing normal people's weddings and other events on the premise that nobody will mind if a celebrity unexpectedly shows up. Bill Murray is notorious for this, but Taylor Swift has been known to do it and even lower tier celebrities like Zach Braff feel entitled to, even though they'd go to extreme measures to prevent normal people from getting anywhere near their weddings.
It should be mentioned as well, that the level of security behind this wedding had less to do with the family involved and more to do with the fact that Lady Gaga was making an appearance. If they had gotten married at a normal venue and held the reception in a hotel ballroom and hired the band fronted by the guy who sings the national anthem at Pens games as entertainment, I doubt they'd attract any more crashers than any other wedding. But when a celebrity of her stature is involved the risk increases greatly, made all the worse by the fact that she was almost certainly staying in the resort hotel and a little detail like that leaking would mean superfans booking rooms there for the sole purpose of trying to get a bit more close than the typical guest who booked a thousand dollar a night room for other reasons. And this just makes the whole mess more complicated because now that they're paying guests you can't just ask them to leave without refunding their money.
Of course, I had no reason to concern myself with this, because I'm not a fan of Lady Gaga, and when you're at a billionaire's wedding a private performance by an A-list celebrity doesn't exactly take you by surprise, and, after all, I'm acting like I'm supposed to be there. Anyway, given that the hosts didn't actually extend any trust that could be taken advantage of, I don't see how my actions erode that trust. And it was only that lack of trust that made the event appealing to crash. If my friend had just said that Joe's grandson was getting married at Nemacolin and he was glad his part in it was over, the idea of crashing it wouldn't have occurred to us. It was only when he got cagey about the details that the whole thing became intriguing, and when he insisted that we couldn't get anywhere near the place, it became a challenge.
Corvos
9hr ago
The ambassador to Washington at the time covered it in his (rather good) autobiography. One of the single biggest causes of the IRA’s defeat was convincing influential Irish-Americans that donating to the IRA was hurting the Irish rather than supporting them.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
9hr ago
I've never had a single person tell me it's easier to have a wife. In fact it's the one thing I hear most guys complain about at work.
Is this what the argument is?
hanikrummihundursvin
9hr ago
You and your fellow 'wife guys' need to focus on what the argument is rather than circling the wagons around your own marriages.
Tree
9hr ago
The outsized concern for promiscuity is itself female-coded. The general hostility to sex also. Compare the sex lives of greek gods versus your guy and his mom. Or gays versus lesbians. Christianity is basically the lesbian of religions.
aceventura
9hr ago
I should have been more specific; I am referring to the Iranian government.
Iranians are a greatly civilized people and there's no reason their country can't achieve socioeconomic parity with Eastern Europe if they weren't ruled by a stupid and selfish cult. It's a testament to the strength of the people that despite a brain drain going back four decades and crushing financial sanctions, Iranians are able to keep their economy afloat, produce excellent scientists and academic output, and maintain a European feel to Tehran.
They hate Israël, but so do plenty of countries in the US orbit.
Every other country is making peace with Israel and fostering closer ties, to their benefit. Iran's irrational hatred of Israel is not rooted in history or geopolitical sense; Jews and Persians get along much better than Jews and Arabs, both in Iran and in the diaspora.
Iranians would benefit tremendously if their insane leaders were overthrown and a sensible government aligned itself with the US.
dasfoo
9hr ago
And yes: men don't care if you're smart and fun (though that's nice), they care if you have the requisite sexy figure.
One minor corrective here: sexy figure is one thing, but sexy attitude may not correlate. As someone who is recently divorced from an ex-wife with a very nice body but who was borderline frigid, dating a woman who is a little chubby but loves to fuck is a mind-blowing change in fortunes. Sex appeal has many facets.
Gaashk
10hr ago
Does orthodoxy really have such a strong norm towards ‘children must be PERFECT in liturgy or not go’?
No, the children can play nicely while whispering, nap, color, flop about a bit on the rug, or walk in and out as they're able to behave quietly or not. One priest said that he'd rather they were there and screaming than not there, but nobody behaves like they believe him, including his own wife and children.
Mostly, though, if we can't receive Communion, can't hear or concentrate on the prayers, can't sing, can't hear the sermon because we spend it either suppressing child activity or in a different room, then where are we even doing?
Edit: We'd probably do better if we had a specific goal, and should probably go talk to a priest about it. I know.
ThomasdelVasto
Κύριε, ποίησόν με ὄργανον τῆς ἀγάπης σου
10hr ago
Well, even though I haven't gotten one of these yet I'm glad that at least a few are coming from responses to me! Lots of them this time it seems.
No_one
10hr ago
Only ever saw one guy using it. Young guy, 20-something. A place where I worked part time, one of the temp workers loading the containers. He stank, literally stank so bad I could smell him - I have somewhat impaired sense of smell. Apparently he washed very rarely.. and this was summer.
Later I learned he was homeless, living in a tiny garden colony hut he broke into and even though he could have washed, he didn't. Everyone hated him because he acted aggressive, sometimes talked to himself, kept pacing all the time, was unreasonable... and stank. About every hour he'd mix a kratom drink using a lot of various powders he had there and then drink it. I guess because the labor force situation being what it is, he kept working there for several months.
Once caused a fire alarm because he lighted up a joint or cigarette in the toilets, but the place was so shoddily run they didn't know who was the culprit and he got away with it. Not sure what caused the company to blacklist him eventually.. probably got in a fight with someone.
I really don't think his was 'initial high'. As far as I know, he was persistently agitated this way, which, even more than the smell, caused others to hate him. Maybe he was mixing something else into those drinks though.
You laugh, but a) plenty of American (okay, Irish-American) money went into the actual IRA, and b) the US loves sponsoring terrorism, to the point it often ends up fighting the very terrorists it sponsored.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
10hr ago
Yes, and I believe he was, in fact, a Mossad asset, and as handy as he must have been at critical junctures, I'm dubious that Epstein Island had the necessary throughput to shape the long-term trajectory of the US foreign policy.
Also, you kind of have to be careful about blackmailing people en-masse, because if they realize this is what's being done to them, they might coordinate to fight back against you.
hydroacetylene
10hr ago
South Sudan is literally not Arab(thats regular Sudan, and the ethnic difference is the entire reason for the split). The poorest Arab country is Yemen.
If the argument you’re making is “less than 100% of marriages are worthwhile,” I think that’s completely uncontroversial. If the argument is “100% of marriages are not worthwhile,” then I think that’s wrong.
It sounds to me like you’re intending to say the first, but the way you put it at first — “I've never had a single person tell me it's easier to have a wife” — implies you mean the second. People are bringing up their own marriages to argue against the second, while you’re defending the first. I think an unintentional motte and bailey has been set up, just because of a lack of clarity in the discussion.
But the big difference in views I think I see is that the “wife guys” are arguing for marriage through the concept of companionate love: “she’s the best part of my day, she makes my life meaningful,” etc. You’re talking about it in terms of economic and sexual utility: “I could have sex with any woman, and get assistants to do things around the house I don’t want to do.” If that’s what the utility of a marriage consists of then of course Bezos doesn’t need it! But if marriage includes an intimate relationship of growth in and with the other person, then it’s no wonder at all why Bezos would throw such a lavish wedding if he believes he’s found someone he can have that with. He can be right or wrong about the particular woman he made that choice with (like he apparently did with the first one), but it’s not straightforwardly stupid.
People are bringing up their own marriages to insist that this kind of companionate love is possible in the long term, even if all or even most marriages don’t live up to it. They’re protecting the concept of a pair-bond.
More options
Context Copy link