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 -
It seems to me the main risk for Israel is getting dragged into another ground war that ends in a stalemate like 2006, or even a loss. Think Iraq insurgency. Probably why Hizbullah hasn't done too much in response in order to goad them to do such a thing (well, also because they are paralyzed with fear and communications issues). But I don't think either America nor Israel want Americans to physically show up. What the US just did, which is move another carrier nearby, is all Israel actually wants from us (other than maybe more weapons, but those are already flowing, and to not be too critical/pushy, which the admin is mostly doing). Not even Iran actually wants to duke it out -- they thought (wrongly, whoops) that Hizbullah would be enough of a deterrent or proxy.
So yeah. Experience says that the most likely result is more of the same. But if I were an Israeli military planner, and I weren't haunted by my constant skirting around in the rough neighborhood of war crimes (they are toeing the line more than my personal ethics allow but less than genocidal) I would be to avoid going in on foot if at all possible. Politically, it's a bit tougher because of the ~60k semi-permanently evacuated from border regions.
Israel just needs to get the shia population moved to Syria. Loudly threatening ethnic cleansing, or getting local proxies to do it, probably accomplishes this goal as long as they're winning the ground war. Hezbollah can't fight once their base of support is relocated.
Although I wouldn’t put it past Israeli politicians to think about this, I find it a very unlikely scenario
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
2006 was one month, then the UN brokered a ceasefire to effect 1701. If both sides adhered to 1701 the war would not be seen as a unilateral victory. Hezbollah being duplicitous in its negotiations reflects poorly on the UN, not on Israeli military.
The previous major effort where Israel got its shit pushed in, it was Yom Kippur. For the first few days, Egypt orchestrated a masterful breach of the Israeli defenses along the Suez, then fought a competent (by their standards) ground campaign against the Israelis. That the Egyptians were losing this ground campaign even before their disaster is ignored, and the Israelis, like any competent entity, pivoted and responded in light of changing facts on the ground.
So too would 2006, had it gone on. Urban peer combat is horrendous, and the Israeli advantage in firepower is negated in such a war. Disciplined guerillas are notoriously difficult to react against following an ambush, so it is uncertain whether an Israeli pivot would have necessarily succeeded, but to claim 2006 is proof of Hezbollahs immunity is insane.
1701, if abided by, was a win condition for the Israelis. Hezb and Hamas all know they cannot actually stand up to even a modest IDF operation. Jihadi group terrorists waste immense amounts of money buying uniforms to cosplay as soldiers, making dramatic videos of themselves in balaclavas and camo ready to fight the dirty jew. In all the combat footage of Hezb or Hamas fighters, not a SINGLE uniform has been seen. Bitching about IDF heavyhanded policing and airstrikes entirely glosses over the total failure of Hamas and Hezb to put up the barest of token resistance. The Iraqis at least had the dignity to die in uniform when fighting the US, and ISIS wears vests to identify themselves clearly.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link