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 suspect that Trump’s talk about invading Mexico to get rid of the cartel was just a negotiating tactic to get them to stop the migrant caravans and agree to the “Remain in Mexico” refugee policy. The cartel has a lot of pull with Mexican politicians so they will push them to play ball with the Trump administration to avoid further escalation. Actually policing the border effectively and stopping the drug and people smuggling flows into the US would be much more productive than going for another round of playing in the sandbox (Mexico Edition). And it would be a lot tougher than most people imagine, it’s a big country and a lot of the terrain is built for insurgency. Also the US has screwed up their relations with Russia so much that I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that the cartels suddenly get modern anti-air systems in the event of a war.
Also I doubt the CIA would be happy about their proxy forces in Mexico getting bombed by the US military. Without them the Company wouldn’t have a way to keep the Mexican government weak and subservient to US interests. Plus the CIA would lose half or more of their black budget if they lost the profit skimming on narcotics sales. But it wouldn’t be the first time that the CIA and the military fought a proxy war against each other, it happened in Syria too.
This is pretty much the only comment in this thread that really gets the crux of the issue. Cartels aren't some insurgency or terrorist group. They are an integral part of the Mexican state as well as the American intel agencies. Actually trying to enter into a hot fight with them is an option that will get Trump go the way of JFK very quickly.
More options
Context Copy link
This makes sense to me. I do remember that the US has suspended aid to Ukraine for 90 days. I'm assuming this is a signal to Putin that he has three months to make something happen or fold. But it could be cover. If there is reticence from the cartels, and there is a decapitation strike, pour encourager les autres, any equipment Putin sends may cause Trump to escalate in Ukraine.
I actually think that counterinsurgency has gotten drastically easier for a committed modern army. It helps if you don't need to occupy the territory or win hearts and minds. For all the gnashing and wailing about potential collateral damage, cartels are raping torturing and executing men, women, and children.
Drones and satellites are quite the force multiplier in the AI age. Special forces battalion on bradleys with night vision, orlan/supercam and switchblade drones and whatever drone carrier/swarm secret tech the CIA has cooking would go through a narco base like butter for at least a while. How long would the cartel heads be willing to endure this punishment?
I also remember looking at a map of the cartel areas of influence in Mexico where I noticed some smaller cartels around the border, Arellano Felix, Carrillio Fuentes. Maybe those can be induced to play ball if they are not already.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link