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 -
Last time out, Trump surrendered to the Taliban. He should probably have hired the French to give his successor surrendering lessons, because Biden badly botched the implementation of the surrender agreement.
I am going to withhold judgement on whether this makes the United States a super-hegemon.
Would you contest the British Empire's might in 1842 because the Afghans beat them also? Or the power of the Cold War United States when they failed to prop up South Vietnam?
Or is this a side effect of the sort of American ignorance that has them insult French military might over the only war they seem to be taught about? We did try telling you about Dien Bien Phu last time, that didn't seem to help much.
I'm British - when I insult the French military record I am strictly trolling. I know you've been holding us to a roughly even record over the last 1000 years, you snail-eating sexual deviants.
We do have a better record against Afghanistan than the USA or the USSR, given that we did beat them at least once. But an honest appraisal of the military leadership of the British Empire is that we were off our game in the mid-19th century due to the lack of serious competition - the first Anglo-Afghan War was an embarassing defeat and the Crimean War and Indian Mutiny were unimpressive victories against weak opposition.
Seriously, I think the point about both Vietnam and the more recent Afghan War is that the US can lose a war despite overwhelming military force if they don't know what victory looks like it. The Powell doctrine (and the general state of opinion in the US armed forces which it reflects) is anti-Clausewitzian, in the sense that Clausewitz says that "War is the continuation of politics by other means" whereas Powell says that once you have started a war you should forget about politics and single-mindedly pursue victory, defined as defeating the enemy. The failure in Vietnam was that the US's political goals weren't to defeat the North Vietnamese in South Vietnam (which they did, repeatedly) - or to defeat the North Vietnamese in North Vietnam (which they didn't want to do given the wider political situation viz-a-viz the USSR) - it was to build a South Vietnam that could defend itself. The failure in Afghanistan appears to be that the US never had the foggiest idea what its political goals were beyond punishing the Taliban for supporting OBL. So having an overwhelming military advantage and beating your chest and saying "I am the hegemon" doesn't actually mean that you can get what you want.
I'll allow it then, our ancient rivalry is dear and precious. And by the way I think your government renaming the HMS Agincourt is a disgrace and an insult to everyone that died there.
I feel like the parallel is even more pertinent. The US decayed a bit from the time of Schwartzkopf from precisely this lack of serious competition.
Time will tell if the Americans can actually produce some pragmatic diplomatic policy and not just spectacular coups. Most of what we saw of Trump seems to have been for an audience of Americans primarily.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
America did not, technically, have a military defeat in Vietnam. America withdrew leaving south Vietnam to its own defense, which it proved incapable of(although it held on for three years, unlike the afghan government’s three months).
I guess America also didn't lose in Afghanistan technically. But as we all know, the art of war isn't that of winning battles, but that of making your enemy do what you want him to.
Sure, the political goal of ‘stop the spread of communism but don’t roll it back’ was dumb, and poorly implemented because of factors in south Vietnam. But the limited goal of ‘achieve a south Vietnam that can defend its sovereignty with no U.S. boots on the ground’ was achieved. The withdrawal of US air support- and political factors in the south Vietnamese army- led to the ‘75 invasion succeeding where previous ones had failed.
The U.S. goal of ‘capitalist, essentially secular, American aligned dictatorship in south Vietnam which doesn’t require American army presence’ was a success. The decision not to provide air support following a leadership reshuffle in their army led to them getting overrun by north Vietnamese tanks. To be clear this goal wasn’t a stable equilibrium- south Vietnamese security would have required a comprehensive defeat of the north. But this wasn’t an afghan government, where it can’t hold together for three months without the marines propping it up.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Troop movements, fighting techniques, long supply chains by ship and overland before planes and railroads (in that part of the world) coupled with the nature of Afghan society and the Pashtun tribal structure made extending full control over Afghanistan in 1842 impossible absent the settling of large numbers of Britons in that territory, which is a pretty tough part of the world to live in when there were many other parts of the British Empire better suited to colonization.
France falling to Germany in a few weeks in WW2, on the other hand, was not an inevitability of history in, say, 1931.
It sure wasn't, Guderian made a risky move and got lucky. History remembers his success as the inevitable downfall of a disorganized mess of a French State, but I always have in the back of my mind the potential of a world where Gamelin doesn't panic, keeps his reserves and doesn't switch to the Breda variant.
There's a world where Italy may not even enter the war this early or honor the pact of steel if Germans stall in northern France.
But I'm not defending the incompetence of the 1939 French high command here, just the honor of my people's demonstrated ability at war throughout centuries.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I've seen people here say that we should credit Biden with the Afghanistan pull-out, nice that we're on the same page that's it's Trump who should be thanked for that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link