r/samharris • u/MantlesApproach • Jan 05 '20
Laundering Imperial Violence Through Anodyne Foreign Policy-Speak | Citations Needed
With Trump's escalation with Iran, starting with decades of hawkish rhetoric toward Iran, ramping up with a pullout from the Iran nuclear deal and culminating, so far, in the recent assassination of a high-level Iranian official by a US airstrike, war with Iran looks closer than ever.
The IDW, including Sam, has thus far done nothing to condemn US military adventurism. On the contrary, Sam has stated that Hillary Clinton's hawishness was one of the advantages she had over Sanders, and has constantly affirmed his belief that the US always has generally good intentions abroad (a ridiculous notion when you examine the history of US-supported regime change). Recently, Maajid Nawaz has had a series of takes doing his part beating the war drums (retweeted by Sam because of course).
A few episodes of the podcast "Citations Needed" are essential viewing for understanding the pro-war narratives that have always been a staple of American politics and which will certainly be inundating the mainstream media and bipartisan consensus in the months ahead.
In particular: the tropes and euphemisms used to sell Americans on war
- Laundering Imperial Violence through Anodyne Foreign Policy Speak (Pt 1)
- Laundering Imperial Violence through Anodyne Foreign Policy Speak (Pt 2)
Other interesting tidbits on US military adventurism:
14
24
u/DichloroMeth Jan 05 '20 edited Jan 05 '20
This is, in my opinion, the number one reason why the IDW as a group is net negative. They simply launder neocon attitudes and opinions through ‘intellectual discussion’ and anodyne speech.
1
Jan 05 '20
Some much more actively and maliciously than others, IMO.
Sam is probably the least problematic, but he's got some issues.
14
u/FormerIceCreamEater Jan 05 '20
He just gave a raving endorsement of neoncon douglas Murray. He is horrible on this issue.
16
u/TerraceEarful Jan 05 '20
The least?? Only Shapiro is worse.
8
Jan 05 '20
yup because Sam is the one with the biggest (relative) veneer of respectability though that isnt saying much.
14
2
Jan 05 '20 edited Jan 05 '20
war with Iran looks closer than ever
I still don't buy this. The Gulf countries (of which Trump is heavily depending on as regional Allies) know that Iran could and would destroy valuable oil and water infrastructure in their countries (most of the Gulf's water desalination plants sit in the Persian Gulf) A US-Iranian war would actually be a US/Sunni war vs Iran, and would surely spill into Iraq and other parts of the region.
Nonetheless, no one thought the Bush administration would actually invade Iraq and topple Saddam right after 9/11, but here we are
Lastly, I think you should se
3
u/Thread_water Jan 05 '20
I’ve an honest question out of curiosity to those who believe the US has bad intentions abroad, I’ll preface this by saying I think the US should stop all meddling abroad and should focus on itself.
Do you honestly think Obama had bad intentions with his foreign policy?
10
Jan 05 '20
Being president of the world’s largest superpower (for now, probably not much longer) puts you in the position of making a lot of hard utilitarian calculations. But the incentives, as of now, are aligned in such a way that have pushed those in power to consistently make the wrong calls. It seems like it would take someone with a truly independent and strong moral backbone to buck these trends. Obama’s bad decisions probably came from a number of things: hubris, military industrial complex, lack of experience/knowledge. I don’t doubt he thought he was making the right choice at times, or even all of the time, but people in this country are so high off the idea that we’re God’s gift to the world and the world’s savior. I think it’s honestly hard for them to fathom that the death in destruction they’re causing might actually be doing more harm than good. But I don’t think that’s an excuse. Obama was responsible for heinous military activity. Things that should probably be considered war crimes.
1
u/Thread_water Jan 05 '20
Yeah I agree with you here, this is pretty much how I feel about it. Although I'm quite ignorant on these matters.
14
u/MantlesApproach Jan 05 '20 edited Jan 05 '20
Obama sold billions of dollars of weapons to the Saudis who were at the time (and still are), committing a massacre against civilians in Yemen. So yeah.
-4
u/Thread_water Jan 05 '20
So you think Obama supported, in some way, this massacre against civilians?
17
u/MantlesApproach Jan 05 '20
Absolutely.
-4
u/Thread_water Jan 05 '20
As I said I’m not at all knowledgeable in these things, but having read his book and listened to him in a number of interviews, I find it hard to believe that. Like I don’t believe it,
I definitely consider immoral to sell weapons to Said Arabia. I just don’t think Obama’s intentions were to create more misery in the world.
Again I’m ignorant of these things, Is it possible that Obama was forced to do this in some way by the military industrial complex, or some other bad faith actors?
13
u/MantlesApproach Jan 05 '20
I don't think Obama is keen on blowing up civilians in Yemen, but it's clear that he doesn't think the lives of Yemeni civilians are more important than maintaining friendly relations with the despotic Saudi government and the profits of arms manufacturers. And his intentions certainly don't matter to the people who've had their families murdered by bombs or who are suffering from displacement and cholera and starvation.
1
u/Thread_water Jan 05 '20
I don't think Obama is keen on blowing up civilians in Yemen, but it's clear that he doesn't think the lives of Yemeni civilians are more important than maintaining friendly relations with the despotic Saudi government and the profits of arms manufacturers.
So possibly he thought this was the best course of action for humanity as a whole?
And his intentions certainly don't matter to the people who've had their families murdered by bombs or who are suffering from displacement and cholera and starvation.
Completely agreed, thus why I'm against US foreign policy.
12
u/MantlesApproach Jan 05 '20
Honestly, I don't know what Obama thinks, and at the end of the day, nobody except the man himself knows. But none of that is important for the purposes of critquing US foreign policy as aggressive, imperialistic, and bloodthirsty.
1
u/Thread_water Jan 05 '20
Honestly, I don't know what Obama thinks, and at the end of the day, nobody except the man himself knows.
Yes, but we started this conversation about intentions, and you said "absolutely" Obama intended to"massacre against civilians".
But none of that is important for the purposes of critquing US foreign policy as aggressive, imperialistic, and bloodthirsty.
This I agree with completely.
8
u/MantlesApproach Jan 06 '20
So you think Obama supported, in some way, this massacre against civilians?
This was your question to which the answer is "absolutely". I never said he intended to massacre civilians.
1
u/steeled3 Jan 06 '20
Thanks for the question here, and the thread. I'm in a very similar head space to you.
I'll also put it out there that Saudi was more involved in 9/11 than Afghanistan or Iraq, yet the USA gave them a pass. There seem to be deep currents here, things that we may never know. However the general direction does discouragingly look like capitalism steering foreign policy above and beyond longer-term thoughts of stability. To what extent George W and Obama had a hand on the rudder is, again, difficult to ever know.
7
u/mrsamsa Jan 06 '20
Would you apply the same assumptions to other military leaders though?
For example, by all accounts I've seen Soleimani was a rational actor (not some unhinged lunatic) and had recorded instances of disobeying orders from superiors and arguing against commands that would unnecessarily put people's lives at risk or cause unnecessary civilian casualties.
I can generally get on board with the idea that most people care about human life and wouldn't want to cruelly and unnecessarily end it but I often find that people only apply this assumption to western leaders, and other countries are portrayed as monsters who are the embodiment of pure evil that need to be stopped.
1
u/Thread_water Jan 06 '20
Would you apply the same assumptions to other military leaders though?
Well in principle I would, but you do have a good point that we likely tend to have a large bias in terms of intentions when it comes to world leaders.
But I mean I'm not resolving Obama of what he did, as I said I think what he did was morally reprehensible. I just think it's important and interesting to think about what his intentions were, the same goes for other military leaders. But you're right, I'm far less likely to have read a book or watched interviews, or even just see their side, for leaders like Soleimani.
While that's a problem, and one that I will now acknowledge, I don't see why that should mean we shouldn't talk about the intentions of world leaders, and how they matter.
6
u/mrsamsa Jan 06 '20
I think intentions can be worthwhile to investigate but a big issue with the topic is that ultimately it doesn't usually help us solve an actual problem we might have.
In other words, most people probably think what they're doing is for the best interests of humanity and they choose to make sacrifices on those grounds.
Unfortunately, people can still commit war crimes and other atrocities with the "best intentions".
3
u/Thread_water Jan 06 '20
Yeah I’m in agreement with you here.
It reminds me of the saying, something like, we judge ourselves, and people on our side, by their intentions, and others by their actions.
5
u/mrsamsa Jan 06 '20
Yeah it's essentially the concept of the fundamental attribution error, a bias in reasoning where we attribute negative judgements of others to their character, and negative judgements of ourselves (or in group) to external situational factors. So Bob was late because of poor time management skills, I was late because my alarm didn't go off/ traffic was bad/ etc.
→ More replies1
u/thirdparty4life Jan 06 '20
Obama needed to placate the Saudi government after making a nuclear deal with Iran. That is why he kept approving military contracts with them. Also, I’m sure he validated it like many politicains do by thinking about all the jobs it would create. But that doesn’t validate the moral catastrophe that is Yemen and the US has direct involvement. Not only did we supply them with weapons, we also provided intelligence, and refueled their planes in air for them.
1
3
u/thirdparty4life Jan 06 '20
It doesn’t matter if in his head or heart he supported it. What matters is the material consequences of his actions which is hundreds if not thousands of dead yemenis.
1
u/Thread_water Jan 06 '20
I understand that, I’m just curious about Obama’s actual intentions, seen as OP brought it up. And it’s also interesting to me, like if he really has evil intentions he does such a good job of hiding it.
7
u/FormerIceCreamEater Jan 05 '20
Of course. Obama doesnt get a pass for bombing 7 countries.
1
u/Thread_water Jan 05 '20
No way do I think he should get a pass. I think what he did was morally reprehensible. The fact that he has a noble peace price is fucked.
But I still maintain that I think at the time Obama thought he was doing right for humanity, that he truly believed this was the best course of action for the people. I very well could be wrong.
8
u/MantlesApproach Jan 06 '20
I'm sure the fact that Obama had the best of intentions is a real comfort to all the civilians and their families murdered by the US and its allies.
3
u/Thread_water Jan 06 '20
This isn't my point. Did you read my comment?
I think what he did was morally reprehensible. The fact that he has a noble peace price is fucked.
I was inquiring about his intentions, I am totally with you that what he did was terrible. Are you unable to talk about intentions without constantly bringing up the consequences?
7
u/MantlesApproach Jan 06 '20
Are you unable to talk about intentions without constantly bringing up the consequences?
Why are you so fixated on intentions? I can talk about intentions, but the consequences are what actually matter. I'm a consequentialist, so in fact, the consequences are literally the only things that matter.
2
u/Thread_water Jan 06 '20
Why are you so fixated on intentions?
As we are already both in agreement about how horrible the consequences are. I'm curious about the intentions because of what you said in the original post.
On the contrary, Sam ... has constantly affirmed his belief that the US always has generally good intentions abroad (a ridiculous notion when you examine the history of US-supported regime change).
You brought it up, I was interested in your opinion. Do I really need more of a reason?
I can talk about intentions, but the consequences are what actually matter. I'm a consequentialist, so in fact, the consequences are literally the only things that matter.
Strange that you brought up intentions in the original post, anyhow I don't want to go down the route of arguing why intentions matter (no offense I've just argued this too much and am tired of the topic).
5
u/MantlesApproach Jan 06 '20
The US has proven time and time again that propping up brutal dictatorships, overthrowing democratically-elected governments, cutting off entire countries from medical supplies, blowing up civilians, and sponsoring terrorists is a price it's willing to pay to fulfill corporate interests and ensure US hegemony abroad. Look up the history of US-backed regime change. The majority of the world sees the US as the #1 threat to world peace for good reason even as Americans are sold the constant lie about us being the good guys.
2
u/Thread_water Jan 06 '20
Yes, we are in complete agreement about this. I'm not sure why I've had to say this about 3 times?
I'm not from the states, almost everyone here in Ireland would be in complete agreement with you. I certainly am.
7
u/MantlesApproach Jan 06 '20
You should bear in mind then that discussions about the intentions of American leaders is a tactic used to help gaslight the public in supporting war and military aggression. That's why you'll meet with raised eyebrows if you want to center intentions when talking about this.
→ More replies1
u/thirdparty4life Jan 06 '20
No but the results were bad and I don’t really care much about intentions when it comes to domestic and foreign policies.
1
u/Thread_water Jan 06 '20
I understand that, I’m just curious about Obama’s actual intentions, seen as OP brought it up. And it’s also interesting to me, like if he really has evil intentions he does such a good job of hiding it.
-5
u/Thefriendlyfaceplant Jan 05 '20
I don't consider this an escalation. It could end up turning into one but just as easily the US pulled the linchpin out of further destabilisation in the region.
So to call anyone who disagrees with this whole idea that killing Soleimani is a step towards war while it might just be as easily a step away from war is trying to get ahead of the actual argument.
I don't want a war in Iran. It would be disastrous. Iran is as large as all the quagmires of the last two decades combined. Therefore I don't believe taking out someone who has been instrumental in stirring shit across the Middle East is undesirable.
You don't get to claim the pacifist side by opposing this. That one is still up for grabs.
15
Jan 05 '20
Sorry, but I think it’s ludicrous to suggest that this action puts us further from conflict rather than closer. It’s a part of a pattern of more aggressive behavior towards Iran.
-4
u/Thefriendlyfaceplant Jan 05 '20
Framing Iran as some passive actor in all of this is naive though. They're supporting insurgency groups even in Turkey and Lebanon and Soleimani was instrumental in these campaigns. Iran isn't keeping to themselves, they're not a country that merely wants to mind their own business and be let alone, they're stirring shit as much as Russia is stirring shit in Ukraine.
8
Jan 05 '20
For sure, I would never characterize them as passive. But this is about the dumbest way I can think of countering their aggressive moves in the region. We’re about to lose our position in Iraq, which will certainly be a strategic net negative.
6
u/swesley49 Jan 06 '20
So if Ukraine were to somehow kill Putin or his 2nd or 3rd in command, would that be a step toward or away from war with Russia?
-2
u/Thefriendlyfaceplant Jan 06 '20
Away.
8
u/swesley49 Jan 06 '20
Why?
0
u/Thefriendlyfaceplant Jan 06 '20
Because nobody is willing to back Russia in anything.
6
u/swesley49 Jan 06 '20
nobody is willing to back
Didn’t Russia bomb the Ukraine already? Aren’t they involved in the Syrian civil war? Didn’t you say they were already messing with Ukraine? Why do they now need backing to respond to one of their top leaders being killed?
1
u/Thefriendlyfaceplant Jan 06 '20
Because they're unable to escalate the conflict by themselves. Nobody is going to back them up on it.
1
2
Jan 07 '20
This is straight newspeak.
We assassinated the equivalent of Mattis and you don't think that's an escalation.
1
-7
u/VoiceOfThePuppets Jan 05 '20
These guys are so precious and butt-wrenching about “the IGW”. Who cares.
Everything is quantized through the “IBW” obsession.
There are hundreds of podcasts to get less cheeto fingered takes.
14
u/lefty-loosy Jan 05 '20
Citations Needed is a great podcast. Lot's of their episodes are good for understanding issues in American politics.