Sidebarred comment about Intentional Instability Model is a conspiracy theory June 22, 2006 3:31 PM Subscribe
I see that jefgodesky's summary of Jeff Vail's "Intentional Instability Model" has been linked to the sidebar. I suppose this is somewhat subjective, but I'd describe it as a conspiracy theory backed by no evidence whatsoever, not really the best of MetaFilter.
The historical description of British policy also seems completely bogus to me. The British regarded the Middle East as their lifeline to India. It makes no sense for them to have deliberately set up Iraq to fail.
The historical description of British policy also seems completely bogus to me. The British regarded the Middle East as their lifeline to India. It makes no sense for them to have deliberately set up Iraq to fail.
Thank god someone made a mention of this etiquette/policy issue regarding the topic. I thought the entire 22nd would be wasted. russilwvong you are rapidly becoming full of goodness. Or babies.
posted by econous at 3:40 PM on June 22, 2006
posted by econous at 3:40 PM on June 22, 2006
Thanks econous, member for one month.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 3:44 PM on June 22, 2006
posted by SeizeTheDay at 3:44 PM on June 22, 2006
econous: And here I always thought that thing about spewing water on the keyboard was a myth.
posted by russilwvong at 3:45 PM on June 22, 2006
posted by russilwvong at 3:45 PM on June 22, 2006
The historical description of British policy also seems completely bogus to me. The British regarded the Middle East as their lifeline to India.
And you do understand how the British ruled India and Pakistan, right? Playing ethnic group A off against ethnic group B by offering out carefully measured packets of power was simply the way colonial Britain operated. None of the facts presented by jefgodesky are particularly controversial or questionable - I understood it, as did mathowie obviously, as a simple historical summary. Iraq isn't Mesopotamia. Kuwait isn't really its own country.
posted by Jimbob at 3:48 PM on June 22, 2006
And you do understand how the British ruled India and Pakistan, right? Playing ethnic group A off against ethnic group B by offering out carefully measured packets of power was simply the way colonial Britain operated. None of the facts presented by jefgodesky are particularly controversial or questionable - I understood it, as did mathowie obviously, as a simple historical summary. Iraq isn't Mesopotamia. Kuwait isn't really its own country.
posted by Jimbob at 3:48 PM on June 22, 2006
delmoi: See this quote:
--the British had deliberately drawn the borders of Iraq, like so many of its former colonies, specifically to ensure that it would collapse into civil war.
That's a strong claim. Strong claims require strong supporting evidence.
posted by russilwvong at 3:48 PM on June 22, 2006
--the British had deliberately drawn the borders of Iraq, like so many of its former colonies, specifically to ensure that it would collapse into civil war.
That's a strong claim. Strong claims require strong supporting evidence.
posted by russilwvong at 3:48 PM on June 22, 2006
Well, when you draw the borders so incorrectly, completely ignoring the actual reality of the people who lived there (which Britain would have understood), you can't put it completely to accident or incompetence, right? Either they drew arbitrary lines on the map (unlikely), in which case Britain are to blame for being stupid, or they drew those lines with some deliberate strategy in mind.
posted by Jimbob at 3:55 PM on June 22, 2006
posted by Jimbob at 3:55 PM on June 22, 2006
Either they drew arbitrary lines on the map (unlikely), in which case Britain are to blame for being stupid--
That's my understanding, based on the books I've read: William Polk, The Arab World Today; Phebe Marr, Modern History of Iraq; Daniel Yergin, The Prize. (Not that I'm an expert on modern Arab history or anything.)
posted by russilwvong at 4:01 PM on June 22, 2006
That's my understanding, based on the books I've read: William Polk, The Arab World Today; Phebe Marr, Modern History of Iraq; Daniel Yergin, The Prize. (Not that I'm an expert on modern Arab history or anything.)
posted by russilwvong at 4:01 PM on June 22, 2006
Take up with the dude in the post by refuting it with a followup comment.
I was just looking at the fantastic posts flags and like thirty people said it was a great comment and it looked fairly comprehensive and people seemed to like it. If you have a problem with it, post a comment telling us so in the thread.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:09 PM on June 22, 2006
I was just looking at the fantastic posts flags and like thirty people said it was a great comment and it looked fairly comprehensive and people seemed to like it. If you have a problem with it, post a comment telling us so in the thread.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:09 PM on June 22, 2006
russilwvong, it is a strong claim but it's not an extraordinary or even an unreasonable claim. Your charge of "conspiracy theory" is very much excessive. This claim isn't like Holocaust Denial or Roswell or anything like that. You might say it's overly speculative, but then this is political history. In conclusion, you're wrong.
posted by nixerman at 4:10 PM on June 22, 2006
posted by nixerman at 4:10 PM on June 22, 2006
mathowie: Take up with the dude in the post by refuting it with a followup comment.
Currently in progress.
nixerman: You might say it's overly speculative, but then this is political history.
Even political history requires evidence.
posted by russilwvong at 4:22 PM on June 22, 2006
Currently in progress.
nixerman: You might say it's overly speculative, but then this is political history.
Even political history requires evidence.
posted by russilwvong at 4:22 PM on June 22, 2006
this callout isn't insane per se, but the man put more quotes and citations, from legitimate and mostly 1st account sources, into his comment than I've seen on mefi in a long time, and that's "no evidence whatsoever?"
seriously, this belongs in the original thread, and this thread should be closed. attack the sidebar through email to the admins, if you want.
posted by shmegegge at 4:26 PM on June 22, 2006
seriously, this belongs in the original thread, and this thread should be closed. attack the sidebar through email to the admins, if you want.
posted by shmegegge at 4:26 PM on June 22, 2006
this callout isn't insane per se--
I appreciate the qualifier.
--but the man put more quotes and citations, from legitimate and mostly 1st account sources, into his comment than I've seen on mefi in a long time, and that's "no evidence whatsoever?"
Correct. The Vail quotes (which make up the bulk of the quotes) are speculative. Vail doesn't present any evidence (references to interviews, memos, papers, memoirs, any kind of document) that the current chaos in Iraq is in fact intentional on the part of the Bush administration. It's all speculation.
seriously, this belongs in the original thread, and this thread should be closed.
Fine by me. jefgodesky and I are continuing the discussion in the thread. My post here wasn't intended as an attack on the sidebar, I just wanted to point out (particularly to mathowie) that the argument presented by jefgodesky is much more controversial than people may realize.
See also paulsc's comment.
posted by russilwvong at 4:39 PM on June 22, 2006
I appreciate the qualifier.
--but the man put more quotes and citations, from legitimate and mostly 1st account sources, into his comment than I've seen on mefi in a long time, and that's "no evidence whatsoever?"
Correct. The Vail quotes (which make up the bulk of the quotes) are speculative. Vail doesn't present any evidence (references to interviews, memos, papers, memoirs, any kind of document) that the current chaos in Iraq is in fact intentional on the part of the Bush administration. It's all speculation.
seriously, this belongs in the original thread, and this thread should be closed.
Fine by me. jefgodesky and I are continuing the discussion in the thread. My post here wasn't intended as an attack on the sidebar, I just wanted to point out (particularly to mathowie) that the argument presented by jefgodesky is much more controversial than people may realize.
See also paulsc's comment.
posted by russilwvong at 4:39 PM on June 22, 2006
I respect your right to make your argument, even though I personally thought that this was one of the highest quality comments I've seen in a long time. Hell, I even sent it to some people who would never know the blue otherwise.
But what is really wrong with this picture is the venue you chose. A request for cites in thread or an email about your sidebar concerns would have been sufficient.
posted by rollbiz at 5:29 PM on June 22, 2006
But what is really wrong with this picture is the venue you chose. A request for cites in thread or an email about your sidebar concerns would have been sufficient.
posted by rollbiz at 5:29 PM on June 22, 2006
It was a great comment in a spectacular thread. Is it more theory than fact? Perhaps so. But that doesn't mean it's not incredibly thoughtful and well-constructed. It is without a doubt an example of the best this place has to offer. And your responses in thread are probably no less worthy.
posted by drpynchon at 5:46 PM on June 22, 2006
posted by drpynchon at 5:46 PM on June 22, 2006
rollbiz: But what is really wrong with this picture is the venue you chose.
Fair comment. Perhaps I should have just e-mailed mathowie.
posted by russilwvong at 5:53 PM on June 22, 2006
Fair comment. Perhaps I should have just e-mailed mathowie.
posted by russilwvong at 5:53 PM on June 22, 2006
everything you say is perfectly fair, but as has been said this was likely not the best place for it.
which, on preview, I see you acknowledge. Champagne all around! Here's to reasonable people!
posted by shmegegge at 6:23 PM on June 22, 2006
which, on preview, I see you acknowledge. Champagne all around! Here's to reasonable people!
posted by shmegegge at 6:23 PM on June 22, 2006
Well, when you draw the borders so incorrectly, completely ignoring the actual reality of the people who lived there (which Britain would have understood), you can't put it completely to accident or incompetence, right? Either they drew arbitrary lines on the map (unlikely), in which case Britain are to blame for being stupid, or they drew those lines with some deliberate strategy in mind.
As is explained in the thread, and is well known in fact, the British knew perfectly well the appropriate lines to draw - T.H. Lawrence drew them a map and they rejected it. For some reason. A reason which is very difficult to jive with wanting stable governments. It can be both arrogant and cynically calculating. And, yeah, if you want more references than what jg provided then you really shouldn't be on the internet.
will someone please start posting some nice GIFs now?
posted by Rumple at 7:13 PM on June 22, 2006
As is explained in the thread, and is well known in fact, the British knew perfectly well the appropriate lines to draw - T.H. Lawrence drew them a map and they rejected it. For some reason. A reason which is very difficult to jive with wanting stable governments. It can be both arrogant and cynically calculating. And, yeah, if you want more references than what jg provided then you really shouldn't be on the internet.
will someone please start posting some nice GIFs now?
posted by Rumple at 7:13 PM on June 22, 2006
Here's to reasonable people!
*punches shmegegge in the damn face*
posted by cortex at 7:20 PM on June 22, 2006
*punches shmegegge in the damn face*
posted by cortex at 7:20 PM on June 22, 2006
rumple: And, yeah, if you want more references than what jg provided then you really shouldn't be on the internet.
I beg to differ. The Internet makes it possible to go into much more depth on a topic and provide much more detailed information (including primary sources in many cases) than in a face-to-face conversation, say.
will someone please start posting some nice GIFs now?
Here you go:
posted by russilwvong at 9:09 PM on June 22, 2006
I beg to differ. The Internet makes it possible to go into much more depth on a topic and provide much more detailed information (including primary sources in many cases) than in a face-to-face conversation, say.
will someone please start posting some nice GIFs now?
Here you go:
posted by russilwvong at 9:09 PM on June 22, 2006
This is probably presumptious of me, but I think what russilwvong is specifically questioning is the description Matt used in the sidebar:
In other words, whether jg's comment is the best comment ever, or whether he's completely right or totally wrong, is irrelevant; the question on the table is whether the sidebar text is an accurate description of the linked comment. It seems to me that MetaTalk is exactly the proper place to raise the issue.
posted by pardonyou? at 6:24 AM on June 23, 2006
A very good roundup of thinking on Iraq from a recent thread on the exit strategy.I don't think it's accurate to describe jg's comment as a "roundup of thinking on Iraq." In fact, it was pretty much the exact opposite -- it expresses a particular (and hotly contested) point of view.
In other words, whether jg's comment is the best comment ever, or whether he's completely right or totally wrong, is irrelevant; the question on the table is whether the sidebar text is an accurate description of the linked comment. It seems to me that MetaTalk is exactly the proper place to raise the issue.
posted by pardonyou? at 6:24 AM on June 23, 2006
I think it's pretty clear that Britain's leadership redrew the maps in the Middle East in almost the exact opposite way that T.E. Lawrence suggested.
posted by longbaugh at 6:26 AM on June 23, 2006
posted by longbaugh at 6:26 AM on June 23, 2006
Wow, I never had a callout before! Awesome! I didn't have anything to do with the sidebar, and I'm glad so many people appreciated the effort—even for people who disagree with me, hopefully it raised the level of debate a little from the usual partisan sloganeering, but I think I'll keep all discussion of the actual substance itself in the thread. But thanks for the props, it makes me all warm and fuzzy inside (or was that the old cheese I ate yesterday?)
posted by jefgodesky at 7:49 AM on June 23, 2006
posted by jefgodesky at 7:49 AM on June 23, 2006
I don't think it's accurate to describe jg's comment as a "roundup of thinking on Iraq." In fact, it was pretty much the exact opposite -- it expresses a particular (and hotly contested) point of view.
That wasn't actually my point--I was wondering if the post should be linked to the sidebar at all--but I think your point is better than mine. :-)
In the end, of course, it's up to mathowie. I just wanted to point out that the theory is controversial, in case mathowie hadn't realized it.
posted by russilwvong at 10:38 AM on June 23, 2006
That wasn't actually my point--I was wondering if the post should be linked to the sidebar at all--but I think your point is better than mine. :-)
In the end, of course, it's up to mathowie. I just wanted to point out that the theory is controversial, in case mathowie hadn't realized it.
posted by russilwvong at 10:38 AM on June 23, 2006
That wasn't actually my point--I was wondering if the post should be linked to the sidebar at all
Heh. Oh, well. Like I said ... presumptuous.
posted by pardonyou? at 11:34 AM on June 23, 2006
Heh. Oh, well. Like I said ... presumptuous.
posted by pardonyou? at 11:34 AM on June 23, 2006
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by delmoi at 3:40 PM on June 22, 2006