11 Sure-Fire Predictions About the War Against ISIS

[JEB]

By Arlen Grossman

http://www.opednews.com/articles/11-Sure-Fire-Predictions-A-by-Arlen-Grossman-Afghanistan-War_Iraq_Isis_Syria-140927-26.html

It is easy to predict what will happen as the United States chooses to start another overseas war. It's easy because we've done it so many times before and once more we have chosen to ignore the lessons of our previous foreign invasions. Here are eleven predictions we can count on:

Short read. Seems entirely accurate in my estimation.

[99th_Monkey]

1. K&R

[MohRokTah]

2. Assumptions incorrect on number 1.

Everything after incorrect, too.

Just goes to show, it's not just the generals who fight the last war. The pundits do, too.

[gratuitous]

5. So, you're saying no civilians will be killed?

Of course, the United States learned its lesson from Vietnam, and we don't do body counts anymore, so there will be no official governmental acknowledgement in the United States that any of the corpses we make in Syria, Iran, Iraq, and a half dozen other countries were civilians before we killed them.

But other people will be keeping track, even if we aren't. Which means that once again number 2 will come true. After all, nobody had heard of ISIS or Khorasan in 2003 when we invaded Iraq. An easy reason for that is that neither organization existed at that time. But now we're being told that these groups are a greater threat to the United States than Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union ever were.

But, according to you, none of our soldiers will be killed or traumatized (#3), so they won't be needing any expensive treatment. Which means more money available for #4, but your position is that none of this will cost a dime, so we'll save even more money. Or something. So nobody will make any money, because we won't be spending any.

Nope. Sorry. This is just too preposterous. Your post is nitwittery of the first water. But what would anyone expect from our resident #11?

[JEB]

7. Civilian deaths and lying already accomplished.

edit to add links:
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-syria-airstrikes-civilians-20140923-story.html

https://news.vice.com/article/demonstrators-denounce-civilian-deaths-in-syria-as-coalition-airstrikes-continue

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/23/civilian-deaths-syria_n_5870564.html

[snappyturtle]

8. Are you sipping the Kool-Aid or what?

I have to wonder if you think that this go around will be an different from the last? Hope I haven't read you wrong but,.....

[NealK]

11. Sipping?

Looks more like guzzling.

[Enthusiast]

15. When this war finally winds down in about twenty years will you admit you were wrong?

[morningfog]

18. Last month he said it was paranoid silliness to

when I said we would be bombing in Syria. He never admits he is wrong, just charges full bore to the next lie or obfuscation. Strange MO.

[gratuitous]

34. The poster seems unconcerned with defending his position

Very strange behavior. The lack of follow-up indicates that the post may not have been made in good faith. Usually that sort of thing is frowned upon.

[morningfog]

17. Paranoid silliness? Look, you aren't credible.

You were saying we would not be bombing in Syria at all and that it wouldn't take years.

Again, you show that you motivation is to obscure and ignore the truth to deflect reality.

[Scuba]

23. I was wrong.

I didn't think your credibility could get any lower, but it did.

[RedCappedBandit]

24. Nope, you're wrong. nt

[BlueJazz]

3. The eleven commandments of war.

[JEB]

4. More like a massacre than a war.

[ballyhoo]

6. Those are excellent predictions, Jeb. All of them will come

true in one way or the other. Meantime, back in the USA there will be some kind of anarchy like Carlson predicts. I don't care for the guy but I believe this one thing he says. The other thing you haven't touched on is Russia and/or Russia and China. Putin is not going to sit idly by while the US destroys Syria, a country Russia has a treaty with. If he does, he is history. And he knows it. IMO, we are now living on borrowed time so to speak. Back to your analysis, I particularly agree with your No. 7, although I think the US will be carrying more than 95 per cent of the load. Anyway, keep the faith or whatever.

ballyhoo

[defacto7]

9. I'm not one who falls for the word "always"

and I don't in this case either. But I would surmise much of this will probably come to pass again.

[JEB]

10. Yeah, Grenada only cost about $122.7 million but even that

was over budget.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2206&dat=19840705&id=v58mAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gAEGAAAAIBAJ&pg=1483,853867

[woo me with science]

12. Excellent predictions, and I'll add one more:

The enormous cost of the war will be used as an excuse for even more vicious austerity and privatization/looting of the commons.

[Enthusiast]

14. Of course you are correct.

The poor, the elderly and the disabled will be characterized as lazy, selfish moochers.

[CrispyQ]

27. And THIS, ^^^, is why they get to say they won the war.

It's a disgusting mess & most Americans aren't even aware they are being played.

[leftstreet]

30. +1

[Enthusiast]

13. K&R! The sad part is most US citizens now recognize this sad set of facts.

We do not want another COUNTERPRODUCTIVE war.

[wyldwolf]

16. Not entirely accurate. Not entirely INaccurate.

This is DEFINITELY based on the last two wars, with perhaps some distant Nam echos...

1. True.
2. Remains to be seen. Hasn't always or mostly been the case.
3. True.
4. True.
5. True-ish. (cable news networks profit from anything tragic, not just war.)
6. Remains to be seen. Hasn't always been the case.
7. Remains to be seen. Hasn't always been the case.
8. Probably. But as they say, the President knows more than we do.
9. This is left wing (and right wing) fear mongering (speaking of fear mongering). This stated reason has NEVER been true.
10. Remains to be seen. Hasn't always or mostly been the case.
11. Other propagandists and non-supporters of the war will try to convince us that we are NOT winning. I mark (11) as true. It doesn't mean that we WON'T be winning. It doesn't mean we WILL be. It means propagandists will be trying to convince us of their position - the article referenced in the OP being a prime example.

[HereSince1628]

22. Not sure about the veracity of 3 either. Historically Congress dodges veteran's costs

whenever it can.

I'm afraid that 3, like many of notions on this list play to preconceptions. It certainly digs into popular misconceptions about the dangerousness of vets with PTSD.

[malaise]

19. Spot on

Rec

[HereSince1628]

20. Lost my interest right about here.

"We will be paying for their care (and aberrant behavior) for many decades."

First,

We ought to realize how veterans are played in this system. American politicians will roll back support for veterans ASAP (As soon as pragmatic). Paul Ryan is already pushing it.

"Paul Ryan defends cut to military and veterans' benefits in his proposed budget"

http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-NEWS-and-COMMENTARY-c-2013-12-18-270331.112112-Paul-Ryan-defends-cut-to-military-and-veterans-benefits-in-his-proposed-budget.html

Second,

We ought to realize when someone is playing the fear of mental illness card. Such lines of argument must by thier very nature contribute reinforcement of prejudicial attitudes and discrimination, because they always put in front of a reader a negative association. And that association is (as was done in this article) usually better linked to popular misconceptions than research findings.

This isn't really compassion and concern for veterans...it's the application of fear as a rhetorical tool. In this case a couched fear of unnamed deviance and cost.

Research Findings on PTSD and Violence
http://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/co-occurring/research_on_ptsd_and_violence.asp

Sonya Norman, PhD, Eric B. Elbogen, PhD and Paula P. Schnurr, PhD
Overview

Individuals with PTSD are not dangerous. Although PTSD is associated with an increased risk of violence, the majority of Veterans and non-Veterans with PTSD have never engaged in violence. When other factors like alcohol and drug misuse, additional psychiatric disorders, or younger age are considered, the association between PTSD and violence is decreased.

<snip>

Interpreting findings on the relationship between PTSD and violence

Individuals with PTSD have an elevated prevalence of risk factors that are associated with increased violence, such as substance misuse and comorbid psychiatric disorders. Because of this, findings regarding the relationship between PTSD and violence should be interpreted cautiously if they are based on analyses that do not take risk factors other than PTSD into account. For example, in one study of Veterans who served post-9/11, PTSD when examined on its own was associated with an increased risk of violence. However, when alcohol misuse was statistically controlled, PTSD was no longer associated with an increased risk of violence (3). The prevalence of violence in PTSD is comparable to the prevalence in anxiety and depressive disorders, which ranges from 5.0% to 11.7% (2,5). The prevalence of violence is higher among individuals with alcohol or substance misuse (range = 9.1% to 34.7%) (2,6,7). Furthermore, the more diagnoses someone has, the greater the likelihood of violence.

[morningfog]

21. More civilians killed today and US strikes have led to

the largest anti-US marches in Syria in some time. We are radicalizing another generation.

[woo me with science]

33. ....

[font size=4]"The object of waging a war is always to be in a better position in which to wage another war."[font size=3]

[font color=blue]-George Orwell, 1984[/font size][/font color]

[Scuba]

25. K&R

[grahamhgreen]

26. Anyone who has a family member killed in a us air strike is unlikely to join put fight against ISIL.

[phantom power]

28. recommended

[woo me with science]

29. K&R

[woo me with science]

31. kick

[hifiguy]

32. That list is 100% correct.

The lesson of history is that many never learn the lessons of history.