Over eight years, the US troops fighting in Iraq have faced massive local opposition, as well they might as an occupation force overseeing a war which killed a massive number of civilians.
This would explain the surprise, then, when the New York Times led with the story “Iraqis Hope US Special Operations Commandos Stay” today. How could this possibly be true?
The short answer is, its not true. When you read the article you quickly realize that the hope of “Iraqis” is based entirely on quotes from a couple of military commanders who see a benefit in the continuing occupation, or at least see the writing on the wall and are getting out of the way of the moving bus.
Yes, a handful of Iraqis stand to benefit from continuing the disastrous US war for a few more years, but we have also seen massive numbers of Iraqis publicly protesting against them remaining. Putting these two samples side by side, does anyone really think the New York Times is reasonable in declaring this as an Iraqi “hope.”
Clearly not, but it seems to reflect the Obama Administration’s effort to spin the continuation as something only grudgingly granted to the pleading Iraqis. And whether that pleading is just a couple of people after months of administration haranguing, why should that get in the way of a good narrative?
