More on the NYT Propaganda Narrative of U.S. Withdrawal from Iraq

“Dammit, make a decision.”

A Times editorial:

President Obama is fulfilling his promise to wind down the Iraq war. When he took office, there were about 142,000 American troops on the ground; now there are 46,000. All are supposed to be gone by Dec. 31 under a 2008 agreement between Washington and Baghdad….

The war, which should never have been launched, has already cost more than 4,450 American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars over eight long years. Like most Americans, we are eager to see all of our troops back home and out of harm’s way. But if Iraq requests it, there are legitimate reasons to keep a small military force there — if the mission is carefully drawn….

Experts say most Iraqi factions want the Americans to remain a while longer. No Iraqi politicians have been willing to say that publicly….

The Obama administration, which has demanded an answer for months, is understandably frustrated. “Do they want us to stay, don’t they want us to stay?” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in Baghdad on Monday, adding: “Dammit, make a decision.”

They did make a decision, in 2008. So stick to the deal, and quit complaining. Also, I have to point out again how the Times is fronting a false propaganda narrative. Notice, “Experts say most Iraqi factions want the Americans to remain a while longer.” So you are supposed to believe most Iraqis want the occupation to continue. But ask yourself, who are these “experts”? And who speaks for these “Iraqi factions”? Most importantly, when the Times says shit like that, why do they never bother to mention the fact that the Iraqi people are overwhelmingly opposed to the continued presence of U.S. forces and want them to leave?

See my recent article, “The Propaganda Narrative of U.S. Withdrawal from Iraq“.

Imagine…

What can I say? I like to pick on the Times. Because they deserve it. Another article includes this little tidbit:

Meanwhile, efforts to reconcile with the insurgency are barely moving, and Pakistan is firing artillery rounds over the border, even as it professes to support a peace plan between Afghanistan and Taliban insurgents, many of whom live in the Pakistan’s tribal areas.

The Pakistani bombardment is said to be an effort to repel Taliban insurgents who have taken refuge in Afghanistan. However, it is widely believed that the Pakistanis are trying to make the point that the Afghan government is weak and cannot protect its own borders and should look to Pakistan, not the Americans, for support.

As a fun little thought experiment, imagine the Times reporting:

Meanwhile, efforts to reconcile with the insurgency are barely moving, and the U.S. is launching drone attacks over the border, even as it professes to support a peace plan between Afghanistan and Taliban insurgents, many of whom live in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

The U.S. bombardment is said to be an effort to repel Taliban insurgents who have taken refuge in Pakistan. However, it is widely believed that the Americans are trying to make the point that the Pakistani government is weak and cannot protect its own borders and the world should look to the U.S., not Pakistan, to protect them from the terrorists.

Like what you're reading?

Sign up now to keep up with my latest work and to keep updated about my forthcoming book, "Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict".

You can unsubscribe at any time, and I respect your privacy (I hate spam, too).

What do you think? Share your comments!