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?
Sometimes I think the Iraq War should be called the New York Times' War.
NeYork Times takes orders from Israel. Let's not forget,USA invaded Iraq on demands from Israel.
Israel knows once the invaders leave–badtimes a coming for the instigator
If the US troops are not gone by 2011YE, the Mahdi Army will go active. Expect a rise in violence from the continuation of the US occupation
How do they do it? How do these professional liars and whores manage to daily spin out this merde without just going home and swallowing a gallon of strychnine out of total self disgust?
Large salaries and job security. Being on the winning side takes away the bitterness.
The more relevant question is, how can a sufficient percentage of a nation's population be gullible and stupid enough to believe even the advertisements in such a compromised rag to the point where they would actually PAY to subscribe read it and thus keep it alive as a going business concern?
What is sad is that this kind of drivel from the NY Times and others actually has many of the Boobus Americanus believeing that somehow the SFG's will be able to make a dent. I can tell you from personal experience that the dent being made is to the SFG's. Not only have the SFG's taken a huge amount of casualties (the 7tf SFG has taken more casualies than any other) but also that training for new Special Forces and even Infantry is hurting because of the near constant deployments of trainers into combat.
So there is domino effect. The SF troops are the best trainers in the US and they don't have time to do their jobs training new soldiers. Plus I don't think people have a clue how much support goes into keeping SFG's on the ground. It's not like you wind us up and let us go.
SWG's…??? What R they…??? P.S. Welcome aboard antiwar.com Brad_Smith2!! You are OUR kind of people…!!!!
Hi, and thanks. I used to blog on here quite a bit years ago, but when they changed the format there just wasn't that many people on here anymore.
An SFG is a Special Forces Group. These are some of the guys I worked with (Central America Mostly) and why I am so Anti-War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_Special_Forces_G…