Iraq Troop "Withdrawal" Propaganda

Iraq American flagThe reported drawdown in American troops from Iraq has been portrayed as a "withdrawal of the U.S." from Iraq, but it is really just a pretend end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq. The removal of combat forces still leaves 50,000 so-called "military trainers" in the country, a huge number of American troops compared to eight years ago, when there weren't any in Iraq at all. Iraq's caretaker Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, bolstered the spin on this issue when he announced on television that his country is once again independent and sovereign. So if tens of thousands of American troops are staying in the country, then why the show? The portrayal of the drawdown in forces as an end to American occupation of Iraq goes down well with both the American population and Iraq's politicians. The fact that the media has accepted this portrayal unquestioningly highlights the success of the Washington propaganda machine and the gullibility of the media around the world.


This is a prime example of the fact that there are few actual reporters in the main stream media. I'm not sure why this is the case, but it seems that there is no research into stories or questioning of facts anymore. They just report what the press release says and move on to the next press release.

I totally agree with this story. The fact that all these troops are not only staying, but several more are due to be deployed there. The misinformation is troubling.

Basing your argument on the US having "a huge number of American troops compared to eight years ago, when there weren't any in Iraq at all" is such a unfathomably poor argument that the entire article loses all credibilty in my mind.

I'm sorry, but even if we only had 1 trainer in Iraq, by your argument, that would still be "infinitely more than 8 years ago, when we had zero." This is the type of poor media logic and reasoning that I come to this site to AVOID and EXPOSE.

They're not at all arguing that just one trainer would a huge number, etc., let alone "infinite"; you just pulled that out of someplace dark.

The point is, even with 50,000 American troops in the country rather than 150,000, "not occupied" means not having tens of thousands of foreign troops, not to mention a great big "Green Zone" and a hundred thousand or so contractors, in your country.

One way or another, sooner or later, imperial powers have to get the people of their conquered territories to start doing the work of maintaining their own occupation. That's what the U.S. hopes it's accomplished now.

I totally agree with some of the comments above. When I heard that 50 thousand troops were remaining and the reasoning for this, it did not make sense to me. I am sure that everyone will agree that they would not need 50 thousand troops to provide training because this number is excessive.

What number would be good for you? What is illogical about having 50,000 troops in Iraq?

Look, the business of war is part and parcel of the american economy and foreign policy. Weve bombed 35+ countries since the end of WW2 and overthrew probably twice as many.
We have anywhere from 700 to 1000 bases in more than 130 countries.

We are war.

Let's not act like Iraq is any different from all the other occupations, its what the US govt does. Luckily for them, the media allows for propaganda to be disseminated easily and without question. It allows for the whitewashing and distortion of historical events to be done within weeks and helps perpetuate the state of war that this country is always in.

You guys do a great job just like the IAC and other groups but mainstream media bulldozes through these messages and the brainwashing of the nation continues.

We are the world's police force. When a country needs aid or protection, they call on the U.S. because of their capabilities for getting the job done. If the U.S. did not have these bases, response to tragic disasters or acts of evil would be inadequate and deadly.

If you want to point the finger, perhaps you should also include those countries who have agreed to have U.S. bases built there. You shouldn't be so one-sided which makes you look naive or stupid. They want the money and American protection. Despite what you think, the U.S. has made the world a more peaceful place.

It is precisely the bad news people remember and cling on to and not the good news because it is considered too boring.

The mainstream media's job is mind manipulation, and seems like it's getting worst. How can you respect someone whose job is to lie to billions of people. Tell me what you think about my article on the mainstream media: It contains links to the corporate ownership, video on withholding truth about cancer-causing milk, and more.

This article's author is extremely misinformed. Being misinformed and having this much influence is alarming. Questioning everything doesn't make you smarter or more knowledgeable. The drawdown of troops in Iraq is not an end to presence but an end to combat operations which is what the mainstream media (CNN, MSNBC, HLN, ABC, NBC,New York Times, Washington Post, and CBS) are actually reporting contrary to what the author is reporting. The 50,000 troops remaining are there to train and provide backup to the ISF (Iraqi Security Forces) in case Iranian, Syrian, Jordanian, Saudi, and Lebanese influences prove too much for them. It is both naive and foolish to think that the aforementioned countries are not attempting to influence Iraq in its own image. These foreign forces have been in Iraq since 2003. For example, remember the Jordanian, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?