unpatriotized history:

The US has been acting in its own interests, and it wants the Iraqis to act in its own interests.

unpatriotized history:

The US wants US-controlled Iraqis to attack Iraqi forces who are not US-controlled.

unpatriotized history:

The US is attacking Iraqis now, but it wants to get some Iraqis to attack Iraqis for it.

unpatriotized history:

The US is the attacker in Iraq; attacking is the opposite of stabilizing.

unpatriotized history:

The US is helping itself and harming Iraqis now, but it wants to get Iraqis to help the US and harm Iraqis.

unpatriotized history:

The problem for the US is that there are so many areas of Iraq that have been controlled by Iraqis and not by the US.

Hypothetically, suppose that Germany conquered France, and German-client French forces set out to destroy the French resistance, but they weren't doing this as fast as Germany would like. Would the New York Times describe the situation by saying that Germany was "eager for the French to take control of their country?" Would the New York Times use the term "the French" to mean "whichever French people worked for the Germans." And would the New York Times exclude from the category of "the French" any French people who fought against the Germans? No; in fact, it's quite possible that the New York Times would use the term "the French" to refer to those French people who fought against the Germans; after all, they are the ones who would be showing loyalty to their own country rather than to the country that was attacking it.

unpatriotized position:

The US troops could pull its troops from Iraq; the question is whether the US wants to do so.

unpatriotized history:

The US has been helping itself and killing Iraqis, but it wants to get some Iraqis to help the US and kill Iraqis.

unpatriotized history:

The US is trying to keep Iraq from being sovereign.

unpatriotized history:

The US has been killing Iraqis who won't submit to the US, but is trying to get Iraqis to kill Iraqis who won't submit to the US.

unpatriotized position:

The US is keeping its troops in Iraq to achieve a self-interest goal for the US. It wants to; it doesn't have to.

unpatriotized history:

When non-US government officials speak, journalists do not tell us that their intentions are what they say they are. Throughout the article, the author says that the intentions, goals and plans of the US government really are whatever the US government says they are. This is quite different from the way this same newspaper portrays the intentions, goals and plans of other governments and groups.

unpatriotized history:

The US is the attacker in Iraq, not the referee.

unpatriotized history:

US-led Iraqis are serving the foreign conqueror of Iraq; Iraqi resistance fighters are not.

unpatriotized history:

Democracy demands that the people who decide who is to be killed in Iraq be made accountable to the Iraqi people.

unpatriotized position:

Ordinarily, people who criticize an aggression don't criticize the aggression for failing.

Throughout the article, the underlying assumption of all speakers is that there are only two possible positions anyone might have on the US project for Iraq: supportive, because they think it's succeeding, or critical, because they think it's not succeeding. Actual opposition, the idea that the US project is a bad thing and it would be good if it failed, is unthinkable. Imagine how wonderful it would be for you if even your "critics" only criticized you because they thought you weren't doing a good enough job of getting what you wanted! This crime is not succeeding, and we blame the President for that!