US occupation?
Did the AFP miss the transfer of sovereignty in Iraq on June 28?

Iraqi supporters of radical Shiite leader Moqtada Sadr (pictures) demonstrate against US occupation in front of Najaf's Imam Ali shrine, one of the holiest religious sites for Shiite Muslims.(AFP/Karim Sahib)

Get with the times, AFP! The government of Iraq is now fully endorsed by the United Nations, by unanimous vote, and US forces are only there at the behest of that government. The US is no longer an occupying power in Iraq, anymore than we are in Germany, South Korea, Japan or any of the over 100 countries where we have troops deployed.

At one time, there was a debate over whether the US forces should be referred to as liberators, with obvious positive connotations, or occupiers, with obvious negative connotations. Those who persisted in calling the US an occupation force declared that while it was debatable that the US should be considered liberators, still the US was literally and technically an occupier.

Fine.

But now the US is literally and technically not an occupation force, so it is only fair that the media cease to refer to it as such.

Of course, many people, even a well-known presidential candidate, still refer to a coalition of 32 countries as "unilateral", so I guess I should expect no better.

- posted by The Dutchman @ 6:59:00 PM