The lamestream media told you:
Read this photo caption --
The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
Read the photo caption again. Is the man with the RPG really on patrol? Of course not. He is posing for the unnamed photographer. This is plainly evident -- while the other soldier in the picture is strolling casually out in the open, facing no threat. Soldiers on patrol act cautiously and avoid exposure to threats. They do not sight-in rocket-propelled grenades at, well, nothing, while on "patrol in Ramadi" to make interesting images up close for photographers. Staging photos is a flat-out ethical violation in the news business. This is not news. The AP no longer even makes an attempt to hide its lack of ethics.
Read the second line of the caption. This is not news, or even descriptive. It is an editorial statement, where the news is supposed to go. It is a derogatory conjecture about the United States. On what do they base this guess? They do not say. Is it based on how hard it was to stage their photo?
This is how the AP, now a blatant propaganda outfit, foists its opinions on an unsuspecting public. You would have glossed over this phony tripe if it had not been brought to your attention by an uninvited ombudsman. The media has dropped its use of ombudsmen because they do this.
The opening story paragraph mentions Iraqi officials, Sunni fighters, volunteer tribal fighters, and extremist Sunni jihadi militants. Also mentioned in the short clip are Sunni areas, the Shitte-led government, Iraqi security forces and the insurgency. Can you make heads or tails of that? Of course not. Is that deliberate? I can't say, but if I were an English teacher, I would grade writers Zahra and Schreck with an F. Can you identify the person wearing the camouflage -- and face mask -- and does that matter? To quote an American politician, what difference does it make?