Pages and pages, reams and reams, of mainstream media articles about Iraq, not one of them mentioning economic motivations for prolonged conflict and permanent U.S. presence. It just doesn't exist. The war, the decisions to go to war (however dubious), the post-invasion planning and administration (privatized and handed undisclosed billions), the formation of government, the "surge," all motivated by either blessed or misbegotten spirits (or the world historical Spirit) but not about money. Class is boring. Yawn. It's so 1981.
"Stop being a reductionist," you say. I'm proud to be a reductionist, thank you, but seriously, this isn't even about reductionism. This is about excluding any mention whatsoever of economic motivations, of ignoring even the mention of economic motivation alongside a dozen or so other factors for this or that situation or this or that individual policy decision.
Would it kill them to do that? Just consider economic interests alongside other things? As a matter of fact, it would. Literally, if by "them" we mean the business interests that sustain the increasingly useless and boring mainstream media mansions like the NYT and the Washington Post. It would kill them in the short term because they would be bombarded with accusations of "class warfare" from the far right, upon whose approval they depend far more than they ever admit. It would kill them in the long term because they are the corporate interests they'd be exposing.