The US upper class tends to be liberal on social issues (e.g. gay marriage), but hawkish on foreign policy, especially as regards the middle east.
Media content aligns with the political views of media owners. You can see this clearly at work now when 'progressive' US companies threaten to boycott North Carolina over a ridiculously minor issue to do with who should use what kind of toilet, but are happily trading with Saudi Arabia, one of the world's most repressive regimes.
Adding 2 and 2 together gives an indication why the NYT, like most other US mainstream media, cheerled the second Iraq war.
This strikes my as a parochial viewpoint of a bunch of people riding their first-world privilege.
I suggest that you, your co-workers, hacker colleagues, and friends who are transgender spend some time in Saudi-Arabia or on ISIS-controlled territory to get a perspective on what really matters.
I think you're mistaking a distinct strain of upper class liberalism including a strong neoliberalism for progressivism. Plus an oft servile relationship to power.
For a newspaper that's otherwise pretty progressive on other societal issues, I wonder if it makes any sense for them to be pro-war and all.