Desperation for defeat at the NY Times

NY Post Editorial:

Question: When is a U.S. military victory not a victory?

Answer: When it's reported by The New York Times.

Read the account from Baghdad in the Jan. 30 Times about a battle the previous weekend in the city of Najaf - one of the biggest engagements of the war - and you'd think that U.S. and Iraqi forces had suffered a terrible defeat at the hands of what was described as "an obscure renegade militia."

"Iraqi forces were surprised and nearly overwhelmed by the ferocity" of the fighters arrayed against them, read the piece by correspondent Marc Santora, who added, "They needed far more help from American forces than previously disclosed."

Not until the article's sixth paragraph - 200 words into the 1,100-word piece - did this sentence appear: "The Iraqis and Americans eventually prevailed in the battle."

Or, as Wellington said after defeating Napoleon at Waterloo, "It was a damned close-run thing" - but the good guys won.

So why wasn't this the lead of the Times' story? Given the way things have been going, it would seem to be an unusual enough development to warrant prominent attention.

Maybe because the Times doesn't want America to win in Iraq.

Indeed, it seems that the Times wants to squelch any talk of possible victory - even if that talk doesn't appear in the paper.

The paper's chief military correspondent, Michael Gordon, went on PBS' "Charlie Rose Show" recently, and expressed qualified support for President Bush's troop surge - noting that "we've never really tried to win" in Iraq.

Stressing that this was "a purely personal view," Gordon declared: "I think that if it's done right, I think that there is the chance to accomplish something."

Not exactly controversial stuff there. But Gordon's editors and some of his left-wing readers deemed it offensive.

...

The editorial goes on to give examples of left wing anti Bush statements that were never questioned by the paper. The Times sees political advantage for their point of view in a US loss and like many Democrats they are eager to see that defeat, and frustrated by its postponement. That is why they objected to Gordon's statement about the surge and the possibility of success.