Victory in Najaf

In Najaf, a militia attempted to attack the site of the holiest Shiite mosque during Ashoura, the most sacred Shiite festival and the Iraqi Army troops held them off successfully. American air and armored support contributed, but all of the infantry were Iraqis. At the cost of five IA soldiers and two American servicemen, who died when their helicopter crashed, the Coalition held the city and killed 200-250 hostile militiamen, among them 30 Afghans and Saudis. By any standard, this battle was a victory. The apocalyptic militant sect Jund al-Samaa (Soldiers of Heaven) was nearly wiped out, but more importantly the Coalition killed their leader who claimed to be the long-awaited Mahdi. The IAs stood their ground, the casualty numbers were almost incalculably skewed, so of course the New York Times came out with the headline "Missteps by Iraqi Forces in Battle Raise Questions." This would be the equivalent of raising questions about Stonewall Jackson's competence after First Manassas, where he "stood like a stone wall," except that he lost more men in proportion than did the Iraqi Troops. The Times justified its pessimistic headline by remarking that American forces had aided the Iraqis more than was previously disclosed. That is BS, plain and simple.
We've known at least since the New York Times tipped off the terrorists on how they could protect their finances from us that our "paper of record" wants the United States to lose this war. This is a personal vendetta at the Times: the war in Iraq is Bush's war and Bush is Hitler, so there is no such thing as good news. When good news materializes in defiance, it is to be edited out or covered up, as was the case with this story.
Make no mistake about it: this is a milestone for the IAs. In one of their first major tests of will and fighting ability, they passed and protected a holy site, which they failed to do less than one year ago in Samarrah. Hua.
By the way, The New York Times has also just reprimanded their chief military correspondent, Michael Gordon, for speculating that the new troop surge might enable American forces to win the war. I kid you not.