The Times Chooses Sides

And not ours:

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.

As Times Public Editor Byron Calame disclosed last Sunday, Gordon was upbraided by his editors, who declared that he'd "stepped over the line" on the show and offered "poorly worded shorthand for some analytical points."

Gordon, the column said, "agrees his comments on the show went too far."

Too far?

Interestingly, Times editors never seem to have a problem with remarks by other reporters - provided they attack the Bush administration.

Consider correspondent Chris Hedges' infamous 2003 commencement address at Rockford College, where he charged that Americans were becoming "tyrants to others weaker than ourselves," and linked Bush to Vladimir Putin and Ariel Sharon - whom he said were "carrying out acts of gratuitous and senseless violence."

Nor, as the Web site Timeswatch.org points out, was there any reprimand of correspondent Neil McFarquhar, who last summer also appeared on Charlie Rose's show and at tacked the Bush administration for "rush ing bombs to this part of the world."

"It just erodes and erodes and erodes America's reputation," said McFarquhar - who, unlike Gordon, did not even offer the disclaimer that his was "a purely personal view."

From the Times, silence.

Was this because McFarquhar and Hedges were spreading a message that Times editors agree with?

How else to explain it?

Pinch Sulzberger and Bill Keller need to be dragged down to Ground Zero for a little refresher in why American victory in the War on Terror is not optional for the wine-and-brie set.