Iraqi troop mans a checkpoint in Sadr City.
Graphic source: Reuters
I'm wondering if the Times is coming around to presenting the war in a more realistic light. They featured a headline story, "Iraqi Troops in Push to Regain Control of Sadr City," and actually, it was mostly accurate. The journalists are Michael R. Gordon and Stephen Farrell while they received assistance from "Anwar J. Ali, Mudhafer al-Husaini and an Iraqi employee of The New York Times contributed reporting." Since the story really is showing what on-site bloggers have been saying for some time, they may be coming around. And, I wonder what the exact arrangment of journalists and writers is? In other words, do the Westeners sit at the pool eating bon-bons while the local stringers actually go out and get the news? The story at least sounds like it has first-hand elements so somebody was out there. The important aspect of an article such as this is that it emphasizes that Iraqi troops pushed deep into Sadr City and they operated without the involvement of American ground forces, which is really a major turnaround from not all that long ago. Who would have thought that the Times would run a story with the sentence: "No American ground forces accompanied the Iraqi troops, not even military advisers." This was an Iraqi operation with the Americans in the supportive but physically rearward position. I hope its the first of many, many more to come.
Posts
