THE NEW YORK POST EDITORIALIZES:

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.

Ouch. Read the whole thing. I should note that in our podcast interview, Michael Yon said that when he told a military briefer that he was rooting for our guys, the briefer was surprised, because he had never heard that from a press person before. To be fair, Yon says he thinks that the press in Iraq wants us to win — but it thinks it shouldn’t ever say anything that gives that impression. I’m pretty sure Ernie Pyle didn’t play by those rules.