Is the New York Times the enemy?

Today, the Times has a fantastic propaganda piece for the terrorists murdering innocents in Iraq, Defying U.S. Efforts, Guerrillas in Iraq Refocus and Strengthen. My favorite part of the article was this:

One other recent development in the insurgency - and a possible explanation of its ability to bring in recruits from around the Arab world - is the reach and sophistication of its public relations.

Most of the main insurgent groups - like Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and Ansar al Sunna - regularly post updates of their exploits on the Web. Scarcely a day passes when one of the groups has not announced another attack with either video or printed notice.

A communique released Friday by Ansar al Sunna, for instance, boasted of an attack on an American Humvee in the northern Iraqi city of Samarra. The Humvee, the communique said, had been destroyed with an "explosive package."

"Four crusaders who were in it were killed," the notice said.

"God is great," the notice concluded in the usual way. "Glory to God, his Messenger, and to the believers."

First of all, you need to remember that this is a news story, this is not in the opinion section.

Second, I would have just one question for the NYTimes reporters - would it be good or bad if the terrorists in Iraq would win, the US military would leave, and Iraq's current government would crumble? I would assume that most people would describe that chain of events as "bad." Why then does this article about the successfulness and sophistication of the terrorists in Iraq explain that part of their resiliency comes from the fact that their exploits are widely publicized? Why then does the Times not more adequately describe the successes and sophistication of the US military in Iraq as often or as fully as they do that of the terrorists?

Does the fact that the media covers terrorist activities in war zones more adequately than successful US military actions while at the same time admitting that PR advances the terrorists' cause mean that the American media and more specifically the New York Times is aiding and abetting the enemy?

UPDATE: It seems that readers of the Times are quite angry at a recent article on their website. Evidently the Times editors added a completely phony anti-Bush quote from an Army reserve officer at the bottom of the article. The Times' retraction is lame at best.