Different Views about Iraqi Forces

The two articles I considered were both about the recent military air assault by American and Iraqi forces last week in Basra, the second largest city in Iraq. It was the first time American forces were joined by Iraqi security forces in the city. The articles involve the same issue but take different views on the outcome of the U.S.'s involvement in the assault, and on the development of the Iraqi forces.
The first article, "U.S. military joins Iraqi Army in Basra assault" from the International Herald Tribune, discusses the strikes, and mentions numbers of casualties during them. Major Tom Holloway, a spokesman in Basra for the British Army, states that since Iraqi security forces didn't have aircraft for the strike, the Americans conducted the air attack. However he said that "the Iraqis are capable, they are strong and they have been engaging successfully." President Bush announced the offensive as a "defining moment" in the freedom of Iraq and said there has been a lot of progress. It was mentioned that in the future, the U.S. will help Iraqi forces if asked, but the Iraqis will be taking charge. The second article, "Basra Assault Exposed U.S., Iraqi Limits", from the Washington Post, talks more about the setbacks of the U.S. and Iraqi forces, instead of talking about the specifics of the assault. The Prime Minister of Iraq announced that the "unsuccessful gambit has exposed the shaky foundation upon which U.S. policy in Iraq rests after 5 years of war." It mentions that the U.S. has spent over $22 billion to help develop Iraq's security forces, but they were unable to defeat the militias, and many actually fled during the fighting.
Both articles agree to an extent that the Iraqi security forces aren't able to fight on their own yet without the U.S., but the first article seems to take a more optimistic view of the situation. The Iraqi forces are said to be "engaging successfully", while in the second article, they are said to have left the fighting, and the "shaky foundation of U.S. policy after 5 years of war" is referenced. The first article is more cut and dry about what exactly happened in the air strikes on Basra, while the second one has more emotion and carries a more pessimistic tone. Even the title of the article, "Basra Assault Exposed U.S., Iraqi Limits" seems like an announcement of defeat. The title of the first article sounds as if we are on the offensive. The content can be viewed very differently by the reader by looking at the word choice and the addition of quotes about the status of the assault. After reading both articles I feel the second article has more of an anti-war bias.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/28/mideast/iraq.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/03/AR2008040300309_pf.html