WHERE IS THE TRUTH?

I read two different articles about the war in Iraq, both spoke about the amount of troops in Iraq and the future plans in this war. One was definitely on the left end of the spectrum and the other was more neutral (but I think that conveniently it didn’t go into depth about an aspect of the war that the other article harped on).
The first article I read was by Oneworld.net and was titled : “Maliki Offensive and Iraq Strategy Failing” (written March 30, 2008). This article went in depth about fighting going on in Basra between the US troops and the Iraqi military against Sadr militia. Apparently the fighting is between Iraqi’s in favor of the US being in Iraq and the new government that has been established and the people not in favor of the US presence. It also has to do with the unrest between the Sunni and Shi’a communities. The article said that there is segregation being put in place for each group to live around their own “kind”.
If that is true that is not a good military strategy at all. It will just cause future animosity. It’s creating an “us” verses “them” sediment between the two groups even more than before.
I found this article very informative on the subject but I took it with a grain of salt because it was so left wing biased. And honestly if that article was supposed to make me think that we should leave Iraq it did just the opposite. I don’t know why people think that saying how badly things are going with Iraq, will be a legitimately good reason to pull out, because it makes me think that we need to stay even longer than anticipated. It’s very irresponsible to “invade” or “liberate” a country and then leave it to deal with the remnants; especially if it’s as unstable as this article claims.
The second article I read was by Fox News (foxnews.com) and was titled : “Army Combat Tours expected to be cut from 15 to 12 months in Iraq and Afghanistan” (April 5, 2008). The article was about the new strategy to shorten soldiers tours of duty in Iraq and lengthen their time between tours. In this plan soldiers would serve 12 months of active duty and 12 months of time at home. The new military strategy would also lessen the amount of troops from 158,000 to 140,000 and the amount of brigades from 18 to 15. The article said that this was because of stability in Iraq, with exception of unrest in Basra. It ended with information about democratic officials pleading the president to end the war so the next president wouldn’t have to deal with it.
In my opinion you could not say this article was obviously bias because they only gave facts and they did mention a strategy from the Bush administration and the Democratic view of the war. I did feel like although they mention Basra it was not given an in depth explanation and it did sound like a minor thing; while the first article made it sound like it was a much bigger deal. I could take away from this that either one is minimizing this situation or one is maximizing the situation; it’s probably a little bit of both. Like my dad says “There is your view, my view, and then there is the truth.”