Yesterday's front-page story from Baghdad in the New York Times reported "a sobering new assessment" of the war in Iraq on the part of senior U.S. officers. Or U.S. generals. The terms are used interchangeably throughout the piece, but that's the only i.d. they've been given.

In the story, by Baghdad correspondent John Burns and D.C. reporter Eric Schmitt, the officers back off from the notion of troop withdrawal in early 2006 and one says that the military involvement could last "many years."

The authors address the anonymity issue thusly:

By insisting that they not be identified, the three officers based in Baghdad were following a Pentagon policy requiring American commanders in Baghdad to put "an Iraqi face" on the war, meaning that Iraqi commanders should be the ones talking to reporters, not Americans.

But the article is a good example of sources that are probably pretty reliable speaking anonymously or not at all, especially given the "whistleblowing" element inherent in this sentence: "The generals' remarks...suggested that American commanders may have seen an opportunity after Secretary Rice's trip to inject their own note of realism into public debate." That "note of realism" is probably not something they want attached to their names back at the base.

So, the debate over anonymous sources will rage on. In the meantime, this article is unfortunately very well sourced.

Who's Afraid of Unnamed Sources? 'NYT' Uses Them in Major War Story [E&P]
Generals Offer a Sober Outlook on Iraqi War [NYT]
Briefers and Leakers and the Newspapers Who Enable Them [NYT]
Military Commanders Turn to the NY Times: A Turning Point in Iraq? [HuffPo]
RELATED: In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths [NYT]