I don’t care what Matthew Rothschild of The Progressive says about New York Times reporter C.J. Chivers’ Afghanistan war coverage (via faithful commenter CAvard).

Rothschild’s lede:

I’m disgusted with the New York Times coverage of the U.S. assault on Marja.

The paper, featuring the work of embedded reporter C. J. Chivers, wrote about it like it was the biggest battle—and most dangerous one—since the landing at Normandy.

Rebuttal: This Thursday Times Page One report.

Snipers Imperil U.S.-Led Forces in Afghan Offensive

Tyler Hicks/The New York Times

By C. J. CHIVERS

MARJA, Afghanistan — In five days of fighting, the Taliban have shown a side not often seen in nearly a decade of American military action in Afghanistan: the use of snipers, both working alone and integrated into guerrilla-style ambushes.

Five Marines and two Afghan soldiers have been struck here in recent days by bullets fired at long range. That includes one Marine fatally shot and two others wounded in the opening hour of a four-hour clash on Wednesday, when a platoon with Company K of the Third Battalion, Sixth Marines, was ambushed while moving on foot across a barren expanse of flat ground between the clusters of low-slung mud buildings.

Chivers (and redoubtable Times photog Tyler Hicks) are putting themselves in harm’s way to report on these battles.

Critics should weigh that against their ideological biases before dumping on Chivers – or any other war correspondent.