The <cite>Times'</cite> Strange Encounter with Odin

Some days, the* New York Times *mystifies me. For more than a year, the Army has been crowing about Task Force Odin -- its team of spy drones, manned helicopters, and video downlinks that's killed thousands of insurgents in Iraq. Today, the paper of record runs a story on the group, and couches it in these terms:

Ever since the Army lost its warplanes to a newly independent Air Force after World War II, soldiers have depended on the sister service for help from the sky...

*But now in Iraq, the Army has quietly decided to try going it alone for the important surveillance mission, organizing an all-Army surveillance unit that represents a new move by the service toward self-sufficiency, and away from joint operations. *

Yet, after multiple reads, I can't find any evidence in the article that Odin somehow represents a snub towards the Air Force. Nor do I see any mention of the fact that the Army has had its own aviation units, like helicopters, all along. And then there are the very loose definitions of "now" (more than a year) and "quietly" (everyone from Petraeus on down speaking about Odin openly to the press).

Did I miss something here?

If the Odin project reveals any tension, it would seem to be between the grunts on the ground, and their bosses back in Baghdad.

In contrast to Predator [drone]s, which are assigned by the top headquarters for missions all across Iraq, Task Force Odin is on call for commanders at the level of brigade and below, an effort by the Army to be responsive to the needs of smaller combat units in direct contact with adversaries.

The Times
says that's "a clear sign of rivaling concepts with the Air Force."
Really? I'm not saying there's no tension between the services -- there
definitely is. But is Odin really a sign of it?

UPDATE: Still, you can't pick on the Times too much. Not when the paper runs, on the same day, this sure-to-be-Pulitzer story of how the CIA broke 9/11 Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

[Photo: DoD]