Everybody leads with the U.S. Chinook helicopter that was shot down in Iraq early yesterday, killing 16 soldiers and injuring 20, many severely. It was the deadliest single attack on American forces since the U.S. invaded. Two American civilian contractors and a GI were also killed in other attacks.

The papers all say villagers near where the helicopter went down—a few miles from Fallujah—celebrated the shoot-down. The NYT notes, "Nobody regretting the American loss of life could be found."

The Chinook was the first craft to have been downed by a missile since President Bush declared major combat operations over May 1. But it certainly wasn't the first attempt. The Washington Post says that "more than two dozen missiles" have been fired at U.S. aircraft since June. The New York Times says there have been "two or three" attempted downings per week. So far as TP knows, that (large) number has never been reported before. As the NYT's Raymond Bonner mentioned yesterday, the military has refused to publicly state the number of known missile firings.

The WP notes that in response to the chopper attack, the White House issued a statement that didn't specifically mention the attack but did invoke the "war on terror and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001."

Most of the papers offer the requisite post-attack "news analysis," pondering what the shoot-down means. As the NYT asks on Page One: "AS CASUALTIES IN IRAQ MOUNT, WILL RESOLVE FALTER?" Why not save time, be honest, and answer, "Who knows!"

(A window into the potential value of these faux deep-thought day-after judgments: Right after Odai and Qusai were killed, the LAT proclaimed, "SONS' DEATHS A TURNING POINT IN CAMPAIGN.")

Today's Los Angeles Times, in a more interesting and measured take, notices that the White House has dropped much of the happy talk and is sounding "distinctly less triumphal."

The NYT's lead mentions well past the fold that for the second time in three days, "soldiers and residents battled" in Abu Ghraib, a suburb west of Baghdad. According to residents,one GI and four Iraqis were killed and "dozens" of Iraqis were wounded. If this is really accurate—that there was a battle between Americans and a town's residents, rather than just an attack by shadowy forces—doesn't this deserve more attention? The Times also notes that "residents charged that tanks had deliberately run over cars and set fire to several stores. American soldiers in armored vehicles barred reporters from viewing the scene."

A piece inside the Post on the casualty count notes that the number of wounded has also been increasing in pace, with 2,155 soldiers wounded since the war began in March.

The top U.S. commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, said that in the months ahead the U.S. will face "more obstacles, more setbacks and more tragedies in the future." But he also described the attacks as "strategically and operationally insignificant." (The NYT's news analysis only notes that later part.) 

The Post, alone among the papers,goes Page One with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's contention that the U.S. doesn't need any more troops in Iraq. The article also nails Rumsfeld for saying that the U.S. has trained "over 100,000" Iraqi security personnel. The Post says that's 15,000 higher than the number provided by U.S. officials in Baghdad and 40 percent higher than the White House's estimates last month. The LAT, while credulously repeating the 100,000 figure—mentions that Rumsfeld didn't toss the number off his cuff, he had it on a chart.