Has anyone noticed that Iraq, supposedly transformed into an oasis of peace and tranquility by George W. Bush’s troop surge, is growing less peaceful and tranquil by the day?

The nation’s attention has been riveted by the presidential campaign, with its compelling characters and its edge-of-your-seat story line. Iraq is treated almost as a theoretical issue: What would happen there if Barack Obama became president, as opposed to what would happen if Hillary Clinton became president, as opposed to what would happen if John McCain became president? There has been little debate about what’s happening in Iraq right now.

That seems likely to change.

The past several weeks have seen a recrudescence of the kind of horrifying, spectacular violence that the Decider’s surge was supposed to have ended.

Last Thursday, two massive bombs hit a shopping district in the Shiite-dominated Karada neighborhood of Baghdad, killing 68 people and injuring more than 120. That atrocity followed twin car-bomb explosions earlier in the week that killed 24 people and wounded 56 elsewhere in the city.

On Monday came what was described as the worst attack on U.S. forces in months. According to Iraqi police, a suicide bomber approached an American patrol in Baghdad and detonated his explosives, killing five soldiers and injuring three others. U.S. military officials confirmed the deaths but did not immediately give details of the incident.

Also on Monday, a female suicide bomber in Diyala province blew herself up at the home of a Sunni clan leader who had been cooperating with U.S. forces against al-Qaida. Sheik Thaeir Ghadhban al-Karkhi was killed, along with his 5-year-old niece, an adult cousin and a security guard.

Two days earlier, in an orchard near the banks of the Diyala River, Iraqi police announced they had found a mass grave with the decomposed remains of between 50 and 100 people, some of them children. It was unclear who the victims were, or who had killed them.

When the Bush administration celebrates a 60 percent reduction in overall violence in Iraq, it’s easy to forget that this is compared with June 2007, when the sectarian civil war was raging and bombings with scores of victims were a regular occurrence. The surge managed only to reduce the level of violence from apocalyptic to agonizing-and now even those gains seem to be slipping.

Bush’s surge was designed to give the Iraqi government the necessary breathing space for Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds to reach vital compromises. President Jalal Talabani and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki showed their gratitude earlier this month by rolling out the red carpet, literally, for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Bush’s Middle East policy is designed largely to blunt the influence of Iran, which seeks a dominant role in the region. So it must have been galling to the White House to watch as Ahmadinejad swept into Baghdad in a ceremonial motorcade and toured the city with great fanfare. Never one to miss a chance to stick in the needle, Ahmadinejad questioned the motives of those who “visit this country in a stealth manner.”

He was referring to the fact that Bush has to fly unannounced into Iraq and can stay only for a few hours. It would be far too dangerous to let citizens know in advance that their liberator was coming to see to their welfare.

So violence seems to be creeping back, the Iraqi government is showcasing its developing friendship with Iran, and, oh yes, these achievements are costing American taxpayers around $12 billion a month, according to a new book by Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and co-author Linda Bilmes. The authors estimate that by 2017, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost the nation between $1.7 trillion and $2.7 trillion.

The Congressional Budget Office projects a somewhat lower cost, estimating that by 2017 the two wars will have consumed between $1.2 trillion and $1.7 trillion. Still, not what you would call chump change.

I’m not aware of any educated guess at how much it might cost if the occupation of Iraq were to last 100 years, as McCain has suggested.

It is unclear whether the recent increase in violence in Iraq is temporary or the beginning of a new and tragic cycle. It’s hard to imagine a return to the level of carnage of a year ago, since by now many of Baghdad’s neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed. But all of us-even the presidential candidates-had better pay attention.

Eugene Robinson
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/11/7618/

We either stay there forever or we let them civil war themselves into self resolution, there is no other choice. Regardless to the hype of some.

surge is working, may not be perfect, meaning we didn't rid the violence all together, but it is working. I've heard this from many that are no the ground now, and were on the ground with me back in 04. Dont worry guys, we'll pull this off as long as someone doesn't jump the gun and pull us out. You do realize if we pull out we will be back there in a few years... I think some people are actually trying to prevent this. I understand your concern about the conflict. The situation seems almost hopeless when you hear about it from reporters. Unfortunately that's about the only place people back here hear the updates from. The democrats right now, are trying to hype the situation up and dump it all in the republican's laps. (Mostly Bushes). They managed to get themselves a democratic congress and they are working to get a democratic president. Anyhow, I'm not bashing democrats, republicans have done/will do the same thing.

Here's a way to think about iraq, i have posted this in another thread. Lets say we the U.S. is a kid getting a bit wild with a cup of grape juice in hand, and we spill it on the floor. This is a brand new wooden floor. Now, what we are trying to accomplish in Iraq is cleaning up the mess before it leaves much of a stain. Leaving Iraq without attempting to clean up the mess would be like the child leaving the juice on the floor. There would definately be a stain, and it would be bad.

All we are trying to do is clean up after ourselves. This way fewer people get hurt. Believe it or not it's the responsible thing to do whether or not this war is legal. Note: inever said it wasn't because there have been no real investigations on this matter that i can judge from.

Another point is that the enemy gets encouraged when they hear us talking about all this stuff. All the news is about how bad we are doing. You know and i Know that this is not the case. Picture vietnam. We were winning the war. The NVA were running out of troops left and right and were getting desperate. From what i hear they were talking about surrender until the anti-war protests became such a big thing. Then they just decided to hang in there a little longer. It worked, they won, we lost because we pulled out early. Same thing. The enemy is smart. They will never be able to defeat us on a normal battelfield. However, they are experts when it comes to manipulating people with propoganda. Why do you think they go after soft targets? They want the numbers of casualties to go up so they aim for civilians that are somewhat near our troops, giving themselves information that could be easily twisted.

I don't actually see us there much longer to be honest. Maybe a couple more years. All we are trying to do it protect them while they stand up. Maybe they need a boost or something. Give them some of our left over weapons/armor. Then start to pull the troops that aren't doing anything out. Like Doc said earlier there are what.....170,000ish troops over there? At least half never leave the wire. And only a quarter of those that leave the wire ever do it regularly.

Once again, i appreciate your concern for our well being. The troops and the tax payers. There isn't much talk of a deadline we can look forward to, and there isn't much talk of any huge plan that will work beyond any doubt. Im not saying we shouldn't pull out under any circumstances either. When the guys on the ground say that we need to leave, we need to leave. Trust me on at least some of this guys. i have been on the ground, and i have been through lots and lots of training giving me a little bit of a unique perspective on the mentallity of our enemy. It's what i did for a living for years. Right now they are on a quest for power. Forgive me for being hesitant for giving them that power.

hey madamn.....hillary thinks the surge is working

Here's the latest news on the surge:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/12/thinkfast-march-12-2008/

Is it working?

that's not the "news"....that's left wing spin ...if it wasn't going well then how come you don't hear anything from Clinton or Obama?...

So actual deaths in Iraq are 'left wing spin'? You think they made those numbers up?

How about actual DOD statistics? Is that good enough for you?

http://icasualties.org/oif/BY_DOD.aspx

actually that doesn't show the declines in violence that have taken place and the areas of those declines...

Do you have any information on where the declines in violence are?

If so, please post them. Inquiring minds would like to know.

It wouldn't surprise me if violence is declining in some areas, but that doesn't necessarily signify the surge is working. It could be that the insurgents are laying low, waiting for instructions or another chance to resume their attacks. Or they could be shifting to other areas.

It's like a shell game.

Violence in Iraq drops sharply
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSCOL24813120022

Iran Cited In Iraq's Decline in Violence
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/22/AR2007122201847.html

Petraeus Cites Violence Decline in Iraq
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3961199

Why the violence has declined in Iraq
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/11/why_the_violence_has.php

Baghdad has had a decline for one, according to my friends....

mmmmkay.....i won't say anymore. Just this, i don't get my facts from any news source or anything touched by any politician. My sources are just form people that are in the thick of things... so maybe i should read more newspapers and watch more tv?

If you want anymore real information or real explinations from real people read my first comment...

they could be waiting and hoping Obama or Clinton wins the election and then resume after Obama or Clinton cuts and runs..

Ok, let's say the surge is working, at least in some areas.

In that case, why don't we bring the troops home?

Because, it might be reasoned, if we do the insurgents will start killing more people again.

So, therefore, that means we have to stay in Iraq forever since this will always be a possibility.

Do you want the U.S. to stay in Iraq forever?

I know for a fact that the surge was a major setback for them. They were expecting us to pull out just like the Al qaeda was not expecting retaliation for 9/11. And yes, they would love to see us pull out and lose this war. Once again giving certian groups more power than they have ever had. I don't think they reall care who wins, as long as we pull out. This would be both democrat candidates...

you don't stop once you have them on the run...you don't give them any time to breath ....you don't stop till it's over and only when we say it's over

no, just long enough to get the Iraqis on their feet with their own government. I know it seems hopeless but they are building up and getting stronger. We also can't pull out on a large scale. We have to phase ourselves out when they seem a bit more ready to take on responsibilities. It is a slow process especially with all this talk about us leaving encouraging our enemy to fight harder. And like i say, many people in Iraq don't need to be there. I wouldn't be against the people running these random stores pulling out. There are a lot of people that work to support the troops that practically live outside the wire, and there are the troops outside the wire. Then there are the troops hired to run certain people hired to make life better for those high ranking officers that do nothing but stay inside the wire. Those are the guys you can let go home. But be careful, because the violence will pick up if they get the impression that we as a country are pulling out all together. It is a delicate matter, the pulling out should be a phase process. Unfortunately there are no definate answers to this problem. And no simple solutions. Just be careful when preaching "we just need to pull out". Especially since i don't see our borders being secured in the next couple years...

yeah, that's kinda the point....way to sum it up. I guess we should be listening more to the troops that are actually dealing with the situation instead of listening to some politician tell us what he or she thinks is happening or should happen...

I don't think an immediate pullout is a good idea. But there should be some kind of a plan for eventually pulling out some troops and I just don't see any good ideas being proposed by our politicians.

God, if there is one, bless the troops for doing what they are told to do for our country.

I have absolutely no issues with them at all they cannot help that they were sent on an impossible mission that is not their fault.

The issues in Iraq cannot be resolved by an outside force. We should not be there. We cannot help them in the long run because the civil dispute will always be there until THEY resolve it.

Just like our civil war here, had a third party came in and attempted to resolve our issues, we would still be fighting tha war today. Until they stepped out of our way and let us resolve our differences. Or maybe they would have had to annex us as part of their country and maintain control to this day, who knows. I do know that Americans would not have appreciated it one way or the other.

Why are they not equal to us? Why are they not respected as a sovereign country that does not deserve to be invaded and occupied when we get a hair up our asses about it? Why do people here feel justified in an illegally obtained war and mass murder of us and them?