The American people have an uncanny sense of where our national interest lies. When all the geo-political handwringing is done, this is a distant place with but an obscure connection to our nation's security. It was a failure from the beginning and continual doubling-down won't change that.

A gentle criticism: Tom, my respect for your reporting is unbounded and your insights into this war among the sharpest. But. But you've gotten too close to the problem and too tied up with having this turn out well. It won't. It can't. Trust the wisdom of the American people. Or the wisdom of an old adage: if it feels bad, stop doing it.

I actually see the situation in Iraq much differently. Since the sectarian war ended in 2007 I think there is a new status quo in Iraq where many of the major issues are now being played out politically. What are my arguments for this?

1) Attacks are down 80%. Before the violence was across large stretches of the country in every region. Now almost all the attacks are in Baghdad, Diyala, Ninewa, Salahaddin and Tamim. That's mostly northern Iraq where the insurgents are using the disputes with the Kurds to portray themselves as the protectors of the Arabs. The South is almost completely devoid of violence and Anbar has hardly any incidents anymore

2) Civilian deaths are down from 2,000 a month at the height of the sectarian war down to between 250-400/month. Usually a couple mass casualty bombings account for a large number of those deaths.

3) The last several public opinion polls of Iraqis show that they are increasingly feeling safe and secure and positive about their future within their own neighborhood. When asked about the rest of the country they still have a lot of reservations and don't seem to be comfortable going out of their neighborhood. I think if sectarian tensions and violence were still high they wouldn't have those views.

4) Almost every Shiite religious holiday pilgrims are attacked with bombings and the Shiites haven't responded.

5) The Mahdi Army has largely been disbanded, and the Special Groups aren't even that active anymore.

6) Despite the government's crackdowns on Sons of Iraq in 2008 and this year, there has only been one outburst of fighting which lasted 2 days in one neighborhood of Baghdad.

7) Inter-Shiite violence is even down. The Sadrists and Supreme Council use to knock each other off quite often. That's been over for a while now.

8) The ethnic cleansing of Baghdad has been solidified by the blast walls put up by the U.S., and the end of the fighting. Very few displaced and refugees have come back as well to disrupt that.

9) Many, perhaps the majority of Sunnis have turned against the insurgency.Hence the Anbar Awakening and the various Sons of Iraq groups.

What I think you're seeing with the recent spate of bombings is not the beginning of a new wave of violence, but actually a return to what it was in the middle of 2008. In the months leading up to the Jan. 09 provincial elections, the number of attacks across the country took a dramatic drop, even in violent areas like Mosul. Deaths went down with it. Now the elections are over, and violence is going back up to what it was before.

The big potential flash point now isn't between Sunnis and Shiites or Shiites vs. Shiites but between Arabs and Kurds. The Iraqi nationalism that Maliki and others are now touting is Arab nationalism, with a decided anti-Kurd tone to them. Maliki has been pushing the Kurds since the summer of 2008, but it's been contained politically so far. musingsoniraq.blogspot.com

Same as it ever was...

Actually, it's probably only the greatly diminished media attention being given to Iraq -- of which Tom Ricks has complained from time to time -- and the press of bad economic news that has led the American public to accept the commitment there continuing as long as it has.

Personally, I think it's foolish to argue that an Iraq in which violence of all kinds is dramatically lower than it was two years ago is in any way worse off. That's great -- and I use the word advisedly -- as far as it goes. Looked at from the standpoint of American interests as opposed to those of Iraqis, though, what's left is a massive military commitment that is less costly in terms of blood than it was in 2007 but is still about as expensive, at a time when the United States is borrowing more money to keep its government running than most Americans can even comprehend. Those who dread the return of large scale civil strife in Iraq are prone to dismiss this problem; the military, which tends not to worry a lot about how much its own operations cost, is prone to dismiss this problem.

But it's the root of the issue, not for Iraqis to be sure, but for Americans. I don't think civil war in Iraq, or at least a general civil war as opposed to localized tests of armed strength among various sectarian and political factions, is inevitable. In our current situation, the United States cannot pay just any price to keep it from happening.

Could it be that Iraq is now a failed state and no level of action or years of occupation can place it in recovery? We may have fractured it too far to save. Think Clausewitz never foresaw his vision to include an infrastructure destruction. We have been no more that expensive but non sustainable glue since the looting was permitted.

Let's leave and chase pirates at sea and ponzi and torturers at home.