As a ceremonial and social event, the dedication of the new U.S. Embassy in Baghdad was an unqualified success. The sun shone on a cool winter day. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani expressed his gratitude for America's sacrifices to drive a despot from his homeland and Ambassador Ryan Crocker pledged his country's continuing support. But the facility itself seemed to dwarf even these grand festivities.

This was my first good inside look at America's largest-ever embassy complex. I'm a mere layman when it comes to architecture, but the place struck me as dismal and defeatist. Maybe I'm missing something, like a new trend in rectangles, sharp corners and cheap metal sheeting. There are plenty other fortress-like embassies, some of which have caused debate in the past. But they at least tried to add an architectural flourish or two. This embassy, visible from large swaths of the capital, evokes rigidity and fear. Many compare it to a prison.

Though badly battered and dilapidated, Baghdad is something of an architectural showcase. Local designers are known for putting modern twists on traditional Arab imagery--pointy arches, trellised balconies and colonnades. Famous European and U.S. designers, drawn by the regime's oil money in the 1950s-70s, built graceful, avant-garde stadiums, universities and government ministries.

By Jessica Ramirez and Larry Kaplow

There were no American flags in sight on the ugly strip of road near checkpoint two. The cold and bitter air only whipped at Iraqi flags that sat behind a podium where officials shared some final words on the formal transfer of the Green Zone from U.S. to Iraqi forces.

The shift is part of an accord that Iraqi and U.S. governments signed last month. Aside from the Green Zone handover, it requires U.S. troops to withdraw from bases located within Iraqi cities by the end of June and from the country by the end of 2011.

Among those that attended the mid-morning ceremony were Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin III and Iraqi Defense Minister Abdul Qadir, who said in early 2008 that Iraq would not be able to maintain internal security until 2012 and protect its borders until 2018. They sat with other VIPS in a makeshift tent, which bomb-sniffing dogs checked twice before their arrival.

The heightened level of security didn’t end there. There were several additional checkpoints throughout the heavily fortified area amid lingering concerns that it will continue to be a target as it becomes more accessible to Iraqi civilians. “Common sense says they'll probably test the Green Zone,” said U.S. Army Col. Steve Ferrari, who called the area a “symbol of Iraq’s sovereignty.”

As for the Iraqis at the ceremony, they seemed filled with more pride than concern. An Iraqi marching band, dressed in red and blue outfits, played a few tunes on their bagpipes for the audience. They were followed by a group of young Iraqi children, who took turns chanting about their love for their country into a microphone.

The Green Zone, which spans four square miles, is located along the Tigris River in Baghdad. Since 2003, it has served as headquarters to roughly 14,000 coalition forces and contractors and as a home to at least 16,000 Iraqis. For now, Iraqi forces are nominally in charge and learning how to man gates by themselves, but technically, it’s still being protected by U.S. troops and Peruvian contractors.

Many of the largest American compounds, like the ones housing the U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers and contractor KBR also remain in the area. According to Ferrari, they have six months to negotiate their status in the country with the Iraqi government.

On working with Iraqi forces, Ferrari says the army will only stay if asked. Until that decision is made, U.S. soldiers like Sgt. Ruben Hernandez, who served his first tour in 2004, says it’s nice just to see what a difference a few years make. “Yeah, they like me now, he says of Iraqis. “I don’t think we could say that then.”

On Christmas Eve in the Green Zone, karaoke is blaring into the night from a contractor's villa while U.S. troops use a sniffer dog to check for car bombs just a block away.

This morning saw the start of perhaps the most extensive security operation I've seen in this fortified home to the Iraqi government and U.S. mission. Army engineers came with cranes and blocked side streets in the 4-square-mile district with concrete barriers. Snap checkpoints (in addition to the usual checkpoints) were mobilized to stop cars and check IDs of pedestrians. There's been an obvious reinforcement of troops, crowding the streets with their convoys of enormous MRAP (mine-resistant ambush protected) armored trucks, all causing gossip and speculation among the thousands of American and Iraqi residents who live in the big compounds, apartment blocks and suburban-style streets.

 By Jessica Ramirez

By Daniel Stone

Late Sunday afternoon, during President Bush's surprise visit to Baghdad over the weekend, an Iraqi journalist forcefully threw both of his shoes at Bush before he was quickly subdued by Secret Service and Iraqi security officials.

The incident took place at the end of a press conference Bush was giving with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. A local TV journalist stood up and yelled at Bush. His comment, according to a New York Times translation from the Arabic: "This is a farewell kiss, dog."

Even pointing the soles of your shoes toward someone is impolite in local culture, and hitting someone with your shoe is a brazen insult. After U.S. troops toppled the government of Saddam Hussein in 2003, Iraqis relished hurling shoes at the dictator's statues and portraits.

Bush avoided contact with both shoes, dodging the first and putting up his right hand to fend off the second. Both sailed past him and hit one of several American flags positioned behind the two men. Video of the incident  shows the room of reporters and security officials scrambling to detain the man, who reportedly was working with an Egypt-based station, Al-Baghdadia.

By Jessica Ramirez

In the weeks before Maj. Gen. Mark Hertling wrapped up his time as commander of Multi-National Division North Iraq, an Iraqi soldier struck up a conversation with him on the streets of Mosul. “General, our blood has come together and sprinkled the ground of Iraq," the soldier told him. “From that blood the seeds of liberty will grow.”

Hertling recounted this exchange in a gym at Forward Operating Base Speicher near Tikrit during the transfer of authority ceremony to the incoming Task Force Lightening this week. His point—the bloodshed that has swept Northern Iraq is real, but so is the progress.

When Hertling and his 1st Armored Division arrived in October 2007, the surge was showing signs of success in Baghdad and Al Qaeda’s presence in Anbar Province was weakening. By comparison, the situation in the North had grown bleak. The economy was at a standstill, and the region was headed toward its worst drought in about 15 years. There were roughly 1,800 attacks a month in the area, and Qaeda had sunk its teeth into cities like Mosul and Baqubah, where murders for hire and suicide attacks became as normal as shopping at the local markets.

In the past 14 months, U.S. and Iraqi forces were able to put a severe dent in the statistics, bringing attacks down to 108 for last week. They also helped train some of the five Iraqi Army divisions in operation as well as the more than76,000 Iraqi police officers. Local tribal leaders played their part in the reduction of violence as well, and the fruit of their labor is reflected in the local economy. The continued drop in overall attacks against the North’s oil pipeline was key to the rise in its crude oil exports. Provincial Reconstruction Teams also worked to build and rebuild critical parts of the area’s infrastructure.

But improvements have come at a price. At least 104 U.S. soldiers were killed and 891 were wounded during this period. There are also an unknown, but certainly large number of Iraqi lives that were lost. Even with the “monumental” success that Hertling spoke of, the North remains the most dangerous part of Iraq. Places like Mosul are still Qaeda targets and tensions between ethnic Kurds and Arabs in the region remain strong. Not even Iraqi security forces are immune to the troubles. Enemy combatants have infiltrated them three times in the last 12 months and American soldiers were shot or murdered in each instance.

As of this week, it’s up to Maj. Gen. Robert Caslen, who replaces Hertling, to keep the precarious peace. That could prove to be a unique challenge come January 1, 2009 when the Status-of-Forces Agreement, referred to as the SOFA, goes into effect. Under the SOFA, the Coalition Forces will hand over all bases to Iraqis by July. In a press conference held in the gym’s weight room following the handover ceremony at Speicher, Iraqi journalists questioned Caslen about the role of his forces in the coming year.

Caslen suggested their presence in the area will be more like that of “guests.” They will leave the bases in the cities, which is part of the agreement, and work as a support system for Iraqis in the North. If the Iraqi government happens to want Coalition forces in towns like Mosul, Caslen says they have that option. The Iraqi journalists seemed happy with the response, if not totally convinced by it.

However the partnership between the two countries plays out, the battle for Iraq is entering a new phase. As the Iraqi soldier from Mosul said to Hertling, there have been plenty of blood-soaked seeds scattered all over this country. Have they sprouted liberty? We’re about to find out.

Today is a Muslim holiday, so the traffic through Baghdad's Nasoor Square was light. When I went out to take a look, Iraqi police ate lunch on a bench near their traffic booth and greeted passing colleagues with hugs and handshakes near the red fire truck stationed along the sprawling roundabout. The city government has refurbished the curbs with new cement work around the centerpiece, an abstract statue of eaglets bursting from an egg--"Nasoor" means "eagles" in Arabic. There are saplings planted on the circle's fringe. Workers have even installed a spiky metallic date palm that lights up at night, an artistic take on the city's trademark flora. The security improvement in Baghdad has allowed such public works to flourish. Occasionally holiday revelers cruised through the circle, clapping hands in their minivans or blowing a trumpet.

A little over a year ago, this was the scene of one of the worst single-incident killings of civilians by U.S. forces during the war when members of the U.S. Embassy's private guard force, contractors working for Blackwater Worldwide, opened fire on commuters, killing 17 men, women and children and injuring more than 30 others on Sept. 16, 2007. U.S. prosecutors in Washington this week announced that they had charged five of the men with manslaughter and accepted a guilty plea made by a sixth. The Blackwater guards insisted at the time of the shooting that they had come under attack but Iraqi and now U.S. investigators have concluded the killings were unjustified. The Iraqi government threatened to throw the company out of the country and U.S. diplomats, apparently caught by surprise by the furor, rushed to provide new oversight to Blackwater teams.

Hard feelings still permeate what continues as a flashpoint between Americans and Iraqis. This major crossroads is at the corner of a National Police compound and a route skirting the fortified Green Zone. Large convoys for the Iraqi security forces, U.S. military and private security contractors regularly push through, prompting civilian traffic to an abrupt halt.

As a colleague and I chatted with Iraqi police and videotaped the unusually orderly flow of cars, a U.S. Army convoy passed by, first three or four of the hulking, monstrous MRAP armored trucks and then a couple of armored Humvees. I had stopped filming about the same time as the soldiers parked far away. To my surprise, they headed our way.

"Let's have it," demanded the first one, gesturing to my camera. We told him we were American reporters taking footage of the notorious roundabout and he answered, "[You're] videoing our convoy at a f---ing checkpoint." We protested that this was a public square albeit with a casual Iraqi checkpoint open to all passersby at one spot and that reporters regularly videotape passing convoys. A second soldier arrived to provide a friendlier face for the U.S. military. Explaining that they view video as a security breach, he accepted that we were not a risk and let me keep my camera.

The Iraqi police nearby laughed about the encounter. "You're from the same tribe," one said, crossing his wrists to signal the handcuffs he believed would have been employed if I had been Iraqi (in fact, I'm often mistaken for Iraqi, with my light beard, and my female colleague wore a black headscarf to help her blend in, so I suspect that is how the troops viewed us from their vehicles).

We had been talking to the police about yesterday's news of the Blackwater indictments. They were pleased but not satisfied. "Anyone who kills someone should be killed. That is the law of God," said one Iraqi police officer, asking not to be identified offering an opinion outside his duty. "You call someone a 'terrorist' when they kill without reason." The police pointed to bullet holes in a utility post and their own police booth left over from the shooting.

At a bus stop, unemployed Ali Abdel Ali sat in a place where he says he sometimes comes to take a break and think. He knows a man whose mother was injured in the shooting. "[The guards] were armed and the people were unarmed," he said. "I don't know if they are going to sentence them. It will have to depend on the trial." He said he would need to hear the evidence before judging the men. But he said he feels safer coming to Nasoor Square these days than he would have a year ago. "I feel safe and you feel safe talking to me," he said, and smiled.

By Lennox Samuels 

As recently as last May, American and Iraqi negotiators were at a dead end in efforts to forge a security agreement that would cover withdrawal of U.S. forces. For one thing—an important thing—some opponents of a deal were framing the discussion in terms of the Americans trying to establish a permanent occupying force in the country. When U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari signed the agreement on Monday, it was a testament to the fact that both sides had reached a point where they were satisfied, if not thrilled, with the final terms. Perhaps more important, it showed that negotiators could read a calendar.

That calendar has an asterisk at Dec. 31, the date the United Nations mandate expires, leaving the U.S. military with no legal basis for being in Iraq. There was much talk that the United States and Iraq would be unable to reach common ground by that deadline, and chatter swirled around possible scenarios for such an eventuality. Would the Americans simply stay on "illegally"? Would the two sides stitch together a temporary pact setting up an extra-legal interregnum? No scenario had the United States packing up its 150,000 troops, plus equipment and ordnance, and leaving. As the deadline loomed, realpolitik set in. Dec. 31 "focus[ed] the mind on what happens the next day if there were no agreement," says a senior U.S. official involved in the negotiations.

A breakthrough came when negotiators began to treat the talks as a framework for establishing a broad bilateral relationship that deals with more than just "the technical matter" of U.S. troop withdrawal, the U.S. official says. Negotiators, who formally began talks last March, say the accord really has two pieces: the much-discussed Status of Forces Agreement and a wider deal on matters that extend beyond war. "This agreement provides the framework for cooperation in the fields of economics, culture, science, technology, health and trade, just to name a few," Crocker said at the signing ceremony. "It reminds us that at a time when United States forces will continue to withdraw from Iraq in recognition of superlative security gains … our relationship will continue to develop in many other ways."

That development will come despite the apparent machinations of Iran. Last month, Gen. Ray Odierno, the U.S. military commander in Iraq, caused an uproar when he charged that Iraq's eastern neighbor was trying to derail the agreement, going so far as to say the country was bribing Iraqi politicians. The allegations outraged Baghdad legislators. "The Iranians have not been unduly involved in any way," an Iraqi government official tells NEWSWEEK. But American officials who will not speak for attribution say the Iranians were among those talking up the threat of a permanent U.S. occupation. "Iran wants to dominate the country in every area," including politics, security and economics, says a second senior U.S. official. Because the Iran-Iraq war ended in 1988 with an Iraqi victory, Iran wants events in 2008 to end in an Iranian victory, the official says.

Even some Iraqis agree that the Iranians have been stoking anti-agreement sentiment. Some point to the exploits of radical Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who is studying in Iraq to become an ayatollah and has called for mass demonstrations against the security agreement and warned of renewed fighting by his militia, the Mahdi Army. "He's supported by and working with the Iranians," says an Iraqi journalist who asked not to be identified for security reasons. "Iran doesn't invest millions in supporting these people and not ask for a return." Some Iraqi politicians had talked about running any pact by neighboring countries, taken by most observers to mean Iran, for their input. With an agreement signed, Tehran is among the biggest losers in the regional political skirmishing. Still, Iran may not be done yet—it is likely to lobby Shiite Muslims in Iraq's parliament to reject the agreement, which they are expected to vote on in the next week. Both Iran and Iraq have Shiite majorities.

But most Iraqis and American officials expect the parliament to ratify the agreement, which will then go to the presidency council for a final sign-off. The feeling is that both the United States and Iraq have gotten the best deal they're going to get. "This is in many respects everything we've been working for. The fact that they made tough demands and we made tough demands back was entirely natural," says one of the senior U.S. officials. The American side is well aware that Iraqi factions will spin the agreement in different ways, and to their advantage. Some in the government are already calling it a withdrawal agreement. "How it is marketed by either side is one thing," says the second U.S. official. "What it is, is something else." Public relations aside, Iraq seems poised to move on to the next phase of its political journey

By Lennox Samuels

One of the stickiest points in efforts to work out a deal on the presence of American forces in Iraq after the United Nations mandate expires December 31 has been the question of immunity for U.S. troops who commit crimes in the country. Iraqi negotiators rejected demands that such offenders be allowed to remain under U.S. jurisdiction, and the Americans balked at ceding control to the other side. Now, after months of wrangling, not to mention posturing, the nit has been smoothed, clearing the way for the Status of Forces Agreement to be signed. Iraq’s Cabinet approved the deal Sunday and the full Parliament should follow suit in another week or so. But things aren’t quite as simple as they appear.

The immunity provisions themselves hardly give Iraq what it wanted: “The United States shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members of the force and civilian component for matters arising inside agreed facilities and areas; during duty status outside agreed facilities and areas…” On the other side, “Iraq shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members of the force and of the civilian component for the grave premeditated felonies enumerated [below] … when such crimes are committed outside agreed facilities and areas and outside duty status.” In other words, if an American military staffer commits a major felony when he is off base and not on duty, he may not have immunity.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who described the immunity issue as a key obstacle to a deal, now backs the current SOFA. “He’s switched from negative to positive and decided it is better than the alternative, which is no deal,” a Western adviser to the government tells NEWSWEEK. Maliki’s support had been unenthusiastic and low-key, no surprise given opposition by many Iraqis suspicious of any possible diluting of national sovereignty. But he is now preparing a major speech explaining why the nation at large should accept the agreement. Once a reluctant prime minister, he now wants to stay on, get re-elected, and even expand his influence. He therefore has positioned himself as a tough defender of sovereignty while still relying on the Americans to help shore up his political career. But Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who has interrupted his studies in Iran to attack the SOFA, has called for a huge demonstration for next Friday. Some more mainstream Sunni and Shiite leaders and politicians also have expressed reservations about the agreement. Only Kurdish politicians have fully embraced the measure.

By Larry Kaplow and Lennox Samuels

We don't have a scientific survey but would hazard to guess that most U.S. soldiers in Iraq are voting for Sen. John McCain. However, the spread between him and Sen. Barack Obama is probably much smaller than it was between George W. Bush and John Kerry four years ago. Meanwhile, military contractors, a motley crew ranging from accountants to bus drivers and usually attached to big defense companies, tend further toward the right than soldiers. And security contractors – former soldiers and cops pulling in lucrative incomes – are more right still. In that spirit, here are a few things we've overheard on U.S. installations in recent days about the upcoming elections:

"If Joe the Plumber wants a job, he should bring his ass to Iraq. There are plenty of plumbing jobs here,"—from a U.S. soldier who won't explicitly state his preference but we're guessing is for Obama. He says his vote is based on the economic problems he hears from his wife back home, not the Iraq war. "This is where the jobs are. We need to be doing this in America," he grouses, gesturing at the large U.S. infrastructure around him.

"My wife is talking about moving . . . to South Africa," said a U.S. logistics contractor lamenting a possible Obama victory that would leave America with an "even worse administration than the one we have now."

And from a Blackwater security guard there was this pithy declaration: "I'm voting against socialism." Well, Obama is on record saying there's too great a difference between the modest salaries of U.S. troops and the high pay for the private gunmen. It sounds like economics, not the Iraq war, might be their deciding factor, too.

By Lennox Samuels

In recent days, attacks against Christians in Mosul have forced thousands of the faithful to flee the northern Iraqi city, in an episode that has been condemned by everyone from Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to Coalition authorities to Pope Benedict XVI. But there’s little agreement about exactly what’s going on or what’s been driving the violence. Depending on who you talk to, the killings constitute a wave of terrorism designed to run off members of the religion, a last-gasp campaign by Al Qaeda in Iraq, or overstatement by Iraqi media.

To begin with, the number of fatalities is hard to pin down. Some Christian leaders say at least 20 people have been killed. U.S. and Iraqi officials say that’s inflated. “We have confirmed eight Christian killings since the end of September,” including one where the suspect also was Christian, says Major Gen. Mark Hertling, U.S. military commander in northern Iraq. Christian-community leaders who met recently in Mosul with Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Rafi Hiyad al-Issawi, Nineweh governor Duraid Kashmula and other officials to demand redress, put the number at 12. “They were mostly killed after someone asked them for their identification and then learned they were Christian,” Emanuel Khoshaba Youkhana, deputy secretary-general of the Assyrian Patriotic Party, tells NEWSWEEK.

Whatever the real number of Christians who have died in recent attacks, there’s no question that thousands of them have fled Mosul. United Nations estimates indicate at least 12,000 have been displaced. The Assyrian Patriotic Party says 2,351 families have left Mosul for Iraqi cities like Kirkuk, Erbil and Dohuk as well as Lebanon and Syria, where several hundred are living in refugee camps. The displacement follows a ratcheting up of threats against Christians, whose presence in Iraq dates to the 1st century A.D. The Christians, mostly of the Chaldean or Eastern Rite tradition, have for the most part lived quietly among Muslims in the country, with intermittent periods of persecution. Now they are afraid to remain in Mosul, spooked by the killings, threats and rumors of religious cleansing. It is not certain who is behind the current attacks. As Iraq slid into war and insurgency after 2003, some Islamists targeted Christians, branding them infidels and allies of America. Christians received threats from extremist groups like the Islamic State of Iraq even before the latest violence erupted in late September. The group is synonymous with Al Qaeda in Iraq, which has retreated to Mosul, Iraq’s third-largest city, as U.S. and Iraqi forces drove the network from the rest of the country. Maj. Gen. Hertling says some seized documents show insurgents lauding the attacks as a success “because it was causing confusion among the people of Mosul.” The moves against Christians come as tensions in Mosul are rising again, with the Maliki government trying to reduce the influence of the Kurds and Sunni tribal leaders vowing to fight to keep the city in Arab hands.

Iraqi military brass insist the city is safer than reports suggest and claim that the attacks are less about going after a religious denomination and more about keeping the city off-balance by stirring fear and division among its residents. “Mosul has become totally secure but the truth is not being delivered,” says Lt. Gen. Riyadh Jalal Tawfiq, Iraqi military commander in Nineveh governorate, who likes to admonish the press to write less divisive stories. “In Anbar [province] you had good Sunnis [in the Awakening] fighting against bad Sunnis. Here you have bad Sunnis who are trying to drive a wedge between every group of people.” He says a special committee is investigating the attacks.

The central government in Baghdad is exhorting Christians who fled to return to their homes. At his meeting in Mosul, Deputy Prime Minister Issawi called the attacks “terrorists acts” and pledged to compensate Christians for their losses. Flush with cash, Baghdad is offering about $900 to every family that comes back. At the same meeting, the Christians delivered additional demands, including better security, greater development at the government’s expense and that the 12 slain Christians be treated “just like any other Iraqi martyrs.” Riyadh offers to take anyone on a tour of the city to show how secure it is, but both he and Hertling concede that conditions are unlikely to truly change unless the city’s infrastructure and severe unemployment problems are addressed. Emanuel, the Assyrian politician, says some families have returned but “given the lack of trust, I don’t think most will.” With suspicion so deep, it will take more than money and promises to woo back the city’s Christian minority.

While American politicians debate who's a maverick willing to take on the establishment, Iraq's Mithal al-Alusi meets the criteria and pays the price. In the latest in a series of battles with what he calls the "fascist" religious parties running the government, Alusi was banned from parliament for making his third trip to Israel—or, the "Zionist entity" as it's known in official Iraqi correspondence. He is not allowed to leave Iraq, could face prosecution and says he is hearing of threats on his life.

His trip to an anti-terrorism conference near Tel Aviv was his third public visit to the country that Saddam Hussein fired rockets at during the Gulf War in 1991 and that bombed Iraq's reactor in 1981. His speech at a 2006 conference there is on YouTube. Each time he has faced condemnation from the post-Saddam leaders of the new Iraq. His two grown sons were killed in an attack in 2005. The Israel trip was supposedly used to motivate the killers, though they might have been sent by rival politicians seeking to neutralize their father, who has formed a small but expanding secular party.

The Iraqi parliament acted with uncharacteristic speed and unity last month in condemning Alusi. In stripping him of his parliamentary immunity, they open the door to prosecution on some charge, like treason or aiding an enemy state.

The problem is that in a country that's been at war with so many countries in recent decades, it's hard to discern which countries are still enemies. As Alusi points out, Iraq and Iran fought a long war in the 1980s but travel between those countries is going on by the thousands every month. That war ended with a ceasefire that some Iraqis contended never actually officially ended their hostilities. Of course, Iraq attacked Kuwait in 1990 but Kuwait now has an ambassador in Baghdad. And Turkey regularly pounds Iraqi Kurdish rebels with air strikes and artillery now while Turkish companies compete for government contracts. Alusi, in an appeal to the Iraqi high court, contends that travel to Israel is legal. But Israel is still almost as potent a bogeyman in the new Iraq as it was under Saddam. (The middle-aged Alusi also opposed Saddam, serving jail time for his part in the takeover of the Iraqi embassy in Germany to protest against the dictator.)

Members of the Shiite religious party leading the government appeared to lead the attack on Alusi. He says it is in part retaliation for his frequent criticism of them and because they fear his party will siphon off voters already fed up with fundamentalist politicians. He says Iranian surrogates have approached him with money to silence him. But he insists Iraq, Israel and other Iraqi neighbors should band together to fight terror and their common enemy, Iran.

Updated charts the military provided to NEWSWEEK showed that the number of attacks around the country dropped back to pre-Ramadan levels when the holy month ended at the beginning of October. Attacks – everything from bombings to rifle fire to destruction of oil lines – occurred less than 250 times a week throughout Iraq in the first two weeks of this month. September had seen a blip during Ramadan, but that was just a fraction of the violent spikes during previous Ramadan months (as marked in yellow columns on the chart). It's still a disturbing rate of attacks to live through on the ground and Iraqis grew increasingly stressed when there were several days in a row of prominent bombings or assassinations. But it's nowhere near the all-out mayhem of mid-2007, when there were nearly 1,600 incidents in a week:

...

The second chart shows civilian deaths as counted by U.S. and Iraqi officials. This shows that deaths are down to just below levels seen previously in 2006, what was already seen as a dangerous and unstable time:

...