When US forces invaded Iraq in 2003, the American people were told (however disingenuously) that a primary goal was to liberate the Iraqis and help rebuild their country from decades of neglect – as well as from the initial bombing campaign, which leveled whatever crumbling infrastructure existed there in the first place. In fact, the Bush Administration and its court advisors were so confident that Iraq would be their Post-War Germany and Japan, that Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz famously told congress in March 2003 that “we’re dealing with a country that could really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon” with its own oil and motivation.

Well, when it became clear that the priorities of rebuilding and democratizing had dropped below getting the hell out of that country with as much of our world power status intact as still possible (which would include, of course, leaving the most malleable, dependent, pro-American government behind, no matter how corrupt and illegitimate), the human toll of the Iraqi people, including assessments of US reconstruction projects there, dropped completely from the radar.

On some conscious level, most Americans know that a “surge” of 20,000 troops is not going to alleviate all of the collateral effects of urban war – including thousands of airstrikes against targets in Baghdad and other cities – within a year. But it is easier to talk, apparently, about the current reduction in violence and Maliki’s seemingly stronger position in routing Iran-backed militants from key strongholds. Gen. David Petreaus, and anyone close to him, seem as exalted as ever (does anyone else get the feeling the number of people who played a role in drafting his “surge plan” seems to get longer by the day?)

Of course there are windows into the continued suffering of the Iraq people that anyone scratching a bit under the surface (meaning, turn off your basic cable, close your Washington Post) can find, because there are still dedicated journalists in the region. I stumbled on this one last week, about the open sewage in Basra, one of Maliki’s recent tactical victories against his rival Shia militant groups.

Juan Cole has put together a persuasive brief on the human toll – both in Iraq and in the outlying refugee camps – today on his blog. He points out how the violence may have subsided by pre-surge standards, but it would still be unacceptable by any others. He links to stories that have questioned the US reporting of deaths, and the underreporting of the refugees and displacement.

American commentators peculiarly lack a social dimension to their analyses. So if PM Nuri al-Maliki sends some troops up to Mosul and the guerrillas there lie low for a while, that is “progress” and “good news.” Well, maybe it is, I don’t know.

(snip)

Even if it gets better, it won’t get better very fast for all those millions wounded, widowed, orphaned, and displaced; as for the 1 million dead, as they say in Arabic, God have mercy on them (Allah yarhamhum). Maybe it will get better sooner for the politicians in the Green Zone. They are the sort of people that the think tanks in Washington seem to care about.

This week, there were two recurring themes in Iraq news: how Iran is “on its heels” and how US oil companies are heroically moving into Iraq for business. “Anti-war” candidate Barack Obama came out with a list of national security advisors mostly resembling the moldy contents of a closet in Georgetown. At this rate, the potentially painful lessons of Iraq will have been anesthetized by Election Day, moving artfully into another foreign policy chapter and potentially leaving another festering human disaster behind.