With news breaking over the weekend of an apparent truce in Sadr City between Iraqi government and US forces on one hand, and Sadr's Mahdi Army militia on the other, the reactions have been as expected.  They range from the triumphalist (suggesting that the truce is a sign of Sadr's defeat (again!), and US victory, such that " hopes of a US failure in Iraq were wrong - as they have always been," and that the ISCI/Dawa victory is a blow against Iran) to the more circumspect (focusing mostly on whether the cease-fire will hold and which side, if any, could claim victory).

So it occurred to me, after reading of today's violent clashes in Sadr City, that there is, perhaps, a more appropriate response to this news item: Will the cease fire ever actually kick-in, let alone hold - forget about whether it signals some grand victory for Maliki?  First things first, after all:

A fragile cease-fire failed to stop fighting in Baghdad's Sadr City where the latest clashes between Shiite extremists and U.S.-backed Iraqi forces killed 11 men and wounded 19, Iraqi hospital officials said Tuesday.

The U.S. military said that it responded to several attacks by militants with precision strikes, but only confirmed killing three militants. Two of the militants were killed in a Hellfire missile strike by an attack aircraft, according to the military. U.S. soldiers also suppressed "enemy fire" in four other clashes with tanks and attack aircraft, the military said.

The clashes erupted late Monday, just hours after Iraq's main Shiite political bloc and supporters of firebrand cleric Muqtada al-Sadr signed a cease-fire with the hope of ending seven-weeks of fighting that has left hundreds of people dead in the capital.

It was not immediately clear if the those killed in the clashes, which escalated early Tuesday, were militants or civilians. There were women and children among the wounded, said hospital officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media.

Which is not to be confused with the post-cease fire fighting on Sunday. Or the heavy bombardment on Saturday (according to Voices of Iraq, grain of salt and all). 

There are some good reasons that the status of the cease-fire remains uncertain: For one, Sadr himself has yet to issue a public statement endorsing the truce (though his reps reportedly signed the agreement), the current version permits the US military to continue bombing Sadr City (a big sticking point for obvious reasons) and...the cease fire itself is only slated to last four days!  That renders the current incarnation of the cease fire of the temporary variety.

Despite the foregoing, it is entirely possible that a workable, long-term cease-fire will be hammered out, and that the violence will subside completely over the coming days and weeks.  However, that has not happened yet.  The cease-fire has yet to be fully implemented, and even if it were put into effect immediately, it is set to expire by the end of the week.  The attacks, unfortunately, continue and the civilian casualties mount.

Maybe Bruce McQuain wants to reconsider which of us was a day late and a dollar short.  Or are those dead Iraqis who met their fate in Sadr City on Saturday, Sunday and Monday (and beyond) just an acceptable coda?  Or perhaps it is uncouth, generally, to express concern for civilian deaths when the underlying military operation is nearing an end?  I lose track of proper etiquette sometimes.