t is a calling by some higher power, not just a civic duty.

The website has helped many in different ways and is a source of accurate statistics cited by many articles and broadcasts.

For me, the website is a strong reminder of how wrong that war is and a place to reflect and mourn the deaths of the innocent, military and civilians. It is with the same heavy heart that I go there to assess trends that help me understand where the war is going.

I am saddened to report that a line has been crossed in Iraq and that the troops are now facing a much wider insurgency; it almost doubled overnight.

The alarming statistic comes from the fact that more of them are dying as the result of small arms fire. The recent rise in the casualty rate is one of the highest in the last three years, and even though seen before, it used to be the result of a single incident such as a helicopter or airplane crash.

This time it is very different. This time, it is the result of numerous attacks with their majority being the result of small arms fire.

Why do the small arms fire attacks signal a new trend and an expansion of the insurgency?

The majority of previous attacks were IED’s placed by clandestine cells on the site of the road and triggered either through an activation mechanism or by remote control. Such attacks, even if supported by the population where they are placed, do not require their help or involvement. Such attacks can only implicate a small segment of the population.

In contrast, attacks by small arms fire, and the fact that they are taking place in populated areas such as Baghdad, and often Shiite areas, force the attackers to be more visible to the population and it is through the population’s direct and indirect support that cover and safety is provided.

Small arms fire attacks also indicate that the attackers are members of the community since IED attacks endanger their homes, their relatives, and their neighbors.

The Pentagon’s explanation is that the spike is the result of increased security operations in Baghdad. That explanation is acceptable if the operations are resulting in the apprehension of those committing the attacks. If not, such an explanation is just another Pentagon spin and our troops should brace themselves; it is not a spike, it is a trend.

If my analysis is accurate, this trend signals the return of a large segment of the Iraqi population into the folds of the active insurgency, namely Moqtada Al-Sadr’s Mehdi army. This time, though, unlike their previous confrontations with U.S. forces, which were head on, these new attacks follow the practices of the Sunni insurgency, hit and run or hide and come back to kill again some other day.

Al-Sadr has been the nemesis of the Neocons from the start, mainly because he refused to take part in the occupation scheme. Al-Sadr is an Iraqi nationalist opposed to the Neocon driven federal system that would break up Iraq. He is responsive to the Iraqi street (a form of Middle East democracy) and responsive to the needs of the poor and the average person. In his sermons he asks his supporters to protect the Sunnis while the Western media keeps trying to pin the American trained death squads of the Interior Ministry on him.

Moqtada Al-Sadr learned from his early confrontations of 2004 with U.S. forces (another Neocon victim); going against them head on is a losing proposition. Since then, Moqtada has used the time to regroup, and consolidate his power in Baghdad and other provinces that were not under direct U.S. control. He also has joined the political process and through his block of parliamentarians has become the kingmaker.

All attempts by the Neocons and their allies in the Iraqi Defense and Interior ministry to draw him into a head-on confrontation have failed. My analysis, and many might disagree with me, indicates that the recent war in Lebanon was designed to infuriate the Iraqi Shiites and to draw Moqtada into opening a front against U.S. troops.

The strong stand by Hizballah and their ability to repel the Israeli assaults threw a monkey wrench into this Neocon-Israeli plan and, instead of the military confrontation they were hoping for, it allowed Moqtada to send them a strong, yet peaceful, message that showcased his power base. He staged the largest demonstration in Baghdad’s history, more than a million, in support Lebanon’s Shiites.

It is only a matter of time, if it has not occurred yet, for the two Neocon nemeses, Moqtada and the nationalist Sunnis, to join hands and form a single front.

Together or separate, their actions against our troops will result in a consistently higher casualty rate than the American public has been accustomed to and conditioned to accept.

If the lessons of previous experiences hold true, any attempts to pacify an insurgency with grassroots support will only help it grow.

There is no doubt that the troops, whose lives are constantly on the line, understand very well the realities on the ground. It is time for the Commander-in-Chief, and the Neocon monolith that now controls his second administration, to accept those realities and start respecting the value of human life, American and Iraqi, and to abandon their pipe dreams, and define a new and honorable course to get the two countries out of this quagmire.