Nearly six and a half years after the U.S. invasion, it is still possible to be shocked by the violence that plagues Iraq. And it is still as difficult as ever to get a clear sense of what Iraq’s future might look like. This week’s bombings in Baghdad, in addition to leaving scores of Iraqis dead, bring a set of lingering questions back to the fore.

What is striking, again, about Iraq’s violence is its apparent nihilism. One asks oneself: Just what are the aims of those who wantonly kill so many innocent civilians? Are the bombings meant to drive U.S. forces out? Our troops have already withdrawn from the cities, with all combat troops set to leave Iraq by the end of August next year. The 50,000 or so that will remain in advisory and training roles are slated to come home by the end of 2011. Already the U.S. role is diminished to the degree that our troops were rendered bystanders to this week’s carnage, unable to participate in rescue and security efforts because the Iraqi government never called on them to do so.

Or is the killing intended to keep our forces there? Under this interpretation, dramatically increased violence might cause President Barack Obama and Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to push back the agreed-upon dead-lines for our troops’ withdrawal — thus keeping alive one of the central grievances from which groups such as al-Qaida in Mesopotamia (thought to be responsible for Wednesday’s bomb- ings near Baghdad’s foreign ministry) draw their strength: the continuing presence of American troops in the heart of the Muslim Middle East.

Do the perpetrators of this violence have specific and concrete political goals? Put another way, is there an organized group — the Baathist holdovers and Saddam loyalists we still hear about, perhaps — that opes to overthrow the current government in Iraq? Can we expect something along the lines of a full-blown guerrilla insurgency to erupt when and if we leave? If so, who would lead it, and to what end?

What we may be witnessing at work is a grisly and cynical blend of politics and terrorism. Prime Minister al-Maliki’s government has been quick to acknowledge that lapses in security, such as the recent removal of the con- crete blast walls that had surrounded Baghdad’s main thoroughfares, helped make this week’s bloodshed possible. With general elections set for early next year, violence such as that we saw this week ay be aimed at undermin-

ing Iraqi voters’ confidence that the present government can maintain security. Perhaps Sunni Muslim extremists see this as the only way to reclaim power from the Shiite majority, so long oppressed under Saddam Hussein and now dominant in Iraq’s government. For some of the same real and ostensive reasons we first went into Iraq, the question of what will happen there before and after we leave is one that goes well beyond humanitarian concern. America may be tired of the war, but we continue to have an enormous strategic interest in a secure and stable Iraq, along with specific and ongoing security challenges in the broader area, which of course includes Iran. This is not a problem from which we can sim- ply walk away, even if we wanted to. In the meantime, Iraq’s civilians continue to die, with hope for the future a casualty as well. As one Iraqi told The New York Times this week,

“This country is finished.” These are frightening words from a place where more than 130,000 American men and women in uniform still stand guard.