It does amaze me how "they" spin bad news into good. I wish it is a good sign but, from the way this administration has acted in the past few years, I have trouble accepting anything they say at face value.

This news actually isn't too surprising. Back in January, the Financial Times had this to report:

"One resident of Sadr City said that the movement’s rank-and-file had largely disappeared from the streets, and that the leaders believed that they were being hunted and were keeping a low profile.

The Sadrists also say that they have received instructions from Moqtada al-Sadr, the young radical cleric who at least nominally commands the movement, not to resist or provoke the Americans." 

Here's a little context on the Baghdad "surge" from Col Patrick Lang, retired senior officer of U.S. Military Intelligence:

"It is clear that Maliki understands that the Americans are now judging him in the matter of his willingness to act against Shia forces, any Shia forces.

Sadr knows that, and he has told his people to "lay low" and wait for the famously short "attention span" of the Americans to shift to something other than them.

At the same time Maliki has to agree and agree and agree with anything the American command suggests in the way of offensive action against the Shia militias.  At the same time he knows that his political position will disintegrate completely if he is seen by his own people as a "servant" of the American occupier.

This must be very difficult for him.  He says he did not want the job.  I would wager that he really feels this way now."

One other note that may be of interest. Seymour Hersh's latest piece in the New Yorker has us more or less throwing in with the Saudis (and their proxy fighters, radical Sunni jihadists) in the brewing Sunni-Shiite Middle East civil war.