Not surprisingly, the leadership in Iraq has put off efforts by the United States to draft a security agreement intended to define the role of American troops in Iraq for the months and years to come.

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, speaking in Jordan last week, said “the Iraqis will not consent to an agreement that infringes their sovereignty.” His rhetoric was clearly intended to calm those in positions of power, both inside and outside Iraq, who preach that an American presence in the Middle East is the problem. Putting off the United States effectively creates an appearance of strength for the prime minister within his own country and offers something of common ground for Iraq’s neighbors, notably Iran and Syria.

Appearances, however, are deceiving. Iraq at this moment is in a holding pattern, following the end of the “surge” strategy, and awaiting the election of a new U.S. president. For all his tough talk al-Maliki has recognized in the past and will certainly realize in the future that his personal fortunes, and the success of his country’s sovereignty, are intimately tied to a strong U.S. presence.

Without it at this juncture, the potential for civil war within the country is very real. The prospect of Iraq providing the battleground for a religious war between Shiites backed by Iran, and Sunnis backed by Saudi Arabia is countered by an American presence.

What happens next in Iraq may not be the choice of the next American president. If stability in the region is the honest goal of Iraq and its neighbors, an American presence may be an undesired necessity for years, providing a strong consequence to those who would seek genocide, chaos and a concentration of power at the expense of the citizenry. In the end, the stark contrast of our presidential candidates may yield a strikingly similar result.

GateHouse News Service