OPINION: Abandonment or sovereignty: Which perception will win in Iraq?

Manal Omar, director of Iraq Programs at the United States Institute of Peace, is author of the memoir, "Barefoot in Baghdad: A Story of Identity - My Own and What It Means to Be a Woman in Chaos."

One of the first lessons learned for those working on the ground over the past seven years inside Iraq is how perception quickly becomes reality. In 2003, interviews with Iraqi after Iraqi described tanks being parachuted into Baghdad, and U.S. Army troops sweeping across Iraq from Basra to Zakho. The perception was of a great U.S. superpower overthrowing a despotic regime, and the reality for Iraqis was that an army of liberation had arrived.

As the coalition government failed to improve the delivery of basic services - water, electricity and health services - the perception in the streets of Iraq was that the superpower had decided to punish the Iraqi people. The new reality for Iraqis metamorphosed in 2006 into an army of occupation.

With the official date of the U.S. drawdown approaching on Tuesday - on the way to the removal of all troops by the end of 2011 - the Iraqi and U.S. relationship once more finds itself at the crossroads between reality and perception.

The media focus on the Aug. 31 deadline has fostered the perception in the United States that this will be the first time the Iraqi security forces will step forward. In fact, U.S. soldiers have been disappearing from the streets of Iraq for the past 18 months.

The process of the drawdown first began when President Barack Obama took office in January 2009, and since then we have seen a decrease of nearly 100,000 troops. Iraqi security forces have been fully responsible for all security checkpoints, including entry into the International Zone. At the same time, the Iraqi security forces lead all neighborhood and home searches. Despite this reality, Iraqi and international perceptions alike have created a strong psychological association between the U.S. presence and Iraqi stability.

Although the United States may not be responsible for the day-to-day security inside Iraq, there are many who would argue it is responsible for the balance of power between the Iraqi political parties. With a drawdown in U.S. presence, there's less of an incentive for Iraqi leadership to form a coalition. In the past, the political parties were eager to stay on the good side of U.S. diplomats. The U.S. presence provided a safeguard against one party asserting more control over the others. With the drawdown, Iraqi political parties are concerned that the balance of power may not be maintained; in fact, many fear that Iraq has seen its last election.

As a result, there's a lot riding on the final decision on government formation. Yet five months after elections and several negotiations later, there is no new government in sight. The perception that Iraq is no longer a priority for the United States - despite the reassurances of a surge of funding and projects focused on Iraq through the State Department from President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - may have led to the deadlock between the parties. The political game is on, but there is no longer a referee to stand on the sidelines.

The biggest challenge in the past week has been detangling Iraq's different realities. The drawdown of troops is occurring in conjunction with rapidly deteriorating security in Iraq. Numerous bombs have ripped across Iraq in the past several days - including a seemingly coordinated string of more than two dozen attacks on Wednesday - resulting in the closing of several neighborhoods and returning the country to a high death rate of 50 people a day. It reminds us how volatile the country still is.

But it is too simplistic to draw a correlation between the drawdown and the violence. A more likely candidate for the root cause of the uptick in violence is the delay in the Iraqi government formation. Nonetheless - coming, as the Wednesday attacks did, just a day after the announcement that U.S. forces were at their lowest point since the war began in 2003 - the perception of the link between U.S. presence and Iraqi security is further enhanced.

The two competing perceptions that can emerge from the drawdown are abandonment or full sovereignty. The sense-of-abandonment scenario depends on the perception that the U.S. will no longer be engaged. The Iraqi citizens will feel abandoned, and will question the progress of the past seven years if a stable, democratic government does not emerge. If that happens, the primary fear is that with the U.S. gone, the political parties will resort to violence to force alliances in power sharing.

At the same time, the political parties will feel abandonment from U.S. support and may begin to look for other allies. The most likely candidate remains Iran. As violence increases, once more it will be the Iraqi citizens who will pay the price. The U.S. State Department's work to convene Iraqi policy-makers, strengthen civil society and work with marginalized groups such as women, youth and minorities inside Iraq is more important than ever.

Until now, the balance of power has remained due to the United States' strong influence. It is important that the civilian interventions in Iraq remain to empower Iraqi institutions to maintain that balance. Iraqis are eager for an ongoing relationship with the United States, and are openly questioning what the new relationship will look like.

The scenario of full sovereignty will depend greatly on the U.S. government's engagement. As the military's role transitions from a combatant mandate to a training one, an increase in civilian activities will reassure the Iraqi government and civil society that the United States remains committed to long term and sustainable success in Iraq. At the same time, it will reinforce Iraq's role as a sovereign nation with a powerful ally.

Whether the consensus is abandonment or a transfer of sovereignty, there is no doubt that perceptions in Iraq will have an impact on the reality of the U.S.-Iraqi relationship in the future.

Once more, Iraqis find themselves in a transition. From Coalition Provisional Authority leadership to full Iraqi control to writing the constitution, Iraq has found itself at crossroads time and time again in the past seven years. But this time the transition is happening on several layers - from the U.S. military to Iraqi security forces, from the old government to a newly elected one, from a military relationship with the United States to a diplomatic one.

Yet for most Iraqis, the primary issue remains the delivery of services and access to livelihood. The barometer for success of this next transition will be tied to the flick of a light switch.