Last month, when the last unit of American combatant troops was leaving from the country, it was clear that behind those joyful and cheerful faces deep down something was forcedly hidden: worry. Though Iraqis deemed American military presence as national humiliation, but the future, reeking with sectarianism and proxy competition of the neighbors, made impendence taste bitter.

Many are concerned about the consequence of US military drawdown and deterioration of security situation. The Iraqi security forces have a long way ahead to go in order to earn the confidence and trust of civilians of ensuring their protection and dealing firmly with al-Qaeda militants. Because, hereafter, there is no hope to call American eagle aircrafts and well-trained battalions to spotlight militants and, in a blink of eyes, sweep them all away. American forces will not be engaged in the battle ground anymore and now Iraqi forces have to cope with situation and contingencies.

The military withdrawal from Iraq, however, was not a new policy as Obama promised during his presidential campaign to end war there and refocus on Afghanistan, which came out to be pregnant with more dangerous terror and extremist groups, potent of endangering the regional and global peace and security. And the withdrawal was made accurately on the prefixed schedule. But what is worrisome is the lack of a strong central government which is established from a fledgling coalition with the façade of national unity.

I can recall clearly the relative transparent and successful parliamentary election earlier this year. It is noteworthy to say that it was the first nation-wide election, where all citizens indiscriminately attended the electoral process and casted votes for their favorite candidates of various political parties. One of the vital characteristics of the election, of course, was the overwhelming participation of minority Sunni, who boycotted the previous 2005 parliamentary election which get the country divided sharply on the sectarian basis.

The ubiquitous enthusiasm among Iraqis and their courageous participation in the voting procedure, despite several warnings issued by militants, sparked hopes among international observers that Iraq could not be perverted once again and would move on the irreversible path of liberty and democracy.

But that optimism did not last much as different political parties have been indulged in irreconcilable brawl on the power sharing. The two main players— Ayad Allawi and Nouri al-Maliki whose parties captured the major parts of parliamentary seats—for a long period failed to reach on agreement to form government. Both parties were unable to reach to a conclusion with minor parities in order to complete quorum and establish the government. And in spite of Washington Pressure, Iraq remained without any government for months.

Another conundrum in the country is the ability of Iraqi security forces. Right after withdrawal, vice President was accused of terrorist activities and series of bomb blast shook the capital Baghdad. However, the increase in terror attacks was expected and officials already talked about the increase of terror activities amid US military withdrawal, but the extent and span of Baghdad attacks raised serious question about stability of security situation and capacity of Iraqi security forces

Obviously, the attacks showed that their presence, though American forces have not been involved in operations since a year, could work as shield against the break-out of sectarian and terrorist violence. The attacks coincided with completion of withdrawal as Americans are not in mood to pay the costly price of persistence of war in Iraq when they themselves are severely suffering from economic meltdowns and financial crisis. And pressures are mounting within the US, against wars abroad——whether it is in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Many Americans envy the economic development in countries like China, India, Brazil while observing the unbridled ascendance of unemployment and huge budget deficits. They want government to care much about domestic dilemmas rather than wasting billions of dollars on the infertile ground soil of Afghanistan and Iraq. President Obama figures out the anti-war domestic sensitivity and he never showed flexibility over the scheduled time for withdrawal.

However, it looks far likely that al-Qaeda can endanger the entire democratic projects of state-building and reverse the whole process because the democratic values certainly got strong, deep roots in the urban areas, but of course, the persistence of political uncertainty and lack of American combat forces in the ground would prove costly for both Iraqi civilians and officials alike.

But the question remains that what US will do if the situation starts undoing? Some Analysts maintain that American officials have already showed much flexibility in different cases. Before withdrawing, US foreign secretary, Hillary Clinton warned neighboring countries, particularly, Iran to be more cautious about their interference. She said that US has enough troops in the gulf to encounter any evil measures.

But in the case of internal challenges, it is widely believed that Washington still has a lot to do with Baghdad officials. It can mount pressure and make them avoid any perversion towards neighbors. And also force them to remain united and avoid political controversy, which currently even has disturbed the administration of Noori al-Maliki.

Meanwhile, it should be noticed that the ultimate decision lies in the hands of Iraqis and their current representatives. If they do not take care, then the country will fall again into hell of sectarian violence. It is up to them. The US has done enough during past years and its dominance, however helpful, has been unable to change the course entirely.