I sincerely hope that the U.S. will indeed no abandon Iraq. I fear the worst, though.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton assured Iraqis on Saturday that the Obama administration would not abandon their country even as it presses ahead with plans to withdraw American troops amid a recent surge in violence.

Clinton said the drawdown would be handled in a “responsible and careful way” and would not affect efforts to improve Iraq’s security forces, or complete reconstruction and development projects.

But Iraqis, and particularly their security forces, need to overcome sectarian and other differences if they are to build a united, secure nation, she said.

“Let me assure you and repeat what President Obama said, we are committed to Iraq, we want to see a stable, sovereign, self-reliant Iraq,” she told a nervous but receptive crowd at a town hall meeting at the U.S. Embassy in the capital.

“We are very committed, but the nature of our commitment may look somewhat different because we are going to be withdrawing our combat troops over the next couple of years,” Clinton said.

What does that even mean? “We are very committed, but the nature of our commitment may look somewhat different”? How does withdrawing combat troops – if the situation on the ground allows it – make the nature of U.S. commitment to Iraq “look somewhat different”? Commitment is about caring – doing everything necessary to help Iraq turn into a stable democracy. The nature of a commitment will only look “somewhat different” at the moment there is no commitment anymore, or if it depends (solely) on, say, domestic American considerations.

If Clinton would be president now, there would be little doubt in my mind about her willingness to stay as long as it takes. Clinton is a hawk, Obama is now. As his secretary of state, Clinton has to do what Obama wants. And Obama promised liberal voters a year ago already that he would withdraw troops immediately from Iraq, regardless of whether or not this would be in Iraq’s interest.

Still, Obama seemed to turn into a foreign policy realist once he occupied the White House. This should give us some hope: perhaps he is less inclined to give the liberal base what it wants on foreign policy than on domestic issues.