Askari's main argument for a McCain presidency centers on concerns that Obama will need to appease his anti-war constituency, prompting a too-soon withdrawal of American troops. Obama has said he wants a gradual withdrawal -- one or two brigades per month for 16 months, though he has left open the possibility of amending this schedule, subject to events.

Moreover, Askari says, Democrats eager for change will force Iraqis "to deal with a new group and to start all over again from scratch."

We're not talking love of Republicans here, but of continuity and fine-tuning as opposed to a dramatic change in perspective and policy. Askari clearly prefers McCain's.

"The Republicans have gone through the 'Iraqi experience' in both its positive and negative aspects," he wrote in his article. "After five years together, Republicans and Iraqis have come to certain understandings and mutual grounds, making it much easier for the Americans to better understand Iraq and its circumstances."

Meanwhile, Iraqis have succeeded in building their national security forces and continue to make ruin of al-Qaeda.

Askari also speculated that some Arab and Iraqi enthusiasm for Obama may be explained by a desire to embarrass or take revenge against George W. Bush -- or perhaps by "covert arrangements" with other governments in the region.

The latter sounds a little paranoid to American ears, but paranoia in Iraq is not an unreasonable default position. Whatever Askari's own motivations -- assuming that in politics there is always something -- those who found his earlier "colonization" comments heartening may have to muffle their applause.

For Askari, at least for now, it appears that "staying the course" has a better ring than "change."