Soon after the shocking election of Donald Trump as new US president last week a pressing question flooded social media in Iraq: What impact will the election of the hardliner billionaire-turned-politician have on Iraq? Many Iraqis wondered if Trump's election would mean changes in US strategy in Iraq, shaped by President Barack Obama and his predecessor George W Bush, and if the new American president would be able to end the debacle following the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. With huge uncertainty surrounding the president-elect's foreign policy, it is too soon to know what Trump's approach towards Iraq will be. Yet, whatever policy line he will take in Iraq, it is sure to leave a significant impact on the beleaguered country. After invading Iraq nearly 14 years ago, the US is still trapped in the country. Iraqis are eager to get rid of the legacy of the administrations of both Bush and Obama which share responsibility for the quagmire. Bush's invasion of the country in 2003 is completely to blame for the mayhem unleashed on Iraqis. The US occupation's massive failure to start a nation-building programme following the ouster of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship remains primarily responsible for the civil strife that followed. The Obama administration's strategy in Iraq has been largely to blame for the striking and brutal advances made by Islamic State (IS) group militants who managed to control more than 30 per cent of Iraq's territory in summer 2014. When Obama became US president in 2009, he took on the issue of the war on Iraq, left unresolved by Bush, and defined a simple exit strategy in line with his anti-war stance and his presidential election campaign pledge to withdraw US troops once he was in the White House. But Obama's rush to leave Iraq before the country had been able to rebuild its security institutions and resolve political and sectarian conflicts exacerbated unrest and gave rise to IS. With the ascent of Trump to the US presidency, the question now is what role should the United States have in Iraq? The US remains deeply committed to Iraq. Under the 2008 Strategic Framework Agreement with BaghdadWashington pledged to work actively to strengthen the political and military capabilities of Iraq “to deter threats against its sovereignty, political independence, territorial integrity and its constitutional federal democratic system.” Since the IS terror group's advance and seizure of nearly 30 per cent of Iraqi territory in summer 2014, Washington has invested much effort and money in supporting the Iraqi security forces in pushing back the terrorist group. The US-led coalition plays a crucial role in providing air cover for the Iraqi troops fighting IS. The US is believed to have some 6,000 troops in Iraq who are providing assistance, intelligence and training. This means the stunning nature of Trump's victory in the US elections will leave Iraqis scrambling to work out what it means for them. Even before the election's unexpected outcome was announced, ordinary Iraqis showed unprecedented interest in the election, with many expressing the hope that Trump would win. Many linked Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton to the Obama administration's missteps and feared that her policy in the White House would be an extension of that of the outgoing president. Iraqi leaders welcomed Trump's victory, praising his anti-terrorism rhetoric during the election campaign. In various statements, they expressed the hope that the new president would provide more help in Iraq's war against IS. But it is unclear what Trump will do in Iraq. Trump rarely discussed explicitly what he would do, and he tried to distance himself from the 2003 war. He also questioned the outcome of the invasion and suggested that he could have done better had he been US president. As a candidate Trump also pledged that one of his priorities on taking office would be to step up the fight against IS in Iraq and Syria, though he failed to give specifics. The announcement of Trump's election victory came as the Iraqi and allied forces made advances in the fight to drive IS militants from their last main stronghold in Iraq's second-largest city of Mosul. While militarily Mosul remains the ultimate prize for the Baghdad government in delivering a lasting defeat to the terror organisation, the liberation of the city could be a turning point for Iraq, with many stakeholders vying for influence in the post-IS era. It was widely believed that the battle of Mosul was timed in October before the US presidential election in order to help Clinton win and boost Obama's standing before the end of his term in January. It is, therefore, a legitimate question to ask whether the Obama administration will now maintain the level of participation of the US forces in the campaign in view of Clinton's humiliating loss in order to pass on the Iraq conflict to Trump. Undoubtedly, Trump will face an immediate test on this front if the battle for Mosul is still dragging on when he takes office in January. The Obama administration says it is still fully committed to help Iraq in the war against IS. Last week, Obama requested an additional $11.6 billion from Congress to boost the fight against IS and also fund the continued presence of US troops in Afghanistan. Secretary of Defence Ash Carter called the additional money “vitally important for our national security” and said it would hasten the defeat of IS and make America more secure. Trump has condemned the offensive as a “total disaster,” saying US troops were “bogged down” though he has not made any clear suggestions for an alternative campaign. There are some indications that the Mosul offensive is going slower than expected, though it is not clear if Iraqi forces are bogged down by the militants' tough resistance or a shift in Obama's strategy to leave an unfinished war against IS for Trump to grapple with. Again, it is unclear what Trump's policy will be in the conduct of the war against IS in both Iraq and Syria, though he has suggested that he would not commit to limiting ground forces in Iraq or Syria. But the big dilemma facing the next US president remains how he will tackle Iraq, which will remain a lynchpin of US Middle East policy when he takes office. It is not clear if he will have a political plan for Iraq in the aftermath of the defeat of IS. The Iraqi Shia-led government in Baghdad has been under pressure to work out a roadmap for stabilisation and reconstruction in the Sunni-dominated areas of the country following the victory over IS. National reconciliation is needed to end the ethno-sectarian split in Iraq that has shaken the country and to prevent the recurrence of IS-like groups and to heal post-IS Iraq. The ruling Shia bloc the Iraqi National Alliance has recently endorsed the idea of an “historic compromise,” proposed by this writer in this paper, and it has said it will present a draft document for national debate. The proposal dubbed “a national settlement” should be officially announced following the liberation of Mosul, and it has been cautiously welcomed by Sunni groups who have said they are waiting for details. The UN Mission in Iraq (UNAMI), whose mandate includes supervising national reconciliation, has supported the idea of a “historic compromise” which it has said would promote an inclusive reconciliation process. It has long been argued that national reconciliation in Iraq will need outside help. The major failure of the two previous US administrations in Iraq lay in their neglect to promote nation-building and their resorting to military strategies instead. Trump's election and the defeat of IS in Mosul will provide ample opportunity for the United States to step in and take the lead in concerted international diplomacy to bolster Iraq's national settlement and nation-building in Iraq.
