washington<u+2014>the u.s.-backed fight to wrest iraq<u+2019>s second-largest city from islamic state control holds implications extending beyond the battlefield and into both the departing and incoming u.s. presidential administrations, raising the stakes for how it unfolds in the closing weeks of the election campaign. for president barack obama, mosul is reverberating beyond his broader fight against islamic state and into his legacy as a reluctant wartime president. it is an opportunity for mr. obama to secure a victory in a region that has given him few, but also a risky operation that has put his foreign policy under renewed scrutiny. for democrat hillary clinton and republican donald trump, one of whom will inherit the islamic state fight in january, the battle for mosul has spotlighted their contrasting positions. mrs. clinton has said she would attempt to defeat islamic state without resorting to the use of u.s. combat forces, while mr. trump points to mosul as evidence of the failures of the administration in which mrs. clinton served. the challenges and stakes of the battle were underscored last week by the death of a u.s. sailor , the first u.s. service member killed during the fight over mosul. in a signal of the importance of the offensive both to the obama administration and to the wider fight, defense secretary ash carter spent the weekend in iraq, meeting with top officials and traveling outside baghdad for meetings. speaking to reporters in erbil on sunday, mr. carter said taking back control of mosul and raqqa, syria, were essential to eliminating the group<u+2019>s territorial holdings, but wouldn<u+2019>t spell the end of islamic state. <u+201c>it is absolutely essential that we destroy isil in these cities of mosul and raqqa, however, even in iraq and syria, that doesn<u+2019>t end the campaign,<u+201d> mr. carter said, using another name for islamic state. <u+201c>we know that isil will take to other, lesser locations in the countryside in iraq, to take the iraq example, and we are all planning to help the iraqi security forces to consolidate their control over all of iraqi territory. <u+201c> richard haass, president of the council on foreign relations, said mr. obama<u+2019>s reluctance to intervene in the conflict in syria is more likely to define his legacy than the fight in mosul. <u+201c>it would help if iraq was to be made free of isis,<u+201d> mr. haass said, using another acronym for the group, <u+201c>even [though] making iraq viable is a long-term and difficult proposition.<u+201d> but the battle in mosul, paired with a future coordinated campaign in raqqa, could hold strategic implications, said ilan goldenberg, director of the middle east security program at the center for a new american security, a think tank with ties to the obama administration. <u+201c>it<u+2019>s probably the most significant test of what i would argue is a new strategy and approach to how we deal with terrorist organizations,<u+201d> mr. goldenberg said. that strategy, he said, entails using u.s. special forces to assist local forces in fights where terrorist groups control territory. it contrasts with two other u.s. strategies: taking a hands-off approach; and sending large numbers of u.s. ground troops. <u+201c>i think the next president can really pick this up, talk about it as a strategic doctrine over time,<u+201d> mr. goldenberg said. the mosul battle could have a slight bearing on the u.s. presidential campaign. if the city is liberated quickly, it could benefit mrs. clinton by suggesting momentum has turned away from islamic state, mr. haass said. but if it is drawn out, as many experts forecast, it could boost mr. trump<u+2019>s argument that the problem was created by the obama administration<u+2019>s decision to completely withdraw from iraq in 2011. the issue played into a bitter exchange during the final debate between mr. trump and mrs. clinton last week. the republican candidate criticized the administration for announcing the start of the operation in advance and said the liberation effort wouldn<u+2019>t have been necessary if mr. obama, along with mrs. clinton as secretary of state, had persuaded the iraqi government to keep some u.s. troops in iraq at the end of the war in 2011. <u+201c>we had mosul,<u+201d> mr. trump said wednesday during the final presidential debate. <u+201c>but when she left, when she took everybody out, we lost mosul.<u+201d> mr. trump also argued that the timing of the allied operation to retake mosul was political, designed to boost mrs. clinton<u+2019>s chances in the election. <u+201c>she wanted to look good for the election, so they<u+2019>re going in,<u+201d> he argued. mrs. clinton said mr. trump was trying to dredge up a conspiracy. mrs. clinton said she wouldn<u+2019>t support committing u.s. troops to iraq <u+201c>as an occupying force<u+201d> once the fight for mosul ends, but said she would push for more strenuous u.s. military action in syria<u+2014>including a no-fly zone in that country<u+2014>to help end the conflict there. <u+201c>i think we can take back mosul, and then we can move on into syria and take back raqqa,<u+201d> she said. it is unlikely the offensive will conclude before the election, given projections for a tough fight and islamic state<u+2019>s efforts to launch counteroffensives in places like iraq<u+2019>s kirkuk, which hadn<u+2019>t been under islamic state control. <u+201c>in between now and the election, there could be moments of great success and also moments of great failure,<u+201d> said jon alterman, a former state department official now at the center for strategic and international studies, a think tank. he added that predictions for mosul<u+2019>s future are uncertain. <u+201c>this is going to be a long, hard slog,<u+201d> he said. <u+2014>gordon lubold in erbil, iraq, contributed to this article. write to carol e. lee at carol.lee@wsj.com
battle of mosul has bearing on two presidencies - wsj
carol e. lee