The stakes are high in the US

Obama's victory is far from certain - and a Romney win would have far reaching effects.

It has been election season in Europe recently. Incumbents of all political colours are feeling the backlash from electorates dissatisfied with stagnant living standards.  Merkozy has been replaced by the more frosty Merkollande; in German Lande and British local government voters have given the national incumbents a kicking and in Greece the up-coming rerun of the inconclusive recent ballot could be a defining moment for the eurozone crisis. Yet for all this, the most important election of 2012 may be across the pond, between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

As the US, along with much of the developed world, grapple with fundamental questions about which economic and social policies will best secure widely shared increases in prosperity, the outcome of Presidential election could be of profound importance.  Indeed, as Theda Skocpol – Harvard professor and formidable authority on US politics – puts it in IPPR’s new journal, Juncture:

“I think the 2012 election is going to be one of the most riveting, most hard-fought no-holds-barred elections in US political history – and that says something.”

Part of the excitement stems from how close the vote looks set to be.  Any casual observers in Britain who assumed the election would be straightforward for Obama need to think again. Yes Romney has been bruised by having to slug it out in the Republican primaries – and yes the Democrats will attempt to cast him as out of touch (he recently described $374,000 as “not very much” money). But the polls have been tightening recently and the outcome is far from certain. The economy, while growing, does not look set to take off any time soon. And to make matters worse, the benefits of what growth the US economy has experienced seem to be unevenly shared out.  It looks likely that Romney will seek to focus the election almost entirely on the economy in the hope that cold economic winds will blow Obama from power.

The election is also, in the view of Theda Skocpol, a “turning-point election”. As well as shaping up to be closer than you might think, the implications of this election could be felt by Americans for decades to come.

Why so? An Obama win could mean the entrenchment of progressive changes, however modest, in US politics: healthcare reform, a reappraisal of the principle that the wealthiest should contribute more through their taxes and support for state investment in promoting growth. Few expect a radical turn from a President who has become known for his caution more than his boldness. But in time, by defending these important progressive principles and institutions, the electoral base for further Democratic success could be considerably strengthened. Critically these gains could then be fused with and exploit underlying demographic changes which will see the emergence of a younger and more diverse electorate, potentially giving the Democrats a big long-term opportunity to shape US politics. As Skocpol puts it, a second term for Obama, would “allow a transition to incorporating younger people and a more racially diverse electorate to blow winds into a centre-left Democratic party.”

In contrast, were Romney to win the White House – carried there by the current old, white Republican base and more centrist voters dissatisfied with slow economic growth – he could destroy the institutions and policies which provide the bedrock for Democratic Party support, before looking to reform the Republication Party and broaden its electoral appeal. In the words of Skocpol:

“… there are forces on the right who understand that they are close to their last chance – to use an American football analogy, it’s in the final two minutes and they have got to get that ball down the field and score a touchdown. They understand the importance of this election much better than the befuddled people on my side. They understand that if they can destroy or eviscerate healthcare reform, if they can change Social Security and Medicare for future generations then they can turn afterwards to making an appeal to the growing Latino population and to the younger generation around somewhat more free-market principles. After this election they’ll have to change – they’ll have to give up some of their ‘dead-endism’ over their opposition to gay marriage for example. Republican elites already understand that. But by winning they could very well buy themselves five to 10 years to make this shift, because they’ll be associated with whatever economic recovery occurs and they will have destroyed policies that could have built political identities and coalitions which they understand would have been a threat.”

For many Democrats – and progressives around the world – Obama’s victory in 2008 pulled at the heart strings. But four years on, the optimism of “yes we can” will be hard – perhaps impossible – to revive. Yet 2012 looks set to be a more important election to win – with long-lasting and fundamental implications.

Guy Lodge and Will Paxton are the joint editors of Juncture, IPPR's new journal of centre-left thinking, the first edition of which is out this week. See for full details.

Photograph: Getty Images

Guy Lodge and Will Paxton are the joint editors of Juncture, IPPR's new journal of centre-left thinking.

Show Hide image

Battle for Mosul: will this be the end of Islamic State?

The militant group's grip on power is slipping but it has proved resilient in the past.

The battle for Mosul is the latest stage in the long struggle to defeat Islamic State. The group has been around since the late 1990s in one form or another, constantly mutating in response to its environment. Undoubtedly its ejection from Mosul will be a significant moment in the group’s history, but it is unlikely to be its final chapter. The destruction of the group will only be complete when some fundamental changes occur within Iraq and the war in Syria comes to an end.

IS’s roots go back to a training camp established by the militant Islamist Abu Musab al Zarqawi in the late 1990s in Herat, Afghanistan. Founded as an army to overthrow the apostate regimes of the Levant, it fled to northern Iraq in the wake of the US-led invasion of Afghanistan post-9/11 where it re-established itself as a force alongside Ansar al Shariah, a hardline Salafi jihadi organisation.

As American attention shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq, the group was ideally placed to become one of the leading lights in the post-Saddam Iraqi insurgency. Brutally announcing itself to the world in August 2003 with successive attacks on the Jordanian Embassy in Baghdad, the UN headquarters and a Shia shrine in Najaf — the latter being the deadliest attack in Iraq that year with a death toll of 95 — the group grew to assume the mantle of al-Qaeda in Iraq. By 2006 this brand had become somewhat damaged through the brutal sectarian campaign the group waged, and when its founder, Zarqawi, died it sought to reinvent itself as the Mujahedeen Shura Council. This incarnation did not last long either, and eventually it assumed the title of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), alongside a more Iraqi leadership.

This was the start of a diffcult period in the group's history. Its excesses in Iraq (including indiscriminate slaughter of Shia Muslims to stir sectarian hatred and filmed decapitations of prisoners) lost it local support and led to the tribes in Sunni Iraq rising up and supporting the government in Baghdad's fight back against the group. By 2009, when the west abruptly stopped paying attention and withdrew from Iraq the group was largely perceived as in decline, with the Shia Muslim-led Iraqi government appearing to slowly assert itself more effectively across the country.

The terrorist attacks by the group continued. And the new government started to advance an increasingly sectarian agenda. These two played off each other in a downward spiral that was given a fresh boost of blood when the civil war in Syria erupted in 2011. Drawing on its existing networks (that were leftovers from when Syria was used as a staging point by the organisation to launch attacks into Iraq), the leadership sent a cell to Syria to explore what opportunities existed within the emerging fight there. This cell became the seed that grew into Jabhat al Nusrah and ultimately IS – a label the group adopted when in June 2013 IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi decided it was time to reveal this link between his Iraqi group and Jabhat al Nusrah. This led to divisions and the breaking up of the two organisations.

For IS, however, it was the beginning of an upward trajectory, building on this division to grow itself substantially in Syria (with Raqqa as its capital) and in 2014 taking over Iraq’s second biggest city of Mosul. We then reach the apex of IS’s success and the biggest expansion of the group yet.

It now seems that this growth had a shelf life of just two-and-a-half years. As the group appears to be losing Mosul, it is likely that we will see the beginning of a period of retraction. But this will not be its end – rather, it will flee back to the hills and the ungoverned spaces in Iraq and Syria from where it will continue a persistent terrorist strategy in both countries. Here it will bide its time until the moment presents itself to rise up. Waiting until the governance in Iraq and Syria fails its people again, the group can paint itself as the protector of Sunnis and once more build on that group's disenfranchisement to win supporters and occupy a space vacated by local governments.

IS's grip on power might currently be slipping but as history has shown, it has waxed and waned depending on the context it is operating in. We are now going to see a period of withdrawal, but unless attention is paid by the global community, it will expand again in the future.

Raffaello Pantucci is Director of International Security Studies at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). Visit his website at