WASHINGTON: As US-backed forces succeed in driving Daesh militants from territory in Iraq and now Syria, the Trump administration has difficult choices — and divided opinions — about how the heavily devastated region can recover in an era when US policy is to take a back-seat role.

The administration has stated unequivocally that it is no longer in the “nation-building business.” But the desire to avoid getting enmeshed in rebuilding civilian institutions conflicts with the need to reconstruct towns that forces backed by the US fought so hard to liberate and the hope of avoiding conditions that would allow militants to regain a foothold, as they have done before.

Some of Trump’s advisors are arguing for a longer US presence in Syria, according to a person familiar with the debate who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The goal would be to guarantee deliveries of humanitarian aid and oversee repatriation of the displaced, the start of rebuilding and the setting up of local governments.

Others, however, want to hew more closely to the “no more nation-building” doctrine. Current policy is that “we will restore basic services,” State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said, ticking off tasks such as removing rubble, clearing mines and connecting electricity, “not the nation-building that the US government previously engaged in other countries.”

The administration plan is for nations like Saudi Arabia to fill the void.

On Sunday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson embarked on a mission to begin building alternatives to US leadership in the region, presiding over the first meeting of the new Saudi-Iraqi Coordinating Council inaugurated in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

“We urge you to expand this vital partnership,” Tillerson told Saudi King Salman, Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman and the prime minister of Iraq, Haider Al Abadi, in an elaborate signing ceremony. “The growing relationship between the kingdom and Iraq ... will be vital to Iraq’s reconstruction efforts.”

Whatever the difficulties in Iraq, the situation in Syria represents a far greater challenge.

On Friday, US-backed forces declared Raqqa, the city in eastern Syria that was the Daesh capital, “totally liberated.” Tillerson described the Raqqa offensive as a “critical milestone.”

Iraq, at least, has a recognised central government that the US can work with. Syria is still trapped in civil war; the US has several unappealing choices, including the ceding of control to the reviled government of President Bashar Al Assad or allowing Russia — or even Iran — to take over.

The Syrian Democratic Forces, which the US backed in ousting Daesh from Raqqa, is predominantly Kurdish, with few ties to the local population.

As a start, the US has joined in the formation of a Raqqa Civil Council made up of tribal leaders, but it is not yet clear how much authority they will wield in a community that has been torn asunder, hundreds of thousands of Raqqa’s residents having fled.

Those who want a greater US role, including a number of members of Congress, argue that failure to follow through could allow a backslide and a return of Daesh militants.

“The United States must play a leading role in working with our partners to ensure that post-[Daesh] areas and communities receive appropriate support,” Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said last week, with emphasis on the word “appropriate.”

He is in talks with the State Department, he said, to “bring the full scope of its diplomatic and development expertise to bear” in Iraq and Syria.

James Jeffrey, a former US ambassador to Iraq and senior State Department official, testified to Congress earlier this month about the need to keep a robust US military presence in the area.

“The ostensible purpose” would be “to protect enclaves and US partners from a resurgence of terrorism, but it would also implicitly put military pressure on Damascus and Iran to negotiate seriously” in the search for a political solution to Syria’s civil war, he said.

With the fighting still fresh, the Pentagon has not yet revealed its next steps. The US has roughly 7,000 American troops in Iraq and about 500 in Syria. In Baghdad, Prime Minister Al Abadi has shown willingness to keep US troops in Iraq even after the battle against Daesh concludes.

But the Syrian Kurds most responsible for the liberation of Raqqa are already planning for a future without the US. They watched warily as Washington seemed to abandon its long-time allies, the Kurds in Iraq, who were instrumental in driving Daesh from the militants’ largest city in Iraq, Mosul.

Iraqi Arab forces moved in recent days to take back areas long dominated by the Kurds, centred on the oil-rich Kirkuk region. The Trump administration said it would remain neutral but also voiced support for a united, federal Iraq, one without major autonomy for the Kurds.

Randa Slim, a conflict-resolution expert at the Middle East Institute, a Washington think tank, said Syrian Kurds “are already casting a wider net” in search of partners and support.

Losing the Syrian Kurds as allies may be inevitable: Supremely pragmatic, they have never completely cut ties with Al Assad and Russia.

“The Americans were useful to them, but they were not in dreamland, thinking that the Americans were ever anything more than occasional, useful partners,” said Paul Salem, senior vice-president for analysis and research at the Middle East Institute.

As with Iraq, the administration is turning to Saudi Arabia for help in Syria. Brett McGurk, US special envoy to the 73-nation coalition against Daesh, quietly toured enclaves around Raqqa last week, with a guest in tow: Saudi Gulf Affairs Minister Thamer Sabhan. They met with the Raqqa Civil Council, among others.

McGurk “is sending a signal to the Sunni Arabs,” Slim said, “giving an Arab component to the recovery ... and enticing money towards reconstruction, when he knows the Americans won’t come.”