On the nineteenth of March 2003 America and its allies started their invasion of Iraq. This intervention had the official goal of the struggle against a terrorism-friendly country, to avoid the expansion of mass destruction weapons and establish a democratic breakthrough in the Middle East. This war was preceded by a long public opinion debate, which showed a deep opposition of European people. The U.N refused to support American action. Thus, several questions emerged from this event. The first one was on the hegemony of American power. At the first glance it seems to be able to act alone. As a consequence any multilateralism would only be due to the super power's will. Nonetheless, after few weeks of easy military victory the U.S.A faced deep difficulties in rebuilding Iraq. One must contemplate the efficiency of classic military action on a guerrilla conflict. Saddam's fall has not helped cut down terrorism as shown by the Madrid and London bombings. Therefore, we must reflect on the means of struggling against terrorism. As the army is not capable of fixing it alone, alternative approaches including other skills are needed. We will first see what the classical theories state, and how they were overstepped by others closer to the decisional power. We will then present the new International Relations ideas which were borne or reinforced by failure of the Iraq war.
[...] Analyze the events from the past to draw up a general theory which can (with humility) foresee the consequence of a given action is the goal of international relations study. Realist theory succeeds this challenge for U.S intervention in Middle East. A liberal war? If the realist dogma is clearly opposed to the American intervention one could say that the liberal theory presents aspects that might fit with Iraq war. The principle thought of that school advocates that individuals are at the heart of international relations. [...]
[...] We will first see how the classical theories argue and how they were overstepped by others closer to the decisional power Then, we will present the new International Relations ideas which were born or reinforced by Iraq failure (II). A biased theoretical debate When realists counter the intervention: Let's start with a brief introduction to Alfred Hirschman's theories[2] and their application in international relations. A political work is preceded by a public debate which opposes the supporters and the opponents of the action. [...]
[...] Roseneau[25] offer an explanation: the power is relative to other general trends in the international world Is America really powerful? As the authors[26] explain, all the power's criterions have a negative opposite. For instance, America's position in the world make it difficult to intervene in some hot spots of international affairs; or the American national spirit comes with expectations on human rights or social protection. This couple of examples has been chosen because it illustrates part of the U.S failure in Iraq. [...]
[...] The post realist theory offers multi scale analysis to understand the complexity of relations between international actors. Its survey of language in diplomatic affairs is very efficient in the Iraqi case. Post realism theory advocates that there is a bridge between state and non-state actors which is the ability to speak right. The states can still act in the international affairs but to succeed, they need to take into account the numerous authorities. In this train of thought, American failure in Middle East may not be seen as an end of its hegemonic power but as a need to adapt its power to a multi-centered world. [...]
[...] This shows that to deal with an international event such as the second Gulf War, International Theory needs a multi-side approach. It may comprise a thought on the theoretical understatements of the intervention's supporters and opponents as well as a dynamic consideration on the mean adopted to choose between them. Theoretical consequences of Iraq war American power in the world To begin with, one has to explain why America is a hegemonic power in the realistic paradigm. In the widespread theory of realism the international world is anarchical. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
