Review Of The Modern International Relations Between Iraq And The United States Of America Article Review

Educational Establishment

Abstract
The conflict between Iraq and America has a long history. The attention to Iraq determines by a thought that it is a key country in the Middle and, correspondingly, it is considered that the country could play a crucial role in the transformations in the region. It is caused by complex factors: critical strategic location of Iraq in the Arab world, colossal reserves of energy resources, the country's special role in the political history of the Arab nation. The main stress was made on the fact that the people of Iraq after a bloody reign of Saddam's dictatorship support the processes of transformation and modernization. The emergence of the new United States national security strategy could mean a significant restructuring and structuring international relations in accordance with the new definition of main threats in the world.
Key words: Iraq, USA, deterrence, militarization, Persian Gulf, oil, conflict.
Nowadays, the region of the Middle East remains one of the priority directions talking about strategies in foreign policy of the United States. During the last decades, America faced the necessity of serious reforms in its policy towards the region. The current American strategy in Iraq represents the main element in the reformation of the foreign policy of the United States in the entire region of the Middle East. However, after the end of the American military operations in Iraq and extermination of the American troops in December of 2011, the desired stabilization of the situation in Iraq, as a democratic country, has not been reached. The paper analyzes three scholar articles that reflect the issue of the modern relations between the United States and Iraq. It provides a research of their content, presents their common views and differences in the statements towards the issue.
The similar position keeps the author of the article from European Journal of International Relations. Robert L. Jervis (2010) made a research of a confrontation between Iraq and the U.S. from the point of methods of deterrence used by the parties. He also is in opposition to the policy of the American government theorizing the conflict in the Middle East. Jervis accuses its government in the aggressive strategy. According to the author, “deterrence is the spiral model in which threats far from deterring generate unnecessary conflict” (Jervis, 2010, p.330). Both authors support this idea. Jones raises the issue of an “elusive security in the region” (Jones, 2012). The author determined his stable position towards war as a mean to solve the problem. He mentions that it is not “a tantamount to security, stability, or peace” (Jones, 2012). Iraq's accusation in the possession of weapons of mass destruction was a try to call fear and anger in people’s mind and manipulate them to make them support war against a country that had not anything wrong to them. American executives were suspicious towards the Iraqi leader. Bush asserted that Iraq continued to build weapons of mass destruction to achieve dominance in the Middle East and represented a threat to the civilized world. Although the UN weapons Chief Inspector said that Iraq found great willingness to cooperate and the country has no evidence of new military programs, the United States and the United Britain did not want to abandon their suspicions and announced the end of the diplomatic process. A few years later, concluding the operation, Obama administration intended to leave the stable political situation in the country, which the executive local government should have provided. Instead, the situation that has developed after the withdrawal of the military contingent, witnessed the failure of the administration's plans. The level of political and religious struggle increased in the country. The number of attacks against Iraqi government officials and civilians augmented. The conflict between the Shias and the Sunnites political blocks arose again. Negotiations about further localization of the American troops in Iraq were rejected by the Iraqi side. But the Congress of the United States after a long dispute decided to continue funding the mission for further stay of the American civilian and military personnel who remained for the training of Iraqi security forces. United States used all possibilities in order to keep its presence in the country. Despite the assertion of the Obama administration about ending of military participation in the war in Iraq of the American troops, the United States still participate actively in the internal and foreign policy of the country and again increases its military presence.
The third article, which describes the most recent events, supports the fears and thoughts expressed in previous articles. A student Markus Nikolas Heinrich made a research for his university degree and published on the basis of prepared material an article in 2015. He raised the issue of the ISIS and its positions in the region. The author wrote, that the political turmoil and insecure environment today in Iraq “can be traced back to the U.S. invasion” (Heinrich, 2015). At this point, the author tried to analyze the reasons of the decision to invade the region that Bush’s administration approved. Talking about deterrence, Heinrich mentions unofficial reasons of the invasion. Heinrich thinks that the decision to locate military forces in the region was guided by a desire to proof its power and by removing Saddam Hussein to underline the ability to defeat itself (Heinrich, 2015). In other words, it meant to “maintain hegemony and avoid post-9/11 decline” (Heinrich, 2015). This is the main reason named in the article. However, the second place takes the issue of oil and natural resources, supported by Jones in “America, Oil, and War in the Middle East”. Heinrich does not ignore the opposite viewpoint and lists those historians who denied such aspect.
Besides, the article raises the issue of a war against global terrorism or “War on Terror” as it was called by George W. Bush, who declared in 2002 that Iraq continued to support the terroristic organizations (Heinrich, 2015). The terroristic act that took place in 2001 underlined the weakness of America. Maybe, it was the same weakness two other articles wrote: a belief in the unlimited power. The United States, as the only superpower in the political, economic and military aspects, is interested in creating an international system that would preserve its status of a superpowers, ensured its safety in military terms and create the conditions for the establishment of democratic regimes in as many countries as possible. Since, no other country or international coalition is not able to propose any alternative vision for the future of international relations, the initiative of the reformation of the world belongs to the United States. It seems that as a result of the awareness of the vulnerability of United States the military force is the only reliable way to resolve international problems. This approach to foreign policy poses a danger to the whole world. Hardly the kind of foreign policy of the United States will find the understanding and support of other countries, because one of them could somehow turn to be an enemy or obstacle. Thus, there are different approaches to the war in Iraq. However, a realistic view of the present world obliges people to conclude that the apparent war that began on March 19, is a forced extension of invisible war, which America leads extensively against international terrorist networks, supported by certain countries, primarily by Iraq.
The current state of relations between the United States and Iraq show presence of many controversial questions in the sphere of defense and security in the region. First of all, modern relation between two countries derives from the long confrontation. All three articles clearly manifest the strategy of the United States’ policy in Iraq, which is linked with the task of establishing a reliable and effective system of American control over the energy resources of this country which values will increase in the world's energy over the next decades. Jones has the most critical position on the American policy in Iraq and keeps the idea that a desire to use violence and force to control the oil on a global market is a sign of the limits of American power. Heinrich explains the war with the help of unofficial reasons and a desire to proof the leading positions of America in the world. He determines it unhealthy and an addiction to assure others in its power. Jones determines the American-Iraqi relations as very difficult and presents the historical background of the political relations between two countries. Nowadays, Iraq has instable political situation in the country. ISIS actively appeared on the world’s stage, all internal, social and economic problems emerged after the U.S. invasion. All these factors brought a serious imbalance to the region which at the moment does not come to the end.

Works Cited

Heinrich, Markus Nikolas. "One War, Many Reasons: The US Invasion of Iraq."EInternational Relations Students. The World’s Leading Open Access Website for Students and Scholars of International Politics, 9 Mar. 2015. Web. <http://www.e-ir.info/2015/03/09/one-war-many-reasons-the-us-invasion-of-iraq/>.
Jervis, Robert L. "S Practice of Deterrence The Confrontation between Iraq and the US: Implications for the Theory and." European Journal of International Relations, 9: 314-337. SAGE Publications. 2003. Web. <http://www.didierbigo.com/students/readings/Jervis2003Iraq.pdf>.
Jones, T. C. "America, Oil, and War in the Middle East." Journal of American History 99: 208-18. Oxford University Press. Web. 2012. <http://jah.oxfordjournals.org/content/99/1/208.full>.