International Relations at This Point,

¶ … International Relations

At this point, Iraq and obtaining political and military stability in Iraq is the most important challenge for the U.S. foreign policy. Ranging from leaving the country altogether or staying in until achieving a complete stabilization, the options of the U.S. government are still quite diverse, as are the challenges and provocations in Iraq and the pressures back in the U.S.

In the present, Iraq remains a country where interethnic and religious violence is predominant, with Sunni and Shiite Muslims fighting each other in religious faction conflicts, but, at the same time, fighting the U.S. And allied forces, perceived as a force of invasion. At the same time, Iraq is a proper training ground for terrorists and terrorist organizations, but the continuous U.S. presence in the country remains a subject of controversy around the world, damaging U.S. credibility.

The U.S. options at this time fall under two main categories, but each with numerous ramifications and implications of their own. The U.S. can either leave the country or remain, at the same time maintaining or increasing the number of troops present in Iraq. Let's start off with the former, which is also easier to approach in terms of implications.

The advantages of leaving Iraq are obviously in the form of reducing the casualties that the U.S. army is suffering in Iraqi combat. Additionally, it will also resolve, to some degree, the pressure back in the U.S. Nevertheless, such a solution gives way to different interpretations. First of all, leaving Iraq would most likely be perceived as a defeat and this is something that the U.S. prestige would find difficult to accept: the U.S., the only global superpower, defeated in a third world country by guerillas and terrorist groups.

On the other hand, leaving Iraq would send a dangerous message for future pacifying interventions like the one in Iraq was initially thought out to be: battle the invading forces, as hard as you can, and they will eventually accept defeat and leave. It would give out a message to the world, including to the U.S. partners, that the Iraqi invasion was wrong in the first place and that the last four years have virtually meant nothing and have brought nothing along except a long list of casualties. Leaving Iraq poses a significant question of creditability on the part of the U.S. In front of the entire world.

Besides this, leaving Iraq would leave the country as destabilized as ever, with the chances of the religious and ethnic conflicts to continue after the U.S. army leaves as great as ever. It is unlikely that the U.S. leaving the country would suddenly produce a national emulation that would end strives and encourage reconstruction.

Staying in Iraq comes with several operational alternatives, each with advantages and disadvantages, depending on the solutions that the U.S. proposes for the country's future. One of the solutions proposed involved the partition of Iraq into three separate states, according to ethnic and religious factions populating the new states. While this solution might prove advantageous from a conflict finalization perspective, it is less feasible when it comes to actually putting it in practice, which is probably is most important disadvantage.

However negotiated, it is less likely that the partition will be able to make good with all the parties involved. After the partition, conflict between the newly created states is also likely to continue and a continuous readjustment of the countries' borders is expected. Further more, a partition simply does not seem to be the type of solution that would boost American prestige, but rather the way-out solution, a solution that is just handy, while not being very applicable.

The solution that seems to be the action plan the U.S. government has thought out so far involves the use of force to pacify the country, stop fighting between factions and eventually reach a compromise with all players involved. This would be the kind of solution towards which the U.S. government strives and a final objective to be reached for the campaign.

However, this solution has several disadvantages. First of all, it does not have historical evidence on its side. Ever since the invasion in 2003, this is what the U.S. government has attempted and the progress made so far is minimal, to be moderate. Despite the success with a new Iraqi government, elections, a new Constitution etc. The country is still highly unstable and fighting and terrorist attacks occur on a regular basis. Despite continuous fighting and combat, pacification seems to be a long way off at this point and it doesn't seem as if things are likely to improve soon.

Another disadvantage is related to the forces needed for such an action. According to estimates, a force of around 350,000 to 500,000 is needed for a potential success of a pacification action through force. The U.S. And the coalition forces have less than 200,000 people in the field and the pressure is already extremely high to reduce those numbers rather than further increase them. The political and public opinion pressure in the U.S. would be tremendous if the government was to think about increasing the number of troops stationed in Iraq. It just seems improbable that the U.S. And the coalition forces would actually have the potential to be able to put in practice a decision that would involve pacification through force.

Backing a potential winner among the factions is another solution of the U.S. government. The problem with the current state of affairs is that the U.S. troops seem to be fighting all factions involved in the war. A solution such as the one proposed would actually bring local allies to the U.S. forces and might help end the conflict a lot sooner than otherwise.

However, this solution has several disadvantages. First of all, the U.S. wants to achieve a peaceful and unified Iraq and this solution would not guarantee either of these states. It would not guarantee the factions would actually stop fighting one another, especially the factions that would perceive as having lost the conflict. It would not provide a unified Iraq either, because it would not encourage real collaboration between the victor faction and the remaining ones. Additionally, the solution does not seem feasible.

Finally, the last solution, currently in practice in Iraq, involves attempting to militarily support the elected government, while at the same time fighting the insurgents and terrorist groups and attempting to "broker" a deal. The problem with this solution is that it lacks finality. Indeed, this is what the U.S. has proposed from 2003 (similar to using force to pacify the country) and, despite some political successes, in many cases, the situation has not changed much during this period of time. A great disadvantage of this solution is that it can actually go on indefinitely and that it doesn't provide an exit strategy in case things don't actually work out. Additionally, the question that arises is when is the government perceived as being sufficiently strong to rule over the country without the U.S. help? How long does it need the U.S. army's support and when can one say that a deal has been successfully completed between all the factions within the country?