Abstract
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.
