With the current upheavals in the Levant due to the instability of the Syrian Arab Republic and the Republic of Iraq, due in equal parts to the current Syrian civil war and to the prevalence of ISIS in In the region, modern events should be put into perspective by placing them in the context of the legacy of the Iraq War to reach a point of further understanding of the interactions of the present with the legacy of the past. The Iraq War has proven to be a flashpoint within the region, contributing to what is now expected to be long-term instability within Iraq itself, which in turn has served as an incubator for radical organizing of the Islamic State which threatens not only war. Syria torn apart, but also the entire region, from Türkiye to Libya, which is gathering more and more supporters. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayNot only has the war affected the region itself, but also the way foreign powers interact politically with its constituents. There still remains a bitter taste in the mouths of local powers due to the bitterly fought war in Iraq, both on the intellectual and military fronts, forcing international powers to proceed with caution. As a result, following the Iraq War, the Obama administration in the United States, as well as the nation's allies abroad, were strongly influenced to move away from a "boots on the ground" approach to military intervention in Middle East, preferring the use of "air power", from no-fly zones to air strikes, to influence and shape the region politically. The onset of the war that represented a major political influence in the early part of the 21st century in the Levant is a hotly debated one, largely driven by an American intelligence claim that weapons of mass destruction, or WMD , in Iraq they would have been hidden by Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime. Invaded in 2003 by a U.S.-dominated coalition of international forces, the Iraq War quickly morphed into a war that U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld feared would turn into “a long, hard slog,” in a memo sent to him. to senior officials before the invasion. (Loyola). With progress stalled due to civil strife between major factions within the country following the invasion phase of the Iraq War, an alternative was needed to reduce the violence of the war and transfer power to an Iraqi government. stable enough to maintain and defend itself against threats from Baathist Iran from outside the country and from radical Shiite militant groups within the country. The Surge, a radically modified policy implemented by the Bush administration and its allies in 2007, became known as this desperately needed alternative has developed into one of the most unexpectedly successful military campaigns of the modern era, pushing back the high tide of civil unrest and violence erupted a year earlier, in 2006 (Flynn). The pipe dream of an international coalition bogged down in the Iraqi desert, a surge of troops and ideas, as General Petraeus put it, seemed to be the exact opposite of what was needed to end the already long and slowly changing conflict (Pryer). In his article “How to Reverse a Failed Policy,” in the National Interest, Dr. Ray Takeyh discusses how the policy has shaped the country, writing: “Iraq's future remains uncertain. However, there is no doubt that a change in strategy saved the American enterprise and saved Iraq from collapsingfurther into a terrible civil conflict, with America caught up in the fire (Takeyh).” In noting the benefits of the Surge in the international campaign in the country, it should also be noted that its end result was a complete withdrawal of foreign troops within the newly formed Republic of Iraq by December 2011, leading to a lower level of stability than the interior of the country. nation, and contributing to the conditions that now allow the Islamic State to militarily control parts of the country. “Iraq's greatest legacy was that the US military could not influence the outcome (Landler).” Following the international withdrawal from Iraq, due in part to disenfranchisement following a war famously declared “mission accomplished” years earlier, popular opinion among the major military powers influencing the region was consistent in that they did not want another troop commitment. A popular belief within these powers was that even with such commitment, little progress would be achieved, a sentiment expressed in Landler's article published in the New York Times a few days after the final American withdrawal from Iraq. With the withdrawal coinciding with the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings and little public support for the military intervention, the United States took on the role of spectator rather than major player, still feeling the pain of a couple of long, drawn-out unrests Middle Eastern wars. (Tharoor). Watching from afar and offering little support to its democratic compatriots, the international community has not directly intervened in the uprisings, leading to severe instability in the newly democratic countries Iraq and Libya, as well as in Syria, where the United Nations has condemned President al- Assad still remains in power (Tharoor). Already indebted countries, from the United States to Italy to the EU as a whole, were not willing to spend resources, even for causes they had resolutely supported in the case of the Arab Spring uprisings, due to popular opinion already marked by war in Iraq. This has led to many new populist uprisings failing, without the help of any organized military unit, particularly in Egypt, where a de facto military government (“Egypt”) is still in place today. By scarring the international community during the Iraq War and encouraging nations not to intervene directly, the conflict in the Iraqi desert as a whole has contributed to much of the instability currently seen in the Middle East today. After the ground military intervention following the Iraq War, countries outside the region looked for other ways to advance their interests in the Middle East. Coinciding with the rise of drone technology in the United States, the result was a clear solution to a problem plaguing politicians seeking office on a more pacifist platform while remaining involved abroad. As published in the Toronto Star in 2012, “A majority of war-weary Americans, however, continue to support drone strikes, with 62% in favor versus 28% against, according to [the Pew Research Center]. They may be outliers on the issue, but the obvious benefits from the American perspective – the targeted removal of potential threats without putting American soldiers at risk – remains a politically winning formula (Potter).” The result has been an increasing reliance on what Keith L Shimko, PhD, refers to as “air power.” In his book The Iraq Wars and America's Military Revolution, Dr. Shimko refers to this transformation as a kind of military revolution, transforming the way the superpower uses its power, especially in the Middle East, to shape the region. In practice the technique is used.