Talk:Iraq War/Archive 19
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Iraq War. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
The numbers of civilians killed in the infobox
Shouldn't we remove the Lancet and Iraqi Health Ministry casualty surveys because they are out-off-date? They were conducted in June 2006, two and a half years ago. We should leave the Opinion Research Business survey because it was done more recently, just over a year ago. And also we should add the Iraq body count numbers estimate, so we could present a minimal and a maximum estimate of dead. The Lancet and Iraqi Health Ministry casualty surveys are already mentioned in the linked article Casualties of the Iraq war. So if anyone wants to research the numbers of those surveys they can see them at that article. Those two estimates have no real purpose anymore, because, again, they are not up to date. I will wait a few days and if nobody objects I will remove those two, leave the Opinion Research Business survey and add the IBC estimate. I think it's for the best, also to scale down a bit the infobox, it just seems to me it's to long, primarily because of this.BobaFett85 (talk) 04:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- The IBC isn't really an estimate, it is a minimum confirmed tally. I think the Lancet and Iraqi Health Ministry are better until more up to date estimates are available.--76.251.244.66 (talk) 02:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Joint Committees
Paragraph 5:
Where Iraq exercises jurisdiction pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article, custoday of an accused member of the United States Forces or of the civilian component shall reside with the United States Forces authorities.
Paragraph 8:
.. The Joint Committee shall establish procedures and mechanisms for implementing this Article, including an enumeration of the grave premeditated felonies that are subject to paragraph 1 and procedures that meet such due process standards and protections. Any exercise of jurisdiction pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article may proceed only in accordance with these procedures and mechanisms.
Paragraph 9:
Pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 3 of this Article, United States Forces authorities shall certify whether an alleged offense arose during duty status..
Two joint committees have been or will be formed: (1) Joint Military Operations Coordination Committee, and (2) Joint Ministerial Committee. The Joint Military Operations Coordination Committee (JMOCC) will be responsible for coming up with a list of "major premeditated felonies", and for coming up with procedures of what to do if one of these yet to be defined "major premeditated felonies" occurs while off-duty and off base. The U.S. reserves the right to keep the soldier in custody, ensure U.S. due process rights, and to certify that the soldier was off duty in the event of a violation. The JMOCC has also yet to form to define any "major premeditated felonies" or procedures for violations.--71.156.95.246 (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- For informational purposes, this process would not seem to apply to contractors.--71.156.95.246 (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Please read Article 12, paragraph 2 of the SOFA. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Iraq shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over United States contractors and United States contractor employees". I pointed this out above. There is however a completely different process (not yet) for soldiers. This was also described above (and may be found in paragraphs 8 and 9 of article 12 of the SOFA)--76.251.253.161 (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Why do you keep changing "major premeditated crimes" to "still undecided 'major premeditated felonies'" -- do you have a source saying they are still undecided? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- The JMOCC has yet to form. See above.--76.251.253.161 (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Until there are off-base, off-duty soldier or contractor arrests, why does it even need to exist? Please read WP:V, one of the most important policies on Wikipedia, which states, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." That means unless you have a source saying that the procedures are "still undecided" (which could change at any time, or if and when pertinent arrests occur, or during precedent-setting adjudications afterwards) then you can't call them that: it's against Wikipedia's rules to do that. In contrast, "U.S. forces and contractors will be subject to Iraqi criminal law if they commit major and premeditated crimes while off-duty and off-base," is fully sourced because it's directly attributable to Article 12, Paragraph 2 of the primary SOFA document, as well as dozens of secondary sources you can find with a quick Google News search, several of which are already cited in the paragraph in question. For those reasons I am reverting your edits. Please don't take it personally. Please do make an effort to become more familiar with Wikipedia rules. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Paragraph 2 very clearly and explicitly applies only to "United States contractors and United States contractor employees" (and NOT U.S. forces, this is quoted verbatim). Please read paragraph 8 and 9 and then explain to me how U.S. forces and U.S. contractors undergo the same process (they don't at all, Paragraph 1 lays out the treatment of U.S. forces).--76.251.253.161 (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- And as laid out in Paragraph 8: "The Joint Committee shall establish procedures and mechanisms for implementing this Article, including an enumeration of the grave premeditated felonies that are subject to paragraph 1 and procedures that meet such due process standards and protections. Any exercise of jurisdiction pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article may proceed only in accordance with these procedures and mechanisms." In other words, Iraqis have no jurisdiction whatsoever over U.S. forces until someone defines what a "grave premeditated felony" is, and right now no one even knows who is going to be on the committee to decide that (as outlined in the LATimes source above, if you would politely refer to it).--76.251.253.161 (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, you are looking at numbered paragraph "2" from the State Department's translation. Look at paragraph 1, then, just after the unnumbered introductory paragraph. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Right. So I would agree with paraphrasing this:
Iraq shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members of the United States Forces and of the civilian component for the grave premeditated felonies enumerated pursuant to paragraph 8, when such crimes are committed outside agreed facilities and areas and ouside duty status.
- The key to point out is that it says "grave premeditated felonies enumerated pursuant to paragraph 8", and the felonies and procedures for prosecuting them pursuant to paragraph 8 have yet to be laid out making it currently impossible to prosecute any U.S. troops. There are also a few other minor items in (numbered) paragraphs 5 and 9. So I'd be fine with paraphrasing this in a slightly different and mutually acceptable way, but I think it should be taken account of that U.S. troops would be held by U.S. forces, must be certified by the U.S. to be prosecuted by Iraqis, would be ensured due process rights of the U.S. Constitution, and (currently) wouldn't have anything that they can do which qualifies as a "grave premeditated felony" (when a list of premeditated felonies is made, we could adjust the text accordingly). On a side note, there was already an Iraqi family which was hoping to press charges under the agreement, and the case has been sitting idly.
- If you don't support the reading on the article, I'd encourage you to make minor changes or make a proposition or two here on talk. I am for mentioning numbered paragraph 1, but only in a way which is pursuant to numbered paragraphs 5, 8, 9 of Article 12 and the rest of the SOFA. --76.251.253.161 (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Right. So I would agree with paraphrasing this:
- Oh, you are looking at numbered paragraph "2" from the State Department's translation. Look at paragraph 1, then, just after the unnumbered introductory paragraph. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Until there are off-base, off-duty soldier or contractor arrests, why does it even need to exist? Please read WP:V, one of the most important policies on Wikipedia, which states, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." That means unless you have a source saying that the procedures are "still undecided" (which could change at any time, or if and when pertinent arrests occur, or during precedent-setting adjudications afterwards) then you can't call them that: it's against Wikipedia's rules to do that. In contrast, "U.S. forces and contractors will be subject to Iraqi criminal law if they commit major and premeditated crimes while off-duty and off-base," is fully sourced because it's directly attributable to Article 12, Paragraph 2 of the primary SOFA document, as well as dozens of secondary sources you can find with a quick Google News search, several of which are already cited in the paragraph in question. For those reasons I am reverting your edits. Please don't take it personally. Please do make an effort to become more familiar with Wikipedia rules. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- The JMOCC has yet to form. See above.--76.251.253.161 (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Why do you keep changing "major premeditated crimes" to "still undecided 'major premeditated felonies'" -- do you have a source saying they are still undecided? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I just found this as well. Congressional Research Service: U.S.-Iraq Withdrawal/Status of Forces Agreement: Issues for Congressional Oversight
- On contractors:
As the term is defined in the agreement, “U.S. contractors and their employees” only applies to contractors that are operating under a contract/subcontract with or for the United States Forces. Therefore, U.S. contractors operating in Iraq under contract to other U.S. departments/agencies are not subject to the terms of the SOFA and are, arguably, immune from Iraqi civil and criminal jurisdiction as long as CPA Order 17 remains in effect.
- On U.S. forces:
According to the terms of the agreement, Iraq is able to assert exclusive jurisdiction over U.S. forces, including the civilian component, for the commission of “grave premeditated felonies” while off-duty and outside agreed upon facilities and areas. It is unclear what crimes constitute a grave premeditated felony as the term is not further defined. Rather, the agreement calls for the creation of a U.S.–Iraqi Joint Committee to enumerate the grave premeditated felonies. Only after the committee enumerates the offenses, and also establishes procedures and mechanisms consistent with due process standards and protections available under U.S. and Iraqi law, will Iraq be able to assert jurisdiction over U.S. forces and members of the civilian component. Additionally, Iraq is required to give notice to the United States within 21 days of discovery of the alleged offense that it intends to assert jurisdiction. At that point, the United States may request that Iraq waive its right to jurisdiction, but Iraq is not obligated to relinquish its right.
If a member of the U.S. forces or civilian component commits an offense considered to be a grave premeditated felony, a determination must be made as to duty status. If the individual is determined to not be in a duty status, Iraq will be able to assert jurisdiction. However, if the determination is made that the individual is in a duty status at the time of the offense, the U.S. will retain exclusive jurisdiction. The determination of duty status is the responsibility of the U.S. authorities. If the Iraqi authorities believe that an individual was not in a duty status and therefore should be subject to their jurisdiction, they may appeal the determination to the Joint Committee, the same committee responsible for establishing the procedures and mechanisms for asserting jurisdiction, but the ultimate determination remains with the U.S. authorities.
--69.219.239.39 (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with File:IAILogo.png
The image File:IAILogo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Problem with article header
In the article header, we read:
Prior to the war, Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was claimed to pose a serious and imminent threat to the security of the United States and its coalition allies.[35][36] This assessment was supported by the U.K. intelligence services, but not by other countries such as France, Russia and Germany.[37][38][39]
However, the last sentence is not at all supported by any of the footnotes at the end of it. Indeed, it is not clear that these footnotes have any bearing on the sentence at all. One is about the fact Russia opposed the war, but told Bush that Iraq had links to al-Qaeda; another is about how Germany opposed the war, yet co-operated operationally with U.S. intelligence; and the other, perhaps the most relevant, is about the release of a document by the British government. None of these links support the statement that France, Russia or Germany opposed the claim that "Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was claimed to pose a serious and imminent threat to the security of the United States and its coalition allies". They merely state that they opposed the war, which is clearly different, and so this section ought to be reworded. -- 17:41, 18 December 2008 82.21.103.1
- It caught my attention as well, because what I always heard is that, despite the fact that these nations opposed the invasion, their intelligence officials also alleged Saddam had WMD's. Grey Fox (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- It would probably be best to remove this, note the countries were politically opposed, or note the first source's quote than a UN inspector said the intelligence seemed hyped.--70.224.16.81 (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Here is the full text of the joint declaration by the foreign ministers of France, Russia and Germany March 6 2003. There is some (retrospective) sources that claims that those countries intelligence service did not accept the curveball report. For example this one, this or this. I do think that these sources may replace the current ones without having to reword the article text. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the current use of the word "manipulated" is correct - a better word would be "exaggerated". He says that "question marks were replaced by exclamation marks" - isn't "exaggerated" a more descriptive word, in that case? Manipulation implies conscious misrepresentation; exaggeration can imply lying to yourself as much as to others. Blix seems to leave this window open. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.103.1 (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Either word seems alright.--76.251.249.252 (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Blix points out examples such as Blair changing question marks to exclamation marks. This is conscious misrepresentation not exaggeration. If Blair had left the question marks and only added text, or even if he had changed full stops to exclamation marks, then it could be seen as exaggeration but that didn't happen. Wayne (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Quoting someone like Hans Blix in the lead section is a bit too much, details belong down in the article. Grey Fox (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- No reason to make special reference to him.--69.219.236.37 (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- What "critics" say shouldn't belong in the lead anyway. Those are details that should be carefully worked out somewhere else. Grey Fox (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hm. WP:LEAD says the lead "should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist". The context of the Iraq War would be the public claims which were made about weapons of mass destruction, and the notable controversy would be the fact that some critics charged the intelligence was false and this later turned out to be the case.--69.219.236.37 (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Can we remove the statistics about the dead people too and just list the war as won? That would make me feel better. I think we should include the U.S. being greeted and kept as liberators in as well.--69.219.236.37 (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- During a recent dispute we were advised to keep such details out of the lead. In anyway the lead as it stands is already highly critical. Grey Fox (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Grey Fox in this. The header still mentions the false premise of WMDs and alleged Al-Qaida connections, plus it includes the unexpected rise of the insurgency. The details about foreign diplomacy can actually be reserved for the article itself. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- During a recent dispute we were advised to keep such details out of the lead. In anyway the lead as it stands is already highly critical. Grey Fox (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- What "critics" say shouldn't belong in the lead anyway. Those are details that should be carefully worked out somewhere else. Grey Fox (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- No reason to make special reference to him.--69.219.236.37 (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Quoting someone like Hans Blix in the lead section is a bit too much, details belong down in the article. Grey Fox (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Blix points out examples such as Blair changing question marks to exclamation marks. This is conscious misrepresentation not exaggeration. If Blair had left the question marks and only added text, or even if he had changed full stops to exclamation marks, then it could be seen as exaggeration but that didn't happen. Wayne (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Does the fact Iraq was fifth on the 2008 Failed States Index by Foreign Policy and the Fund for Peace really belong in the article lead? Does anyone who doesn't read Foreign Policy pay attention to this index? I move that it doesn't and they don't. I intend to replace this with a brief sentence carrying various actual statistics on things such as levels of violence, economic activity, power provision as of the end of 2008 unless anyone objects. Noung (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- The Failed States Index is widely used by news organizations, political science researchers, etc so it is paid attention to and is in fact reputable. The idea is to give a high level overview of what is occuring, and to report what multiple sources are saying. Actual statistics may be more useful as long as they aren't coming from one of the other sources being used (DOC, ICRC, etc.) So I think actual statistics sound better in theory, but it would depend on what specifically they are about and who they are from. If you wait a few months, it may make sense to update with statistics from 2009. Hope this makes sense and we agree.--76.251.253.161 (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- A Google News search for "Failed States Index" gets just four hits. I don't deny that it's "reputable", but is it really a mainstream enough opinion to belong in the header? It's not like it's that widely used. I've never heard anyone mention it outside of Foreign Policy before I just went looking for it now. But whatever, I don't really care. -- Noung (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- You are only searching the past month, and a new failed states index hasn't been published for about a year so it isn't too suprising that it isn't being covered much right now. It is also used in academia and professionally. Anyways, the idea is to provide an overview. If you can find recent statistics covering access to power, water, etc. these might be relevant and they could replace the FSI.--69.208.133.204 (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- A Google News search for "Failed States Index" gets just four hits. I don't deny that it's "reputable", but is it really a mainstream enough opinion to belong in the header? It's not like it's that widely used. I've never heard anyone mention it outside of Foreign Policy before I just went looking for it now. But whatever, I don't really care. -- Noung (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Something's wrong with the reference links
For some reason, instead of starting at 1, they start at 33. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- The first 32 refs or so are in the infobox.--69.208.133.204 (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Victory?
Well, anyone who pays attention to the news knows that the U.S. will soon be leaving Iraq. And if the current government still remains and the country stabilizes, would it be fair to declare the war a victory for the U.S.-led Coalition? What are everyone else's opinion on that matter? Dunnsworth (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is not really up to wikipedians to judge whether there is a victory or not. Rather wait for someone in the US administration to call it a victory, and then take it from there including all the various critical opinions that such a call would eventually lead to. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Right, there would be a consensus that the war was over. And this wouldn't necessitate that there was a "victory". There obviously wouldn't be tens of thousands of U.S. forces getting shot at while on patrol of Iraqi roads if the conflict were over though (i.e. peacekeeping is one of many military operations).--69.208.133.204 (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- We should recognize at this juncture that each of the motivations for the war is associated with a distinct victory/loss condition. Regime change has been a complete victory and is well on its way to being a fairly decent success, too. Ridding Iraq of WMDs was a pointless wash. Ridding Iraq of al Qaeda ties has been, sadly, a pretty resounding loss. Preventing Saddam's payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers has been a victory, so far. Gaining control of Iraqi oil is a loss except for the development contracts, which is good, because that was the least noble of all the goals, as you can see by how controversial it still is. Ending human rights abuses in Iraq was a tremendous loss, with millions down on their rights to life and a place to live. As for spreading democracy, it's too soon to tell but I'm very hopeful. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
What officials said
I'm not disputing what officials said the reasons for the war were; but your edits are playing down the extent to which control of Iraq's petroleum was a factor, GLPP. Why did you blank Wolfowitz's admission?
Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Since it's part of a retracted news story, it's been in some dispute -- I had to add the source back just a few days ago. Do you think Wolfowitz's statement is stronger than O'Neill's documents? I'd be much less opposed to something that didn't say that petroleum was the "main" or "primary" reason or factor. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- I can't see how anyone would argue seriously that petroleum wasn't. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- They do per the citations later at the end of the sentence in question, and we must be neutral. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Let me rephrase that: I can't see how anyone who isn't part of or aligned with the Bush administration would argue seriously that petroleum wasn't. I have no problem with being neutral; but these people have a reputation for being economical with the truth. To take everything they say at face value goes well beyond any reasonable definition of neutrality. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- How can you construe Wolfowitz's statement as the "main factor"? There's just no linguistic way. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- The retracted news story used this exact language so I see how it was done, but the story was retracted. This doesn't meet a reliable source, so I don't believe it should be used. There are plenty of others who have said the same thing, so let's use what they have said.--76.214.153.120 (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Lapsed Pacifist, the guide on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. What we think is the truth is irrelevant; what is relevant is what we can back up with reliable sources. Maybe someone should research and write a section on what has happened to the Iraqi oil industry under the occupation - who has profited etc. But probably in a different article. As for the Wolfowitz source, including it is madness - it is a misquotation which was later retracted by the newspaper. -- Noung (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- The revised Wolfowitz retraction still firmly supports the statement that the oil reserves were a significant factor in deciding whether or not to invade. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 06:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Lapsed Pacifist, the guide on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. What we think is the truth is irrelevant; what is relevant is what we can back up with reliable sources. Maybe someone should research and write a section on what has happened to the Iraqi oil industry under the occupation - who has profited etc. But probably in a different article. As for the Wolfowitz source, including it is madness - it is a misquotation which was later retracted by the newspaper. -- Noung (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- The retracted news story used this exact language so I see how it was done, but the story was retracted. This doesn't meet a reliable source, so I don't believe it should be used. There are plenty of others who have said the same thing, so let's use what they have said.--76.214.153.120 (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- How can you construe Wolfowitz's statement as the "main factor"? There's just no linguistic way. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The role of lobbying in manufacturing support for the Iraq War
Would it be appropriate to bring up the role of lobbyists (representing the military-industrial complex, or more specifically US corporations that would end up making large profits/revenue off of government contracts in the Iraq War/Conflict) in manufacturing support, especially among US politicians, for the invasion of Iraq? There have been documentaries on the subject (eg Iraq for Sale) and it is obvious that lobbyists play a very influential role in American politics. Corporations realized they would make large sums of money off of the war and donated campaign contributions to key politicians in return for these politicians "drumming up" support for invasion.
If you need specific references then it can be done. Either way let me know. Fatrb38 (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's a good idea. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 10:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Iraq 2009 Quote
I'm confused as to why this quote is included in the section regarding Iraq in 2009: "Until now I have tasted no happiness. I think 2009 will be like the former years." The man who was quoted isn't an Iraqi official, defense force officer, or polotician. It appears that he is just a man off the street, therefore I am unsure of why his comments are included in this article. Tominator93 (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- The quote would appear to be representative of Iraqis who are skeptical of how a transition in a heavily fortified and walled off portion of their city is going to translate in to any change in their lives, and is reliably sourced to the Los Angeles Times. It isn't clear why an Iraqi should have to be surrounded by armed U.S. forces to be allowed to be quoted (see systemic bias).--68.248.152.92 (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I would think that in order to be representitive of the Iraqi people as a whole, you would want a poll of multiple citizens. However, this is a remark made by one individual, and while interesting in and of itself, it is hardly a comprehensive respresentation of popular opinion. Yes, the quote is cited to the LA times, and is therefore confirmed to have actually been spoken by an Iraqi citizen. However, that alone does not raise the statistical significance of said quotation.Tominator93 (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's representing one viewpoint in regard to the SOFA, while another viewpoint is represented by that of the government. If you can find another Iraqi or two in favor of the agreement, just add them. Quotes shouldn't only tell one side of the story though.--68.248.152.92 (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Withdrawal from Iraq?: Obama
Shouldn't there be something here about the future of American military presence in Iraq? After all, he does want to withdraw within 16 months, and it says that nowhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.76.236 (talk) 11:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps it could be mentioned when there is a specific timeline with specific numbers (What is a "combat troop"? Can a "support troop" still be shot at?). Maybe this will be provided after he meets with top commanders today. (If not, the article mentions the currently planned withdrawal given in the SOFA negotiated by Bush.. Iraq has said it is 'willing' to see troops leave earlier)--68.248.152.92 (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The premise of the entry is factually incorrect
The most important flaw in this entry is the fact that there is not officially a war in Iraq.
"My fellow citizens, at this hour American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.
On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign."
www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/19/sprj.irq.int.bush.transcript/
There has not been a declaration of war against Iraq, so it is factually incorrect and intellectually dishonest to title this entry "Iraq War", and lead off with "The Iraq War, also known as the Second Gulf War or the Occupation of Iraq,[33] is an ongoing military campaign which began on March 20, 2003 with the invasion of Iraq by a multinational force led by and composed largely of United States and United Kingdom troops.[34]"
There is no citation anywhere in the article that supports calling this activity a war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.98.49 (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- It matches the UN's defenition of war so all of that doesn't matter. Grey Fox (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- War:"a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air". To argue that it doesn't meet the legal definition of a war is one issue, but I hope you aren't suggesting that coalition forces, insurgents, and dead Iraqis are all over there just picking flowers.--75.2.37.86 (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
No - I am suggesting that there has not been a declaration of war against Iraq, so it is factually incorrect and intellectually dishonest to title this entry "Iraq War". Simple enough.
martinchill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.98.49 (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't remember there being a declaration in the War on Drugs either, but somehow a lot of people still call it that for some reason. Topic_creation#Use_the_most_easily_recognized_name says article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity. The main principle of this is that the names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists (in this case legal ones).
- Point being what you are saying would be addressed in Iraq_War#Opposition_to_invasion, Legality_of_the_Iraq_War, or Legitimacy_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq if you added the information with reliable sources. If enough relevancy is established, then it could be briefly noted and attributed in the lead.--75.2.37.86 (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not an event or process is considered a "war" has more to do with the characteristics of said process/event and NOT whether or not the US Government defines it at as a war or declares war. The US Government didn't declare war on Russia ~150 years ago but the Crimean War is still considered fact. Bottom line: whether or not something is considered a "war" is NOT decided by the US Government. Nice try though. Fatrb38 (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Main Entry:
1war Listen to the pronunciation of 1war
Pronunciation:
\ˈwȯr\
Function:
noun
Usage:
often attributive
Etymology:
Middle English werre, from Anglo-French werre, guerre, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
Date:
12th century
1 a (1): a state of usually open armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2): a period of such armed conflict (3): state of war b: the art or science of warfare c (1)obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2)archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war2 a: a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b: a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease> c: variance , odds 3
That's the definition of war from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary. I'm pretty sure this conflict fits that definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnsworth (talk • contribs) 22:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
War on Terror Contradiction?
The Wikipedia page on the War on Terrorism clearly lists Iraq as a battlefield in the War on Terror(see the "Result" section on the info box.) Yet, in the Iraq War info box, it doesn't list the conflict as part of the War on Terror(as opposed to the War in Afghanistan. Also on the War on Terror page, it lists al-Qaeda the U.S. and other nations/groups as combatants. It does this in the Iraq War page as well. So why is it that, even though the Iraq War involves many groups fighting each other that are said to be fighting each other in the War on Terror, the Iraq War info box does not state the conflict as being part of the War on Terror? Dunnsworth (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- The "War on Terror" or "War on Terrorism" is subjectively defined and there are differing interpretations of where it is ongoing or not. It presently appears that current U.S. policy is that Iraq is not a part of the war on terrorism:
- I think whether there is an ongoing war on terror or whether it was a political slogan of the previous U.S. administration is another subjective matter. But there do not appear to be any official documents from the current administration labelling it as a battleground in a "war on terror" or "war on terrorism".--69.208.138.130 (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, in that case, should we also remove the wording from the War in Afghanistan page that says that it is part of the War on Terror as well? Dunnsworth (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I understand why you are seeking consistency and I couldn't make a specific recommendation to you. It might be best to start a discussion on that article's talk page if there isn't already an ongoing one.--69.208.138.130 (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Over or ongoing?
- Despite the litany of near daily bomb and gun attacks by militants, Iraq is still substantially less violent than it was 18 months ago.... U.S. forces are increasingly taking a back seat to Iraqi troops under a new bilateral security deal that took effect at the beginning of this year, as violence edges downwards.... U.S. officials say that with the Iraqi military and police forces now over 600,000 strong, the U.S. military will be able to fall back to a support role under the agreement.[1]
Ongoing conflict or over? If ongoing, at what level do we call it over? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just look at a variety of sources and try to use their language. It might take them awhile to call the conflict over. This is why the news article says the "U.S. military will be able to fall back to a support role under the agreement". It is in a transition from ongoing to over, at least hopefully.--76.214.153.120 (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's something from one of the Wichita Eagle editors. It's done as a pro/con column with the pro side saying it's over in no uncertain terms, and the con side saying it's impossible to say, but: "There may yet be another war, a different war, in Iraq." That seems pretty clear-cut to me: there's no way to avoid the fact that the con side can't get any closer to calling it over without being a pro opinion. More views:
- Cell phone coverage up (US News and World Report)
- "As house prices rise, Iraqis find they can't go home again" (Christian Science Monitor)
- "Iraqi citizens enjoy normalcy in Rashid" (US Air Force photo set)
- "Iraq has taken charge in 13 of 18 provinces" (World Tribune) - including Anbar Province
Status changed to "Conflict ongoing in 5 of 18 provinces." GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 09:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is unclear that Iraq symbolically taking over security in a set of provinces means that the conflict is over (and just in those provinces). A war can't be going on one side of a street and then just completely stop on the other side since it happens to be in another province. Has violence stopped in these provinces? Is there a minimal U.S. presence in these provinces? Are U.S. troops still being fired at when going on their operations? We shouldn't forget about our soldiers who are working hard there just because some might like to call the conflict over. Explain to a parent that their son or daughter died in a conflict that is already over and you might be able to find that they disagree with you.--68.248.152.92 (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- According to the Army Times, President-Elect Obama may soon give the Joint Chiefs of Staff the mission of ending the war. He can't give them the mission of beginning to end a conflict which is already over. Trying to forget there is an active conflict over there is a disrespect to those who are dieing and their families.--68.248.152.92 (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- He has. 69.228.215.76 (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- So they have been tasked with coming up with a plan to eventually end the war. Please explain how this means the conflict is already over. Did David Petraeus, Robert Gates, and the rest of the Pentagon teleport all the soldiers, equipment, and bases out with a blink of their eyes? I must have missed something.--69.208.138.130 (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Even during the tumult of local elections.... There are incidents, but they're rare and even more rarely aimed at Americans. The 3,800-soldier 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, which went to Iraq last fall, sees one significant act of violence per week, down from dozens a day earlier in the war."[2] That, assuming "dozens" means 24, is a 99.6% drop in violence over less than five months. The fat lady is already back in her dressing room. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- So is one brigade representative of the entire country and is one week representative of the entire future? Perhaps they are recording less violence against them since they are doing less patrols. Why do Gates and Crocker advocate a "responsible" drawndown and warn the country could blow up?--69.208.138.130 (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Since the word you quoted, "responsible", doesn't appear in either of the stories you linked to (?) here is a phrase which actually does: "violence has remained low." The premise of your question is flawed: it's not just one week. The peace may be fragile, but it's peace now, not a war. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I just hope you don't think U.S. troops are dieing in a country which is at peace with itself. Arguing over whether a ticking time bomb has, will, or may explode seems irrelevant when you are looking at a ticking time bomb. It's still a ticking time bomb which is actively costing billions of dollars, human lives, etc. New soldiers are even still going over.--69.208.138.130 (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- New soldiers head to Korea every month too, but we don't call that an ongoing conflict. U.S. soldiers have been dying in "Guantanamo Bay (Cuba), Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Philippines, Seychelles, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkey, and Yemen"[3] but we don't say there are ongoing U.S. conflicts there. Do you think there is something special about U.S. troops who die in Iraq which doesn't apply to troops killed in action in those other places? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that there are several tens of thousands of them actively engaged in combat and dieing might be a part of it. Maybe we should rename the article the Iraq Peace? War is Peace, I suppose..--69.208.138.130 (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- New soldiers head to Korea every month too, but we don't call that an ongoing conflict. U.S. soldiers have been dying in "Guantanamo Bay (Cuba), Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Philippines, Seychelles, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkey, and Yemen"[3] but we don't say there are ongoing U.S. conflicts there. Do you think there is something special about U.S. troops who die in Iraq which doesn't apply to troops killed in action in those other places? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- I just hope you don't think U.S. troops are dieing in a country which is at peace with itself. Arguing over whether a ticking time bomb has, will, or may explode seems irrelevant when you are looking at a ticking time bomb. It's still a ticking time bomb which is actively costing billions of dollars, human lives, etc. New soldiers are even still going over.--69.208.138.130 (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Since the word you quoted, "responsible", doesn't appear in either of the stories you linked to (?) here is a phrase which actually does: "violence has remained low." The premise of your question is flawed: it's not just one week. The peace may be fragile, but it's peace now, not a war. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- So is one brigade representative of the entire country and is one week representative of the entire future? Perhaps they are recording less violence against them since they are doing less patrols. Why do Gates and Crocker advocate a "responsible" drawndown and warn the country could blow up?--69.208.138.130 (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Even during the tumult of local elections.... There are incidents, but they're rare and even more rarely aimed at Americans. The 3,800-soldier 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, which went to Iraq last fall, sees one significant act of violence per week, down from dozens a day earlier in the war."[2] That, assuming "dozens" means 24, is a 99.6% drop in violence over less than five months. The fat lady is already back in her dressing room. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- So they have been tasked with coming up with a plan to eventually end the war. Please explain how this means the conflict is already over. Did David Petraeus, Robert Gates, and the rest of the Pentagon teleport all the soldiers, equipment, and bases out with a blink of their eyes? I must have missed something.--69.208.138.130 (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- He has. 69.228.215.76 (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
(back left) Well, three candidates were killed. That's three too many, but a lot better than 30 or 300. How would things need to look for you to call it over? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- The decision would be made by a reasonable plurality of reliable sources, not individual editors. One would assume this judgement would be made after a significant number of troops have left and after soldiers aren't being shot at, but time and sources will ultimately be the judge.--69.208.138.130 (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- How many sources, other than those cited above, do you consider to be a reasonable plurality? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- A few sources showing progress can be just as weighed out by sources saying violence is right where it was when the war began, by sources discussing the ongoing humanitarian and state-building problems, or by sources discussing the over hundred thousand troops who are still fighting and dieing. One also still sees Iraq War being used in the present, and not the past tense.--69.208.138.130 (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- There aren't any sources that say violence is where it was when the war began. The only sources reporting on the numbers say that they are low. The Defense Department isn't ordered to keep those things secret any more. The fat lady is in the limo. 69.228.95.244 (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- What did your post even mean? And actually you are completely wrong, there are plenty of sources making the claim that violence is where it was when the war began:"(Major General Andy Salmon, commander of coalition forces in southeastern Iraq,) .. said the violence has fallen to levels not seen since the start of the war, which has encouraged investment interest."[4] The war will end when Robert Gates twitches his nose and all the troops instantaneously return home. It doesn't take ~140,000 U.S. troops to be stationed and dieing in a peaceful country. Still more U.S. troops going to sacrifice their lives in a conflict which "is almost seven years old now".. How quickly some would like to forget.--69.208.138.130 (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- [5] removed a source, and removed a challenge notation, and an obvious synonym which has been sourced in this article for much of the past decade. Why? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- As seen here and on this page and in this section in a reply to you, there was a discussion that this was original analysis unsupported by the source. You forget there is a discussion here as much as you seemingly like to forget there is an active war being fought by U.S. soldiers and financed by U.S. taxpayers. Why? (Please keep overweight females out of the discussion as I don't see how they are relevant.) There are also four sources to verify that there is an ongoing conflict (you should be able to find many more if you open a newspaper or visit your local library (which is also ongoingly funded by U.S. taxpayers and staffed by U.S. librarians as documented here).--69.208.138.130 (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- "Explain to a parent that their son or daughter died in a conflict that is already over and you might be able to find that they disagree with you. -- 68.248.152.92 (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)"
- While I empathize with the loss of loved ones in war, I don't see how it can possibly justify removing important sources from the encyclopedia. Your claims of original analysis are transparently false because of the source you removed. If you think it is reasonable to use this article as a memorial to lost family, then let's talk about that. Would the memory of the fallen be best served by truth or denial? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- The source can be included, but it doesn't say what you say it is saying. A symbolic transfer of security leadership is not equivalent to an end in U.S. military operations. The memory of the dead and the policies of Wikipedia both require information which is directly verifiable from a source, while this interpretation is simply incompatible with the text of the source. It'd be like using a source saying 2+2=4 to conclude that George Bush has four fingers. The first statement may be logically correct and supported by the source, but it in no way implies or supports the secondary statement which is a completely independent assertion.--69.208.138.130 (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- While I empathize with the loss of loved ones in war, I don't see how it can possibly justify removing important sources from the encyclopedia. Your claims of original analysis are transparently false because of the source you removed. If you think it is reasonable to use this article as a memorial to lost family, then let's talk about that. Would the memory of the fallen be best served by truth or denial? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- "Explain to a parent that their son or daughter died in a conflict that is already over and you might be able to find that they disagree with you. -- 68.248.152.92 (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)"
- As seen here and on this page and in this section in a reply to you, there was a discussion that this was original analysis unsupported by the source. You forget there is a discussion here as much as you seemingly like to forget there is an active war being fought by U.S. soldiers and financed by U.S. taxpayers. Why? (Please keep overweight females out of the discussion as I don't see how they are relevant.) There are also four sources to verify that there is an ongoing conflict (you should be able to find many more if you open a newspaper or visit your local library (which is also ongoingly funded by U.S. taxpayers and staffed by U.S. librarians as documented here).--69.208.138.130 (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- [5] removed a source, and removed a challenge notation, and an obvious synonym which has been sourced in this article for much of the past decade. Why? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- What did your post even mean? And actually you are completely wrong, there are plenty of sources making the claim that violence is where it was when the war began:"(Major General Andy Salmon, commander of coalition forces in southeastern Iraq,) .. said the violence has fallen to levels not seen since the start of the war, which has encouraged investment interest."[4] The war will end when Robert Gates twitches his nose and all the troops instantaneously return home. It doesn't take ~140,000 U.S. troops to be stationed and dieing in a peaceful country. Still more U.S. troops going to sacrifice their lives in a conflict which "is almost seven years old now".. How quickly some would like to forget.--69.208.138.130 (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- There aren't any sources that say violence is where it was when the war began. The only sources reporting on the numbers say that they are low. The Defense Department isn't ordered to keep those things secret any more. The fat lady is in the limo. 69.228.95.244 (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- A few sources showing progress can be just as weighed out by sources saying violence is right where it was when the war began, by sources discussing the ongoing humanitarian and state-building problems, or by sources discussing the over hundred thousand troops who are still fighting and dieing. One also still sees Iraq War being used in the present, and not the past tense.--69.208.138.130 (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- How many sources, other than those cited above, do you consider to be a reasonable plurality? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
PKK
It was persecuted under Saddam it supported the invasion how can they be in the infobox along Baath party and insurgents? --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- They were identified as terrorist, targeted by Turkey, and there are only two lines in the box?--69.208.138.130 (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think that what the IP-user is trying to say is that the box does not put them alongside Baath and the insurgents, the horizontal lines represent a parallel conflict, Turkey vs PKK. I do agree though that it is not quite obvious from the lay-out that that is how it should interpreted. I would have preferred to have this conflict in a separate box though, because after all the Coalition forces have not been fighting PKK (as far as I know). --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- We had this discussion a month or two earlier. I proposed to take the Turkey-PKK conflict completely out of the box because it has nothing to do with the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, it is instead part of an ongoing conflict between Turkey and PKK with very similar operations even before 2003. My arguments didn't convince other editors and I tried to be happy with the fine grey line in the box. But if you think it as odd as I do, we might start the debate afresh. I'll look up once more the sources I found for the Turkey invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan well before 2003, so this conflict wouldn't qualify as part of the 2003 war. And yes, you're right: Coalition members never fought PKK. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- All I can find is Talk:Iraq War/Archive 18#PKK and it seems judging from the look of the sandbox to have ended with a consensus far different from the current one? How come this was not implemented? --Saddhiyama (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- We had this discussion a month or two earlier. I proposed to take the Turkey-PKK conflict completely out of the box because it has nothing to do with the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, it is instead part of an ongoing conflict between Turkey and PKK with very similar operations even before 2003. My arguments didn't convince other editors and I tried to be happy with the fine grey line in the box. But if you think it as odd as I do, we might start the debate afresh. I'll look up once more the sources I found for the Turkey invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan well before 2003, so this conflict wouldn't qualify as part of the 2003 war. And yes, you're right: Coalition members never fought PKK. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think that what the IP-user is trying to say is that the box does not put them alongside Baath and the insurgents, the horizontal lines represent a parallel conflict, Turkey vs PKK. I do agree though that it is not quite obvious from the lay-out that that is how it should interpreted. I would have preferred to have this conflict in a separate box though, because after all the Coalition forces have not been fighting PKK (as far as I know). --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Surely this article's title will become outdated
"Iraq War" seems far too ambiguous to me, as well as "presentist". We should change the title to something like "Iraq War (2003-2009)" or "Iraq War (2003-present)".--Loodog (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Iraq War (2003-present), War in Iraq (2003-present), or 2003 Iraq War might fit.--69.208.138.130 (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Why? What other Iraq war would you confuse it with, since the first one is called the gulf war? Remember people have common sense. Or perhaps World War 2 should be renamed 1939-1945 French-British-USA-Germany-Italy-Japan-And other countries Conflict?Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
It is confusing, the differences between Operation Iraqi freedom and the counter insurgency peace-keeping efforts being called the same thing. What else can it be called though?
75.179.187.201 (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Jade Rat
Cost?
Could someone direct me to where the cost of the war is broken down? Maybe something on this could be added to the info box? I'm especially interested in how much money the U.S. has spent in the war. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- See Financial cost of the Iraq War. "As of August 2008, around $550 billion has been spent based on estimates of current expenditure rates[1], which range from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimate of $2 billion per week[2] to $12 billion a month, an estimate by economist Joseph Stiglitz." "According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money. The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq".
- A more up to date number should be available, but this should provide a general idea.--69.208.138.130 (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
It sounds like a lot- but remember thats only 6% of the Federal annual revenue.
75.179.187.201 (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Jade Rat
article needs to be downsized
At 213 kbs is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long--Levineps (talk) 06:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- That may be so. But isnt it customary to discuss before removing such large sections of the article? And isnt it customary to leave a small synopsis of the gist of the new main article? Furthermore the new article lacks a proper intro and categories. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- The actual text of the article is only a little over 100kb. Anyways, atleast write a summary as the previous editor suggested if you're going to do this?--75.2.7.232 (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I've tried, but it's very difficult. Almost every section is already in multiple-article WP:SUMMARY style, pared down to very little of substance remaining. And the entire year 2004 has been removed, I just noticed. Where the heck did 2004 go? Anyway, I think a new approach is needed; something like this might be better discussed over on the Village Pump, as this is the longest non-list article, by far, at present. Maybe it should be split up into a series of transcluded sections -- what do people think about that? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Rather than split it up into different articles, maybe we should work at moving some of the less important items to related articles--along with more timeline related info into the respective years, i.e. 2007 in Iraq. Publicus 17:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree: far too long and starting with a far too long lead - you can't even see the summary when opening the page. I think a lot of sections could be moved out, while keeping just the title and one or two lines. The whole Tensions with Turkey part for example has already an own article and here just one line is needed, as the invasion didn't affect at all the evolution of the conflict. The same might be done with many other sections. Casualties, for example, have also an own entry and don't need to be detailed at the main entry, just briefly noted (although the main entry for Casualties is also far too long and should be cleaned up and divided into a main entry and a separate list for killed people). The same may be applied for Private Contractos... I suggest that we work on one section at a time, as not to lose oversight, so we could all agree on how a section can be shortened and if the main article created is okay with all. I agree also that a more timeline-related structure would be great (I find always what I look for, but then I'm familiar with the conflict - I imagine any not familiar reader would have a hard time)--Ilyacadiz (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- The information from the first war could be completely phased out while most of the rest could just be summarized a bit better and moved out in to other articles. Section by section might be a good idea.--75.2.7.232 (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Iran admitted involvement
I just came across this news article on the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7901101.stm . It seems that Iran has admitted in private that they were responsible for many of the attacks taking place in Iraq. I figure this should be mentioned somewhere, especially if another source can be found. Petahhhh (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- There's a remote possibility that a comment was taken out of context or that the Iranians were seeking leverage, so it would be good to see another source as well..--99.130.160.222 (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- This basically reiterates the first. A diplomat has indeed made the claim and Iran has indeed denied it. Seems like every other thing which has happened. Nicholas Burns also commented the previous threatening posture towards Iran which the U.S. has had for a number of years "didn't produce any movement whatsoever", but maybe this is irrelevant since he is retired? --99.130.160.222 (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
It's been common knowledge for years here.. I really don't understand why their hasn't been a section on it this whole time- Syria as well is responsible for much of Ambar.
75.179.187.201 (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Jade Rat
Iraq War Article Biased
- Obviously there is much room to improve in the neutrality of this article. Why is there not a notice on the main page to flag this article as such? Some action should be taken, whether to flag this article, or make suitable adjustments.--Roar888 (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have added the NPOV Dispute tag in response to this talk section, not because I initiated the topic, but because whoever did initiate it failed to add the tag. Nor did this user sign his post. Please note that I took such actions as I deemed necessary so as to draw attention to this debate and to encourage its resolution.--Roar888 (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- This would be the proper way to handle the situation. But rather than saying the article is unbalanced, specific issues should be pointed out or those who are unhappy should look for sourced material which they feel the article is lacking. The discussion should be about specific ways to improve the article.--Nosfartu (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have added the NPOV Dispute tag in response to this talk section, not because I initiated the topic, but because whoever did initiate it failed to add the tag. Nor did this user sign his post. Please note that I took such actions as I deemed necessary so as to draw attention to this debate and to encourage its resolution.--Roar888 (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
The thing is that user Nosfartu thinks it's his article, and that world works only from his point of view. I tried to add objective and neutral things to infobox, but he reverted it. He thinks that only negative events are important. He can't see that the situation gets better in Iraq, and that over the years the country has developed into the more independent and democratic country. Absolutely no offense, I just think that this article should be neutral, same as whole wikipedia. --Novis-M (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- First of all, comment on content and non the contributor.I am not an overly active editor on this article if you would refer to its history, and my edit summaries would explain the edits I have made.
- First of all, the majority of the information added to the article should be done in the main section of the article (there is plenty of other "negative" information which could be place in the infobox which also isn't). On the other edits I will reiterate the edit summaries. Iraq didn't have its "first free" elections because it had similar ones in 1925, and there was no source provided for the edit which was made. There were some issues with the provincial elections, as cited reliable sources point out. The civilian information belongs in the article, but not in the infobox because there is limited space and scope there. Plenty of other "positive" "objective" or "neutral" information can be added to the article, but the vast majority of it would belong in the body of the article. The infobox is already very big.--Nosfartu (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for the answer. I would just like to have really neutral article here. Some people are highly against the war, some people fully support it. I am something in the middle, and furthermore, I respect wikipedia neutrality rules. So let's try to have good co-operation here. --Novis-M (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, sorry if it came off bad at first. The subject of the article is controversial, so it's bound to happen I suppose.--Nosfartu (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for the answer. I would just like to have really neutral article here. Some people are highly against the war, some people fully support it. I am something in the middle, and furthermore, I respect wikipedia neutrality rules. So let's try to have good co-operation here. --Novis-M (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Please could someone add more information about the political decisions made by the oher members of the coalition? It seems to be very 'US biased', with very little on the other combatants.
--217.33.68.71 (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)1931 28th Febuary 2009 GMT
Why not stop talking generalities and start talking specifics? I would propose that the removal of this sentence would improve the article: "U.S. President Bush allegedly told Palestinian officials either that God inspired him to end the tyranny in Iraq, or to hit Saddam.[68]" While there's a reference, this is pretty poor for an article lead - a report that a person said that Bush said something to him in private. Manyanswer (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- RESULT: REDACTED. Manyanswer (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree, i mean right off the bat they say the "also known as the occupation of Iraq" Occupation is a extremely negative term..75.179.187.201 (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Jade Rat
- It's also what it is known as in a greater portion of the world.--76.214.161.60 (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I really don't care -it's a violation of Wiki's neutrality. 75.179.187.201 (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Jade Rat
- I disagree, saying it's also known as that and providing a reference is justified by showing all POV. Manyanswer (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Next issue. The further parts in the lead regarding causes of the conflict are all over the place. These should be moved down or to a separate article. I propose that the lead should only discuss WMD as the immediate cause of the war, and remain balanced in discussing the later revelations about WMD. All other info will be moved. Manyanswer (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
It's also know as "Operation Iraqi Freedom". Why isn't that included in the article? The article is clearly slanted to an anti-war view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.69.237 (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- You raised a good point, this should be included. But "If you have to ask..." why it isn't there - My friend, it isn't included in the article because you didn't put it there. Contribute first, complain second. To set the example, here's good practice: I just found a good link that refers to it on a VA site regarding Iraq War veterans. I will now add it, and cite the reference. Manyanswer (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is exactly right. The whole point of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it.--76.214.161.60 (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Wiki articles are not about "showing all points of view" its about neutrality. Something violated countless times in this article! "POV" have always been separate articles- once again painted as neutral.75.179.187.201 (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Jade Rat
- WP:NPOV:"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Wow.--76.214.161.60 (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Reduction of forces vs. withdrawal.
35,000 to 50,000 troops left in Iraq is a reduction of forces not a withdrawal (or retreat).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_(military) says "A withdrawal is a type of military operation, generally meaning retreating forces back while maintaining contact with the enemy."
What Obama has proposed is a reduction of forces leaving 1/4 to 1/3 in place. We should use the military terminology in this article not the banking terminology.
U.S. President Barack Obama is expected to announce a 19-month withdrawal reduction of forces window for "combat forces", leaving behind 30,000 to 50,000 troops —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galeso (talk • contribs) 15:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- The other troops will be withdrawn the year after that.--99.130.160.222 (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
It's a reduction..A retreat is a negative term, and in military terms is a admitting of defeat. With-drawing is a strategic move.
IE You withdraw after a victory- the loser retreats. Big difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.187.201 (talk) 03:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Move the conspericy theroies to a seperate artical?
I think we should move all the conspiracy theories such as oil, and expansionism to a separate article. The way the conspiracy theories are presented dose not give a neural article- on the contrary, with them this article is extremely negative.75.179.187.201 (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Some officials indeed said this was a reason, and it belongs as one of the rationales just as much as "spreading democracy", WMD, etc.--76.214.161.60 (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Acmadinajad is a official- would that mean we move Holocaust deniers as valid criticism?75.179.187.201 (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Jade Rat
- Some might argue not adding it would be trying to admonish him.--76.214.161.60 (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, the reason for the multinational force's intervention was because Saddam violated the terms of the 1991 Gulf War cease fire. As such, the consequences of that ( if you would read the terms) was a continuation of hostilities as mandated by the UN in 1991. Weapons of mass destruction had been found (300 canisters) and has been used (2004, 2006) on two separate incidents. Four US peacekeepers had been treated as a consequence of biologic warfare in the form of one of those canisters being detonating in a artillery shell IED. I digress though- the point not being that WMD was a "conspiracy" it wasn't it was one of th reasons given for the intervention by the 48 country coalition force. What i am referring to is oil and expansionism as i saw in the article. These are conspiracy theories, and such i believe have no place in the main article75.179.187.201 (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Jade Rat
- I don't really see any sources for what you say, so it's hard to respond to. Multiple reliable sources have questioned the veracity of the WMD claims, so different viewpoints of the rationale should be explored. Multiple officials from countries involved in the invasion have stated it, and this is exactly what the article says.--76.214.161.60 (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- See in the above section. I am making an argument that these should be moved, but Jade you're really out there with arguing over the "real" causes. Let's talk in terms of a good article only. A good article should follow logically when read. This lead section on causes is all over the place. I propose making WMD the main thrust of the lead, and discuss the alternative causes in a later section. All points of view are covered, but the article is readable and highlights the main thrust of public discourse. Manyanswer (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't care what some buffoon "Thinks" we went in for- anyone can come up with a conspiracy theory and make it seem valid. The facts are that the reason for the war was a violation of the 1991 gulf war cease-fire. I never said take out the conspiracy theories out- I'm just saying make a separate article for them. 1. To clean the article up, and two to present a neural POV. Coming right out and saying " many official sources say the US invaded for oil, or expansion" is not a neutral point of view- and is a conspiracy theory. The reason's submitted, and the reasons argued in the UN in 2002 was that Saddam violated the agreement. No one said anything about oil, or a "land grab" these are just things anti-Americans come up with to make something look bad.75.179.187.201 (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Jade Rat
- Your argument is unsourced, and Thomas Friedman, Alan Greenspan, ... usually aren't considered anti-American. The fact that it was noted is given, and so is the fact that it is denied. It is one of the major, if not top, reasons cited in polls[6] thus it is a viewpoint which should be mentioned whether you believe it is true or false. --76.214.161.60 (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- And according to Congressional investigations, the Center for Public Integrity, the Wisconsin School Of Journalism, and many others there were multiple deliberative misrepresentations associated with the lead-up to war. So exploring possible causes makes sense, and mentioning one major reason people think we went in for also makes sense. Removing it because of a knee-jerk reaction, on the other hand, does not make sense.--76.214.161.60 (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Second Gulf War?
why is the iraq war called the second gulf war? in germany we call it the third gulf war or the second iraq war but to say it is the second gulf war is in my opinion not really correct. the second gulf war means the war in the year 1990. in my opinion is the correct order:
iraq - iran war --> first gulf war. iraq - USA bush sen. --> second gulf war or first iraq war. iraq - USA bush jr. --> third gulf war or second iraq war.
- It may or may not make sense, but the fact is it's usually referred to (these days) as the second gulf war in the English media, and this is the English wikipedia. That's all that matters. 99.50.126.239 (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Invalid citations
Citation 320 does not resolve to a valid website and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winklebean (talk • contribs) 20:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- While it seemed ironic that a link to a misinformation study did not load, the statement is indeed true and had been updated.--Nosfartu (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
A Bush by any other name...?
It's surely just the result of merciless editing, but the name Barack Obama appears in the lengthy lead to this article and the name George W. Bush does not, despite this being his war. In fact, the name George does not appear until the twelfth paragraph of this article, even though his last name is used thirteen times before that.
I am going to tack his full name on to the first mention as it now exists, but perhaps someone more connected to this article would find a way to acknowledge the man somewhere in the first four paragraphs of the article. Abrazame (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- In general, we don't refer to people other than their surnames more than once, it may be the case that as he is the new president, people are putting Obama's entire name in.
- An article is always to use a person's full name the first time it's mentioned. Obama's full name appeared in the lead but only Bush's surname. (Was this not clear by my above post?) What's with Wikipedia editors who don't comprehend the issue using the phrase "we"? "We" generally sign our talk page posts by typing four tildes. Abrazame (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- I will correct myself: Obama's full name appeared in the lead and even Bush's surname wasn't mentioned until later in the article. Again, Bush's first name wasn't mentioned until after thirteen mentions of his surname alone. These are two separate issues: the fact that Bush's name was likely edited out of the lead, when it belongs there, and the fact that this editor further erred in not adding Bush's first name to its next mention in the article, which became the first upon the removal of the lead part. Abrazame (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
PTSD
I am adding a link to Post-traumatic stress disorder because it affects every person throughout their life, especially war, but also debt, school, illness (personal & family) etc. Stars4change (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
British pull out
The article could use with a few more bits on info on the British involvment and the current withdrawal, which is apparently finishing today. SGGH ping! 11:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- See the link to the Multinational force in Iraq--there's some refs and info there. Publicus 17:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I think there also needs to be more on the Australian involvement in terms of the Coalition of the Willing, as it was basically US, UK, Australia and a bit less Poland. If not in troop numbers, the international political scene is important, Australia was heavily invovled in pushing the WMD and Al Qaeda linkages, while Australia and UK desired approval from the UN for the war, but agreed with Bush after its failure that it didnt matter.(19/05/09) - MW --121.217.119.134 (talk) 08:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
WMD Findings
The section entitled "Alleged weapons of mass destruction" fails to mention that while most of the Bush administration's allegations turned out to be false, WMDs were in fact found in Iraq after the invasion. Saddam Hussein DID possess some chemical weapons at the time of the invasion (most likely left over from the 80s and early 90s). It also neglects to mention non-WMD projects such as ballistic missiles that Saddam was developing in direct violation of U.N. resolutions.
"WASHINGTON-- The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday. "We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon. Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist...This says weapons have been discovered, more weapons exist and they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions." - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2006/06/22/report-hundreds-wmds-iraq/
"In 92 pages posted online Monday evening, Duelfer provides a final look at an investigation that occupied over 1,000 military and civilian translators, weapons specialists and other experts at its peak. His latest addenda conclude a roughly 1,500-page report released last fall...Another addendum also noted that military forces in Iraq may continue to find small numbers of degraded chemical weapons — most likely misplaced or improperly destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War...And still another said the survey group found some potential nuclear-related equipment was “missing from heavily damaged and looted sites.” Yet, because of the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, the survey group was unable to determine what happened to the equipment, which also had alternate civilian uses." - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/
"The Iraq Survey Group, ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, has found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official tells Insight...They found equipment for "uranium-enrichment centrifuges" whose only plausible use was as part of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program. In all these cases, "Iraqi scientists had been told before the war not to declare their activities to the U.N. inspectors," the official said...Among Kay's revelations, which officials tell Insight have been amplified in subsequent inspections in recent weeks: ...# "Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'"
- New research on BW-applicable agents, brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin that were not declared to the United Nations...That wasn't the only significant find by coalition troops of probable CW stockpiles, Hanson believes. Near the northern Iraqi town of Bai'ji, where Saddam had built a chemical-weapons plant known to the United States from nearly 12 years of inspections, elements of the 4th Infantry Division found 55-gallon drums containing a substance identified through mass spectrometry analysis as cyclosarin -- a nerve agent." - http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213
"WMDs have been found in Iraq, so reports New York Times best-selling author Richard Miniter in his new book, Disinformation. Consider these shocking facts: Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons• Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin" - http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=10101
"The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today. "These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee. The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997. The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal...The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added...It's not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it's still toxic." - http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918
"WASHINGTON, JULY 8-- Iraqi radiological and nuclear materials with a potential use in weapons programs or dispersal devices have been removed from the country and airlifted to the United States, according to a July 6 press statement from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). In a joint Energy and Defense Department operation, 1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium and approximately 1000 highly radioactive sources were secured from Iraq's former nuclear research facility, packaged and then airlifted on June 23, the press statement said. "This operation was a major achievement for the Bush Administration's goal to keep potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists," Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said in the statement. "It also puts this material out of reach for countries that may seek to develop their own nuclear weapons."...Twenty experts from DOE's national laboratory complex packaged 1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium and roughly 1000 highly radioactive sources from the former Iraq nuclear research facility." - http://www.bizzyblog.com/DOEuranium_jul08_04.html
"U.S. Flies Radioactive Items Out Of Iraq Associated Press July 7, 2004 WASHINGTON - In a secret operation, the United States last month removed from Iraq nearly two tons of uranium and hundreds of highly radioactive items that could have been used in a so-called dirty bomb, the Energy Department disclosed Tuesday." - http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_iraq_070704,00.html NOTE: Iraq had a civilian nuclear program. The "dirty bomb" fear was relating to the possibility of terrorists acquiring the materials, not the Ba'ath regime's original plans for them. However, it shows that Iraq had nuclear materaials.
24.171.3.134 (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Anything which was found was either turned out to be false or degraded remnants from before the prior invasion.--69.208.130.182 (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Name of article misleading, suggest rename and/or division
I contend that this article is severely misnamed: The war, it self, is described on 2003_Iraq_War. To count the following occupation, insurgencies, whatnot, as a part of the war is illogical and misleading; in particular in light of this sloppy phrasing being in many other sources. As an encyclopedia, it is important that we do not fall into the same trap.
I note that an entry on the first archive page claims
I moved this article back to Iraq War, because the conflict which the article covers is ongoing and did not take place exclusively in 2003. The initial invasion, which did take place only in 2003, has its own article at 2003 invasion of Iraq. This article is meant to cover both that initial invasion and the subsequent fighting.Plainsong 18:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
An article with the stated scope may well make sense, but it should then not be titled Iraq War. Possible better names are "Post-invasion Iraq" or "Post-Hussein Iraq". (Note that the overlap with 2003_Iraq_War would need removing with these alternatives.)
It may, however, be better to divide the article into smaller pieces (considering its current massive size). Possible means of division include chronological (occupation phase, democratic phase, possible other phases) and a division according to various areas (e.g. political developments, military developments, insurgencies, ...).
94.220.242.34 (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
[See also section "Is the war over", above]
Edit semiprotect
{{editsemiprotected}}
Please could "by and composed almost entirely of troops from the United States and the United Kingdom" in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead be changed to "by and composed almost entirely of troops from the United States", since the UK ended combat operations back on April 30 and have withdrawn most of their troops now. Thanks. 86.149.54.240 (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- The first paragraph refers to the initial invasion which included UK forces and, to a lesser extent, forces from several other nations. The offensive and inaccurate word in that sentence was "now", which has nothing to do with the subject of the Iraq war. Where we are now is in a post-war period where Obama has announced the drawdown of even U.S. troops, but the article is about the whole war. It should not be forgotten that U.S. troops were there at such time as we can make the statement that they are not there "now". I've changed the sentence from "now led by and composed almost entirely of troops from the United States and the United Kingdom" to "led by troops from the United States and the United Kingdom". Thank you for drawing my attention to the poorly edited sentence. Abrazame (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
List of Belligerents
Why is the UK not included in the list of Belligerents? British troops may have mostly pulled out now, but they were there for the majority of the war. Zuper dogs (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. The infobox is not just a for the list of current combatants. I'm going to re-add the UK. SGGH ping! 14:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
edit protected
please add a wiki link for Iraq in the first sentence. thanks! 93.86.156.246 (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
When (or if) can we declare the Iraq War a victory for the US?
It is quite safe to say now, I think, that the US forces and the new Iraqi government have gained the upper hand over the insurgents. The US military has withdrawn from the cities, and there hasn't been any coup. Technically, the war is still not over, but bombings have been reduced dramatically since the war's darkest times.
That being said, would it be safe to say that the US is "gaining the upper hand" in the war? If so, when could we update that to "US coalition victory?" Fusion7 (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The iraq war was without a doubt a defeat for the u.s. The objectives were to disarm iraq of nukes, but as we all know, bush lied to us about that, so he tried to cover it up with that old "freedom and democracy" trick. Iraq is now technically a democracy, but I doubt it will last long. It will most likely go back to being a dictatorship with a new leader bent on revenge against the u.s. In short, Iraq was merely another vietnam, a pointless, destructive, and morally wrong war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.70.116 (talk) 09:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
victory or defeat, the war is ongoing.--76.214.144.81 (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia war articles should refrain from summarising war outcomes in short game terms like "victory" or "defeat". It's always preferable to simply accurately describe the buildup and outcome of the conflict and then allow the reader to form their own informed opinion on any game analogy interpretations if they choose to do so. I suspect the war will eventually be seen as "ending" in 2003 and the insurgency that follows will be seen as a separate following phenomena. We are not there yet, however so I do not think the time is ripe to even designate the end of the conflict much less designate "winners" or "losers".Zebulin (talk)
"Readjustment after Deployment"
This is a Wikipedia article, not an MWR help forum. Why is this here?--12.48.220.130 (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
re: Costs
Cost figures cause for wary because they are too often one-sided. For example, the GAO might debit $1 million from its ledger for the cost of a missile, but the $1 million goes to a US defense contractor that employs Americans who post payroll taxes, etc. In short, it is *very* difficult to come up with a firm cost figure because of neighborhood (re: cascading) effects. This is not to say that there is no cost, but rather just to say that calculating the magnitude of that cost is beyond the means of any accounting standard that is known of today.
- The cost is as reported by reliable sources.--76.214.144.81 (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
One simple change, please :)
Could you please add the following line under United States in "Belligerents" section in the right-hand side of the article?
Poland (GROM Special Forces)
Polish Special Forces have also taken part in this operation.
Fedey (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC) fedey
Not done Please provive a reference Chzz ► 16:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- You forgot Poland! Seriously, though. Fedey, listing each member of the coalition could arguably give an inaccurate perspective when the US provided 5/6 of the troops. Note that the "coalition forces" link leads to a more even-handed breakdown of the coalition, and does mention Poland. --Kizor 10:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Benefits / Advantages
While there is a heading titled "Criticisms & Cost", in the interest of fair & balanced writing, I believe there should be a section titled Benefits & Advantages of the war. i.e. it is easy to say in hindsight that the initial justification was not valid, but at the same time it's not as if all of the effects of the war have been negative. Such non-negative effects should be documented, even if just generally (i.e. the Kurds have greater autonomy, we now know with certainty that there are no weapons of mass destruction, Iraq is the first democracy in the region, etc).
- I posted a similar question in an above topic. So far, I haven't gotten a direct answer that is not of pure opinion. The issue here is that there is no governing council that declares certain wars "victories" and others "defeats." I personally think Iraq will be a victory for the United States. (In that it redeemed itself by repairing the damage it has done and establishing a democracy in the region.) but that is just my opinion, and opinions are not the thing for Wikipedia. In conclusion, I think that your post will have just about as much luck as mine did. Fusion7 (talk) 17
- 40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I know the war didn't create any lives or generate any revenue? Perhaps it has created revenue for the defense industry or the mental health industry?--76.214.144.81 (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- From a military and political perspective, the US managed to redeem itself in Iraq and reclaim peace. While we may have not gained anything directly, the political and military effects of a stable Iraq will produce advantages, in my opinion, that allow us to call the war a victory. But this is just our personal viewpoints. Nothing suitable for wikipedia. Fusion7 (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Is the war over?
Are the coalition still fighting? I thought the war was coalition forces versus Iraqi army, but that is no longer true, is it? Is insurgency the reason that is still not over, or is it not over until all foreign forces are withdrawn? "Date March 20, 2003 — Present" when are we gonna call it the end..? 83.108.225.137 (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Right now there are still U.S. troops dieing on combat missions, so probably not over yet. There are also still troops heading over for new deployments. As one source puts it, "winding down", not over yet.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Even Odierno says it is still going.--69.208.130.182 (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I mean technically we have military operations going on in every country in the world at some point or another. We're a global peace keeper, I don't think that necessarily justifies war. Plus, World War II was considered over when the Japanese surrendered, not when the American Occupation forces left. For all intents and purposes, I think this war has reached an end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.132.156 (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Surely this was formally a war which ended with the effective occupation of Iraq (I don't think there was a formal surrender, so the date is a bit vague), followed by a military occupation, then by the formation of an Iraqi government which invited/requested the coalition forces to remain to maintain order, and finally by the reduction in foreign troop numbers and areas in which they were deployed until none were left (in 2011). So the war proper ended in 2003, followed by the occupation and then by decreasing numbers of peacekeeping forces invited to keep order by the government. There are obviously a lot josh is a buthead of nuances (e.g., the Iraqi government could not realistically have asked the coalition forces to leave earlier than they did). Pol098 (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
When the last of the foreign troops have left then the war could well be considered over. The war against Iraq's conventional army is certainly complete, but while coalition troops continue to fight insurgent forces the war continues. The most effective solution to this disagreement would be to divide the article into two new articles Iraq War against Iraqi army and Iraq War against Insurgents. Saayiit (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)