Talk:Battle of Basra (2008)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

War Stories Coverage[edit]

There any particular reason why the Oliver North coverage deserves its own particular category? Seems a little...tertiary...at the very least to the actual point of the article for it to have its own section as if it were a major part of the events surrounding the operation. Seems little more than an excuse to have those quotes in the article, which could've fit in elsewhere, I think. 2601:87:4400:AF2:84D7:679C:1DA0:C7F6 (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barry McCaffrey[edit]

I'm not sure you could call Barry McCaffrey a "long time war critic." Neither, I think, is it appropriate to quote him as someone with some sort of expertise on the issue considering that, in 2005, he predicted the US could begin withdrawing in 2006 and that the insurgency would begin to wither away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.201.250 (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 29[edit]

What is meant here? "In the early hour of the morning least a U.S. air strike on the city killed eight Iraqi civilians, including women and children." 76.113.46.172 (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

casualties[edit]

In the source provided I cannot see where there sais that 8 Iraqi security force personell and 30 Mahdi Army fighters have died. In fact I don't see the amounth of casualties of any of the 2 sides mentioned! The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

Citations are not optional. Don't bother adding a fact if you're not going to add proof. Superm401 - Talk 11:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map?[edit]

This page would really benefit from a map of Basra but I haven't been able to find one on wikipedia. Does anyone have one?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The only map I found on Google is from the University of Texas but doesn't seem to have the suburbs mentioned in the article...so maybe it's out of date or the current version of the article is wrong...maybe someone with some experience and/or knowledge of Basra can help us out with the locations...Lawrencema (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose=drive out Mahdi Army?[edit]

By most accounts Basra has been an anarchic place with many militias/mafias/factions operating with constant friction. I'd like to see some evidence that this operation is aimed specifically at the Mahdi Army.YippeeYoTayYoe (talk) 04:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

al-Sadr orders followers to lay down arms[edit]

http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSL30714216

I'll edit the battle information box accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphabravo11 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wait for confirmation that the fighting ended, please. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article on US ground forces involved[edit]

Interesting article on the aid that U.S. Special Forces are giving to help this assault. [1]. I thought someone may be interested in incorporating this information into this article. Remember (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

outcome[edit]

should we put the "2008 Mahdi Army revolt" since the battle of Basra came directly from it?

outcome[edit]

should we put the "2008 Mahdi Army revolt" since the battle of Basra came directly from it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.16.129 (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the 2008 Mahdi army revolt came as a result of the Battle of Basra, then there is a case for including it somewhere, just not as the "outcome". The revolt spread to the other cities the day the offensive in Basra started and has been going on for (roughly) the same amount of time. I would say the outcome would be something along the lines of "Sadr stands down his fighters after negotiated ceasefire". Anyway, it's too soon to be talking about outcomes at this stage IMHO. Lawrencema (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good article[edit]

WaPo has a good article on the current state of affairs - [2] If someone has time, some of this information should be incorporated into the article. Remember (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues[edit]

I just have a few problems with the article at the moment:

  1. Should we expand the article to include international reactions? for example Iranian involvement in working out the ceasefire, Bush's hailing of the offensive, UK and US involvement in air operations over Basra, etc etc.
  2. A map...would someone be able to generate a map of the suburbs of Basra? Could someone with experience in the city check that the suburb names in the article are correct. The map that is available from the University of Texas website from 2003 is either out of date or the article is wrong when it comes to certain place names.
  3. The Coalition and Iraqis have from the beginning said that the operation was against criminals. I think that should be included somewhere in the article.
  4. Reports that Maliki went in before General Mohan, the BAC and the 14th division were ready should be included somewhere in the article
  5. The ultimatums that Maliki gave the militias in Basra to hand over their weapons should be included as well. It's a bit fuzzy at the moment.
  6. Casualties. The Independent says 300 people have been killed in Basra, making the Iraqi claim of 210 "criminals" killed seem plausible. The AP coincidentally is reporting the same Iraqi claim on Yahoo News.
  7. I'd give the outcome and aftermath section a few days to a week before the dust settles. Also the claim that the Iraqi army was defeated in every battle definitely needs a citation.

Lawrencema (talk) 04:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like your suggestions. Feel free to implement them. I will watch and help out when I can. Remember (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add new information[edit]

Now that the battle is over, I think it's time to rewrite most of the article, as it is written almost completely on a day by day basis. We should also add some information that isn't currently in the article. For example, The Long War Journal has a good amount of information on the battle [3][4] [5][6][7] including a summary of the entire operation[8]. The breakdown of the 52nd Brigade should definitely be mentioned. (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by XMaster4000 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi Army being U.S. led[edit]

Claim added April 7 by Herunar that the Iraqi army was U.S. led has a reference dated April 1 that discusses the post-battle situation. The claim is completely contrary to everything known about the battle. Therefore, I removed the claim. Joakimekstrom April 7, 12pm EST —Preceding comment was added at 16:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadr claims military victory[edit]

Claim that Sadr claims military victory is unreferenced and has not been reported been reported by any international news organisation. Also, the claim does not make any sense since he ordered his followers to lay down their weapons and cooperate with the Iraqi security forces and disowned any person taking up arms agains the Iraqi government. Therefore, I removed the claim. Joakimekstrom April 7, 12pm EST —Preceding comment was added at 16:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Op ed comments[edit]

Mayalld added several paragraphs from Amir Taheri's New York Post op ed. A wikipedia article is an encyclopedic article. A Wikipedia article should not include everything every commentator have said about something. If someone wants to read this particular op ed, one can simply google "Amir Taheri" or go to the New York Post's homepage. I understand that you want everyone to read this particular piece, but wikipedia isn't the right place to advertise this. I encourage you to post it on your blog though. Please read through wikipedia's NPOV policy once more. Joakimekstrom April 12, 8 am ET. —Preceding comment was added at 11:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to get it right. I didn't add the text. I reverted a removal of it that cited WP:NPOV as justification.
A wikipedia article is indeed an encyclopedia article, and WP:NPOV means that it should present all sides of controversial topics. These paragraphs, clearly identified as being the reporting op-ed pieces are a valid addition to the article.
Of course Wikipedia shouldn't include everything that every commentator has said, but that doesn't mean that it should include nothing. A representative sample that reflects the spectrum of views broadly in proportion to the extent to which those views are held is perfectly acceptable.
Personally, I have no particular wish to promote the reading of this piece (I'd never heard of it before I read it here), but I do have a desire to ensure that valid content that somebody added to the article isn't deleted on account of a wrong understanding of NPOV.

Mayalld (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely disagree with you, copy-pasted paragraphs from op-eds cannot be considered encyclopedic content. A wikipedia article should describe a debate if it is relevant to the article. A wikipedia article should not be a forum for this debate. You cannot seiously maintain that copy-pasted paragraphs from an op-ed is "valid content". The paragraphs have nothing to do with the section "aftermath". If they belong on wikipedia at all, they should be included in a new article "U.S. debate over whether Iraqi forces are ready (2008)". Joakimekstrom April 14, 6 am ET. —Preceding comment was added at 09:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casualty cutoff date[edit]

Are we only counting casualties up to the 30th of March? Because the Iraqi Army operation is still ongoing in Basra... Lawrencema (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is an important question. Operation Charge of the Knights is ongoing, but what about the "Battle of Basra"? Did it end when Sadr declared a ceasefire? Or is the battle ongoing as well? Joakimekstrom April 15, 3 pm ET.

Political victory and results[edit]

It is written that Sadr scores a political victory. I think this was written on March 30 or so, when the analyses of the results still were highly speculative. Can one really say that Sadr has scored a political victory with today's perspective, considering that the Sadr trend will possibly be banned from taking part in provincial elections and is reportedly isolated in the parliament. It is also written that Maliki agrees to immunity for Mahdi Army members and releases detained members. Maliki has always denied this and I think that more recent reports don't support the understanding that Mahdi Army gunmen has been granted immunity. What do you think about this? Joakimekstrom April 15, 3 pm ET. —Preceding comment was added at 19:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article definitely needs to mention the fact that the Sadrists' move in parliament a few days after the operation began to oppose the campaign didn't have enough members to gain a quorum (sp?). We could probably have a "reactions" section split into "Iraqi reactions " and "International reactions" which can include the points that you mentioned. However, the fact is that the Iraqi operation looked very bad in the (western) media, so he definitely gained a propaganda victory. Lawrencema (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Sadr definitely scored a propaganda victory in the western media. Nevertheless, I believe the following three statements are most certainly factually incorrect: (i) Sadr claims political victory, (ii) The Mahdi Army is in control of 75% of Basra and (iii) Maliki agrees to immunity for Mahdi Army gunmen and amnesty for detainees. The statements in the factbox in particular need to be impeccable. Joakimekstrom 11.56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the "result" part in the infobox needs to be changed. From current reports it seems like the Iraqi security forces really have won. If they're out in control of the streets then they have scored a victory. John Smith's (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If some editors believed that the recent assault was not part of the original campaign, I would say that it was a continuation of that same endeavour. John Smith's (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated result. I think these wordings are written from a neutral point of view. Joakimekstrom 19.56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the word "full" as operations continue and I think the latest number from MNF-I is 70-80% cleared. Since the article date (wrongly) only refers to the fighting during the first week of the offensive and ignores everything which happened in April, it would be incorrect and misleading to say the Iraqi Army gained full control of Basra during this period, so the date should be changed to reflect this outcome. Another problem is that the battle was throughout Basra province/governorate, rather than just the city. For example, the Iraqi Army conducted a number of operations in Umm Qasr and al-Qurna as part of this operation, but would fall outside the scope of "Battle of Basra" if we just referred to the city.Lawrencema (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the word "full" should not be used. I'll delete that word. I also agree that the date should be changed. Joakimekstrom 12.14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

One and a half years later it can't really be said it was a Mahdi Army political victory, as the battle is used as an example of the ISF's ability to operate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.130.63.4 (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New articles?[edit]

I think there's enough information about Gen Mohan, the head of the BAC and the architect of the operation (even if al-Maliki moved the timetable up a bit), to warrant a new article. As for the outgoing police chief, I'm not sure he's notable enough, although they were both assigned to Basra at the same time (presumably to plan the operation)...what do you think? 01:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Lawrencema (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible merge[edit]

I strongly oppose the merge with the Iraq 2008 Spring Fighting article. The battle of Basra is still ongoing and if anything the sections "Timeline of the battle" and "Post-battle situation" in this article should be merged with possibly a comment somewhere that Muqtada withdrew his fighters on the 31st of April after Iraqi lawmakers went to Iran to discuss it with him and the leaders of the Quds force. Also, Iraqi forces sent reinforcements from other parts of Iraq, including the QRF division from al-Anbar, the Hillah SWAT team from Babil and other units on April 1st and continued cordoning and clearing operations which are still ongoing. The fact that Muqtada's fighters were not on the streets as visibly doesn't mean the battle was over, nor does the lack of media coverage now that Iraqi troops are in control of most of the city. Lawrencema (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose at the moment. However, it's really hard in this fourth generation of warfare to break down a campaign into a number of tactical engagements, battles, because the war is 10% kinetic and 90% political. Perhaps one could find a better title, but I think "Battle of Basra (2008)" is good for the time being. Joakimekstrom 18.10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

End date, the casualty cut off and the results[edit]

Let us be clear about this. This article does not cover operation Charge of the Knights. Like the begining of the article says: The Battle of Basra began on March 25, 2008, WHEN the Iraqi Army launched an operation (code-named Operation Charge of the Knights). The battle started when the operation but it ended six days later while the operation was still ongoing. This article only covers the fighting that was going on during those six days of street fighting. And it was clear that the Mahdi Army was winning that battle before they were ordered to stand down. Again, this article does not cover operation Operation Charge of the Knights, but the battle which was part of that operation. If you want to start an article about the operation which IS still ongoing go right ahead and you can put this article as a sub-section to that one, but again this article only covers that six-day battle. Which ended in a STALEMATE. But indecisive can also describe it good. The result was at that time that the Mahdi Army can keep their weapons under the condition that they will stop fighting and the government promised to release some of the militimen they were holding prisoner. Again this articles main concerne is that six-day period not the operation itself. Top Gun

Sadr as commander?[edit]

Any citation that Muqtada al-Sadr was in command of the JAM forces in Basra (either province or city) during this particular battle? Lawrencema (talk) 08:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Mahdi Army fighters take up positions during the street fighting in Basra.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Mahdi Army fighters take up positions during the street fighting in Basra.jpg 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. --23:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome status[edit]

I recommend that the status be changed from "indecisive" to Iraqi Security Forces victory. I would not say decisive victory, since the first week of combat was very chaotic, but the ISF has accomplished its strategic objective in Basra. Cook503 (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If theres a source in the article stating its success or one can be found then it should be added next to the status just to back it up, but i agree its clear the objectives of the security forces were accomplished. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article now states that the Battle of Basra was an ISF military victory but a Mahdi Army "political victory." This does not seem accurate, since the Mahdi Army was later reduced to near irrelevance after the subsequent Sadr City fighting. Cook503 (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Possible copyright problem[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. MkativerataCCI (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sciri logo.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Sciri logo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Battle of Basra (2008). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Basra (2008). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battle of Basra (2008). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Basra_(2008)&oldid=1199624194"