Talk:Iraq War

Baghdad

US Forces are still in Baghdad. I know because I have been there.205.110.156.226 (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 11:23, 8 July 2009.

Wikileaks video in coalition forces human rights abuses section

Is there a reason why this is not mentioned? [1] Pexise (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

More detail on the incident, July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike. Pexise (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

When Iraq war will be finished

What shall the article say about the war time (2003 - present) when is the war done? "September 1, 2010 U.S. forces cease all combat operations, i.e. patrolling, serving arrest warrants, route clearance, etc, and transition to a pure advise, train and assist role. Operation Iraqi Freedom is officially concluded, and the advise and assist mission continues under Operation New Dawn. Approximately 50,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Should we say the war is done 1. September, or when ALL US troops are out of Iraq? 85.165.197.102 (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If we are going with the latter, we need to detach the term 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' from the War as a whole, since that operation will conclude on August 31. 109.155.186.36 (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that the conclusion of an Operation is not synonymous with the conclusion of a war. War being the more general term in which multiple operations may occur. However, I think it's somewhat debatable as to whether the cessation of combat operations should be considered the end of the War. We still maintained presence in Korea long after the war officially ended. IN this case, there is probably not going to be an armistice, or surrender, etc, as there is not an organized enemy state. SO the question is, how do you define the end of a counter-insurgency type war? For internal consistency, I think the way the Vietnam War is dated may be a good way to address this issue. Otherwise, i think you could probably make subjective arguments either way; i.e., that either the continued large presence during a time of conflict means continued participation in a war, or that discontinuing combat is the same thing as withdrawal. I would lean to the former, because lack of aggressive action does not guarantee there will be a lack of defensive combat operations/security operations. Just my 2 cents.Jbower47 (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The operation Iraqi Freedom, was a part of the Iraq war. Is not the ongoing "new" operation, Operation New Dawn, also a part of this war? I think when the US stop all its operations, including New Dawn, is a more correct approach of when this war is absolutely ended. That would be in December 2011. In an earlier cas, September 1st would be a good choice; "September 1, 2010 U.S. forces cease all combat operations, i.e. patrolling, serving arrest warrants, route clearance, etc, and transition to a pure advise, train and assist role. Operation Iraqi Freedom is officially concluded, and the advise and assist mission continues under Operation New Dawn". - Jørgen88 (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Logically, the Iraq War comes to an end when the violence/insurgency ends, whenever the US is involved or not. The war is more about Iraq than it is about the USA. Yonaka (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Iraq didn't invade Iraq. Jørgen88 (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The invasion ended in May 2001, so that's hardly relevant. Yonaka (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

But the violence that exists is Iraqi on Iraqi violence, which certainty existed before the invasion. To say that the war is over only when all violence ceases is ridiculous. It is like saying World War 2 is ongoing because someone got mugged in Tokyo.V7-sport (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)V7-sport

I agree, combat operations have ended and the 'war' is over. There is no supporting argument in favour of retaining it as a 'war'. If you refer to insurgency and violence as a war, then as rule of thumb Northern ireland would of been at war for roughly 30 years upto 1998.Gp1v07 (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

When Iraq war will be finished

The graph of troop casualties since the surge needs to be updated. It ends two years ago and the effects of the surge can be better evaluated with readily available data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.189.120 (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

War Not Over

This is a scam. The US is not the sole participant--DAI (Δ) 12:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

violence continues--DAI (Δ) 12:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We should say that it is over according to one side, but (according to my knowledge) not the other.

Cheers!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 14:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the war is not over just because Obama redefined 50K troops as "transitional," who just happen to be carrying out combat. Not to mention the ~50K army planned by the State Dept. This is propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.19.90 (talk) 23:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It ended on August 19, 2010 ==> What the Pentagon calls "combat operations" ended on August 19, 2010 Geo8rge (talk) 09:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No. There has been another act of violence http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE67J0YF.htm BAGHDAD - A roadside bomb killed two people and wounded six in Baghdad's southern district of Doura, police said. --DAI (Δ) 12:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's POV to say the war is over simply because the Pentagon/White House says it's over. There are 50,000 troops left in Iraq, plus military contractors/mercenaries. By declaring the war to be over, Wikipedia is effectively acting as a mouthpiece for one side in a propaganda war. I move that this sentence be changed to the following: "As of August 19, 2010, approximately 50,000 U.S. troops remain. They are required to leave by 31 December, 2011." Fumoses (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2010 (UTCto state that the war is officially over.

What is the evidence that the war is over? That citation alone from the Washington Post is not enough as it relies too heavily human interest story style quotes from soldiers and very little analysis or officials from experts, government officials, and others. Angela Keaton 18:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Angela Keaton

The war is over? Might want to tell Petraeus that, because apparently it's news to him. Josh (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The remaining troops in Iraq are there to train Iraqi soldiers and police. America is no longer conducting combat operations, and thus is no longer fighting the war. Civil War in Iraq, however, is still continuing, albeit with the government side aided and funded by the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.4.196.248 (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This is incorrect. US troops will indeed be conducting combat operations which will simply be termed training or transitional or whatever meaningless or half-true label the administration cares to give it. In fact, one soldier died today already. We will see, as the days wear on from when the "withdrawal" was announced, that the government's stenographers at the newspapers will begin using these terms to describe what is clearly ongoing combat. 68.194.19.90 (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The Army Times notes that combat troops are indeed still in Iraq, although now they are attached to non-combat arms divisions as "Advise and Assist Brigades." See Brannen, Kate. "Combat brigades in Iraq under different name." Army Times. 21 August 2010. [2] DickClarkMises (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that the Iraq war ended on May 1, 2003. Several other language versions of this article have this date also, see German, French, Dutch. There are separate articles on the "ongoing occupation of Iraq". JPprivate (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)JPprivate

Major combat has been over for ages, including counterinsurgency operations. It progressed into an occupation which is itself winding down. Bu comparison World War 2 in the Pacific theater ended on August 14, 1945, but the USA had a military occupation of Japan until 1952 and still maintains American troops on Japanese soil. West Germany was occupied until 1955 and it too still has US troops on it's soil. The Russians stayed until 1991. Considering that coalition objectives were met, that there are less occupation troops as there were at the end of the occupations of axis powers in WW2 and that the forces that are there are under the SOFA agreement calling it over and a "coalition victory" is overdue. V7-sport (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport

Why would it be a coalition victory? The bare fact that they are withdrawing doesn't mean they are victorious. The Nazis also withdrew from the territories they had occupied —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.156.67 (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Because the objectives of the coalition have been met. Comparison to the NAZIs is repugnant. V7-sport (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport

Operation New Dawn (the one in Afghanistan)

It should probably be noted that there was another "Operation New Dawn" launched in Afghanistan in June 2010, see [3]. There is barely any coverage of it though compared to the Iraq training mission, so currently Operation New Dawn still redirects here. MickMacNee (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Casualty update?

When can we expect a proper and final-ish estimate? Bahahs (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

US troops killed in Iraq: 4 419 [4]. Jørgen88 (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Iraq War end date debate

According to wiktionary war is a large scale organized use of physical force. The Iraq war ended in 2003 about 40 days after it began. War has a real meaning, and its disingenuous to call any and all armed conflict "war." Further, the conclusion of war does not necessarily mean all conflict has ended. Post-war periods are often violent and bloody, just not with the scale or organization of actual warfare. For perspective, consider examples further removed from the present to reduce clouding the issue with emotion. the post-American-Civil-War period known as reconstruction was fractious and frequently violent. Nonetheless it has never been considered war. The French Revolution was famously violent, but history does not consider it to be a war until the forces of the French Revolutionary Government began fighting with armed forces of other nations. You can argue when the Iraq war ended exactly, as in which day was it, but it's completely incorrect to claim it extended to 2004. The current article discusses the Iraq War and a period of Iraq's history following the war. That's a fine topic, for an article, but it's not what the title claims its about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.96.94 (talk) 07:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes we are having a lot of trouble defining the official end date of the Iraq War.
U.S. announced and did the final withdrawal of the combat troops in August 19, 2010. However, will this make the official end date for the Iraq War? Or anyone has a source that shows U.S. official concluded the war as of August 19th? It is told that the Operation Iraqi Freedom will be changed or transferred to the Operation New Dawn in September 1, 2010, which means that Operation Iraqi Freedom is valid until the August 31, 2010. If the OIF is equal to the Iraq War, then the war's end date will be August 31st. However, if we say OIF as part of the entire war and include OND as part of the war as well, then Iraq War is not over. Anyone has any idea or source (official from the United States government) that shows the official end date of the war? Kadrun (talk) 09:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine why official anything would matter. This is not the article on any particular United States operation. This is an article about the war happening in a country called Iraq. If hostilities even involving the US were over, then we could term the war over at least for the US. But this is not the case so it doesn't matter what the Pentagon says. Remove the "end war" date or this article is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.19.90 (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The war is not over just because of US domestic politics requires a lower amount of US troops present. The war is simply entering a different phase--similar to the May 1 Bush declaration of end of major combat operations. That declaration was followed by many years of conflict. This is the same issue. Publicus 22:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Operation New Dawn" will still be a part of the "Iraq War", just less troops, the war will not be over until ALL US Troops leave Iraq —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the Iraq War is over, but insurgency in Iraq continues and that should be a separate article similar to Mexican Drug Wars and War in North-West Pakistan. -- Love, Smurfy 15:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Amazing how many people here think the war is not over until 1. All US troops have left Iraq and 2. There are no more 'acts of violence' in the country. Emotions seem to run high over this issue, but saying that the war ended when Bush declared 'mission accomplished', and what has been happening since is an 'insurgency' is not spreading American propaganda. Nobody is claiming that there's anything better about an insurgency than there is about a war. It is a simple matter of definitions: when you are fighting government-to-government, you have a war. When you are fighting government-to-non-state actors, you have a rebellion/insurgency/guerrilla war/'police action'/etc. To say that the war ended in 2003 is not controversial in any circles except (apparently) Wikipedia. There are many people who are incensed about the invasion of Iraq who would simply tell you that it's irrelevant whether it's considered a war or not after March 2003.

Let's tackle points 1 and 2. 1. As pointed out by another user, US troops will likely ALWAYS be in Iraq. If the country experienced a run of decades in which not a single weapon was used within its borders, but US troops were still there in an advisory/support role, would this still constitute a state of war? 2. 'Acts of violence' is an unbelievably non-specific phrase. Is the UK in a state of civil war because of the 7/7 bombings? Or because somebody in Cumbria ran amok with a shotgun? This is a useless yardstick by which to measure whether a war is still taking place or not. 86.133.196.96 (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to argue that the Iraq war ended back in May 2003? That the Iraq war ended when Saddam's govmt fell? So only when a government is fighting another government is there a war? That has not been the case for many, many conflicts. For example, the War in Afghanistan is certainly not government to government, as Afghanistan has (kind of) a government of their own--and yet that conflict has been going for 9 years. In fact, the previous war in Afghanistan (Soviets) was very similar with the Soviet-puppet government plus the Soviets fighting the Muj. The Iraq war has been no different. Just because a US politician makes a statement, does not make it the truth. I would suggest reviewing the history of this conflict and reading just how many times various leaders "declared" an end to this war based on certain statistics. Publicus 15:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a good question. I just came here to post this question. This will likely be a bit of a historical questions, since if tensions escalate a new "war" could emerge. Would this still be part of the original "Iraq War"? BoingoOingo (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If tensions escalate it could very well be considered a part of the Iraq war, depending on who the combatants are. For instance, if Iraqi kurdistan picks a fight with the Iraqi govmt in Baghdad (or whatever they currently have right now) what side would the coalition/US forces fight on? Would this internal fight be considered a part of the Iraq war, or would this example be called something like Kurdish revolt in Iraq. I don't know the answer myself--the point I want to illustrate is that is it too early to arbitrarily pick an end date for this conflict, based solely on; reduced troop numbers, political statements from the US administration, and a new name for the military operation. If this conflict was to heat up again (like it has several times, see 2004)--an end date of August 2010 would look about as realistic as an end date of May 2003 (which was before numerous pitched battles and thousands of casualties on both sides). Publicus 16:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

A question for Aug. 19 supporters

A US soldier was killed in a hostile incident on Aug 22. The question: since the "war ended on August 19", part of which war his death is??--DAI (Δ) 10:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a really good question. I would probably look at how the deaths of US servicemembers in WWII were tallied after the surrender of Nazi Germany. In occupied Germany, the allies battled the Werwolf, a loose network of terrorist cells, made up of terrified, starving teenagers and fanatical Nazis - both of which were delusional enough to believe in a myth of a waiting Nazi counter-revolution or malicious enough to carry out a scorched earth campaign to hinder the spread of democracy. These post-war insurgents bombed police stations, claimed the lives of American soldiers and civilians, planted mines, sniped at American occupation forces and assassinated mayors and officials collaborating with the occupying allied forces struggling to rebuild the country. Sounds just like post-invasion Iraq doesn't it? So I say however those deaths were tallied, the same should be used for all civilian, military, and insurgeant personnel from here on. --Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like post-invasion Iraq from 2003-on, except of course the insurgency in Germany was a whisper of a fraction as large and long as that of Iraq, and the US never felt the need to escalate operations with more troops, as they did in Iraq. But I digress -- why not declare the war over when Bush declared "Mission Accomplished"? 68.194.19.90 (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the insurgency really came after the Iraqi Army formally surrendered and techically that the war ended on that day in 2003. Almost every modern war (American Civil War, WWI, WWII, 1st Gulf War, etc...) had insurgency periods that followed and those periods that are never counted as being a part of the actual war, since an insurgency is techically viewed as an unorganized armed rebellion. For example, WWII ended in 1945, not 1947. Pro-US insurgents even existed for years after the Vietnam War -after the Fall of Saigon- in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos even after that war was techically "over".

However since our media mistakenly combined the actual war and the insurgency into one -since the insurgency was far worse than the war itself- so we count the war as ongoing from March 2003. From a technical point of view, the Iraq War ended on May 1, 2003. Meanwhile the Iraqi Insurgency is really itself a separate conflict, with different enemy belligerents and should be billed as lasting from May 1, 2003 to present day since, while the US and it's allies have reduced their forces, the attacks from the insurgency are still occuring, plus the US force as just be substituted for an Iraqi force thats will be doing most of the future fighting.--Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

maybe there are some better examples here on Wikipedia: the Algerian Civil War never officially ended - it became low-level and is now part of the broader Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002–present). Similar stuff in the Second Chechen War and the insurgency in the North Caucasus. Or even War in Somalia (2006-2009) and the War in Somalia (2009-). I hope I helped a bit--DAI (Δ) 20:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This whole discussion on an August 19 end date for this is just premature. Just because the US has withdrawn most of its troops out of the country, to satisfy a US domestic political decision, does not mean the overall conflict has ended. Several times during this conflict, political leaders have made arbitrary statements as to the "end" of the war--only to have actual events make these statements look silly (Mission Accomplished only being the most obvious example). For now, the status should remain the same as prior to the most recent US pullout and wait for actual events to unfold. The Iraqis don't even have a government right now (and haven't for several months) so the situation is highly unstable. Publicus 22:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

2 More US Soldiers were Killed today (September 7, a full week after the end of combat operations) in a Hostile Fire and they are still listed as Causalities of the War, so there is no question now that the War is still ongoing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 8.20.108.136, 24 August 2010

{editsemiprotected} This sentence appears in the section labled: "2010: US Drawdown", "These troops are required to leave Iraq by 31 December 2011 under an agreement between the US and Iraqi governments, although the Iraqis have stated they may not be ready until at least 2020,[276]"

The second half of this sentence is factually inaccurate. It is not supported by the source document. A source document that contains the fact that this sentence is trying to articulate can be found here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100819/ts_alt_afp/iraqunrestmilitarytroops . The sentence must be changed in order to be factually accurate. "The Iraqis" have not stated anything; the source document states that the Iraqi military and the US military have endorsed the point of view that they may not be able to provide adequate security until 2020. However, they have not stated a position regarding the presence of United States troops on Iraqi soil during the interim period from 2011 until 2020. It should be noted that keeping military forces in Iraq past 2011 would violate the Status of Forces Agreement, which is the current governing treaty (and, thus, the law) in this matter.

8.20.108.136 (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the second half of that sentence. Use {{editsemiprotected}} again if you provide exact wording with a source to add some info.--Commander Keane (talk) 04:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Status

With the Iraq war now completed, I believe it is time to update the "status" in the infobox at the top of the page.

While I believe that there is ample evidence to declare the war an American victory, I realize this is probably not practical on Wikipedia.

Here is my proposal:

status: Defeat of Baathist government by Coalition Forces. Suppression of Hussein loyalists and insurgent forces by Coalition and New Iraqi armies. Establishment of a Democratic government. (more...)

Then we can list more minor, and potentially future, details. Mburn16 (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Iraq war is not complete simply because a US politician has stated this is so. Perhaps you should review the past seven years of this conflict and see just how many times various politicians have stated "with certainty" certain facts to fit a particular agenda. That list would start with the "presence of WMD" in Iraq... Publicus 14:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, what's the hurry to put an end date on the Iraq war? Several issues remain outstanding, any single one of which can cause this conflict to heat right back up again.

• The Sunni vs Shia conflict continues, which is especially important since Iraq still does not have a government.
• The Kurdish question remains a hot topic both internally (Kurds have signed oil contracts that Baghdad does not recognize) and externally--both Turkey and Iran have actually invaded and/or bombed Kurdish areas in the past few years. This could be a real problem since there's several hundred thousand well-armed Peshmerga.
• Iran continues to try and influence Iraqi politics--could be another issue that heats up the conflict. The last time Iraq fought a country before the US it was Iran. The last time Iran fought a country it was Iraq.

Not trying to a downer, just trying to illustrate that Wikipedia editors need to review the facts not political statements and that the only thing that matters is facts on the ground. I would have thought editors would have realized that after the whole nonsense during the run-up to the Iraq war--aluminum tubes and Iraqi UAVs anyone? Publicus 15:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Kurdish issue is not a part of the Iraq war, it is a regional conflict over a homeland for a particular group. The Kurdish question existed before, during, and after the United States invaded, and will continue after we leave. Iran, like other countries, tries to influence its neighbors - we may not like this fact, but since they neither run the Iraqi government,nor are engaging in direct combat on the ground, it is not immediately related to this page. As for the insurgency...it has been, as I mentioned, surpressed. It may fire back up again, and it could even bring down the Iraqi government (theoretically), but that is like saying that we didn't win WWII because the USSR took over half of what the Nazis left behind.

The "Iraq War" was about getting rid of Saddam, and putting a new government in his place, and establishing a generally secure country. All have been accomplished. You cannot look at what I suggested, and say that any of them are not true. Mburn16 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.229.199 (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the Iraq war (per Bush and supporters) was not about getting rid of Saddam. It was very clearly stated that the purpose of the war was to pre-emptively remove a threat against the US, that threat being the perceived belief that Saddam had WMD and might use them (see authorization for the use of force). The Kurdish issue is very much a part of the Iraq war and has been from the start. Kurds were used as examples of what Saddam might do against the US (see use of poison gas against Kurds in the 90s). Iran has actually been engaging in direct combat on the ground, both against the Jundallah forces in northern Iraq, the Kurdish groups (also northern Iraq)--and thru the use of the Shia militia forces who were in-country training Shia militias such as the Mahdi Army in the use of EFPs (see Karballa raid). Turkey has also sent ground forces into Iraqi Kurdistan and send artillery there every so often. The point of all these references is that just like other wars (e.g. Vietnam) a war that appeared to be contained within the neat and tidy borders of one country can and does very easily spread to neighboring countries. And just like Vietnam, the Iraq war has the significant potential to re-ignite in a way that would drag the US into another version of the Iraq war (US + Iraqi government vs Iraqi Kurdistan, OR US + Shia Iraqi government vs Sunni Iraqi political parties, and so on). And the proclamation of a particular government involved in the conflict, really has very little to do with the facts and events on the ground. Publicus 20:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It was very obvious from day 1 that getting rid of WMDs meant getting rid of Saddam, and establishing a stable, democratic government. You think we were going to invade, haul away the weapons, and leave Saddam in power? No. The issues are one in the same. That cannot be said, however, for the Kurdish issue. You are free to create a page on Kurdish sepratism, or to include or edit a section on the Kurdish people. But a conflict that existed well outside of and beyond the American invasion cannot be counted as a part of the war, simply because they took place at the same time, and in the same general area. The Iran issue is similiarly separate...

America went into Iraq to remove the WMDs, remove Saddam, and install a stable, democratic government. The insurgent forces prohibited, for a time, establishing a stable government - so defeating them was a part of the mission. All the primary goals have been accomplished, and American involvement is now complete. the Iraq War is OVER, and what happens now is no more a part of the Iraq War than the Cold war was a part of World War II.

I can see including "ongoing counter-insurgency opterations by Iraq" and "Alleged Iranian interference in Irqi politics" as part of the "(more...)" on the 'status' - but it now needs to reflect an actual outcome, right now, it reads like a timeline. Mburn16 (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point. So how about this:

Result: Defeat of Baathist government by Coalition Forces. Suppression of Hussein loyalists and insurgent forces by Coalition and New Iraqi armies. Establishment of a Democratic government. > Continued Anti-insurgent operations by Iraqi forces > Alleged Iranian interference in Iraqi politics > Continued presence of American advisors until ?December 31, 2011? Mburn16 (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Mburn16, it appears that you have some very strong political opinions, but please do not allow those beliefs to detract from your objectivity. Comparing any aspect of the conflict in Iraq to World War Two is very ill-advised. In fact, that's where the entire problem in this article finds its roots. A "war" in the classic Clausewitz-ian sense of the word denotes a conflict between two or more nation-states. It begins with a formal declaration of war and ends with an armistice or negotiated surrender or treaty. Applying that definition to the conflict in Iraq, the war proper began in March of 2003 and ended no later than May of that same year. However, the bulk of the conflict involved not the short, decisive war but the long, drawn-out and inconclusive insurgency that followed and which, despite your protestations to the contrary, still continues (there were city-wide terrorist bombings in Iraq that killed dozens of people only days ago), albeit not to the severity witnessed in the years 2004-2007. This article should never have conflated the "war" with the "insurgency" that followed, however, it was in the interest of anti-conservative liberals to call the insurgency a war and to conflate it with the invasion and removal of the Hussein regime which preceded it, when in fact they were separate issues. The "war" is long over. The insurgency has been going on for years and will probably continue for the foreseeable future. The only thing that is truly coming to an end are major U.S. combat operations. I qualify that with the "major" only because if even a single U.S. soldier engages in combat in Iraq after today, that will still constitute a combat operation, albeit only a marginal and politically insignificant one. It will not suffice to come up with a compromise result in this article. The only truly meaningful alteration would be a separation of the conflict between the "war" and "insurgency" stages, but such a drastic reform cannot be made due to the widespread conflation of the two in the public mind. That being the case, the article should not declare the war over at all. The results to date should be listed, but no end date should be listed for a few months at least. Let's take a while to see what immediate results come from this massive draw down of U.S. troops. If the Iraqi government remains stable and violence declines dramatically, we can always go back and put August 31, 2010 as the end date after the fact.Krg8501 (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, there's no need to rush to put an end date on this conflict. I've mentioned some possible negative options, but things could also go perfectly--US removes all troops, Iraqis figure out how to govern without creating a civil war, Iran's influence is negated, and the Kurdish question is solved. THEN we could go back and put an end date on this for whatever date people agree on. But it is simply too early to put an end date on right now. I think it is just the nature of war in more recent times for end dates and sometimes even start dates to be difficult to determine. Publicus 19:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I restored the "combat operations concluded" to the status and added "major" as per the articles referenced. If you can find "conflict ongoing" citations feel free to update. V7-sport (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport

Changed to "conflict ongoing" per refs. Publicus 23:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Source 1, the Politico video was an editorial and he didn't state the "conflict was ongoing". Source 2, the guardian stated that combat troops had been pulled out and only made reference to "fighting ahead". Soruce 3 was a blogpost on the Chicago sun times, it has a disclaimer attached "The views expressed in these blog posts are those of the author and not of the Chicago Sun-Times" which means it fails s Wikipedia:Reliable sources and it did not say that major combat operations were ongoing. Source 4;"Couric & Co" is a blog on the CBS website. "Sounding" like combat to Nikki Ackles, the wife of a soldier doesn't signify that the major combat operations have not ended. Although Source 5 was the closest to reliable and stating that combat was continuing, that was in the beginning of August and it states that the "combat mission" changed at the end of August. Source 6 is another blog affiliated with the "Poynter Institute". The original memo Specifically states that "We can also say the United States has ended its major combat role in Iraq,".

"Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article". Stating that the "conflict is ongoing" when you can't provide a source that states that the conflict is ongoing is original research. There are sources that use the specific language that "major combat operations [are] concluded. Can you source the language that you have posted with a citation that passes wiki Reliable sources? If not please revert it and remove the citations. ThanksV7-sport (talk) 10:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport

Um, when the quote is "the war is not over" that means conflict is ongoing. 71.229.187.111 (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, then find a legitimate citation that says that or it's original research. V7-sport (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport

By the way V7-sport, I wanted to apologize for my snarky comment last time--I was a little tired. Sorry about that, let me know if this new status compromise works for you. Again, deepest apologies. Publicus 17:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Changed the major combat ops concluded to match the refs, US combat ops "might" be concluded, but conflict is still ongoing. Publicus 15:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize, thanks for your concern, its downright gracious for Wiki. ;-) IMHO At issue here is what we are defining as the "war". If it is a "lack of peace" then of course the conflict is ongoing. However that would also mean that there is "war" in Detroit or Glasgow or St. Petersburg, etc. If it's "open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations"...well... not so much, that ended with SOFA when the coalition's presence was acknowledged by the Iraqi government. Regardless "The threshold in Wikipedia is not "truth", Only verifiability" and that is even more important when there is disagreement. But again, thanks for your concern.V7-sport (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport

I agree, the definition of what the "Iraq war" is, is kind of a difficult one right now. Obviously, it's not a traditional war, but I'm not sure what else to call it or what others are calling it. I've noticed how quickly the media has dropped coverage of the conflict from the front page to buried articles or even mentions--which is pretty sad since there's about the same number of US troops in Iraq now that were in Afghanistan from 2001-2007 and look what happend when that conflict was ignored. That's also a big worry that this is just another temporary lull and things will heat back up again between some of the parties, which will draw the US back into the mix and putting an end date just wouldn't be appropriate.

Back in 2005 or so when the insurgency flared up I started arguing that a "civil war" had broken out--maybe that's what the "Iraq war" has become, some kind of civil war/insurrection, or maybe the war has ended and we should now call it the "insurgency in Iraq"--similar to the "insurgency in Saudi Arabia" article. I'd be more than happy to put an end date to the war part of this mess, I just haven't seen anyone provide a reasonable and verified name to call the current situation. Combat appears to be over for the original belligerent (US), but conflict continues for the new Iraqi security forces--so what do we call that? Publicus 22:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Woah, woah, woah...woah.

I'm generally a very calm person, so you'll have to excuse me, but what the fuck did you people do to this article? "August 31, 2010 (disputed)"? "...with approximately 50,000 U.S. troops still remaining in an "advise and assist" capacity. They are scheduled to leave by August 31, 2011, ahead of their required departure of December 31, 2011."? Listen up, the last combat brigade left on the 19th, Obama officially declared the end of combat operations on the 31st. There are still 50,000 troops in Iraq. 50,000 troops did not maintain the mission for a further 12 days after the combat troops left. Please do some research before you screw with the information in the article. Also changing a sentence from "is an ongoing[cite] military campaign" to "is a[cite] military campaign doesn't help at all. Swarm^Talk 00:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Status

I disagree with several points in this article, but the "Establishment of a Democratic government" part in the status is particularly galling. Iraq does not currently have a functional government, and the governments previous established can hardly be called democratic. Additionally, there are 50,000 soldiers remaining, so I am not sure if anyone can say that the war is over as of 1/9/2010. I also note that the major reason behind the Iraq war, the WMDs, are missing from the status. Unflavoured (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Iraq has a democratic leader for the first time. LOL, I'd call that quite a government, wouldn't you. Think about the facts before you engage in logical discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymbelmineer (talk • contribs) 22:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Iraq war is not over

I'll say it again, since some of these new editors seem to have trouble reading and responding in the talk section. The Iraq war is not over just because the current US administration has changed the current mission of the 50,000 US troops in Iraq. Obama clearly stated in his speech the other day that the combat mission has ended (with the caveat that if the Iraqis request help the troops would provide it so combat could take off again)--he did not say "the Iraq war is over." So, I really have no idea what editors are doing changing the end-date. Nothing has changed other than a new policy statement. There is no rush to change the end date to something that exactly matches a politician's speech--in fact, it could be easily argued that anyone who does so is making a POV edit. Again, time will tell what the end date of the Iraq war will be--Wikipedia is not the place to make such declarations, it is an encyclopedia. Publicus 15:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

And don't take my words for it, how about the Pentagon spokesman--"I don't think anybody has declared the end of the war as far as I know," Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell told MSNBC.[5] Publicus 15:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's clear the US mission is not over. That is obvious. "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is over, but does "Iraq War" only refer to that (and the other coalition countries') combat mission, or does Operation New Dawn, which will end in 2011, constitute part of the Iraq War? The current mission is an "advise and assist" mission, but I think, historically, it still falls under the events of the Iraq War. Based on what I have seen, no one is considering the Iraq War "over", and the war will only be considered "over" when the US military operation end, not when the combat operations end. Then again, does it even make sense to say, "2003-present combat operations concluded August 31, 2010"? Swarm^Talk 22:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The Iraq war refers to the overall conflict. The US operation name only refers to US military operations, the UK and other coalition members have different names for their military operations during the Iraq war. It's kind of POV to say that combat operations are over--when those "combat operations" only refer to the US military. The Iraqi security forces are still conducting combat operations all over the country with US forces in an advise and assist role--and US airpower is certainly conducting "combat operations" since the Iraqis don't have much of an airforce. The insurgent groups are still fighting against; Iraqi security forces, each other, and US forces (even tho the US forces are harder targets since their removal from urban areas). So obviously the war is continuing--it is just moving into a different phase of conflict--a view which the Pentagon would share as well as the Iraqi MOD. Publicus 21:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

U.S. combat operations were the cornerstone of the whole war. Iraq is not involved in "combat operations" in the same sense the US was. Public security in one's own country is not the same as war. Swarm^Talk 02:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Meaning there was no war in Algeria? Even if the US withdraws, there will still be a war. Yonaka (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly debatable, considering those who say the war is over now. However, Wikipedia is certainly not the place for such a debate. 216.174.21.45 (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of the other editors, the war is still on. Resistence in the form of insurgents still goes on, they still target western troops and western interests and allies. And the country is still occupied. ValenShephard (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

By the criteria being set up here someone should go back and switch WW1 and WW2 indeed all wars to "Combat operations concluded" because there are still acts of violence committed in the territories involved. Meanwhile it is safer to live in Baghdad then it is to live in Chicago or St. Louis... V7-sport (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)V7-sport

Is that violence connected to the reasons of those two wars? Very rarely, so your argument is weak. People in Iraq are still staging attacks and violence for the same reasons as before this partial withdrawal. Even so, a war can go on without violence or any battles, just look at the Korean War, which is still officially on. Until there is an end of most or all occupation related violence, I think this will be a conflict in some way or another. ValenShephard (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the curent situation in Iraq meets the generally accepted definition of an occupation.

The US forces there are there under an agreement with the Iraqi government. And the US has kept to the Status of Forces Agreement, while the timeline was even made earlier at the request of the Iraqi government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.220.22 (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Even the issue of whether combat operations have stopped is in question: AP Issues Standards Memo: 'Combat In Iraq Is Not Over' Cleshne (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't actually matter what we think. It matters what reliable sources say, we are simply representatives of them. As far as I have read in the sources I've seen, the war is not over. Until we have reliable sources which proclaim in the majority "the war is over", when the Iraqi parliament for example signals an end to combat and police operations counter-insurgants, then we can discuss this issue again. ValenShephard (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"Is that violence connected to the reasons of those two wars? Very rarely, so your argument is weak."-ValenShephard

There were 400.000 people put into mass graves by the Saddam Hussein regime, the Sunnis and Shiites have been at it for centuries, The Kurds were gassed, Kuwait and Iran invaded... Was that all due to the reasons of those two wars? No. Unless you can directly correlate the violence that is taking place to the invasion your argument is invalid and even if you can, it doesn't mean that the war is ongoing in terms of the coalition combat, only the anti- legitimate elected Iraqi government insurgency continues which is crime, not war. When the Baader-Meinhof Gang mitfered german police was that "War"? When they bombed the US barracks was that a continuation of WW2? V7-sport (talk) 09:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)V7-sport

You're right V7-sport. The Iraq War *might* be over. While often "anti-legitimate elected Iraqi government insurgency continues which is crime, not war", sometimes it can constitute a civil war rather than a crime. It depends on how the next 2 years go. Then we might look back at when Obama declared the *American* combat mission over as the end of the entire war. However, no one is reporting that the war is over (in fact, the opposite is usually stressed), and no one will be until we see how things go. It's like the winning touchdown of a football game. You don't know you've made it at the time, but at the end of the game you can realize which touchdown won the game. - Atfyfe (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. Does someone else want to read the very short article that V7-sport cites as support of his claim that combat operations have ended. As I read it, it very clearly is a report concerning the end of *US* combat operations. I am not sure why V7-sport thinks he is justified in reverting my edits with the source he's cited. -Atfyfe (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, The link that I thought you had removed had been switched in an intermediate edit. I re-added the previous link which explicitly states "the end of heavy combat operations". The 2 citations together should suffice. Since the US was the last member of the coalition participating in combat operations further "combat" is an Iraqi police action and beyond the scope of this article. V7-sport (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)V7-sport

Proposal:denote three phases

Let's get real here. Calling this whole thing the 'Iraq War' as if it has just one start and end date is just a massive over-simplification. It is so vague as to be pointless, it uses a start date of a conventional war, yet the end date is related to something far different to what anybody would define as declaring the end of a conventional war. Not to mention neither of the original opponents are now the current, primary opponents. The insurgency is a many headed beast, far removed from the Saddam regime by now, while the entity in the Iraq corner is also far removed from the original coalition invasion force, or even the CPA occupying force, by now. If people are genuinely interested in having the infobox display meaningfull and logical start and end dates to readers, rather than just pushing the agenda of 'look what George Bush did', then what is wrong with having a simple, three part definition, as follows:

• Conventional war (Operation Iraqi Freedom): March 20 – May 1, 2003
• Counter-insurgency against US-led forces (Operation Iraqi Freedom): May 1, 2003 - August 31, 2010
• Counter-insurgency against Iraq-led forces (Operation New Dawn): August 31, 2010 - ongoing

As far as I can see, it is going to be pretty easy to get a majority of sources, both tabloid and academic, to agree on start and end dates for the first two phases, and that the third phase is still ongoing. Then, it wouldn't look so odd if the third phase goes on for a few more years, or worse, reverts back to a US-led counter-insurgency. I really don't think that technicalities like Iraq not yet having an Air-Force, or the various sovereing power phases of Iraqi interim govt, are worth dealing with at this top level, but frankly, 'March 20, 2003 - ongoing', is always going to look odd to a great many people, certianly as time goes on, if not on ideological grounds, then on simple basic logic and common sense. MickMacNee (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. - Atfyfe (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is fair. V7-sport (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)V7-sport

It's an interesting proposal, with a rather large problem. Everyone calls this conflict the "Iraq War"--media, citizens, governments really don't distinguish these three phases that you've identified. Perhaps when this conflict is over for awhile--we'll be able to look back and determine some kind of overall structure. Right now, such an organization seems a little premature. Publicus 23:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The war is over, move on.... ,, The media and Obama have called the war over. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Burning Iraqi tanks?

Why are we getting more and more pictures put in the article of destroyed Iraqi tanks? It was a common theme for the mass media in the early days to show these triumphal images of burned out tanks, but it doesn't give a very good impression of the war. This war is primarily an underground insurgent war, tanks only figured in the initial invasion. I dont think it gives an accurate representation of the facts. What do we think? ValenShephard (talk) 10:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. - Atfyfe (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, deleted most of the images--tanks are definitely not a major part of the conflict. Publicus 23:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I thought my proposal was lost in the muddle but you got to it. Best, ValenShephard (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Article is not remotely truthful or informative

I don't even know where to begin, so let's go from top to bottom:

In 2002, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441 which called for Iraq to completely cooperate with UN weapon inspectors to verify that it was not in possession of WMD and cruise missiles. Availed of access through such cooperation the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) found no evidence of WMD. More conclusively accurate verification of Iraq's compliant disarmament requiring some additional months of inspections was not undertaken.[50][51][52][53] Lead weapons inspector Hans Blix advised the UN Security Council that while Iraq was cooperating in terms of access, Iraq's declarations with regards to WMD could not be verified at the time, but the confirmation of disarmament through inspections could be achieved within "months".[50][54]

What Blix was saying is that if Iraq cooperated with the verification, it could have been resolved in months. He wasn't saying that it would have been resolved within months. He stated explicitly on January 27, 2003 that cooperation was insufficient to date.

There is not a single mention in the introduction about the elections in Iraq. On the other hand, there is too much material about refugees, and more recent events. There is also no mention about the surge in 2007.

According to documents provided by former U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, George W. Bush, ten days after taking office in January 2001, instructed his aides to look for a way to overthrow the Iraqi regime. A secret memo entitled "Plan for post-Saddam Iraq" was discussed in January and February 2001, and a Pentagon document dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts", included a map of potential areas for petroleum exploration.[87]

What does this have to with anything? The U.S. was already trying to oust Saddam before Bush took over. Where is the evidence of the secret memo? What does the Pentagon map have to do with anything?

The issue of Iraq's disarmament reached a crisis in 2002–2003, when Bush demanded a complete end to alleged Iraqi production of weapons of mass destruction and full compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions requiring UN weapons inspectors unfettered access to suspected weapons production facilities. The UN had prohibited Iraq from developing or possessing such weapons after the Gulf War and required Iraq to permit inspections confirming compliance. During inspections in 1999, Iraq alleged that UN inspectors included U.S. intelligence agents that supplied the U.S. with a direct feed of conversations between Iraqi security agencies as well as other information. This was confirmed by the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.

This makes it sound like the issue just came up in 2002 when it was festering for years. Why not mention of the Gulf War?

During 2002, Bush repeatedly warned of military action unless inspections were allowed to progress unfettered. In accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1441 Iraq reluctantly agreed to new inspections in late 2002. The weapons inspections did not uncover any WMD in Iraq. Shortly before the invasion Hans Blix, the lead weapons inspector, advised the UN Security Council that Iraq was cooperating with inspections and that the confirmation of disarmament through inspections could be achieved in a short period of time if Iraq remained cooperative.

Once again, that is distorting what Blix was saying.

In the initial stages of the war on terror, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), under George Tenet, was rising to prominence as the lead agency in the Afghanistan war. But when Tenet insisted in his personal meetings with President Bush that there was no connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq, Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld initiated a secret program to reexamine the evidence and marginalize the CIA and Tenet. A major part of this program was a Pentagon unit known as the Office of Special Plans (OSP), created by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and headed by Douglas Feith to supply senior Bush administration officials with raw intelligence pertaining to Iraq, unvetted by intelligence analysts, and circumventing traditional intelligence gathering operations by the CIA. The questionable intelligence acquired by the OSP was "stovepiped" to Cheney and presented to the public.

This creates the misleading impression that the office of special plans was the only organization disseminating intelligence, and does not reference the 2002 NIE at all.

In late February 2002, the CIA sent former Ambassador Joseph Wilson to investigate reports (later found to be forgeries) that Iraq was attempting to purchase additional yellowcake from Niger. Wilson returned and informed the CIA that reports of yellowcake sales to Iraq were "unequivocally wrong." The Bush administration, however, continued to allege Iraq's attempts to obtain additional yellowcake were a justification for military action, most prominently in the January 2003, State of the Union address, in which President Bush declared that Iraq had sought uranium, citing British intelligence sources.

Wilson reported the sales did not occur, but this did not alter the British intelligence which said sales were intended.

On May 1, 2005, the "Downing Street memo" was published in The Sunday Times. It contained an overview of a secret July 23, 2002, meeting among British government, Ministry of Defence, and British intelligence figures who discussed the build-up to the Iraq war—including direct references to classified U.S. policy of the time. The memo stated, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

It is just irresponsible to provide one out of context sentence whose meaning has been hotly disputed.

The CIA had contacted Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, who was being paid by the French as an agent. Sabri informed them that Saddam had hidden poison gas among Sunni tribesmen, had ambitions for a nuclear program but that it was not active, and that no biological weapons were being produced or stockpiled, although research was underway.According to Sidney Blumenthal, George Tenet briefed Bush on September 18, 2002, that Sabri had informed them that Iraq did not have WMD. Bush dismissed this top-secret intelligence from Hussein's inner circle which was approved by two senior CIA officers. The information was never shared with Congress or even CIA agents examining whether Saddam had such weapons.

Clearly, Blumenthal is being dishonest, as it is directly contradicted by the above. If this was true, why didn't the French report that their intelligence had doubts about the WMD?

In September 2002, the Bush administration, the CIA and the DIA said attempts by Iraq to acquire high-strength aluminum tubes that were prohibited under the UN monitoring program and which they said pointed to a clandestine effort to make centrifuges to enrich uranium for nuclear bombs.[96] This analysis was opposed by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) and INR, which was significant because of DOE's expertise in such gas centrifuges and nuclear weapons programs. The DOE and INR argued that the Iraqi tubes were poorly suited for centrifuges, though it was technically possible with additional modification.[97] A report released by the Institute for Science and International Security in 2002 reported that it was highly unlikely that the tubes could be used to enrich uranium.

It should be noted that only INR disputed the nuclear program, and no agency was disputing chemical or biological weapons.

A meeting between George W. Bush and Tony Blair took place on January 31, 2003, in the White House. A secret memo of this meeting purportedly showed that the Bush administration had already decided on the invasion of Iraq at that point. Bush was allegedly floating the idea of painting a U-2 spyplane in UN colors and letting it fly low over Iraq to provoke Iraqi forces into shooting it down, thereby providing a pretext for the U.S. and Britain to invade. Bush and Blair made a secret deal to carry out the invasion regardless of whether WMD were discovered by UN weapons inspectors, in direct contradiction with statements Blair made to the British House of Commons afterwards that the Iraqi regime would be given a final chance to disarm.

How does this contradict what Blair said? Just because they didn't find anything, doesn't mean it wasn't necessarily there.

There needs to be more quotes from Bush, Blair, and Saddam during the lead up. Also, post-war intelligence investigations.

The post-invasion phase does little to emphasize the Sunni character of the initial insurgency.

On March 6, five United States Army soldiers of the 502nd Infantry Regiment, raped the 14-year-old Iraqi girl Abeer Hamza al-Janabi, and then murdered her, her father, her mother Fakhriya Taha Muhasen and her six-year-old sister. The soldiers then set fire to the girls body to conceal evidence of the crime.[159] Four of the soldiers were convicted of rape and murder and the fifth was convicted of lesser crimes for the involvement in the war crime, that became known as the Mahmudiyah killings.

Why on earth does this one incident merit attention in a conflict which has killed thousands?

Reports from the ground dispute that the surge had a significant effect on security in Iraq. While life in Baghdad improved in 2007–08, the main reason this was that the battle for Baghdad in 2006–07 between the Shia and the Sunni populations was won by the Shia, who as of September 2008 controlled three-quarters of the capital. These demographic changes appeared permanent; Sunni families who try to get their houses back faced assassination. Thus the war against the U.S. occupation by the Sunni community, who had been favored under Saddam Hussein, had largely ended. The Sunni have been largely defeated, according to The Independent, not so much by the U.S. army as by the Shia-led Iraqi government and the Shia militias.[195]

This is a fringe view, at most it deserves one sentence, not three paragraphs. It simply is insane to believe that the massive bloodletting in which peaked in 2006-2007 was going to subside quickly on it's own regardless of what the U.S. did. The aricle makes no attempt to explain the clear and hold tactics that were implemented during the surge. Nor does it mention the Sunni Awakening.

Iraqi voter turnout failed to meet the original expectations which were set and was the lowest on record in Iraq,[264] but U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker characterized the turnout as "large".[265] Of those who turned out to vote, some groups complained of disenfranchisement and fraud.[264][266][267] After the post-election curfew was lifted, some groups made threats about what would happen if they were unhappy with the results.[268]

Groups always complain about disenfranchisement or fraud. Where is the evidence?

On April 9, 2009, the sixth anniversary of Baghdad's fall to coalition forces, tens of thousands of Iraqis thronged Baghdad to mark the sixth anniversary of the city's fall and to demand the immediate departure of coalition forces. The crowds of Iraqis stretched from the giant Sadr City slum in northeast Baghdad to the square around 5 km (3 miles) away, where protesters burned an effigy featuring the face of former U.S. President George W. Bush, who ordered the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, and also the face of Saddam. Shi'ites were brutally persecuted under Saddam's rule.[271] There were also Sunni Muslims in the crowd. Police said many Sunnis, including prominent leaders such as a founding sheikh from the Sons of Iraq, took part.[272]

A demonstration of tens of thousands is hardly notable for a city of several million.

The withdrawal of U.S. forces began at the end of June, with 38 bases to be handed over to Iraqi forces. On June 29, 2009, U.S. forces withdrew from Baghdad. On November 30, 2009, Iraqi Interior Ministry officials reported that the civilian death toll in Iraq fell to its lowest level in November since the 2003 invasion.[274]

This seems to imply a linkage that certainly should not be implied.

Casualty estimates

It should be noted that the vast majority of casualties have been inflicted by the insurgents and militias.

Criticisms and costs

We should have a section for supporters as well as critics.

Overall, this article in not remotely encyclopedic. Even people against the war should be offended by this article's disjointed and relentlessly biased nature. 71.65.71.145 (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Overall I agree, this article is biased and arbitrary and has been for a while. V7-sport (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)V7-sport

If you have problems with the article, create an account and lend some help. It's hard to take the thoughts of an IP number as either consistent or serious. Publicus 22:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It would also be difficult to take seriously an editor who could read such a well stated point by point dissection of some of the article's more glaring problems and instead of discussing them, attempt to dismiss them based on the source. Wikipedia does not require editors to register a username. While I agree the responsibility to change the article somewhat lies with him, and not others to do it for him, these problems are obvious and factual. It seems to me he might be more encouraged to undertake the edits if he didn't get such a flippant attitude from existing editors. My 2 cents. Batvette (talk) 09:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Question about this article's lies

So when is the blatant lie about Blix saying things were going to be resolved in months going to be corrected?

When is the blatant lie about the surge doing nothing going to be corrected?

When is the blatant lie about Joe Wilson debunking the forgeries going to be corrected?

When is the blatant lie about Blair contradicting his statements to the house of commons going to be corrected?

When is the blatant lie about Sabri saying there was no WMD going to be corrected?

When is the blatant lie about a secret document in January 2001 going to be corrected?

When is the dishonest implication about the Downing street memo being a smoking gun going to be corrected?

Just curious 71.65.71.145 (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Provide proof that they are lies and correct them. V7-sport (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)V7-sport

== How about this caption then... "A M1 Abrams in Fallujah, fires its main gun into a building to provide suppressive counter fire against insurgents"

I thought this was the English Wikipedia, not the Double Speak Jargon File. Here fixed that for you... "A M1 Abrams in Fallujah, fires its main gun into a building to kill the inhabitants." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.88.171 (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Btw this "free elections held" outcome is also nonsense

Elections were held prior to 2003 as well. Yes, they were not held in a democratic atmosphere, however neither have post-2003 elections.
The "elections" in the past 7 years were conducted under occupation, war, killing, intimidation and military dictatorship —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.156.67 (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure primary sources agree with your riposte.http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/iraqelection2010/2010/03/201035195518278382.html--Cymbelmineer (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Btw this "most of the iraqi insurgency destroyed" outcome is also nonsense

In 2003-2007, the insurrection was estimated by Washington to number 20,000 people or 30,000.

Afterwards, 100,000 fighters - dubbed "former insurgents" joined the so-called Awakening. So, what we have is a 20k insurgency turning into 100k and deciding to side with the aggressor country —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.156.67 (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? There is already a section on the resurgence of the taliban, is that not enough? ValenShephard (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Booked

Let's be bland and all agree, at least within the article itself. The more we've disagreed, the more trees we've caused to be slaughtered. Don't believe me? See:

• http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/the-backstory-of-wikipedias-take-on-the-iraq-war/?hp
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/stml/sets/72157624693833091/
• http://booktwo.org/notebook/wikipedia-historiography/

An artifact put together by or for somebody who clearly is in less desperate need of storage space than I am. -- Hoary (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Grammar.

"The heavily armor of the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division moved westward"

Should be either:

"The heavily armored U.S. 3rd Infantry Division moved westward"

or

"The heavy armor of the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division moved westward"

I suggest the former.

On Wikipedia, Cultural Patrimony, and Historiography

Shouldn't that twelve volume set of books by James Bridle also be referenced here? It's a study of the Historiography the Iraq War article on Wikipedia complete with edit wars.[6] [7] [8] --Xero (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't they look better under criticism of wikipedia? Just a thought.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Should it still be considered a "War"?

While Iraq is certainly not a stable democracy, under what criteria is it still considered a "war"? To retain that title, justification should be provided or the definition of "war" augmented such that current conditions in Iraq are included in, and therefore satiate by, the new definition. For legitimacy, this claim and support should not be offered by the Wikipedia community, but by accredited individuals or organizations.

The presence of combat troops and terrorist attacks, by previously understood standards, does not constitute a "war". Many destabilized areas in the world are suffering through these conditions but do not bear the title of "war". It is acknowledge the term "war" has been diluted through such initiatives as "the war on drugs" and "the war on terror", but in order for this page to continue to call the Iraq conflict a "war", a section needs to be devoted to establishing a set of conditions in Iraq whereby an end of the Iraq War can be recognized.

Failure to do so, risks biasing this page beyond an objective relay of information. This conflict invokes strong opinions and emotions, but for the sake of truth and the reputation of Wikipedia, objectivity must be maintained; only facts, impartial and disconnected, should be reported. Qualifiers and adjectives should be absent, as well as distortions and omissions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.234.23.2 (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, here's some of my thoughts as to what conditions would have to be in place to consider ending the use of the war terminology;

• the removal of "most" U.S. troops from Iraq. I know kind of a tricky one, since some people would consider any U.S. troops in Iraq to be a continuation of the war. However, a really, really low level of troops--who are never involved in any combat situations would be a pretty good indicator. This would follow for U.S. naval and air forces as well. It's not enough for Iraqi security forces to take the lead, U.S. forces would have to be totally absent.
• A determination or declaration by the Iraqi government that combat has ended for Iraqi security forces, or something similar, such as a public change in mission from war-fighting to insurgency. Since it's their country, they would probably be the best ones to know when the fighting has stopped. Of course, all bets are off if this sort of declaration comes from a partisan government (i.e. Shia govmt declares the war over, but the Sunni are not part of that equation) Publicus 19:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we should wait and see before prematurely declaring the war is over. Remember "Mission Accomplished"? Colin4C (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree, just responding with some thoughts about what a (hopefully soon) end to this war could look like. The last thing we should do is prematurely say the war is over simply because a politician several thousand miles away states that the "mission" has changed or is accomplished. Publicus 16:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Most other language versions have now defined the withdrawel of US combat troops August 19 as the end date of the war. I strongly propose english wikipedia follow.Yger (talk) 06:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)(active on sv:wp)

That sounds logical but remember that the Vietnam War lasted for two more years after American troops withdrew in 1973. Throughout the whole course of the Iraq War optimists have been prematurely claiming that the war has been won because nothing terrible has happened in the last month/week/hour/minute. Colin4C (talk) 04:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yger, what is the rationale for the other wikipedia versions calling Aug 19 as the end date? Are they just using the "end of combat missions" statement by the Pentagon? Is there some other evidence or guideline they're using? Publicus 14:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidence that a war in Iraq is still going on falls into ones opinion, the media and Obama have stated that the war is over and all combat troops have left. The troops still in Iraq are like those were in Japan following world War II, they are just there for support. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Obama was very careful to say that the "war is not over"--the combat mission of U.S. troops has changed. If you check his statement, he's pretty careful to avoid saying the war is over, as was the Pentagon spokesperson, Morell. Besides, I'm waiting to hear someone from the Iraqi government make a similar statement, after all it is their country. Publicus 17:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

And the Associated Press has issued a statement stating just the opposite, that just because U.S. combat operations may have ended-the war is not over. Does anyone know if U.S. militarty personel wounded/killed in Iraq after Aug 19 are considered casualties of the Iraq war or something else? For instance are the personel assigned in Iraq as "advise and assist" still receiving combat pay, combat medals, etc. That would be helpful in determining the Pentagon's actual position vs their public relations piece. Publicus 17:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Where is there proof that this war is ongoing?

If reliable references can be found that the war in Iraq is still ongoing I feel then that the date August 19 should be removed. Examples of deaths do not count as it can be compared to several other wars that were declared over but still had post violence. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Please get consensus on this. This is a disputed issue. And the burden of proof is on you to show that the war has ended. Unflavoured (talk) 03:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish. The same burden applies to those wanting to assert this war is still ongoing. The war is over camp has pretty compelling RS evidence that combat operations are over, from the American/Iraqi Govt downwards. The other side seems to want to rely on original research, synthesis, and cherry picked facts. Not good enough. By a long shot. MickMacNee (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It is untrue that all combat operations have ended. Stryker Brigades have only been renamed "Advise and Assist" Brigades. They are still fully lethally equipped for war. Marcus Qwertyus 05:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

And which overseas US Armed forces who are not currently fighting a war are not "lethally equipped for war" exactly? Did they lend the Afghan brigades their weapons? MickMacNee (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, what is the Iraqi govmt's position on this? Do they feel the war is over? I would argue their position on this is highly important, more so than Obama's statements about the technical definition of what troops in a combat zone are or are not publicly stated as doing. As a side note, the U.S. had several thousand troops in Vietnam during the quiet years of that war until of cource the nonsense of calling tens of thousands of active military forces "advisors" became a reality. I only point this out, to show that just because a politician has changed the "definition" of what the military forces are doing, doesn't mean a war is over or that troops aren't fighting. Publicus 17:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to point out that the standard for Wikipedia is verifiability, not consensus (or even "truth" for that matter). I reverted the last edit because it did have sources backing it. If you want to find something that passes Wikipedia:Reliable_sources that states the war continues you are of course welcome to do so. -Thanks. V7-sport (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport

I posted a bunch of sources last time around with you on this. Never seen any statement by Obama, Pentagon, Iraqi PM, Iraqi MoD that the war is over. Period. End of story. Show some primary sources, not media coverage of a "end of combat mission" or a "mission accomplished" statement.Publicus 21:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You have yet to post anything that specifically says that the war is still continuing. To make the jump from a few soldiers in combat after the date Obama declared the war to be concluded constitutes original research. Wikipedia:No_original_research Please, I know that we have differing points of view but there isn't any need to take this personally. Ill leave it as so for the moment but there are legitimate citations for the war being over, if you want to keep the status as continuing you will need to find legitmte sources that contridict them that have some government official declaring that the "war is continuing" or the like. V7-sport (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport

And since those posts are lost in the talk page, here's a "Battle" that was fought after the Aug 19 date you keep insisting on, Battle of the Palm Grove. If you check the sources, US forces were engaged with insurgents on the ground after Iraqi forces requested assistance. In particular, US Spec Forces were engaged in "combat" with insurgents and Us air forces flew "combat" missions. And as the NYTimes article stated, US Spec Forces have continued to have "combat" missions in conjunction with Iraqi forces. So I really don't understand A) why Aug 19 seems to be so important B) what exactly are these forces doing if they're not fighting a war. Publicus 21:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

And the Pentagon still appears to be using KIA and WIA when labeling casualties. Would that be the case if the war was over? Publicus 22:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"All told, 49 American soldiers were on the ground in support, including two Stryker platoons and a 10-person Special Forces detachment. Apache helicopters responded with 30-millimeter cannon fire and Kiowa helicopters fired their machine guns. F-16’s dropped bombs. Iraqi helicopters and Iraqi armored personnel carriers were also involved in the operation. "
With Combat troops pulled out of Iraq who is left to fight in this "Ongoing war"? Ive seen lots of sources that state that the U.S troops remaining are "transitional forces". The Iraq government approved a negotiation for the pullout of U.S Troops back in 2008. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much that US Troops are still dying it's that they are still being listed as Casualties of the War I am pretty sure that the Casualties of World War I and World War II only went up to when the Wars were declared over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Result

Hello there. I'm not a Wikipedia member, so forgive my ignorance regarding Wikipedia practice, but does whether this is a war or not (which I think is still being debated amoungst users in relation to the US Constitution) affect thing listing the result of the war in regards to who won. In the WW2 page it's the allies, in the Vietnam page, it's Vietnam.

I say this not out of any politcal motive, but because its the sort of quick reference thing people might look up in the future. Like if someone asked who won the Thirty Years War, you'd take a look at Wikipedia and see that no-one really won, but that the main result was a relatively lasting peace. Plus, whether this is a war or not, most people consider it one. Thanks for any help you can provide.

60.234.137.101 (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Many consider Vietnam to not be a war but a conflict within the cold war. which was not declared either. You also can't say with any clarity that Vietnam WON, as it was Vietnam we were allied with (ARVN) while helping defend from NLF and Viet Cong incursion. Anyway I think with regard to Iraq you must look at the stated goals of the mission and determine with some certainty whether they were achieved or not, which I believe, from consulting with the joint resolution were:

1. Removal of the current regime in power, with the sub goals of (a)ensuring Iraq had disarmed in accordance with the gulf war cease fire (b)ending Saddam's support for and harboring of international terrorists (c)ending Saddam's oppression and genocide of his people

2. The introduction of a democratic government to Iraq

3. Restoring Peace and Security to the Region for the protection of US national interests and the security of our allies

The first two are pretty much a no brainer, we achieved that. Some might call into question the third, pointing to uncertainty in ethnic divisions that reach across borders that may not have before. They may have a good point. However at the time the war was launched the threat to peace and security was Saddam, and no one could reasonably expect we would be guaranteeing peace amongst all possible belligerents forever.

Legally you also have to look at the fact that the war cites fulfilling UN resolutions as cited in the JR.

I think the answer is clear. Batvette (talk) 09:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

As of now I believe it to be a "coalition victory" however I haven't looked for the proper citations to include that. The whole thing still could hit the fan however. Whether or not that would effect what the coalition has done is arguable though. But at this point, If anyone else wants to gird themselves for the acrimony and scour the interwebs please be my guest. V7-sport (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport

Is the war over?

I don't think so, but let's try and figure out some evidence for or against. Here's some points to consider, if editors could add refs to these items and add their own points I think it would be helpful. Publicus 17:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• U.S. President has stated "the Iraq war is over." -Has this happened?
• Iraqi Prime Minister has stated "the Iraq war is over." -Has this happened?
• Media consensus on "the Iraq war being over." -Is this the case?
• Coalition allies have stated "the Iraq war is over." U.K., Australia, Poland, etc have made statement to that effect.
• Public opinion in Iraq, US, etc--believes that the Iraq war is over.

And swap your use of the word "over" with "continuing" and what do we get? Nothing defninitive I would bet. And how do you even propose to measure media consensus? And what credible polling organisation is even trying to poll such a ridiculous question for you to even put that out there? The only remotely verifiable points are the first two, and I would be amazed if you could find any quote from either official that asserts that the 'war' is ongoing. You might find references to a continuing insurgency or unrest, but I think we all know that calling an insurgency or civil unrest an example of a war, even a civil war, is a clear example of presenting a fringe POV, which makes this article look completely discredited. MickMacNee (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

So besides your opinion that the war is over, you don't have any sources or even any ideas on what sources to check with? I don't follow. I'm trying to provide examples of indicators supporting whether the war is over or not. What are your ideas? Publicus 21:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion was pretty clear. Use your suggested method, but check for the reverse ocndition, and stick to sources that will actually exist. And I was pretty clear that nobody's personal opinion is relevant, not even mine, so you are going up a blind alley on that score. MickMacNee (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I put in "Status Unclear" next to the date, there are sources though that claim the Iraq war is over. Then again World War I did not "Offically end" until 2010 with the last money paid by Germany and I am not waiting another 90 years to update this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

"and stick to sources that will actually exist. And I was pretty clear that nobody's personal opinion is relevant, not even mine..." That is exactly so. Personally I thought the war was over when Iraq signed the SOFA agreement and the coalition went from an occupier to a presence acknowledged by a legitimate Iraqi government. There are citations to make the case for it being over now. V7-sport (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)V7-sport

Is the Iraq war really over? (Rough wiki)

Please put Over or Not over and state your reason why you feel the war is over or not. I am pulling a rough consensus on this so the debate can be hopefully resolved.

• Over - Based on some RS I have seen about August 19 most of them are either stating that combat troop action in Iraq by the US has ended and/or the war is over. According to the New York Times and Obama the seven year combat mission in Iraq has ended. [9] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Not over - with 50.000 troops still in the country and the other arguments that were given above. I guess the Pentagon would not be so worried about the new leak if the war would be really over. We may find some answers in the leaked documents that could help us to decide if the war is really over?

• Not over - US troops are still dying there and they are still being listed as casualties of the Iraq War —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Not over - "Combat brigades" still exist in the form of "Advise and Assist" brigades formed with no modification from Stryker brigades. Marcus Qwertyus 23:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
• Over , and the citations were up to show that... V7-sport (talk) 00:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport

"Declared War"

Apparantly the VA's position here: VA benefits info is the following

Gulf War The "Gulf War" began on August 2, 1990. Since an end of the conflict has not been declared by Congress, everyone who has been on active duty since it began may qualify as wartime veterans, regardless of duty assignment, when seeking VA benefits.

I know it annoys a few who consider this a US war of aggression on Iraq, but the fact is the first Gulf War never ended and OIF was a resumption in hostilities due to Saddam failing to meet cease fire conditions that apparantly still continues today. Batvette (talk) 08:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Material losses

Does anyone have information about material losses of the us like tanks, trucks, planes etc...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting and worth looking into. I do have some data to Sept 2010. Cost of war (excluding reconstruction), $900 Billion plus another $9 Billion considered "lost" ie: stolen. According to the Washington Post the overall cost exceeds $3 Trillion by a considerable margin. 200,000 weapons such as AK-47s are missing. Vehicles, machine guns and RPGs valued at $1 Billion are missing. Waste: $10 Billion. Food, fuel and housing for soldiers: $20 Billion. Military Helicopters downed: 75.Wayne (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)