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.

Jewish Neocon Cabinet members pushing for war

I would like to add some of this. Does anyone have a problem with this. Speak up then. There is some mention that David Perle wanted war with Iraq. My question is if the Neocons pushed Bush for this war? There is no mention in the article.

A list of Jews that wanted war with Iraq. Source http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/bushlist.htm

--Ericg33 (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have removed the long list copied from the above site, per talk page guidelines. The site in question does not meet the reliable sources requirements, and the page title ("The JEWS who Run Bush and the USA: AMERICA'S RULERS - Are They All Jews? Is this like the Jewish Administration of Hitler's Germany?") clearly demonstrates the POV at work here. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia does not permit the use of the site for pushing personal opinions or agendas. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree, it's pretty obvious that "biblebelievers" isn't a reliable source. Besides, if you want to talk about religious motivations for the war, Bush was read quotes from the Christian bible beforehand, and that is documented in reliable sources. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Even more to the point, the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of individuals involved in unnecessary invading and destroying Iraq are totally irrelevant. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Selective use of source materials

No time to talk about the bias in this article in general, but an extremely obvious example can be shown in just one entry in the Public Opion on the War | Iraqi Opinion. Many examples are given of Iraqi discontent with the occupation forces and the invasion, but an obvious example of internally conflicting attitudes from the same opinion poll are not given. For example:

Referenced opinion: "78% of the population opposed the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq, that 69% believed the presence of U.S. forces is making things worse"

Unreferenced opinion from the same poll: "How long do you think US and other Coalition forces should remain in Iraq?"

Leave now: 35%

Remain: 66% (includes "until: security is restored; the Iraqi government is stronger; until Iraqi security forces can operate dependently; longer but leave eventually; and never leave)

So while the referenced sections of the poll give the obviously intended impression that Iraqis want the coalition forces out of Iraq the actual question regarding this opinion in the poll shows overwhelming attitude that the coalition forces should remain - but isn't mentioned.

This poll isn't at all "flattering" (for lack of a better term) to Iraqi opinion of the coalition forces but, unless a balanced representation of the findings of the poll is going to be presented, the poll and information derived from it should be removed.

I'd also add, and this has nothing to do with this page, that although I think the poll itself looks fairly reasonable (there are certainly polls that aren't) there are some glaringly bad questions in the cited poll. For instance, Question 31 asks: "How safe do you feel in your neighborhood? Do you feel very safe, not very safe, or not safe at all?" What an appalingly bad selection of answers! I have certainly lived, for most of my life, in areas that I felt safe in. Since I've been an adult, however, I can't honestly say that I considered most of the places I have lived to be "very safe." Despite that, 26% of Iraqi's said "very safe" and 41% said "not very safe." Given those choices I'd be forced to pick "not very safe" for many of the places I've lived as an adult. Yet I hardly expect that there are many places in Iraq as safe as most of the places I've lived. If they'd instead, like most of the rest of the questions, set up four selections: "very safe, safe, unsafe, very unsafe" I wonder how many of the 41% that chose "not very safe" would have chosen "safe."
--65.202.227.65 (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)mjd

I've added the first bit of info you suggested. Though I don't know what we should do about the other poll. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Umm....delete it? Or at least put in a citation needed tag.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 02:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

First time commenting so apologies if I do this incorrectly... But, along the same lines, the first section of the article "2001–2003: Iraq disarmament crisis and pre-war intelligence" references "a Pentagon document dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts", included a map of potential areas for petroleum exploration." This also seems be implied allegation by omission, since the documents there referenced (http://www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oil-maps.shtml) include general national maps of Iraq, Saudi Arabian and UAE petroleum development allotments and simply a list of contemporary 2001 lessees for exploration and development... Not exactly the waiting-in-the-wings Cheney clique exploitation that the comment and its prominent mention implies.Yossarianpvp (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of implications...what? I totally don't get what the complaint is. Be a bit more explicit, please. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

iraqi on a leash

now before someone accuses me of being a right-wing nazi bush lover klansman, I would like to point out my concern here is for the poor fellow without any clothes, for his sake, I suggest we remove the picture. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems like a compelling case to remove the photo on BLP grounds. It's a tragic and integral chapter of the handling of the war and I don't seek to censor that fact in the article. However, gratuitous use of such a photo, particularly with identifying characteristics (though even if blurred) would seem to have a continuing offensive effect. It's one thing to make Lyndie England the poster girl for the bizarre disconnect with responsibility that was apparently endemic within a certain contingency there, and I have no quarrel with that. But it's another thing entirely to make the naked man the poster boy for the way Americans are desensitized to human dignity as well as serve to exploit him in perpetuity and use Wikipedia as a vehicle for said exploitation. Any thoughts before such removal? Abrazame (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, remove it. V7-sport (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)V7-sport

 Done Abrazame (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Spelling mistake

Resolved

 – Swarm^Talk 22:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Under "Preparations for War" it mentions the amount of ordnance, but it spells it "ordinance" ... this is a common spelling mistake. 174.3.202.175 (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Naming disparities between first, second, third gulf war

I've brought this up in wiki's IRC chans and such, but as far as I know, most college IR textbooks and publications present this as the Third Gulf War. Calling it the "second" gulf war is not a neutral POV, it's a very Americanized view to disregard the first gulf war (the Iran-Iraq war). All three are connected fairly well from a foreign policy perspective and are presented as such. I have sources from textbooks and publications like Foreign Affairs. I really don't want to make all these revisions without agreement and consensuses without the community since these are all protected articles. But as time has past and history is being written on this I think it would be apropos to come to an agreement on wikipedia since as time passes the first/second/third view has taken favor among scholars not just because of its neutral/natural POV, but it is also frequently presented this way in IR circles since they are all connected. Thoughts? --Tunafizzle (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't represent an Americanized view, it represents a general world view. The Iran-Iraq war was known as the Gulf War or the Persian Gulf War by most of the world until "Desert Storm" in 1990. This became known as the "Gulf War", while the old Gulf War generally became known as the "Iran-Iraq War" by the rest of the world. Around the time of the 2003 invasion, "Second Gulf War" saw some moderate usage in the media, but that pretty much died out. I've never seen it referred to as the "Third Gulf War" in any books, in the media, and certainly not in any common usage. Including "Second Gulf War" in the intro seems borderline-undue weight as it is, so I would venture to say including "Third Gulf War" in the article would totally be undue weight. Swarm^Talk 04:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt input on the matter; with that I think I should reframe my question. While it is clear the media and general public (still moreso in the U.S. and less and Arabic/Persian circles) regard this as "gulf war 2", scholars and IR circles tend to lean toward a "third gulf war" approach. I guess my question would really be are we, here an wikipedia, here to adhere to scholarly guidelines or guidelines that would serve the general public? My thought is if its a scholarly approach then it should, with little doubt, be "gulf 3"(which I would attest plentiful sources to support). If it's in the best interest of the general public (for the time being) to go with "gulf 2"? --Tunafizzle (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Oil contracts

I believe it is worth mentioning that the US received only a very small share of the oil contracts. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BB18Q20091212

A few more things: Under the 'Criticisms and costs' section, the statement 'Many soldiers came to oppose the invasion, especially after the administration's claims that Iraq held WMD turned out to be entirely false.' is unsourced and vague. How many are many soldiers? I doubt they are that many.

A few thousand out of 1.5 Million doesn't qualify as many.

And further down ' Criticisms include: [...] Disruption of Iraqi oil production and related energy security concerns (the price of oil has quadrupled since 2002)[290][291]" This statement might be somewhat misleading. As of 2009 oil prices were back to normal. Current increase in oil prices (2010) can not be solely attributed to the the war in Iraq. 89.136.45.121 (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

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 enden in May 2001, so that's hardly relevant. Yonaka (talk) 19:06, 19 August 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

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

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 transfered 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

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)

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)