Talk:Iraqi Armed Forces

Military history: National / Middle East C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	National militaries task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force

Iraq Start‑class

	Iraq portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Photos

Pictures should only be included in an article if they are relevant and add a certain amont of information. In this case, since it is obvious that ISF has assumed more and more battlespace over the past year old pictures do not add any information. Also, the pictures are available under the 'history'tab. Joakimekstrom 28 September 2006

The pictures are completely relevant to the article. They do add information in that they offer a comparison to the ISF's battlespace in the past and can help give an idea to the reader of how rapid the progress is.--Fox Mccloud 18:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the progress is rapid. However, I really do think that the progress information is available in the article itself. I understand the 'educational' value in comparing pictures but more and more pictures cannot be added every month or so. Though, the date of the first ISF battle space assumption could be added into the article and thereby explaining that the ISF did control 0 % of the geographic area as of 2005-XX-XX and 65 % as of 2006-09-XX... Joakimekstrom 29 September 2006

Yeah, you can say "Iraqi forces controled __% of Iraq in 2005 _-_ but that doesn't tell where the Iraqis are controling most of the nation, where they are strongest, where they are weak, etc. A picture is worth a thousand words.--Fox Mccloud 16:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not comply with NPOV standards. Several assertions regarding the ISF have been disputed, including numbers of troops trained, number of troops able to operate independently and loyalty of the ISF to the Iraqi government. For example, a recent secret classified memo from U.S. National Security Advisor, Stephen Hadley, noted that Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki "is frustrated over his limited ability to command Iraqi forces against terrorists and insurgents." I suggest another section (e.g., "Skepticism") be added to the article noting these issues. Christiandemocrat 17:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is facts-based. The article uses first-hand sources. There are no opinions or debates described in the article. I have never heard of conflicting views on i.e. the number of trained and equipped members of the Iraqi Security Forces. A discussion on PM Maliki's emotions would be very speculative and also irrelevant. However, if you do have verifyable information from reliable sources that you want to add to the article, please go ahead! I have removed the tag. If you maintain that the article is biased, please be very specific. Joakimekstrom 20 December 2006

It's the "facts" that are disputed. If you've never heard of conflicting views, then I suggest you need to look harder. The reliability of the DoD reports thath have contributed to the Iraq Weekly Reports has been questioned. For example, a Nov 27, 2006 Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/26/AR2006112600980.html) notes the following...

Yesterday's criticisms were expanded upon in the latest study by Anthony H. Cordesman, who holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. A Pentagon official in the Reagan administration and a specialist in Middle East intelligence and military matters, Cordesman just returned from Iraq, where he received briefings from military and civilian officials.

One of Cordesman's central issues is that public statements by the Defense Department "severely distorted the true nature of Iraqi force development in ways that grossly exaggerate Iraqi readiness and capability to assume security tasks and replace U.S. forces." He also writes that "U.S. official reporting is so misleading that there is no way to determine just how serious the problem is and what resources will be required."

Cordesman says the Pentagon's Aug. 31 status report, which was sent to Congress, lists 312,400 men "trained and equipped" among the Iraqi army and national and regular police. But it adds that "no one knows how many . . . are actually still in service." At the same time, he writes, "all unclassified reporting on unit effectiveness has been cancelled."

Criticizing statements about how many Iraqi army units are "in the lead," Cordesman notes that the Iraqi army "lacks armor, heavy firepower, tactical mobility and an Iraqi Air Force capable of providing combat support" -- the same points McCaffrey made yesterday.

The Iraq Study Group Report also notes doubts about the loyalty of Iraq Security Forces. It states that "[s]ignificant questions remain about the ethnic composition and loyalties of some Iraqi units - specifically, whether they will carry out missions on behalf of national goals instead of a sectarian agenda." It also notes that "elements of the [Iraqi] Army have refused to carry out missions."

A search of Congressional testimony and reports, as have been mentioned in various news articles from time to time, should turn up many other examples of doubts regarding Iraq force training, readiness and loyalty. This is not a trivial task, but is important to producing a quality article.

Maliki's frustration may be an emotion, but the reason for his frustration, i.e., his limited control of the ISF, is stated as a matter of fact. This fact is undisputed. Your assertion that it is "highly speculative" is simply not supported by the memo.

In consideration of the above, a NPOV tag is warranted as an alert the reader. Until these issues can be sufficiently researched and presented in a quality manner in the article, the tag should remain. Christiandemocrat 17:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is not NPOV. References to the terrorism of the Saddam regime's police force as compared to the noble purpose of the new one is a polarization of the two and ignores the non-terrorist attributes of the former and evidence of corruption or ineffiency in the latter. It needs to be elaborated to include all information, and not just that that puts the new police force in a good light. Berens 23:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge

I merged Military of Iraq with this page (ISI) by adding a history section adding photos and redireting Military of Iraq to (ISI). Cocoaguy 従って 14:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 21:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned Citizens

What should we add to the Concerned Citizens groups around the country, if anything? Sgt. bender (talk) 05:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Numbers for Iraqi Security Forces(?)

In the article it says as of March 2008 Iraq has an integrated force of 531,000 (police, military, ect) and will achieve an integrated force of 600,000 by 2010. I would think that the Iraqis are at or above the 600,000 mark by now, possibly. I mean, employing 70,000 troops or police in 2 years sounds slow to me for Iraq. I'll give you an example of the growth of the security forces for a period of one month and you'll see a that they can employ up to 70,000 in only one month. This is from the Brookings Institute:

In October of 2007 the Iraq security consisted of 359,000 force

In November of that same year security forces consisted of 429,630

This was a 69,930 increase

A more recent increase was much lower than the one above but still very positive when it comes to the growth of the Iraqi Security forces

In April of this year the number was at 444,502

In May of this year the number was at 465,662

This was a 20,760 increase

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I see the Iraqi security forces having 600,000 personnel way before 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.75.224 (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. Find a citation with higher/more recent estimates of ISF numbers and add it to the article. However, I think predictions of ISF size in the future should be limited, precisely for the reason you just described. Lawrencema (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentificable image

Hello fellows!

Can anyone identify this iraqi tank? American origin? --132.199.34.78 (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M1117 ASV. Spartan198 (talk) 03:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peshmerga

The Kurdish Peshmerga forces are not under the control of the Iraqi (central) government and are thus not part of the ISF. This is an undisputed fact. Joakimekstrom 14.20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the page that is standing in for the 'Military of Iraq' page. The Peshmenga information is not intended as a statement that they are under central government control, rather about general descriptions of the force so that a reader is made aware in general terms of the military situation in the three Kurdish governerates. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, page not moved Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi security forces → Iraqi Security Forces — Relisted. Several proposed article titles have been mentioned above; please indicate your preferences. Ucucha 14:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nomenclature is Iraqi Security Forces, not Iraqi security forces.[1][2][3][4] —Signaleer (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Disagree - as per the WP:MILHIST style guide, article names for national armed forces are placed at 'Military of X' until the actual name in use of the force is determined. See WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME, last paragraph, and WT:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_87#Naming_convention_for_armed_forces. The title 'Iraqi security forces,' with or without capitalisation, is a U.S. MNF-I term. It is not an Iraqi formulation. This is Wikipedia, not DOD Intellipedia, and we are not bound by what the DOD calls it - we should work by what the Iraqis call it. There is no evidence that it is in line with WP:COMMONNAME. The proper title should be something like 'Armed Forces of Iraq' or 'Iraqi Armed Forces.' Buckshot06 (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response - The term has been adopted and used throughout the journalism international community, including Time Magazine, The Washington Post, BBC, etc. The use is not just "DOD" as you assume it is. The proper title is ISF. -Signaleer (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Journalists, even from respectable sources, are not always reliable on nomenclature. Can we find some evidence from an official Iraqi source in English that confirms a name has been selected? If not, then capitalisation is inappropriate. Skinsmoke (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree per Buckshot06's statements. Support move to Military of Iraq. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

My two cents

A user recently asked me to evaluate his edits on this article, regarding his rewriting and expansion of the History section of this article. Having skimmed through that section, and having taken another user's objection that this article reads like a story into consideration, I feel that his edits are appropriate. The section, after all, is on history and it is of course going to resemble, to some, a story. The prose is finely written but in all cases we should avoid "novelizing" this article. Normal authors have the right to write their works like that; and so, I think we should be above all focusing on presenting facts, rather than thinking of creative ways to word and format sentences. Cheers, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buckshot has also asked me to comment on this article. I don't think that the 'story' tag is at all warranted - the article reads like a professional encyclopedia article, though some statements need to be supported by citations. The article's organisation also seems OK, especially as there don't seem to be any suggestions for a new structure above. I don't have any opinion on the article's name other than to note that the 2010 edition of the IISS Military Balance consistently refers to 'Iraqi security forces', and this also appears to be the capitalisation used by the noted Middle Eastern military expert Anthony Cordesman and his co-writers in this 2009 book (see, for example, page 49) and previous works. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts for article structure based on Australian Defence Force: 1 Role, 1.1 Legal standing

1.2 Current priorities, 2 History, 3 Current structure, including 3.1 Command arrangements, 3.2 Joint combat arrangements, each service, possibly wind in logistics and intelligence, 6 Personnel, potentilly including Personnel numbers, 6.2 Training, and women in the Iraqi armed forces, 7 Defence expenditure and procurement, 8 Current equipment, bases(?) - should be wound into each force section, 10 Domestic responsibilities, 11 Foreign defence relations, 12 Assessment of capabilities. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick review

Buckshot has asked that I give this article a look over and provide some comments. They are as follows:

The first sentence is a bit unclear - if 'Iraqi security forces' isn't the common name but only the name used by MNF-I, this should be moved.
More citations are needed
The history section needs to be arranged into a consistent chronology - it jumps around a bit at the moment
The history section should also cover the organisational evolution of the military
What's the planned end goal for the Iraqi Army's development? A force of 280 M1A1s seems excessive for a counter-insurgency force (the US was down to a single battalion of M1s in late 2003 before the insurgency really got going, for instance). Presumably these tanks and the massively expanded air force are intended to deter Iraq's neigbours, but are these force structure plans feasible?
Are 10 references needed for the statement that "Twelve further governorates were transferred to Provincial Iraqi Control from September 2006 to October 2008"?
What role, if any has Iran played in the development of the Iraqi security forces? Are they are an active partner or a potential enemy (or both?). Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

In accordance with the above move discussion, someone suggested an English language official source be found for the name of the Armed Forces. CPA order 67 appears to be that source. I will move the article title to 'Iraqi Armed Forces' in accordance with that in five days unless there are any objections. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the move. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contested edit

This edit is not NPOV. I don't see any necessity to state biased opinions such as these. Iraq in no way "confronted" the United States, it was very much the other way round, when the US travelled halfway across the world to invade Iraq. I kindly suggest you undo the edit if you don't want to waste your weekend arguing about this. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 04:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems entirely accurate to say that Iraq started the Iran-Iraq war, but I agree that it's a bit simplistic to charaterise the invasion of Kuwait as 'confronting' the United States - Iraq was actually banking on the US not responding or even giving it the OK for this invasion. Nick-D (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the verb confront - if people have opinions as to how the wording should read, please say so. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:T-55 Iraq 2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:T-55 Iraq 2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 11 September 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oob ?

is here anyone willing to create current/planeed oob (order of battle) for Iraq army ? simply show numbers/types of vehicles/ships/planes which Iraq army is using. 88.102.84.189 (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]