Talk:Iraq War order of battle, 2009

Military history: South Pacific / British / European / Middle East / North America / United States Start‑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

Start

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

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Untitled

Hey guys, and especially user:Dsw, great work on an thorough list of formations and units involved in the ongoing Iraqi war / Operation Iraqi Freedom operations. It's much much better than globalsecurity has managed to keep up.

Wanted to ask whether we should reorganise it under an operational chain of command - -> put British forces in under Multinational Division South East, etc, instead of as an independent category. What do people think?

Again congrats!!! Buckshot06 06:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Buckshot06. The operational chain of command is not a bad suggestion but I wanted to try to keep the page somewhat user-friendly and make it easy for people to see each country's contribution. The overall command and control section you put on the Afghan ORBAT page was a good idea. Maybe that's what we need on the Iraq page. Dsw 15:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion and occupation of Iraq casualties

Hi there, under the section heading "See also" the link titled "Invasion and occupation of Iraq casualties" seems to be poorly named, sounds like casualties are invading, can this be changed? Maybe just add and instead of...82.119.191.24 23:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Ilana[reply]

The article is now called Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 and I've fixed the link. --Nick Dowling 05:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Combat Units Only?

The first paragraph claims to be a list of "major units," and yet many large (and important) support units of brigade size (13th Sustainment Command, etc.) or larger are not included.

Is this an intentional combat unit bias or is this an incomplete element of the page that should be addressed? Yitzhak1995 19:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a conspiracy, just an incomplete list. You may also notice that many flying squadrons are not listed either. If you have units to add please, by all means, do so.--19:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

- Much obliged, thank you! --Yitzhak1995 21:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

13MEU has moved to Camp Al Taqaddam http://www.blackanthem.com/News/U_S_Military_19/13th_Marine_Expeditionary_Unit_begins_operations_in_Al_Anbar7678.shtml

Special forces

This article mentions nothing about special forces deployment !--Max Mayr 04:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special Forces deployments aren't meant to be known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.157.26 (talk) 09:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Hilla

There is no mentioning to the US unit in Al-Hilla--Max Mayr 07:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Wikipedia

Hi all, I believe from a couple of searches that the Institute for the Study of War, which appears to be a Washington thinktank [1] operating in conjunction with the Weekly Standard may be copying this article without attributing it to Wikipedia. Their latest OB is here [2], and it and the two previous ones look very similar to the article. Do I understand correctly that citing us without attribution is not looked well upon, despite the GFDL? Buckshot06 22:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right: according to Wikipedia:Copyrights Wikipedia content can be used for any purpose on the condition that Wikipedia is cited as the source and the new version can also be freely used by anyone. I think that there's a page where you can report violations of Wikipedia's conditions, but I can't remember what it's called. Last year I got an Australian website to properly acknowledge a large amount of material it had lifted without attribution by posting messages to the site admin on their public message boards. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

update

this article could use an update. especially on when units are deploying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.27.236.57 (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could use some more research as well, since there are discrepancies as to which units are deployed and which ones are deploying. The article suggests that some are deployed when they are not, does not identify units that have been identified in the news as deploying, and lists the same unit as being deployed and deploying shortly in the future. --Born2flie (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's always Wikipedia:Be Bold Buckshot06 (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda notice that the article needs to be update i don't know why the divsional HQ have not been Change yet. It has the information on replacing unit on the upcoming deployment column. can anybody that know how to use this site updates this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.11.148.246 (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this article

Hi folks. I created this article. glad to see many people joining in and contributing. however, I'm not sure about the new title. I understand the well-known nature of the technical term. however, such jargon seems a bit unencylopedic in nature. i feel that the original title was clearer, simpler, and also broad enough to encompass a truly encyclopedic range of topics. I will try to look this over further, but this title seems needlessly convoluted. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 03:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've got entire categories for orders of battle - see Category:Orders of battle. I think you'd be better to discuss this matter at a much higher level than a single order of battle article- category talk for that category, or WPMILHIST talk, perhaps? Buckshot06(prof) 08:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Units that took part in the actual invasion

Where might I find the order of battle for the actual invasion phase of the war (as opposed to just the units in-country at the moment?Lawrencema (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The British forces involved are at Operation Telic order of battle; it doesn't appear from Category:Orders of battle that there is an American listing, but the online version of On Point II has a good list. Buckshot06(prof) 08:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean On Point I? It has a huge OOB which does down to company level. Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake, On Point I. Buckshot06(prof) 09:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future of this page?

Since the war is winding down, is this page going to be merged with Multinational Force - Iraq or Multi-National Corps Iraq? Palm_Dogg (talk) 06:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purely historical

I see that this page falls into several "military history" categories, which is great, but it's still written in the present tense, so someone who comes across this page will think this is current information. (For example, in a Google search for "CJSOTF," this is the first link offered.) Obviously Gen. Odierno has been replaced, but even older changes haven't been incorporated here, the most important one being that USF-I replaced MNF-I on January 1, 2010. As another example, the 34th Infantry Division ceded command of Basrah to the 1st Infantry Division on February 2, 2010. I'd suggest that this article should have a banner or introduction clearly explaining that this is historical, not current; ideally, it would also state the date or date range when this snapshot was accurate, and it would be converted to the past tense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk) 06:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. This is wildy out of date and has only a snap shot of what was, on one particular day, accurate. 138.162.128.53 (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Multinational"?

Every single unit in the so called "Multi-National Corps", "Multi-National Division South", or "Multi-National Force" is part of the US military...