Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Ramadi (2006)

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

Untitled

[edit]

The article is a good start, but the lead up to combat operations by the RFCT, the establishment of COPs, and the reestablishment of the Iraq police force, the securing of Al Anbar University was omitted or glossed over. The government center was constantly attacked, but it was hardly the "center of enemy attacks". they were just an easy target for insurgents to attack. I think you can get more factual info by referencing a Chance in Hell by Jim Michaels. Also the link you have for 1-35 Armor links to the 35th Infantry Regimanet not the 35 Armor Regiment.Conqueror6 (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article while well written has two major flaws, first it presents information only from the coalition’s POV. Second and more Importantly it has no information links whatsoever and as such it is totally unverifiable. Feel free to remove the tag once these issues have been addressed. Freepsbane 17:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a information link for you is this verifiable for you enough.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/06/19/us_and_iraqi_forces_push_into_ramadi/ http://www.marines.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/0/A34875AE5B96F31B8525718E003B030E?opendocument http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/07/05/marines_gain_control_of_iraq_hospital/

Size of US forces in Ramadi

[edit]

Given that the number of soldiers in a US BCT is 3500-4000, and that there were also USMC forces in the battle as well, how come the strength of the US forces is given at 2000. Can this strength be cited please? Lawrencema (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

[edit]

The date of that image is 2005. Surely a more up-to-date image can be found? Lawrencema (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anbar Awakening

[edit]

A glaring omission is the formation of the Anbar Awakening which occurred in Ramadi during this battle and had a huge impact on security there over the proceeding months. This needs to be rectified as soon as possible. Lawrencema (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anbar Salvation Council + other issues

[edit]

I take objection to a number of edits anon user made.

  1. The Anbar salvation council was formed in August, following the killing of a tribal shiekh by AQI. Please cite your claim of 2007.
  2. The WaPo article used to cite an insurgent victory references an intelligence report made in August, around the same time the Anbar salvation council was forming. An unnamed U.S. intelligence official says that by November things had not improved, but that's hardly reliable. Secondly, the 1/1AD and the Marines did not leave until a few months into 2007, so if the battle began when the 1/1AD arrrived, it should end when the 1/1AD left.
  3. Blogs are not appropriate sources
  4. That photo of the insurgents is from 2005 (and has no reliable source information). This battle took place in 2006.

I won't revert any of the changes, but please address the issues. Lawrencema (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

End of the battle

[edit]

I reverted that edit saying that the commanders on the ground thought that the battle was over based on the Devlin report released/leaked in August 2006. First, Totten is obliquely referring to the report, so it's not really a good reference for the particular claim. Secondly, the report is mentioned in detail in the very next section! Thirdly, there's nothing in that link to suggest that the commanders on the ground (MacFarland for example) thought that the battle was lost by November 15. It's a WaPo article leaking more information from a Marine Corps assessment made in August released around that date, nothing more.

It's actually illustrative that the 1/1AD launched a major month long operation in December in Ramadi, as well as commitments of Marine reserves towards the end of December. The relieving brigade (1st brigade, 3rd ID) actually launched major combat operations for two months after they arrived in February 2007, so the date of November 15 as the end of the battle is totally wrong. Lawrencema (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a problem that the Marines said the battle was lost in August while the date says the battle lasted until November. Here is my proposal, we need to separate this battle of Ramadi, which was a lost one for the Marines, from the one where they with the help of the Salvation council finally won. The name can be Battle of Ramadi (2006-2007). I will start a totaly new article about the battle in which the Councils were involved. I am not trying to mislead anyone, but trying to make a point that these are two different battles in the overall strugle for the city. I am of the opinion this last battle started with the formation of the Salvation councils, but they didn't become that much active in Ramadi up until late November, early December. Also in late November, early December, were the Marine reinforcements sent into Ramadi and the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division arrived in Ramadi as late as January 2007 and conducted their own offensive which ultimately, in alliance with the Salvation councils, defeated the insurgents. Please, be reasonable, I am not trying to represent this falsely and mislead the readers. If you want it your way then in that case there were no two battles for Fallujah but just the one and we should then merge the two articles on two battles of Fallujah into one. Also my example of the battle of Harkov, there were five or six battles of Harkov that came one after the other in a short span of only a few months, but they were not just one battle. I have already told you this Lawrence on your talk page. Please let me do an article about the final fall of the city to the Marines and the Salvation Councils, and the date of that battle would be put, just as I told you on your talk page, as November 18, 2006 (day the first units of the Marine reinforcements arrive) - July 1, 2007 (day after the battle of Donkey Island). I put the end date as the day after the battle of Donkey Island because after the battle of Donkey Island there were no attacks in the city for full 80 days, which showed the insurgents had finally been defeated.Guyver85 (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just list my points one at a time and you can address them in a similar way. It's hard to read one big block of text:
  1. ONE Marine Corps assessment said Anbar province (not just Ramadi) was lost around August (two months into the battle, with at another three still to go). Nothing says that Col. MacFarland or the commander of II MEF concurred with that assessment or performed any tactical decisions based on it. I guess you could argue that the fact they sent reinforcements there meant they were losing, but the 1/1AD and Marines who were already there (the battalion of Marines which arrived in SEPTEMBER 2006) were still fighting and establishing outposts in the city. The U.S. brigade was actually still gaining control of the city (70% by November) so it's hard to say that the U.S. were losing.
  2. I still have a problem with seeing the end of the battle as November 15, 2006. Nothing occured there suggesting that American forces had withdrawn from the outposts that they had established or relaxed their cordon of the city. The only thing that occured on that date was the airstrike (if indeed it did happen). The WaPo article was November 28 (and based on the August report) so it should be irrelevant in determining the end of the battle.
  3. It was a joint fight. Saying it's a lost battle for the Marines is incorrect to start off with and indicates a total misunderstanding of the U.S. order of battle, intentions and results
  4. The two different battles you refer to overlap significantly. There's no point in separating the articles out to push forward the view that the Awakening happened independently. You only have to read Col MacFarland's "afteraction report" in Military Review (which is referenced in the article) to see the overlap. In fact, the same American forces who were establishing outposts and conducting patrols in Ramadi were supporting the Awakening fighters against al Qaeda in Iraq.
  5. The two battles of Fallujah were and are distinct. No-one is saying that they should be merged.
  6. Battle of Ramadi (2006-2007) is a very appropriate title and should include everything from the 1st brigade/1st Armored's deployment in June 2006 to the offensive launched by the 1st brigade, 3rd infantry in March-April and the Battle of Donkey Island in June 2007. The assassination of Sittar could possibly be included. Although this happened in September 2007, given the importance of the Awakening/Salvation Council to the decrease in violence and security in Ramadi/Anbar it should be mentioned.

Lawrencema (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said what I had to say, twice, both on your talk page and here, I still think that the fight of 2006 should be distinct from the one that lasted from December 2006 until July 2007. I still belive that the Marine reinforcements were called in because they were not making any headway, and the Anbar Salvatin councils may have been formed back in August, but they were not prominent until early December 2006, and they only managed to help the Americans to reverse the situation after January 2007, maybe even February.Guyver85 (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is copied from Lawrencema's talk page by Lawrencema
OK you don't want to accept my compromise solution, so I will give you another one and I ask you please to accept it. Let's start TWO new articles. One will be the already proposed Battle of Ramadi (2006-2007), which will cover the fighting from the coming of the reserve force until the battle of Donkey Island. The other article, and I think you will acept this one, is 2004-2007 Ramadi campaign. This article will cover the battle of 2004, the intermission period of 2005, the battle of 2006 and the battle of the period from end of 2006 until mid-2007. It will have links to those battles which will be separate articles. Something like Iraq Spring Fighting of 2004 and 2008. So what do you say? You agree?Guyver85 (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your compromise solution of creating Battle of Ramadi (2006-2007) which is from June 2006 to July 2007. All of the sources I've read on the Battle as a whole do not make a distinction around 15th November 2006, so I think it's wrong to create one ourselves, based on one news article which talks about a report written in August and little else. The reinforcements also included the extension of one of the battalions already there, so in my mind there's a thread from the "first half" to the second. I've also indented your post with colons for clarity. Regarding your comment about 2004-2007 Ramadi campaign, I think a more appropriate title is Anbar campaign (i.e. similar to Diyala and Ninewa campaign articles. Lawrencema (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He, he, you twisted my words, when I said Battle of Ramadi (2006-2007) I ment as a third battle from December 2006 to July 2007, but... I give up, extend the article to include the fighting after the reinforcements and Salvation councils came into the battle. But I still think that it is wrong and should be a third battle.Guyver85 (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The text in the section "November incident" has been taken word for word from the LA Times article by Solomon Moore here. If it is not substantially rewritten, it will be deleted per Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Lawrencema (talk) 09:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section has been satisfactorily rewritten. For reference, here is the edit which added the copyright violation. Lawrencema (talk) 11:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Battle of Ramadi (2006). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Ramadi (2006). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Ramadi (2006). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Ramadi (2006). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Ramadi_(2006)&oldid=1199642116"