Talk:Iraq War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Iraq War was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 1, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
February 14, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee


Chilcot Inquiry[edit]

In July 2016 the United Kingdom released the Chilcot Inquiry. Would expect there would be a little bit of info added to this article referring to that report. --Everett (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a good idea. For instance the material on civilian casualties is fascinating - e.g. showing that multiple scientific advisories to the British government, from different ministries, concluded that the Lancet casualty reports were sound in methodology, even as British officials like Blair publicly condemned the Lancet findings. -Darouet (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I added a sentence about the inquiry to the "Criticism" section, feel free to add more. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

RFC: What is the subject of this article?[edit]

After the end of foreign combat operations in Iraq, there were numerous discussions on this talk page as to whether the article should reflect the "conclusion" of the "Iraq War" or whether it should treat the conflict as "ongoing" past that point. The prevailing viewpoint was that, according to reliable sources, the terminology "Iraq War" referred to the 2003-2011 multinational, US-led military conflict within Iraq. In other words, while various conflicts continue to this day, "the Iraq War" had ended.

Recently, a handful of editors reached a questionable local "consensus" to fundamentally change the subject of the article; Iraq War would now be an umbrella article for all conflict in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. I've done some research and have come to the conclusion that the reliable sources still do not reflect the notion that the "Iraq War" is ongoing, and thus the article should not do so. Sources discussing the ongoing conflict no longer use the terminology "Iraq War", and sources that do use the term are specifically referring to the concluded multinational conflict of 2003-2011. I can't find anything that indicates that "Iraq War" should refer to all conflict since 2003, nor do I think the input in the last discussion was remotely enough to change the fundamental subject of a prominent and controversial article. It should require a stronger consensus, with more input, and hard evidence, to make such a drastic change.

We should change it back to the previous stance, based on the fact that it was supported by reliable sources, or we should have a stronger consensus to the contrary. Swarm ♠ 22:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Swarm: RfC's must be neutral and concise. The language of your good-faith comment above casts aspersions on the the mere "handful" of editors working here to reach a "questionable" consensus, though this consensus is the same as that arrived at repeatedly by many editors since 2011: that the Iraq war is ongoing. I would encourage you to refactor the RfC and write it neutrally: is the Iraq War ongoing or did it end in 2011?
I nevertheless think that your request to open this to the wider community is legitimate and important. It would be helpful, perhaps in a vote comment below, if you would provide a list of the sources you describe so that I and others can consider them when making a decision. Thanks, -Darouet (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I will gladly go into more detail as to why I support the viewpoint I do, but as I'm short on time right now I will simply address your procedural complaint: I made the RFC statement as neutral and concise as possible whilst stating my observational take on the situation. Swarm ♠ 03:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Repeated discussions on this talk page since 2011 have resulted in the same consensus above: that the Iraq war is ongoing, and that 2011 marks a change in the phase of that war, but not the end of it. Note this masterful commentary on this talk page from September 2011 in which everyone, including you Swarm, concluded that the war was ongoing and that the announcement of its end by President Obama meant nothing for the war's reality. Or this discussion from September 2014 where the great majority of editors conclude the same (those who disagreed mostly wrote about article length). The latest discussion here of overall content from November 2014 includes the present, ongoing conflict within the war. The consensus reached here, this very month, concluded that the war is ongoing, and that this article should review all phases of the war, including post-2011. In summary every consensus so far has agreed that the "Iraq War" did not end in 2011 and is ongoing now. -Darouet (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Alright, let me reply to your references of the endless discussions regarding this matter. Firstly, my comment you mentioned predates the withdrawal of foreign troops and is thus utterly moot. The reliable sources changed after that point, and after the sources changed, my position did as well. The point that the "Iraq War" is ongoing has indeed been argued since 2011 for obvious reasons. Conflicts did not end with the withdrawal of foreign troops. Why, then, has the article represented the position that it ended in 2011 this entire time? The answer is simple. The criterion for the inclusion of all content on Wikipedia is verifiability, based on reliable sources. The reliable sources available did, and still do, reflect my aforementioned point that the term "Iraq War" academically, culturally, and popularly, refers specifically to the US-led foreign intervention between 2003-2011. No one argues that armed conflicts ceased after this time period. However, according to the available sources to which we are indebatably bound, the term "Iraq War" refers to a specific conflict in Iraq that has concluded. If I am wrong, anyone is free to present sources that speak for themselves. Both arguments are understandable. But on a project that errs on the side of sources, the argument that "the Iraq War" encompasses all conflicts in Iraq and is ongoing has simply never been able to be substantiated with reliable sources. I present Exhibit A, one of the most obvious sources to consult with. Another, albeit professional, encyclopedia: Britannica's article on "Iraq War" specifically discusses the 2003-2011 conflict.[1] It lends absolutely no validation to the notion that the term "Iraq War" is used outside of this conflict. Anyone can do a Google search or Google News search. This is most obvious way to seek out sources. Conducting such a search does not reveal any implication that the "Iraq War" is ongoing and that the term does not refer to the 2003-2011 conflict. All the sources I can find seem to agree with the point I'm making. The argument that "the Iraq War" never ended and is ongoing is manufactured by individual opinions. These opinions are understandable from a logical perspective, but do not justify redefining the phrase "Iraq War". They are not supported by reliable sources, period. And again, if I am wrong, I invite all to present their sources, because that is the actual content guideline in play here. Swarm ♠ 05:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • As Pincrete explains below, you've completely and utterly ignored my point. I even specifically said that no one is arguing that the conflicts are over. The point is that the ongoing conflicts are not considered to be part of the "Iraq War", which, based on reliable sources, refers to the 2003-2011 conflict. Swarm ♠ 18:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@Swarm: after looking into the matter more carefully I still just can't agree with you. Contrary to what you write, media and even writers affiliated with the government are highly ambivalent about whether ongoing fighting in Iraq, (which everyone agrees has continued since 2003, with a slowdown in 2011-12), is a part of the same "Iraq War," or a different and new war. High quality media all agree that we remain at war in Iraq. An overview article here, with another article dedicated to the 2003-11 phase of conflict, could capture the complexity of this continuing story. Simply removing the overview article is not justified by sources and is a rash action in the face of continued, and continuous, fighting.
You're right that your own personal comment dates to 2011, but you did not address later discussion in 2014, when a great many editors who remain active concluded, not without some disagreement, that the Iraq War was ongoing. Those editors included Coltsfan, Mikrobølgeovn, Charles Essie, RightCowLeftCoast, Freepsbane, Thucydides411, FutureTrillionaire, XavierGreen, Colipon and The Four Deuces. That same year, the Congressional Research Service published an account of Iraq War spending that tallied operational costs from 2012-14 within the overall cost of the "Iraq War," even as their report noted that the DoD considers the war to have ended in 2010.
Those sources and editors may have changed their mind since then, but US involvement has escalated dramatically since, and sources remain highly ambiguous about the various phases of conflict, and which remain a part of the Iraq War. I've written a longer commentary below explaining in greater detail. -Darouet (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@Darouet: Pinging editors you think will agree with you...wow, you're really quite desperate, aren't you? Regardless, the sources are quite literally unequivocal. There is no grey area, there is no disagreement, there is no debate, the reliable sources do use the terminology in the way that I'm saying they do. Like I've said numerous times, editors have long argued that the Iraq War never ended, and their viewpoint is understandable, but the viewpoint is not supported by reliable sources. It never has been, which is why "war is over" has always been the status quo in spite of editors' personal views. It's clear at this point that your own POV is overshadowing your neutrality because you're literally not responding to logical points being made, you're just not hearing it. Shocking that someone with such a POV has been able to skew an article so much. Having made your points quite excessively, I'd advise you to recuse yourself from this discussion and let other editors weigh in. I'm primarily seeking the uninvolved community's feedback. Swarm ♠ 17:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@Swarm: Accusing me of canvassing and desperation is a personal attack. I pinged all editors who have previously participated in these conversations, and those include people who've argued the Iraq War ended in 2011. It would be decent for you to apologize. -Darouet (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, I've hardly edited this article in a long time, and am certainly not responsible for its current scope. I have simply advocated, in past discussions, the larger scope agreed upon by other editors. I wish you would engage with sources (other than your single Britannica source) instead of participating in this conversation only by launching personal attacks. -Darouet (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment , Raphael1 you are asking and answering completely the wrong question. None of these sources immediately above refer to 'Iraq War'. The question is not whether US or other troops continue to be militarily engaged in 2016 in, and around, Iraq. The question is what do RS, academic works and quality news sources mean when the say 'Iraq war', do they think the war finished around yearX, and what name do they give to any subsequent conflict which might be briefly covered as "aftermath" in this article. I am not going to 'vote' since I don't know enough, though my impression is that UK sources do not use this term for present conflict. Attempting to construct an argument based on 'fighting is still happening, so the Iraq War is ongoing', is pure WP:OR. Looking at the sources offered in previous discussions, I form the impression that, at the very, very least, it is a matter of cosiderable dispute whether the term applies beyond year X. Pincrete (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@Pincrete: far more sources have to be presented to demonstrate that the Iraq War ended in 2011. That is the date when reliable sources state that the US withdrew all combat troops; most sources do not state that the war ended at that time, and many imply it has continued. The DoD uses an entirely different date to mark an end to the Iraq War - 2010 - and has continued US military operations in Iraq under three separate official operations since that time. The Congressional Research Service and US military thinktank CSIS calculate operations from 2012, 2013 and 2014 as within the costs of the "Iraq War" before the launching of the air and ground campaign against ISIS. Meanwhile, sources like the NYT write that the US has remained at war through Obama's tenure. An overview article, Iraq War, can review all this while Iraq War (2003-11) deals with that specific phase. We shouldn't however here declare the conflict as finished on our own. -Darouet (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
'Remained at war' isn't the same as the same war. The sources offered confirm my impression that 'Iraq war' is a proper noun for a certain period and it would be improper to use that term beyond that period. If a parent article 'Wars in Iraq' were needed, so be it, though a simpler solution would be to find a term to cover the ongoing conflict, linked from this one. Pincrete (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
We need sources to confirm that "impression." The DoD states the Iraq War ended in 2010. The Obama administration declared combat operations over in 2011. Throughout 2012-present intense fighting has continued and many sources imply this is a part of an ongoing war. As of autumn 2014 the wikipedia community was firmly convinced the war was ongoing. So, what sources do you have that demonstrate the war ended in 2011, specifically? You need to present these to convince others. -Darouet (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • August 1st, still waiting on any reliable sources to support the change to "Iraq War ongoing". The way it was before was reliably sourced. Swarm ♠ 18:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree - based on Swarm's research, I can't argue with the logic that "the term "Iraq War" academically, culturally, and popularly, refers specifically to the US-led foreign intervention between 2003-2011." I can't see using Iraq War based on the sources in the same way as The Troubles are used, as the current sources on the conflict of Iraq no longer refer to an "Iraq War" as ongoing - terms like "conflict" are used instead, not a specific title. It is my personal assumption the media made this distinction because there seemed a time when a new Iraqi government was functioning, which is typically assumed to herald a successful conclusion to a civil war or country-wide conflict, at least in the media's view. So in short, I think including the Iraq War as one time period in the larger timeline of "conflict in Iraq" works fine, is accurate based on sources, and is clear to readers. Yvarta (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually even 'the troubles' relates to a specific period, usually late 60s to Good Friday agreement. Mostly low level conflict existed sporadically before that period and there have been occasional violent acts since, nonetheless the term refers usually solely to that period. Pincrete (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree on US-led coalition military campaign of 2003-2011 being the "Iraq War", as a proper noun, per WP:COMMONNAME, per sources. I agree that may not be wholly precise, but my opinion doesn't matter more than any other editor's. We can certainly devote a couple paragraphs on the current conflicts in an "Aftermath"-like section, and list these in the infobox "Results", but that's only to better frame the current subject, not "improve" the definition of the Iraq War on a quest for WP:TRUTH. Full details of those conflicts belong in other articles. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Disagree I don't understand your point. How do you call the ongoing U.S. military engagement in Iraq? "Iraq peace"? (It's not a conflict, if you try to drop MK80 bombs to solve it.) --Raphael1 16:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
If all sources call the current conflict the "Iraq War" (as a proper noun), then we must also. If they don't, we cannot, however "warlike" we feel it is. If many but not all sources call it this, then let's evaluate them together and sort it out. But if only a few sources do this, then we can't call the current conflict the "Iraq War", per WP:UNDUE. We'd have to find another name and another article for the majority of the coverage for the current conflict (which, yes, can be "conflict" since that's what sources commonly use for all sorts of military conflicts). Again, a couple paragraphs in an aftermath section with proper links there and in "results" to the full coverage is fine. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@A D Monroe III: I agree that we should follow reliable sources, but they are highly ambiguous on whether current fighting in Iraq is a part of the "Iraq War," and most sources agree that we have remained at war in Iraq. Even the the CRS and the military thinktank CSIS describe the "Iraq War" as including operations and costs extending well past 2011. Prudence would dictate keeping an overview article with the 2003-11 phase, but not pre-empting sources to declare the "Iraq War" over by editorial fiat. -Darouet (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
"...follow reliable sources, but..."? That "but" is exactly the path to editorial fiat. Again, if the sources conflict on the precise use of the proper noun "Iraq War", let's list and evaluate them. Declaring what's "prudent" won't get consensus. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
That "but" is also the path towards a wikipedia-brokered end of the war. I invite you to find sources demonstrating an end to the Iraq War - for each I find, usually in a cursory reference, there are others that say no such thing. -Darouet (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I think at this point it might be relevant to distinguish between "Iraq War" and "the war in Iraq." There are many cases where a War ostensibly ended even though the violence didn't actually abate, and warring continued after some changes in players and combatants. Often a government/media will stop calling a conflict a war for legal reasons (i.e. calling invasions "peacekeeping missions"), and so I think in many ways a war's scope is defined not by violence, but by how the media distinguishes a particular era in a political conflict (i.e. the Iraq War was over when the Americans felt they like were no longer at war, and stopped referring to the Iraq War in the media to downplay the conflict in favor of hard-earned peace and success). Since we're still in that transition phase (a few years only since the Iraq War ended) and can't yet look back with historical perspective and hindsight, all we can do if compile the sources, as A D Monroe III points out, and try to accurately summarize the body of reporting. Yvarta (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree Yvarta, but we've yet to see any demonstration, via sources, that the Iraq War has ended. Just saying it has here doesn't make it so. -Darouet (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
But Darouet I must ask, who decides when that war is over? Where do we look for the final word? Do we look at American press conferences, how politicians refer to it? Do we turn to Iraqi politicians? Do we turn to academic experts on war? Do we turn to Fox News? And who, for that matter, decided that Korean War was Over? How many years after was that decided, five years, ten years? It will likely be very long time before historians look back and assign a particular date to the end of the Iraq War. And frankly, it isn't practical for us as Wikipedians to wait indefinitely for historians to make a decision. We need to look at the body of reporting in reputable sources, and I believe Swam has made a very good argument that sources, at large, no longer refer to an Iraq War as ongoing, but rather referring to an ongoing war in Iraq, a very important distinction that isn't accidental. It would be accurate, at this point, to end the issue with "most mainstream news stations by 2013 had stopped referring to an Iraq War as ongoing, despite noting ongoing conflicts." And if you feel this isn't accurate, we can always add in "other media outlets have continued to refer to a war in Iraq as ongoing, although the term Iraq War is generally no longer used." I can't help but notice that not a single source brought to the table explicitly refers to an ongoing Iraq War in the past few years. So frankly, depicting the war as ongoing seems an egregrious break of WP:Balance, as the idea that the war is ongoing is clearly a minority view among journalists (and more so, doesn't seem to be an opinion at all). Yvarta (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • (←) Darouet, I literally presented Britannica as a reference and you have the audacity to claim that you haven't seen any sources?! Are we seeing this people? This is the kind of personal bias that led to the change in the first place. The most stringent opponent of changing it back has no sourcing to support himself, and yet ignores the sources I've presented and claims they don't exist. This is not reasonable behavior. Darouet your argument is out of line with policy. Swarm ♠ 17:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@Swarm: First, I have mentioned your Britannica reference multiple times, but one source isn't enough. There's no reason to get hysterical. Second, I presented a whole series of sources below that suggest the Iraq War is ongoing, whatever your view of them. -Darouet (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion - Is the Iraq War ongoing?[edit]

Swarm has opened an RfC above that questions the recent decision not to move this article to Iraq War (2003-11). That discussion, which included Greyshark09, wbm1058, Charles Essie, Shhhhwwww!!, Coltsfan, Red Slash and Jenks24, ultimately decided to retain Iraq War as an overview article, containing "Iraq War (2003-11)" as a phase of conflict within it." I am pinging a few others who've come to the RfC: A D Monroe III, Raphael1 and Pincrete.

Swarm's argument is that reliable sources, including Encyclopedia Britannica, describe the war as ending in 2011. After reading many articles on the topic, my conclusion is that all sources describe the US removal of most military forces in 2011, and some describe the war as ending then. However, many sources are ambiguous about whether the war actually ended, and all describe us as still being at war in Iraq (whether this is a new war, or the same war, left unclear). Pertinent examples:

Anthony Cordesman writes for the US military's official thinktank the Center for Strategic and International Studies, this spring, that Iraq has witnessed "what is now some thirteen years of war."[1]

In this case, the "cost of the Iraq War" includes 2003-14, when the report is published. The Congressional Research Service report justifies that language. While the report states that the US DOD considers the "Iraq War" to mean 2003-10, it calculates the cost of the "Iraq War" through continued operations into 2014, and notes that Obama has requested a major influx of new funds to fight ISIS.[2]

Multiple, highly reliable media sources refer to Obama's tenure as one of continuous warfare in Iraq, note that America remains at war in Iraq, and never describe the "end of the Iraq War." For example the New York Times wrote two pieces this spring stating that the United States remains at war in Iraq, without clarifying whether the war ever ended at some point, but certainly implying that Obama has been at war in Iraq throughout his tenure.[3][4] NPR writes that while Obama pledged to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he "finds himself entangled in three," again wholly ambiguous about whether this is a new war in Iraq, or the same one.[5]

A good example of a contrary view is provided by Mark Thompson at TIME magazine, who calls current fighting in Iraq a part of the "Third Iraq War."[6]

Everyone here acknowledges that Wikipedia should proceed conservatively and describe this conflict as reliable sources do. Notwithstanding declarations by the DoD and Brittanica's decision, too many highly reliable sources, including some intimately close to the US government, describe the US as still at war in Iraq, and too few write that the war ever ended. It is very early to write conclusively about this in the absence of high quality sources and ongoing fighting. I don't believe we should end the war by encyclopedic fiat, and without strong sources to back us up. Keeping this overview article to describe all phases of conflict is the conservative and correct course of action, for now. Such an action would not require deleting the article Iraq War (2003-11), but would also prevent us from getting ahead of reliable sources, and keep an overview article. -Darouet (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cordesman, Anthony (13 May 2016). "U.S. Strategy and the War in Iraq and Syria". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 August 2016. Iraq has just seen one of its most horrifying days of terrorism in what is now some thirteen years of war.  In another piece Cordesman describes the cost of US conflict in the "Iraq War" as continuous from 2003-14, while citing the work of "Amy Belasco of the Congressional Research Service, who has attempted to cost the Afghan and Iraq Wars on the basis of the budgets for U.S. Overseas Contingency Operations Reports. These studies provide the core of official U.S. reporting on the cost of the wars through FY2014."}}
  2. ^ Balasco, Amy (8 December 2014). "The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11". Congressional Research Service. Changing Troop Levels in Iraq, 2003-2014: Six months after the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, U.S. troop levels reached 149,000 troops in-country. By December 2003, troop levels fell to 124,000 and remained at about that level for the next three years. In January 2007, then-President Bush initiated the Iraq surge in response to growing levels of violence and a request for assistance in fighting insurgents, referred to as the “Sunni Awakening.” The “Iraq surge” peaked at 165,000 troops in November 2007. As levels of violence fell by July 2008, then-President Bush began to reverse the surge and troop levels declined to 147,000 (Figure 1). After President Obama took office in January 2009, the Administration conducted a strategy review of both the Afghan and Iraq wars. In that review, the President decided to shift U.S. forces in Iraq from a combat to an advisory and assistance role, and reduce troop levels from 141,000 in March 2009 to about 50,000 by September 2010. The bilateral security agreement at that time required that all U.S. troops be withdrawn by December 31, 2011. Although the United States hoped to revise that agreement and retain some troops beyond 2011, the Iraqi government refused to sign a new agreement that would shield U.S. troops from local law, so all U.S. troops were withdrawn by December 31, 2011. There are currently 100 to 200 U.S. military personnel in Iraq to manage arms sales. 
  3. ^ Landler, Mark (14 May 2016). "For Obama, an Unexpected Legacy of Two Full Terms at War". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 August 2016. If the United States remains in combat in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria until the end of Mr. Obama’s term — a near-certainty given the president’s recent announcement that he will send 250 additional Special Operations forces to Syria — he will leave behind an improbable legacy as the only president in American history to serve two complete terms with the nation at war... Granted, Mr. Obama is leaving far fewer soldiers in harm’s way — at least 4,087 in Iraq and 9,800 in Afghanistan — than the 200,000 troops he inherited from Mr. Bush in the two countries. But Mr. Obama has also approved strikes against terrorist groups in Libya, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, for a total of seven countries where his administration has taken military action... But Mr. Obama has found those conflicts maddeningly hard to end. On Oct. 21, 2011, he announced that the last combat soldier would leave Iraq by the end of that year, drawing that eight-year war to a close. “Our troops will definitely be home for the holidays,” Mr. Obama said at the White House. Less than three years later, he told a national television audience that he would send 475 military advisers back to Iraq to help in the battle against the Islamic State, the brutal terrorist group that swept into the security vacuum left by the absent Americans. By last month, more than 5,000 American troops were in Iraq. A furious firefight this month between Islamic State fighters and Navy SEALs in northern Iraq, in which Special Warfare Operator First Class Charles Keating IV became the third American to die since the campaign against the Islamic State began, harked back to the bloodiest days of the Iraq war. It also made the administration’s argument that the Americans were only advising and assisting Iraqi forces seem ever less plausible. 
  4. ^ Schmidt, Michael (14 May 2016). "U.S. Combat Missions May End, but Fighting Goes On". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 August 2016. President Obama inherited two wars from his predecessor, George W. Bush, and has struggled to wind them down. American troops are still in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but their missions have changed and there are far fewer troops in combat than at the heights of those wars a decade ago... Mr. Obama declared an end to the combat mission in Iraq in 2010, and the one in Afghanistan in 2014. But we still have thousands of troops in both countries... The White House does semantic cartwheels to say neither mission is combat... Pentagon officials roll their eyes at such denial, and senior officials — including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — have publicly called it combat. 
  5. ^ Myre, Greg (15 October 2015). "Pledging To End Two Wars, Obama Finds Himself Entangled In Three". National Public Radio. Retrieved 8 August 2016. Here's a quick look at U.S. involvement in three ongoing wars… Obama's decision to keep troops in Afghanistan comes in the wake of the bitter experience in Iraq, where all U.S. combat forces were withdrawn at the end of 2011. It was relatively calm at the time, and Iraq's leaders opposed a continued U.S. military presence after almost nine years of a U.S. occupation that peaked at well over 100,000 troops. But as the Islamic State roared into western and northern Iraq in the summer of 2014, Obama felt compelled to launch a limited air campaign against the extremist group. The U.S. now has more than 3,000 military personnel in Iraq. The Americans are focused on the airstrikes and are not permitted to take part in ground combat. 
  6. ^ Thompson, Mark (10 September 2014). "The Obstacles in Obama's New ISIS Plan". TIME. The first U.S. war against Iraq began in 1991 with 37 days of nonstop bombing. The second Iraq war unleashed 2,500 air missions in the first 24 hours in 2003. The third Iraq war—declared by President Barack Obama in an address to the nation Wednesday night, where he expanded it to include Syria—is trading “shock and awe” for what Obama says will be a “comprehensive and sustained” military campaign. 
  • Comment One ref above says "Iraq has witnessed "what is now some thirteen years of war", no doubt true, and quite a few other conflicts before those 13 years. Vietnam probably experienced war almost continuously between 1940 and 1972, that doesn't mean that any one of the conflicts lasted 32 years or had a single name. Another source refers to 3 Iran wars, others use other terms for present, ongoing conflict. These sources confirm my impression that 'The Iraq war' is ordinarily a singular term referring to the invasion and occupation and that the article should reflect that. Nobody is trying to deny that there is ongoing US involvement, but it should be covered in other articles or a 'parent' 'Wars in Iraq' be created. All the wars in former Yugoslavia are 'linked', that does not mean they were the same conflict. Pincrete (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that the comment, that Iraq has witnessed some thirteen years of war, is typical in that it is highly ambiguous. It is too early to declare, right now, that sources call the war over: they don't. -Darouet (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The sentence isn't at all ambiguous. It says Iraq has witnessed 13 years of war, it doesn't say the Iraq war has lasted 13 years. It supports what I and others are saying Iraq war is not the same thing as war in/involving Iraq. Pincrete (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • So? I agree that sources say the "war" (lower-case) continues. I agree that sources say the cost of the "Iraq War" continues. I don't agree any of these sources say the "Iraq War" (capitalized proper noun, the name of this article in WP) continues. I'm okay with creating "2nd Iraq War", "3rd Iraq War" or "Iraq wars (20xx)" or whatever articles -- even "Iraq wars in the 21st century" to cover them all. But this whole section has no bearing on the RfC. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Monroe, if the Iraq War has ended, I am willing to acknowledge that, provided sources confirm it. In the past, many editors working on this page have concluded it is ongoing, because sources say that combat troops were withdrawn, not that the war ended. What is missing in this RfC is any presentation of sources to overturn past consensus. I know that it takes a lot of work to find sources and convince others. But, without that work, nobody will be convinced by an argument about the capitalization of a W, or an editor's say-so alone. -Darouet (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, no editor's say-so is used. It's based on COMMONNAME for the subject and sources. A proper noun, by definition, is quite a distinct subject from common nouns; Great Lakes is not about "all lakes that are great".
I agree that a detailed review of sources would be welcome and a lot of work. But, given that the work done in this section to find opposing sources came up dry, I'm convinced as it stands. All the sources I've seen refer to the subject of this article as something in the past. It's hard to prove something doesn't exist. I must assume the reason we can't easily find such sources is that they are, at best, overwhelmingly insignificant and UNDUE. --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
It can't be so much to ask for some sources. -Darouet (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Your wall of text and references still fail to answer to my very simple point that the terminology "Iraq War" refers to a specific aspect of the conflicts in Iraq that is concluded, and if anything further goes to show that you're misrepresenting what the sources say in order to push your own personal view that the "Iraq War" is still ongoing. I don't know how many times you're going to make me repeat myself. Also starting a second discussion when there is an ongoing RfC is generally regarded as shady. Swarm ♠ 16:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I placed the second discussion here so that we could evaluate sources separately, and avoid obscuring more concise arguments made by other editors in your RfC. It was not made to begin a second section in case the RfC result agrees with you. I see that you or Pincrete have moved this section into a "discussion" portion of the RfC, and that's fine with me. You should assume good faith and not accuse me of being "shady:" every comment you've made today includes personal attacks. Step back from that - it's not worth it.
I stand by my interpretation of the sources above, which indicate that the Iraq War did not end in 2011. To you it may be a "wall of text" but to me those are the reliable sources we need to consult to address the question you've asked in your RfC. -Darouet (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - For what it's worth, the French, German and Italian wikipedias all declare the Iraq War as over in 2011 (and then describe the "aftermath", as Swarm proposes we do here). I know we don't cite Wikipedia, but I thought their examples might give an indication of what reliable sources in other languages are saying. -Darouet (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Considering the argument shown here of what the Iraq War continues and that the involvement of the United States never ended, because then divided the war in Afghanistan in two articles (War in Afghanistan (2001–14) and War in Afghanistan (2015–present))? In this case is the same situation: President Obama declared the end of combat operations, but the West remains involved in this conflict.--177.68.221.135 (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

There was weapons of mass destruction[edit]

The government and John Howard claimed there was, and government claims are treated as fact in other pages so can we have the same standard applied here. Gov said therefore its true and therefor WMD existed in iraq!--A12bc34be5 (talk) 07:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia policy to automatically treat any claim made by any government as true. We work with reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iraq_War&oldid=733863112"