Talk:iraq War/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Tony Blair as a Commander?

Tony Blair is listed as one of the Commanders. However, unlike the USA, the head of the executive branch of the government has no direct connection to the Armed Forces. I might be wrong, and he may indeed be a Commander. However if this is not the case then someone should go ahead and remove him from the list. 202.155.210.86 07:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Tony Blair is not a commander. He is head of HM Government. HM The Queen would be the counterpart of George Bush as she declared war on Iraq and is ultimate commander-in-chief of all Armed Services in the UK. In real terms it is HM Government who controls the forces and no any one minister, although the Minister for Defence has obvious direct input, as does the Prime Minister; but HM The Queen has ultimate power.

As Tony Blair is a civillian and not a commander, and no-one ahs objected to 202.155.210.86's suggestion, I'm removing him.FrstFrs 16:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll add HM Queen Elizabeth II as a commander, because legally she is the British commander-in-chief, and seeing as George W Bush is on the list, and he has similarly little input into military strategy - they both belong there. Also, shouldn't there be at least one Australian commander. matthewcollins1989 19:57, 6 February 2007

I guess it depends on how you define "commander" in this instance. The Monarch is the Head of State, but the actual decisions are made by the Prime Minister who is the Head of Government in this case Tony Blair. The British generals on the ground report to him in pretty much the same way that US commanders report to President Bush. So are we talking about the individual who has the power and makes the actual decisions and policy or are we talking about the constitutional but symbolic leader? Doc Meroe 10:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Either we put in both constitutional commanders (President Bush and the Queen), neither of which are actual field commanders, or leave both out. I would advocate neither being there, as their presence in this section adds nothing significant to the article. The commander section should be reserved for people who actually command. I only put the Queen as a commander because it seemed right, considering that President Bush was recognised here. matthewcollins1989 17:59, 15th February 2007 (UTC)

Basically Bush and Elizabeth II are technically commanders, Bush and Blair are commanders as percieved by the media/general populace, and none of them are actual commanders. - 85.210.21.73 19:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have changed added Queen Elizabeth. If Bush is there so should she. And not that it matters, but I came about 3 CM from being killed by her motorcade in London one day. malatesta 20:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

RFBailey removed the QEII link in the info box. I left a message on his talk page asking him to comment here on why he did it. I feel that it should be there. malatesta 17:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My reasoning that Queen Elizabeth II position as Head of State is essentially an honorary one. While the forces are officially "Her Majesty's", she does not command them in what to do. There is a difference between her and Bush in this regard. The President of the United States has far more direct control than the monarch of the United Kingdom. --RFBailey 14:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not about Blair, but as Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab Al-Zaquari are dead, should that be noted in the commander part of the box. Just like a strikeout or something to keep them there, and if that happens, should the other wars be like that too?Davie4264 21:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This is only my opinion, but on Queen Elizabeth's page, it states she is commander in chief, and obviously so is George Bush, however they don't command ground troops personally, that is why on the gulf war page Norman Schwarzkopf is listed but George Bush senior is not, the commander in chief should only be listed IF that state has no individual commanders, such as the Gulf War has Saddam Hussein because he controlled his military his self or, if the title of commander in chief is given to an individual. Hope that information helps to try and clear some stuff up, not that I know I'm right, I'm just giving extra information to settle this.Davie4264 17:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II is a powerless figure-head, unlike our authoritain P.M. Tony Blair! The real comander is the MILATARY figure who is in overal control of the forces!--86.29.255.69 19:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't know about that. My vote would go towards her inclusion in the matter, maybe with a note or asterix. As in HM Queen Elizabeth II (official) and then PM Tony Blair (effective). Some happy middle ground. 69.216.116.111 00:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

General Ricardo Sanchez

While the debate continues on whether Bush and QE II are commanders (they are both head of their respective armed forces) there is an actual field commander missing from the list. He is General Ricardo Sanchez. He is missing from the list of commanders. He was commander of all multinational coalition forces in Iraq between the commands of General Tommy Franks and General George Casey. How did he get missed from the list? He should be added back (between Franks and Casey). -RobertBlacknut 05:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Gulf War II

(why would it ever be called gulf war II. this isnt an action movie. its going to be refered to as the Second Gulf War.) Many years from now, when the war is over, it will be called 'Gulf War II' by historians. Most would agree on this. I think we should change the title of this article to 'Gulf War II' and have 'Iraq War' redirect to it. There have been many wars in Iraq, and 'Iraq War' is not the official name of this one. Randomfrenchie 19:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

We cant make decisions based on a crystal ball. We do not know what they will call it in 50 years, thus we simply use the name that people call it today. And thats the Iraq War. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

1) Name change has already been proposed and shot down; see Archive 8. 2) By analogy, "Vietnam War" hasn't been replaced by "Second Indochina War" in general usage. 3) There have been many wars in Iraq, but there have also been many wars in the Gulf region. --Groggy Dice T | C 00:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The so called "Iraq War" should be murged with the Gulf War article. They are both the same war that has lasted from when Iraq invaded Kuwait.59.167.56.88 21:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree. Historically speaking the current war in Iraq is the Third Gulf War. First being the Iran/Iraq war, and second the 90-91 invasion and repulsion of Iraqi forces in Kuwait.Izzy1985 04:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The current war started with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. It is the same war that started in 1990. There was never a peace treaty, Iraq kept firing on allied planes thoughout the 1990's. That war never ended. It is the same war now.Caloris 12:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be ridiculous to have Queen Elizabeth listed as a commander whether George Bush is listed or not. At least George Bush is the head of the decision making process that determines the number of troops deployed etc. The monarchy is a ceremonial role.

Let's call it the Civil War. j/k. : ) MPS 22:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The article should be called Operation Iraqi Freedom

Trying to attach a number to a war like this is silly. Second Gulf War? Only from a ridiculously Western perspective. Third Gulf War? The Persian Gulf has been civilised for longer than anywhere in the world, undoubtedly there have been more than three wars there. Iraqis in the future will call the Gulf War the Kuwait War, and this war the American Invasion. In a global context, Iraq War is appropriate as this is the war that, barring far greater turmoil, Iraq will always be associated with in the collective mind of the world, less of course the Islamic Republic of Iran for as long as it might exist. 203.10.224.58 23:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Calling it Gulf War 2 or 3 makes sense to me. Undoubtedly the Korean war hasn't been the only war to have been fought in Korea. The same can be said of the Vietnam conflict. It's really more of an argument of semantics.

Shortcord 19:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, it's Gulf-war 2.--86.29.255.69 19:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the title of the artilce, it would be nice to mention somewhere in the article what the Iraqis call it. Sylvain1972 14:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Template references broken. Template:Iraq War Box

Here is a message I put on the talk page at the above template page, and on the user page of the person who transferred the code for the infobox to it: User talk:AndrewRT

The infobox template idea would be good if the references could be maintained. Some of the references are used by other locations in the main article also. So putting the box in a separate template breaks many references, not just the ones in the infobox. I copied the infobox code back into the main Iraq War article, and left a copy in the template page.

The Iraq War page is very busy, and edited by many people. And viewed by many people. So this problem needs to be fixed before removing the infobox code solely to the template page for transclusion. And there is no room to put a references section in the notes part at the end of the infobox. Space is already at a premium in the infobox. Many discussions over that already. Plus the references in the main article would still be broken.

Please see the template on this page: Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003. I edit both that page and the template on it. Since the template references do not work for using as references in the main article, there are some duplicate references. Click the reference numbers to see what I mean. --Timeshifter 15:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Total Iraqi wounded

In the infobox I removed the total Iraqi wounded number. The source used an unreferenced ratio of 1.8 times the number of deaths. It used the Lancet number of 655,000 deaths as the starting point. Plus it added monthly numbers since July 2006 based on the last Lancet rate of monthly deaths. All to come up with a total of 1,296,830 injured in Iraq.

Here is the source link used:

• http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html#methodology

It states: "Where no credible data on serious injuries to citizens or troops has been made public, our rough estimate uses a conservative, historically-based ratio of 3:1 (serious injuries to fatalities) for troops, 1.8:1 for civilians."

But it gives no reference for that "historically-based ratio." And the Lancet number is both civilian and combatant deaths. And all excess deaths too. So the application of their ratio is incorrect. --Timeshifter 20:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The WIA - KIA military ratio in WW2 was 2 -1. In Vietnam and Korea the ratio was 3 - 1. With the exception of the U.S; records from the coalition partners indicate that Iraq is also 3 - 1 for them as confirmed by last years Polytrauma Conference. For the U.S. the reported ratio is 7 - 1 although this is not reliable as the U.S. system of counting undercounts true KIA substantially.
The civilian wounded to killed ratio in armed conflicts from 1929 to 1996 (BMJ 1999;319:407-410 IRC) ranged from 0 to 4.4 / 1. For example WW2 had a civilian ratio of 2.7 to 1 and Vietnam 4 to 1. I dont know where the 1.8 to 1 figure came from as the IRC regard 1.9 to 1 as the minimum "acceptable" ratio in a conflict and 2 to 1 is what the U.S. and IBC use to make an estimate of wounded. Iraq's civilian wounded to killed ratio is actually 1 to 1 according to research which means if the Lancet is correct then there have been 655,000 civilians wounded or 68,000 wounded if IBC is correct. Wayne

17:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Warfare has change considerable since then. Better not to rely on guesswork at all.

128.138.173.224 04:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Insurgent deaths total in infobox

Not only that, the insurgent casualties- seven thousand in three years- are insanely low. There were three hundred in one battle, and I have a hard time believing that adding in all the suicide bombers who killed themselves, the deaths from coalition operations, the backfiring insurgent direct attacks, etc, that they've lost less than the coalition. Wasn't there an estimate on there around thirty or fifty thousand or so a while back? That sounds more plausible. 199.120.31.20 14:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Top Gun has basically been using his original research as the basis of the insurgent deaths number in the infobox. See the source for that number here:

List of Insurgents killed in Iraq

It is a worthy effort that he is doing. But the number does not meet wikipedia standards since it is not a published number from a reliable source. It is a number created by his adding up of numbers from various reports. None of the sources of those reports claim that their compilations of media and other reports are complete. Lists are OK in wikipedia. But claims of accuracy from such an editor-created list do not meet wikipedia guidelines. So it is OK to link to the list so people can learn about insurgent deaths. But it is not OK to make any real claims about those numbers. --Timeshifter 14:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this guy needs a life. Anyway, proper would be N/A. Reliable figures for insurgent casualties are not available. --HanzoHattori 15:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Many of us wikipedians need to step away from the keyboard sometimes. :)

N/A as in "not available", I assume. Here is a quote from the Feb. 5, 2007 CBC article you linked to: "Reliable figures for insurgent casualties are not available. The Pentagon stopped supplying figures for what it called 'non-compliant Iraqi forces' in mid-summer 2003." --Timeshifter 16:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

it is very hard to get a correct estimate as the insurgents in iraq and afganistan take away most of the dead to leave colilition forces with a correct estimate. user Eskater11

Opening Paragraph

The opening paragraph appears to carry a negative bias towards the war. The negative elements of the war listed be be true but the paragraph fails to list any positive outcomes of the war -- thus giving the impression that the war has been nothing less than a total failure. I am not attempting to start a debate on whether or not the war has been successful or not. I simply submit that the opening paragraph should be a bit more sensitive on its approach considering the controversial nature of the subject. --Clayc3466 16:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"The opening paragraph appears to carry a negative bias towards the war." ??? Considering the way the war is currently going, I'd say it is extremely nice as it doesn't call call the current situation a civil war. It also fails to mention the lies that got us into the war in the first place. Regime change may have been the stated goal, but the US was sold on the WMDs which never materialized. Regime change leaves it open as to whether that the war justified to the public in terms of strategic threat (WMD) or regime change and democracy. It was clearly not justified in terms of democracy, that was only after they, surprise surprise, found no WMDs to speak of. Wikipediatoperfection 00:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipediatoperfection -- leave your political opinion out of it. --Clayc3466 00:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what "political opinions" you're complaining about. He used the word "lie", which might be objectionable because it is pejorative, but what is the politically correct term he should have used for statements of deliberate deceit? I'm a relative newbie, so I've not even found if there is a good list of politically correct terms and euphemisms that are supposed to be used in articles. It is certainly a matter of documented record that there are several different sets of justications for the US invasion. (1) Published documents by US Administration members as part of the New American Century work, sketching out their goals to gain and maintain world military dominance, which are supported by (2) the currently published administration energy policy papers (stating the goals to increase US imports of Middle Eastern Oil, and to secure the production thereof, and to gain access to improve the infrastructure of Middle Eastern oil production). (In fact, the strategic goals of securing US influence over and sometimes control of Middle Eastern oil production is a long-standing and well-documented US strategic goal, extending back decades.) Then there were (3) various speeches exhorting the US invasion by the US Administration, stating as rationales the (alleged) imminent deployment of nuclear weapons by Saddam Hussein, later amended to be weapons of mass destruction, and the (alleged) close ties between Saddam Hussein and "al Quaeda". Then (4) there were and are, many many justifications given by US right-wing pundits and authors, ranging from the establishment of democracy in Iraq, to the "punishment of ragheads", to the engagement of terrorists abroad for fear they will otherwise invade the US, to the "global war on terror", to the global war on "al Quaeda". Some of these arguments (especially the establishment of democracy) have also been put forth by the US Administration. But it is no political opinion, just the the observation of published records to observe these various statements, and to observe that there are self-evidently different rationals offered for different audiences and at different times. Harvard yarrd

I second that, Clayc3466. Specifically, I'd say the opening paragraph is skewed in several ways:

1) The paragraph describes the Iraq War as an "ongoing conflict" and gives the dates of the war as "March 20, 2003 to present". While there has clearly been conflict in recent years, I think saying that the war is ongoing is incorrect; there has been an insurgency, yes, but the actual Iraq War proper (the subject of this page) occured in 2003 only. Characterizing any state of conflict, occupation, etc. as "war" seems more than a little misleading.

2) The paragraph describes the "rationale for the war offered by the Bush administration" in a pejorative fashion, and moreover it incorrectly paints the picture that the WMD situation was the only cause for invasion. Describing the causes of the war is perfectly fine for an opener, but this is in need of cleanup.

3) The inclusion of "this claim has since been found to be false based on the work of the Iraq Survey Group" is of no value to the opener and is again an apparent bias. Essentially, it serves to nudge readers toward a negative stance on the issue early on, which clearly has no place in an encyclopedia.

4) The paragraph claims that "However, the coalition was unsuccessful at restoring order to the entire country, leading to asymmetric warfare with the Iraqi insurgency, civil warfare between Sunni and Shia Iraqis, and al Qaeda operations in Iraq." Aside from being utterly pointless with regard to the introduction, this statement is highly biased. First, the characterization of the coalition as "unsuccessful" and the claim of a "failure to restore order" requires us to believe that the time frame for accomplishing such order has come and gone--in short, this is clearly an attempt to portray the efforts as a failure, which is clearly biased even within the author(s)' own paradigm considering that he/she/they describe it as an ongoing conflict. Second, the claim of "civil warfare between Sunni and Shia Iraqis" is blatently opinionated, and considering that recent polls show that only about 1/4 of Iraqis think their country is in a state of civil war this assertion seems to have no place in an encyclopedia entry.

So in short, the opening paragraph is indeed in need of cleanup. E Pluribus Americanus 00:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I would add several references citing the discovery of WMD's in Iraq but they will surely be deleted immediately. --Flashstar 02:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The statement "The rationale for the war offered by the Bush administration at the time of invasion was that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction which posed an "imminent threat" to the United States and the world community." is untrue and not supported by the reference (22). Reference 22 shows clearly that President Bush said that the threat was NOT imminent. (Also see: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3713&R=ED8BCE8) Additionally, the opening paragraph puts the onus on Bush's administration for the incorrect WMD intelligence, and implies intentional misleading by the President, without mentioning how prevalent that same opinion was during the Clinton administration (see: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=301809).24.35.54.166 13:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Ghost

As would I. One of my favorite quotes related to WMDs is from David Kay, former head of the Iraq Survey Group: “We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002.”[1] The facts presented in the more specific Iraq and weapons of mass destruction and Post-Saddam WMD search articles seem rather contrary to the statement “after the invasion no evidence was found of such weapons programs.” As a result, I've added a “[citation needed]” notice to the sentence. –Wulf 07:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Copperchair sockpuppets

Kronsteen (talk · contribs) and Esteban "Lex" Saborío (talk · contribs) have been blocked as sockpuppets of Copperchair (talk · contribs). See here for my complete post on this topic. If any other editors pop up with similar editing patterns, please contact me and I will look into whether or not they are also sockpuppets. Thanks! TomTheHand 12:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"We didnt create the war in iraq"-tony snow

At this year's conservative political action conference he said "we didnt create the war in iraq".... this deserves a mention on this page. if you want to verify it, google a search for

conservative political action conference tony snow create war

this obviously deserves a mention on this page, since he is the white house press secretary. and since its, um, a questionable statement, to say the least.

160.39.208.18 20:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to get a user name, and do it yourself. Choose a user name and password. That is all that is involved in getting a user name. Then you can edit. :) --Timeshifter 22:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the info, im new here

160.39.208.20 23:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

But, a lot of people have said a lot of ridiculous things about Iraq, even (or perhaps, especially) members of the US White House/Administration. Is this one really significant enough to mention? (It doesn't sound significant all to me.) Harvard yarrd

Keep our troops in iraq? any facts to back this up???

why should we not keep our troops in Iraq?? why should we keep our troops in iraq??

Any strong reasons (or any reasons) are welcome! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nickbellamy (talk • contribs) 20:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

First off, this is the English Wikipedia. There are plenty of editors on this site who do not come from the USA (or other countries contributing troops such as the UK), so talking about 'our' troops is somewhat out of place. Second, this page is for discussing changes (or proposed changes) to the article, not for political debate about the war itself. Thanks Cynical 23:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there should be a section on this. The boys must stay to kik Al Queada, Hezbolah and Iran's Al Quts elite death-squads (it's hardly a army crop) out of Saddar city for good, mate!--86.29.255.69 19:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Abu Grahib at the bottom?

This seems like a cover-up to me, I think it should be moved up.

--JesusIsOurSaviour 01:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --Evergreens78 05:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I like your username. --Evergreens78 05:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

now it is a important thing going on during this conflict,we must have all the facts off the actual war first.im preety sure the ww2 artical has all the war info first then the deathcamps and exicutions last. you put the most important things first. not saying abu isnt imporant the war itself shoudlnt be at the bottom.

By "Abu Grahib", I assume you mean the US use of Abu Ghraib for torture, and not Saddam Hussein's use of Abu Ghraib for torture. The US use of the facility for torture did not occur during the Iraq War, but only during the subsequent occupation; surely that is such a well-known fact that it doesn't require special source citing?? Harvard yarrd

Bias? Small notes

I think that the italics for the word "surge" in the sentence quoted below from the article is bias. Is there a reason for this formatting? If not, I will remove it.

"In his speech, he made references to changes to be made, including a surge of 21,500 more troops for Iraq, a job program for Iraqis, more reconstruction proposals, and 1.2 billion dollars for these programs."

The issue is that it has become a political term, and away to avoid saying sending 21,500 more troops to Iraq. Find a way to make this clear, without using italics. I think this would fall into the same category as shock and awe. Wikipediatoperfection 16:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think "increase" would do just as well, perhaps "a 'surge,' or increase," if the terminology is necessary. Other opinions? --BekiB 20:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, some references to party control of the White House seem unnecessary. Could someone more familiar with politics make a quick check? They could easily be removed or their importance explained. Sorry I can't do it myself, but I'm not very familiar with how US government party control would affect events in the article. --BekiB 16:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

They are necessary in that this was by and large a Republican war, and it should be clear which party started this war. Wikipediatoperfection 16:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a broad generalization, considering that support or opposition to this war is not based on political affiliation in many cases and wasn't from its beginning. If there is going to be blame placed in this article, I request more citation to support that. --BekiB 20:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

i think ill delete a couple articles (see 100....)

"Kidnapped" Iranians?

in "January 2007: Bush's "New Way Forward" confronts Iran" it says "American troops raided an Iranian liaison office in northern Iraq on 11 Jan 2007 and detained five employees.[75] "Around 5.00 a.m., after disarming the guards they (U.S. troops) broke into the office, without giving any explanation and arrested five employees," the official IRNA news agency reported, adding that documents and computers were seized.[76][77] The fate of the kidnapped Iranian officials is not known." Isnt the use of the word kidnapped rather biased? It may or may not be true but a serious newspaper would never use the word kidnapped for this situation.

This now has a wikipage at US attack on Iranian liaison office in Arbil hope that helps. Hypnosadist 15:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fremen?

"Some small groups of Fremen warriors have also been sighted" linking to a character from the Dune novels. o rly? 66.235.4.134 02:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

--That's vandalism; it was there for 14 hours before it was fixed. Zirconscot 04:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As an Iraq war vet, and a Frank Herbert nut, I found this funny. I made many "Ursul" references during my stay there. But it was indeed vandalism, and this is not the place for it. Izzy1985 23:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Date the War started?

Shouldn't this be March 19th, not 20th as the article states? http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html

Should...

Is it worth mentioning, that this was has lasted longer than our involvement in World War II and Civil War? Source. Adamv88 23:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it seems to me a very US-centric type statement that should be avoided, not to mention having an obvious political agenda.141.152.127.21

Not to mention, so was our involvement in Vietnam, and maybe even korea? Korea was about as long at least as WWII. Remember 1942 (december) really more like 1943 for USA WWII. Also, it doesn't have any real relevance as conventional wars are typically much shorter then low intensity wars such as occupation insurgencies. Meaningless. Why not say USA has lost less then 1% of the personal lost in WWII, in iraq? Since casaulties are more significant (correlations) then time really. But, better to just leave it out, unless a debate starts about what is "signifcant" casautlies. JohnHistory 01:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

It is worth mentioning.--86.29.255.69 19:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Date the War Ended?

Though it was never heavily publicized, the war itself ended after the capture of Saddam Hussein on December 13, 2003. The "war on Iraq" has been nothing more than an occupation for the time period following up until now. I have searched far and wide to try and prove this point, however I have found nothing. The only proof I have is testimony from the families of fallen soldiers that have died since the capture of Saddam and how they are NOT receiving war-time benefits because we are not in a "war-time" situation according to the letter given to them from the government. ForgottenFayth 18:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)ForgottenFayth 19:21GMT

I thought that in the United States, a war began when Congress declared it, but, I am unsure when a war ends? Harvard yarrd

Misleading

"However, the coalition was unsuccessful at restoring order to the entire country, leading to asymmetric warfare with the Iraqi insurgency, civil warfare between Sunni and Shia Iraqis, and al Qaeda terror operations in Iraq.[25][26] Despite this failure to restore order, a growing number of coalition nations have decided to withdraw troops from Iraq.[27] The causes and consequences of the war remain controversial.[28][21][18]"

It should be noted that the tiny number of troops that "the growing number of coaltiion forces" have withdrawn from Iraq does not significantly effect the total number of troops in iraq. Therefor this withdrawal reference is misleading. I think having that in the intro, is misleading, and it should be clarified or put somewhere else. Also, historically the largest coalition I have ever heard of was mounted by Nazi Germany in it's invasion of the USSR. So we need to be careful the "rightousness" we so blindly associate with a "coalition". JohnHistory 01:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory.

The Nazis only had the help of the other European states-

Spain,

France,

Holland,

Belgium,

Germany-Austria,

Slovakia,

Hungary,

Romania,

Serbia,

Italy,

Croatia,

Norway,

Finland,

Serbia,

The Bosnian Moslem malitia,

The free Ukranian army,

Estonia,

Latvia,

Lithuania,

Ethinc Chechens,

The Cossacks,

The N.E. Ukraneian Lakot Reublic and

the White (royalist) Russian army.

The Coalition of the Willing even involved Sub-Saharan Africa (Senegal)!--86.29.255.69 19:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel

Is this event part of the iraq war as it involves british troops deployed as part of it? Please look at that articles talk page and add your views whatever they are. If it is part of the war in iraq then should it be added into this article? Hypnosadist 15:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't seem to have anything on the 2004 capture of eight UK Navy personnel under similar circumstances, or if we do I can't find it. 75.18.208.221 08:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I would lean against adding this to the article for right now, since it doesn't appear to have a direct connection to the war--and the only connection appears to more of a accidental border incursion, or not, by British or Iranian forces. If this incident turns out to lead to more relevant events, such as a change in the UK's position on Iraq or Iran's influence then we could add it. On a side note, does anyone know if there's been any articles created to track all the Iranian incidents related to the Iraq war? We could add this incident there as a hold. Publicus 16:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as the UK's soldiers were serving under an operation within Operation Telic, I would say this is inherently a part of the war. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Making the woman ware that slly scarf all the time was cutualy evil, sexist and down right masodganistic!--86.29.255.69 19:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Intro

The intro claims the rationale for the war as being the weapons of mass destruction claims. While that is true, a large part of the rationale made was also the claimed "links" between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. I think that should also be added into the intro.--Jersey Devil 14:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There were actually several reasons, but:

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

-- Paul Wolfowitz, May 28, 2003, later clarified:

[W]e have from the beginning had three concerns. One was weapons of mass destruction, second was terrorism, and ... the third was the abuse of Iraqis by their own government. And in a sense there was a fourth overriding one, which was the connection between those first two, the connection between the weapons of mass destruction and terrorism.

And later further clarified:

[W]e just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil.

So, that's five reasons. James S. 05:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The "oil as reason for invasion" claim is highly suspect at best. Aside from the fact that the administration has not claimed that (thus voiding it as a verifiable rationale for war) the claim is clearly POV. Moreover, the source--"whatreallyhappened.com", a hardline anti-Bush conspiracy site--is questionable in its own right and certainly not fit as an encyclopedia reference. So, while some may be of the opinion that oil was a factor in the invasion, listing it as though it were a matter of fact is unacceptable. E Pluribus Americanus 17:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no question that Wolfowitz said that Iraq's oil wealth was the cause of the difference between the response to Iraq and North Korea. The source is the Guardian (newspapers) Online. whatreallyhappened.com is just an archive, of which there are several. I will replace the text without the offending link. James S. 23:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankly it doesn't matter what he said. What Wolfowitz does or doesn't say has no bearing on what the rationale for the war was. Since the administration has not claimed it as a cause, it is not a valid entry in an encyclopedia article. E Pluribus Americanus 17:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wolfowitz was an administration official responsible for decision support on the question of going to war, and the description of his rationale is well-documented. James S. 00:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering that Saddam was hated by Al Qaeda I wouldn't put it as a rational reason, but I guess Wikipedia has to show what a controlling government can persuade a people who know nothing about an area to go to war! I mean how on earth you could associate Iraq with 9/11... Henners91 08:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That's rather irrelevant. Al-qaeda or not, Saddam was indisputably one of the leading state sponsores of Islamist terror groups: depending on the year, 1, 2 or 3 (vying with Iran and Libya).Solicitr 18:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Edit - External articles: News: NOW on PBS: Iraq War

Wikipedia code:

• NOW on PBS: Iraq War: Stories, resources, and video on a wide range of Iraq War topics.

Jethin 18:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Jethin

US Equipment losses stats

Reading article 168 (washingtonpost) referenced in the US Equipment losses section, I infer that 40% of our military equipment has been allocated to the war effort, NOT 40% has been lost. What does everyone else think? Greenagain 18:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds right to me. 75.35.74.5 08:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just coming here to point out this very same thing. There's no way 40% has been "lost" completely. The numbers immediately below that sentence are no where near 40% of US inventory. I'll make the change.

Does anyone have numbers on what fraction of the vehicles are expected to need a "refit" or "upgrade" due to wear and tear, and the cost associated with that? Broken down to a "per year" number? That'd be interesting.

CraigWyllie 17:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I believe that information is still classified. Izzy1985 23:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"They'll follow us home," etc.

Should we be keeping a list of the slogans used by the proponents of the war? 75.35.74.5 08:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because the proponents views on this war are just as valid as the detractors. Izzy1985 23:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree that we should present both sides, I admit I have questions about their relative validity. Also, it seems to me that sloganeering is coming from only one side, which is constantly ordering repetitive oratory. I guess the other side has, "support the troops, bring them home," and the like, but I wonder if grassroots catchphrases are the same as central command-and-control sloganeering. James S. 23:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for Revised Introduction

As it stands, the introduction is in need of revision, so I'm proposing the following intro. Clarification of the problems with the current intro can be found above in the "Opening Paragraph" section:

The Iraq War (March 20, 2003 to May 1, 2003), sometimes known as the Second Gulf War, was a war and subsequent occupation that began with the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The causes of the Iraq War included concerns that Iraq possessed or was developing weapons of mass destruction, concerns about terrorism, and concerns about the abuse of Iraqis by their own government.

The war began in March 2003 when a US-led coalition overthrew Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, occupied Iraq, and established a new government. Following the defeat of the Iraqi forces under Saddam Hussein, violence gradually escalated, with attacks on coalition soldiers and Iraqi troops by insurgents and conflict between rival Sunni and Shi'ite factions; debate over whether the violence constitutes a state of civil war continues. The war resulted in the establishment of a parliamentary democracy under President Jalal Talabani and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. E Pluribus Americanus 17:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the Iraq War is ongoing. Or do you think all those references are only about the March-May 2003 period? Bramlet Abercrombie 18:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

As I explained in the "Opening Paragraph" section of the talk page, calling it ongoing has several problems in the context of the page to which you reverted. For example, that page describes the conflict as ongoing but then states repeatedly that the coalition failed to restore order and stability; if the war is ongoing, we can't yet declare whether or not the coalition has failed in any endeavor because the time for achieving order and stability hasn't passed.

In any case, for the purposes of an encyclopedia it is important to clearly note the difference between the Iraq War and the Iraqi insurgency. In the common speech they are used interchangeably, but they are not the same: the Iraq War was the conflict between the U.S.-led coalition and the government of Saddam Hussein; the Iraqi Insurgency is an ongoing conflict between the coalition and the Iraqi insurgents. I'm not disputing that there is still violence in Iraq, which is why in the intro I added that there is still an ongoing conflict with insurgents. E Pluribus Americanus 18:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the revision above as it does well at presenting an unbiased overview of the facts leading up to, during and after the war. It accurately clarifies the war proper as being within 2003 (invasion through the defeat of Hussein's army and overthrow of his government). But the intro (and the article) also give appropriate airtime to the events following the actual war during occupation of coalition forces. --Clayc3466 03:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Blackwater Contractors - misleading description of how they died

Both this page and the Scott Helvenston page state that the four blackwater contractors "were dragged from their cars, beaten, and set ablaze". This infers that they were beaten to death while still alive.

None of the descriptions I had heared over the years have stated this. I've spent a good deal of time looking for a source on the net, but can't find anything definitive. The Blackwater USA page states that they were killed by "a grenade" - however that's quoting the first poorly written sentence of a CNN reference/article whose main body quotes unnamed eye witnesses who says that "threw hand grenades at the cars ... The assailants then sprayed the burning cars with small-arms fire." This sounds much more accurate. There are clear descriptions on the net of the video that was taken by the insurgents that shows that before anything was set afire and before anyone was removed from the vehicles, all of the contractors were dead. I've also seen a photo which subsequently shows a body by the rear tire of a burning vehicle, with blood pooled around.

Until someone comes up with a better reference I'm going to change all three to the following - "were killed with grenades and small arms fire, their bodies dragged from their vehicles, beaten and set ablaze", and I'm going to reference the CNN article.

I'm also going to remove the following current reference (http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles387.htm) as I think it's clear that the quote there is totally unreliable and probably fabricated. IE: "Another man gave a chilling description of how the men were dragged from their car, begging for their lives. "They had gasoline splashed on them and were set alight," he said." This contradicts everything I've heard about what the insurgent's own video showed and what other eye witnesses report.

CraigWyllie 19:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Strange Wording in the opening section:

"Despite this failure to restore order, a growing number of coalition nations have decided to withdraw troops from Iraq."

I would propose that it is perhaps because of this failure that so many nations have exited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.19.102.15 (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Removed problematic American conflicts template for now

I removed this from the bottom of the article:

{{American conflicts}}

It does not show up correctly in the article. It is being interfered with by the broken template mentioned in the next section. I tried placing it in different places. But it always ends up at the bottom of the article. But it shows up OK on the talk page. And it shows up in the section where I place it. --Timeshifter 14:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is code for broken troop template at bottom of article?

I think it is supposed to be a 3-column template. There are titles for 3 columns:

Active Troops. Withdrawn Troops. Multi-National Corps-Iraq Units.

But everything is in the first column. This template needs to be removed until it is fixed. But I don't see any code for it. Anybody else see it? Or is it part of another template? --Timeshifter 14:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Broken template no longer is showing up at the bottom of the article. The correct template is showing up in the section titled "Troop deployment 2003 to current". --Timeshifter 16:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What code makes for multiple columns in both Firefox and Internet Explorer?

I see multiple columns in my Firefox browser. For the references and external links sections. But not in Internet Explorer. --Timeshifter 16:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Iraqi government insider shares another side of the war on Iraq.

Article: Iraqi details 'shocking' U.S. missteps Yahoo Daily News. Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070408/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_insider_s_account

Bush will tell everyone its getting better there tomorrow. CaribDigita 23:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

Several others and I have raised concerns about the neutrality of this article, particularly with regard to the introduction, claims of oil as a cause, etc. so I have added an NPOV tag. E Pluribus Americanus 23:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You added that tag after you removed the claims that you are disputing, which is odd. Do you have any evidence that Wolfowitz did not say "In Iraq we had no choice. The country swims on a sea of oil," when asked about the difference between Iraq and North Korea? I'll leave your tag, but I'm replacing the rationale. James S. 00:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I dispute more than that in terms of the articles neutrality, as I have explained in the "Opening Paragraph" section of the talk page. Now, as I explained before, it doesn't matter if Paul Wolfowitz said that or not, thus I neither need to dispute it nor do. The simple fact is that while he may have claimed it, "Iraq's oil wealth" has never been offered as part of the rationale for the war. Including it in the article as though it were true is indisputably POV, as debate over whether or not oil was a factor in the invasion is extremely prominent and far from settled. Thus, since this is an encyclopedia and not a forum for declaring one's political views, citing oil as a cause of the war is a violation of the NPOV regulations. E Pluribus Americanus 03:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

To E Pluribus Americanus, I must confess some confusion. Wolfowitz said: "...economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil." Yet you claim that "'Iraq's oil wealth' has never been offered as part of the rationale for the war." Well clearly it has--by Wolfowitz. And this is far from insignificant given that Wolfowitz was one of the lead architects of the war (which I doubt you would dispute). The lead paragraph does not cite "oil as a cause of the war" as you suggest. The wording is quite precise and refers to "Other reasons for the invasion offered by U.S. officials" (I just added in the word "U.S." to that phrase in a recent edit). Clearly Wolfowitz offered concerns about Iraq's huge oil supply as one of the reasons, so I don't see how it violates NPOV to include that information.

And anyway, I would strongly disagree that mentioning oil in the first paragraph is a no no strictly because administration officials have never said "We went to war for oil among other things." Encyclopedia articles are not dependent on official sources (indeed if we adopted the Bush administration's official line on the matter as you seem to be suggesting that would be an NPOV problem) and the fact is that any number of respected commentators (and an enormous number of Americans) feel that concerns about oil were somehow involved. I think it is worth mentioning the disputes about the rationales for the war in the first paragraph--perhaps even in greater detail (an elaboration on the last sentence in the intro might be in order). If that happened I would see no reason to limit the sources to official statements by the Bush administration.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps E. Pluribus Americanus should take his American bias elsewhere... --Buttockhat 09:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to argue that there must be a better wording for the first paragraph. It presents the war for oil argument in a more specific way than is necessary and probably isn't correct. If, for example, the product were rice rather than oil, would it be okay to treat the country differently because it controlled a large portion of the world's food, and thus could cause a worldwide famine? If a large portion of the world's supply of oil were compromised, it would have a substantial effect on the global economy and could possibly lead to famine, economic depression, etc. North Korea has very little to offer the global economy, while Iraq controls a great deal of one of the most important products in the world. So, the statement by Wolfowitz alone doesn't necessarily paint the war for oil reasoning in a positive or negative light. If it must be included, then it should be rewritten with less bias. In the introduction, reader should be able to identify the different reasons without being able to see a bias. Then, later in the article, each statement can be explained more fully and both sides of each argument presented. --BekiB 19:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The current version doesn't seem to potray it in a positive or negative light to me. It just says "the economic importance of Iraq's oil supply". If they invaded Iraq because of the economic important or Iraq's rice then we would mention that as well. Many people including me don't think you should invade a country because of their oil, but that is up to the reader to decide. We don't say they shouldn't we just say they did Nil Einne 00:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some consensus on the issue, and I do not see any POV problems with the current version of the line about economic importance of oil. I will remove the NPOV tag. Go ahead and replace it if there are other problems in the article. Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

I just throw this out there for the sake of information....[2]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Looper5920 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Photos not related to actual content

I removed a US coffins photograph on the Casualties section twice, and it was returned twice. I thought the location was not well chosen, but someone told there had been discussion about this matter before. This was the reply to a question I asked about it: "The photo in question makes sense in its current location because there is no room for it in the infobox where the coalition casualties are located. In the casualties section farther down in the article there is reference made to coalition casualties too. It points to the infobox and to the main casualties article. Everything in that Iraq War article gets shrunk down oftentimes to a sentence, or a few sentences. Then links are provided to many other longer articles on the many various related topics. So the coffins photo is in the most logical place in the article. Coffins photos are important to USA readers, because getting photos of them arriving was very difficult at times."

It's a to-the-point explanation; still, I'm not sure about this. Not challenging the importance for American citizens, I'm one of the en.wikipedia users that do not look from that perspective (this is something in the WP:CSB field). Is there an objective, (quasi-)worldwide acceptable reason why fallen US soldiers entail the most significant or logical illustration to a piece of text that at the start mentions references to their stories but does hardly deal with them itself? Even if it did, such a question might be legitimate, while casualties on the other side far outnumber the US ones (there's a photo of an Iraqi soldier in the section now, but at a lower position). More views? Nethency 19:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with more Iraqi casualty photos. Nor with shrinking the coffins photo, and enlarging the Iraqi casualty photos. So that they are all at the same size. I don't care what order they are put in either. I am all for making the war real with more coffin and casualty photos. More photos, not less!! :)

I am a member of WP:CSB (Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias). --Timeshifter 20:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent content moves by Publicus to 2007 in Iraq; merge proposed

I'm concerned about Publicus's moves of substantial war-related content to the 2007 in Iraq article.[3]. US military command changes do not seem to belong in an article about Iraq, a survey showing that more than half of Iraqis now consider attacks on coalition forces acceptable, up from much smaller proportions in earlier years certainly is war-related, and the news item about Dowd certainly doesn't belong in an article about Iraq.

Why do we even have the "200x in Iraq" articles? There is no 2007 in the US, 2007 in the United States, 2007 in the United States of America, 2007 in USA, or 2007 in the USA. Is there any other purpose than for hiding uncomfortable information?

I am proposing to merge those articles back into this one. James S. 15:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If these articles are merged, do we really want every single attack, bombing, or event (no matter how small) on the Iraq War page? Looking at some of the events listed on the dates in the 2007 in Iraq article, some of them wouldn't make it to the main Iraq War page, or could be summed up in a "300+ people were killed in April 2004 by suicide bombing attacks" statement. It seems the original purpose of the 200x in (country) pages was to show a timeline of minor events that normally don't get much attention in the press and look more in depth at the levels of violence and number of attacks. Sirkan 17:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to keep the article brief without sacrificing any important details on the overall war. One of the problems with this article has been the inclusion of far too much detail on news items not necessarily related to the war. We've tried to get a "good article" label on Iraq war a couple of times, and both times one of the problems was too much non-relevant detail-the reviewers suggested splitting off parts of the article into their own related articles. (there's a mention of these problems somewhere in the talk pages archives) Also, as Sirkan mentioned there's a lot detail that would have to be included to cover all the different aspects of the war; such as specific operations by the Coalition forces, the list of suicide bombings, chlorine bombings, iraqi insurgency, all the pre-war articles, and so on. As far as merging the entire 2007 in Iraq article with this one. I would suggest that there is probably too much detail in the "timeline" articles to merge into the main Iraq war article. One of the guides I've been using in editing this article has been the Vietnam war, mainly because it's another controversial war but also because it is safely in the past and most of the major actions of the war have been relatively established over time. If you look at that article, the focus isn't the details of US administration staff changes, rather it's on the overall events of specific importance to the war. Hopefully, my moves of those paras to the 2007 in Iraq page have made some sense now that I explained my position. Publicus 14:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I can agree with that argument based on the sheer bulk of all the news items. However, the chronology in this article needs to follow Wikipedia:Summary style, and right now it doesn't; not even close. There are plenty of important events which should be at least summarized in this main article, and plenty of facts relegated to "200x in Iraq" articles which have more to do with the US and the war than Iraq. I'm contemplating large changes to meet WP:SS. James S. 17:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. It needs to be brought up to Wikipedia standards. I'll start some work on that to get it up to snuff. It might take me a while, considering the bulk of the items...I may need some help from other Wikipedians. One question, though...should these pages really be under Wikipedia:Summary style, or under Wikipedia:Timeline? The page layout seems more accurate for that. Sirkan 22:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

2007 in Iraq should be renamed 2007 in the Iraq War... Iraq is a country... this timeline only lists war events and should be named to reflect this. If a big fancy hotel opened in Kurdistan it would look silly on this list. MPS 17:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

information about the actual war?

Little or no information is given about the actual pre-end of major combat hostilities, including the invasion itself. Is there a reason for this? There's hardly a sentence about it, the article just jumps from "The US declared war" to "The US occupied Iraq" --NEMT 02:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Al-Sadr's flag

Al-Sadr was listed with an Iraqi flag, even though he is not an Iraqi government commander. Does anyone know the flag of the Mahdi Army?

This is the only image of the flag I can find. Mahdi Army. This will help you recognise it if you can find a picture suitable to use for the article. Wayne 03:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The picture you have linked to is that of Lebanese Shi'ite militia Hezbollah. Sadr's Mehdi Army have no flag.

contractors or mercenaries

Shouldn't the contractors rather be referred to as mercenaries?--Soylentyellow 09:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the formal name is private military contractors, mercenaries is kind of a slang term. Publicus 17:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Slang or not, it is a synonym with almost ten times the Google hits and a third of the words. James S. 20:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point, except it isn't a synonym - at all. --NEMT 00:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the difference between private military contractors and mercenaries? James S. 16:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Mercenaries are illegal and under the Geneva Convention can not be given the protection of POW status. Private Military Contractor is a "weasel phrase" to legalise them. Wayne 17:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? So the guys that serve me dinner in the chow hall in Iraq are mercenaries? You have no idea what you're talking about. Mercenaries are soldiers who hire out their services to governments. A private contractor is a civilian who is hired by the military to perform some _non-combat_ function. Using the term mercenary here is clearly biased because it implies some sort of justification for killing innocent civilians.

12.158.118.103 14:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not refering to non combat functions. Currently 100,000 PMC's work in Iraq and of those 48,000 work in combat operations according to a GAO report which makes them mercenaries under the Geneva Convention. Maybe we should mention that half the PMC's work as mercenaries for accuracy in the article?
BTW The Geneva International Advisory Board has this included in it's definition of PMC's "Terms such as mercenaries and private security companies (PSCs) are often used interchangeably with PMCs". Wayne 01:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarity. Although mercenaries are illegal under the GC, in iraq the CPA passed a law exempting PMC's from liability for any laws they break which is why the civilian interrogators could not be charged in the Abu Ghraib scandal while serving military personel were. Wayne 01:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In the battle box, Al-Qaeda and Saddam shouldn't be grouped together

They weren't on the same side. If it's possible to divide the combatants into 3 parts, please do so. Malamockq 05:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

to the present?

The phrase "to the present" in the time frame of the Iraq War cannot be correct. What is happening in Iraq now has nothing to do with the original Iraqi Freedom Operation.It is a brand new "CONFLICT" (not war by any definition) in the war against terrorism. That's why those media shows and analysis that contrast Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech with the series of bombs and casualities are specious.

I'm a bit confused by the statement "What is happening in Iraq now has nothing to do with the original Iraqi Freedom Operation". NOTHING to do with the original operation? As in there are no causal connections? As in what we are seeing now would have happened anyway? This seems an odd, not to mention indefensible, point of view. SlipperyN 17:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Baghdad Wall

I'm a little puzzled as to why the three mile wall, which the US military is currently building around the Sunni district of Baghdad and which has been in the news for the past several days, didn't have a mention here or in the current events portal. I've added in notes and links accordingly.

It was added to Adhamiya on Apr 21 but I guess it took a couple days to "trickle up" to this article. Patience, my friend; the Wikipedia process is working. MPS 02:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Iraq War Not Officially About Oil

I know that this article (http://foi.missouri.edu/polinfoprop/wolfowitz2.html) (citation 27) has been deleted from the Guardian's website for beig inaccurate (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,973940,00.html). I didn't delete it myself because I would probably do it wrong and don't have time tonight to learn to do it well. I'd appreciate if someone who knows how could do this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.253.204.165 (talk • contribs) 03:40, April 25, 2007 (UTC)

recent history bias

the recent history section is biased. The death toll per day is relatively insignificant for U.S. forces. Since the surge it has not gotten worse by any noteworthy level. In addition, fighting has shifted to south of baghdad, as this surge is in large part an operation to secure baghdad specifically, it is working in that regard and the metioning of the 3.4 dead or whatever is insignificant really in regards to the overall view that a couple sentences about "recent history" should include. It seems some here would like the USA to fail in IRaq. That is a sick form of twisted vindication if you ask me as an American.

Inadequate troop levels

In April 1999 General Zinni (ret.), conducted a game Desert Crossing to evaluate the number of troops needed post Saddam. It might be worth mentioning in this article. [4] KAM 01:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is worthy of inclusion, and have put in a couple of sentences in the criticisms subsection on inadequate troop levels. Thanks! --Mackabean 23:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Bias and the Anbar Awakening

This article is in general very biased. It clearly makes every attempt to convince the reader that the United States was wrong to invade Iraq, and that the United States is losing there. To this end, it ignores or downplays any evidence to the contrary, while emphasizing or exaggerating anything that suggests American failure.

The specific issue I'm addressing right now is the fact that there is no mention of the so-called "Anbar Awakening" in this article. What has happened in Anbar with the tribal sheiks is an undeniable fact, whether you like it or not, and should be in the article. Even the New York Times has awknowledged this with an article on April 29, 2007.

12.158.118.103 14:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If you think something should be in the article, sign up for an account and start editing. It is free, you can be anonymous, and you can help solve any problems with bias. Otherwise, you're just a random IP number doing a meaningless drive-by criticism. Publicus 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the unnamed poster that potentially good news like the Anbar Awakening group should be included in this article along with bad news. I also agree with Publicus that if he or she wanted it included, they should have just put the information in themselves:) Regardless, I have added information in the militia section about the Anbar Awakening. --Mackabean 23:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Added a point about Anbar under April 2007. Robbskey 00:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The Anbar mention itself is biased as it says they are fighting the insurgents when in fact they are fighting terrorists. The original source used by the reference never mentioned insurgents. Though there is limited cooperation with the US it is clear from what is reported that it is only to give them more freedom to get rid of the extremists. Once that is done they will resume fighting the coalition. If you look around, the mainstream media is avoiding this story like the plague with only minimal recognition as the "awakening" is a clear indication that the occupation is a failure. Wayne 10:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Referring to Saddam Hussein as Saddam is probably not appropriate

I think it's highly innappropriate to refer to the deposed and executed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein as Saddam. Would one refer to President G.W. Bush as George? 195.217.233.178 12:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Wael El Rifai

Geez, Saddam loyalists refer to Saddam as Saddam. Bush is referred as Bush ;) --HanzoHattori 12:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've offten herd Saddam Hussein called 'President Hussein' or just

There are a million Castros in Cuba, but everyone knows what you mean when you say Fidel. I suspect there are a million Husseins in Iraq. mutatis mutandis, "Saddam" makes sense. MPS 02:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Contractor deaths

I am for including the number of contractors killed in the war but I think we should not include them in the total count of killed coalition forces members. Even if most of those contractors are in situations that the coalition soldiers are, and even if most of them are former soldiers now mercenaries, still most of them are not there as part of the coalition army. Yes some of them are imployed by the Stated department and the Pentagon, but there are others who are imployed by private companies. We should put in the casualties box under Coalition the number of killed soldiers and seperatly under foreign contractors the number of contractors. I mean we have already divided them in the part of the box with troop numbers. One coalition, and one contractors. The way it is now somebody who read's the article would think that almost 4,500 coalition soldiers have been killed in the war, but actualy only around 3,600 have been killed. I will wiat to see the others opinions before I make any changes. --Top Gun 07:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Part of War on Terrorisum

Some one say its part of the war on terror. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.76.223.111 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In a way it is. --Pine oak 01:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In the "rationale for war" section in the info-box, war on terrorism is listed as one of the rationales. There was a long discussion over this a while back--check the archives on the talk page for more. The eventual consensus was to put war on terrorism in the "war rationales" and not at the top of the info-box, like the current war on Afghanistan. Publicus 17:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Gen Sir Michael Rose

Rose had some very interesting things to tell the BBC about this war and a book to go along with it. He believes the war cannot possibly be won because the insurgents will not ever give up, comparing it to how the Americans could not possibly have given up to the British in those colony wars, as the fight is for what they believe to be home soil. I don't know anything about this, but it seems to be an interesting and strong point from someone, a Gen no less, that is in this war. He says it cannot be won so they should pull out. Now it is not for you to decide if pulling out is a bad idea or not, but to decide if this guy has enough merit to be mentioned and quoted here. I think so, but there are certain pages I refuse to edit, and this is one of them, so I am just leaving it here for your good selves to have a look at. Thank you ^_^ JayKeaton 01:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6618075.stm

Contractors

Because the contractors are not part of the REGULAR coalition forces but are only private forces in Iraq, and also we have already in the strenght box separated them from the coalition forces I have put the numbers of contractors killed and wounded separate from the coalition dead and wounded, also I have updated the number of contractors killed it was for months around 760 but I have now put a referenc that confirms more than 900 killed, in the referenc there is also the exact number of American civilians contractors killed in Iraq during the war, 224, if sombedoy wants to use that number to point out how many have been Americans be my guest, just remember that is still not the exact number of American civilians killed because there is still a few reporters that were killed.Top Gun 06:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good Top Gun. I don't have a problem separating out the contractors from the coalition. As far as further distinquishing the nationality of the contractors I would just list the contractors as a group without mentioning nationality. If someone is interested in pursuing that further, perhaps a linked article on the role/casualties in Iraq might be appropriate. Publicus 15:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Top Gun for that contractor deaths update. That is the first time I have seen a number for American contractor deaths. I think it should be in the infobox. Many people have wanted to know that number. I will try to find a way to incorporate it into the infobox without adding too much to its length. --Timeshifter 02:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the main reference link:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/04/reconstruction_.html

The quote farther down is from this long PDF:

http://www.sigir.mil/reports/quarterlyreports/Apr07/pdf/Report_-_April_2007_Complete.pdf

Its title is "April 30, 2007 Quarterly Report to Congress (Highlights, All Sections and Appendices)" on this page:

http://www.sigir.mil/reports/quarterlyreports/Apr07/Default.aspx

"Since Iraq reconstruction began, 916 death claims for civilian contractors working on U.S.-funded projects in Iraq have been filed. In the quarter ending March 31, 2007, the Department of Labor reported 146 new death claims. DoS reports that 16 U.S. civilians died in Iraq this quarter. Since the beginning of the U.S. reconstruction effort, 224 U.S. civilians have died in Iraq." --Timeshifter 03:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Timeshifter do you know how many of the 244 US civilians killed in Iraq are government personnel vs contractors? I haven't seen any number of US government personnel, State Dept, DefDept, etc--killed in Iraq. Publicus 15:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I took so long to get back to you. I don't check the Iraq War talk page as much. I check the article more often just to check up on the casualties section and the infobox. I haven't seen any breakdown on the 244 US dead. I would like to know that too. The part I emphasized in the above quote doesn't sound like they are State Department or Defense Dept, though I could be wrong. --Timeshifter 01:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

For oil...

Edited the oil reference in the lead paragraph to read "They have also claimed that the economic importance of Iraq's oil supply limited nonmilitary options, while many critical comentators have alleged that this factor was a primary reason." The second clause needs work but I think something should go there, one quote from Wolfowitz would not be encyclopedic if it weren't for the anti-war suspicions of an oil motive. --Homunq 16:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Mercenary dead

How many mercenaries have been killed, anyone know? There was a report that there could be tens of thousands of mercenary (Western mercenaries, I'm not talking about terrorists or Iraqi insurgents) troops in Iraq also. This should also be listed.Azerbaijani 23:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

They're listed under "contractors". Total casualties on them are difficult to find, since they don't report their losses publicly. The best source has been when these various companies file for insurance claims at the US Dept of Labor, then they provide a summary of casualties for the period of the insurance claim. I'm not sure if these claims cover only US contractors or all contractors. Publicus 15:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's also difficult to tell if "contractors" means Blackwater-style private soldiers, or unarmed construction workers and the like, or both.Solicitr 18:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda in Iraq

under the heading "2004:The insurgency expands" it states that "Al-Qaeda in Iraq (an affiliated al-Qaeda group), led by abu musabal-Zarqawi, would help to drive the insurgency." The links provided (Abu Musabal-Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda in Iraq) provide more information and indicate that "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" is an unofficial name, misused by the US Mass media and has only one Al-Qaeda affiliation (but not in the sense included here). More investigation is needed, and a change, i think is definitely needed. Megadecimal 04:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Occupation

An editor keeps deleting the word "occupation" as he says the occupation ended after the elections. The Iraqi public refer to it as an occupation. World media refer to it as an occupation. Some US media such as the Washington Post call it an occupation. On March 1, HR 1234 "To end the United States occupation of Iraq immediately" was introduced to the house of Representatives.

The Iraqi government voted for the coalition to leave "On Tuesday (May 8th), without note in the U.S. media, more than half of the members of Iraq's parliament rejected the continuing occupation of their country. 144 lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal" while the Whitehouse spokesperson stated (last week) that any vote to leave will be refused as the U.S. has a U.N. mandate (resolution 1723 2006) to stay (in fact the mandate ends the day the Iraqis ask them to leave or Dec 2007 if they dont).

For the article the word occupation still has to used due to usage. Wayne 09:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That media use the word "occupation" quite doesn't make it a neutral term. "Occupation" suggests that the military presence is somehow illegitimate or injust. But as quoted above, the US troops are there based on a mandate adopted by the United Nations Security Council as well as on request of the democratically elected Iraqi government. Please see Iraqi sovereignty and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546 for more information.

You also seem to confuse the Iraqi government with the Iraqi parliament, as it's the first that holds the executive power in the country and decides whether foreign troops should be there and not the parliament. /Slarre 15:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not only the media. U.S. politicians often use the word. The Italian Parliament used it recently in a statement of condemnation. Even the U.N. still uses it despite the mandate. The problem is that world opinion overwhelmingly sees it as an occupation, not to mention that the initial invasion was illegal and only legitimised after the fact which is the base for the viewpoint. This same arguement (public viewpoint) is often used in other U.S. centred articals to trump technical facts so you can't have it both ways. Wayne 00:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"the initial invasion was illegal and only legitimised after the fact" Tosh. It was a resumption of suspended hostilities after the Hussein government's flagrant violations of the March 1991 al-Safwan ceasefire agreement. Solicitr 18:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The Gold Seal Campaign

For the sake of Wikipedia and controversial articles...

Gold Seal Campaign:

What do you think of this? The administrators of Wikipedia establish a Gold Seal campaign for certain articles. This “Gold Seal” will indicate for a given article it’s factuality and lack of vandalism. Basically it will show..

1-This page is properly cited.

2-This page has been verified.

This will be an important step for Wikipedia. It means students, high school included will be able to cite Wikipedia in their work. As of now many schools do not allow students to this.

As for editing an article, It will still be allowed yet a person can easily revert to the Gold Sealed, verified page on Wikipedia. This will be an amazing step for Wikipedia, though difficult, it will allow readers to know for sure what they are reading is true. It will surely improve Wikipedia’s image in the public sphere. Of course someone will have to organize this, but in then it will be sufficient use of labour. — mattawa

I think it's a good idea. Brilliant. --LtWinters 02:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that what Wikipedia:Good Article does? the grading scheme is already in place. I like the name "Gold Seal" though. MPS 14:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much what the Good Article does. Regardless, this is not the place for this discussion. This talk page is for discussions relating to the main article, the Iraq War. Parsecboy 15:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't let this go unanswered. Wikipedia:Good Article is not quite good enough as it leaves too much wiggle room for western bias in articles. I've seen several good articles that have used very weak (and ungrammatical) sentences in place of standard nomenclature because "it sounds negative and we dont see it that way". By nomenclature I mean how it has to be written for a school assignment. A Gold Seal would require the use of correct terminology. Wayne 21:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Minority views in lead

Hi, I've removed the line in the WP:Lead listing "ensuring the security of Israel, a key American ally in the Middle East" as a rationale for the Iraq War, which is not mentioned at all in this entry. It is sourced to this article which draws the connection based on a single speech from a single individual. The closest thing that the dedicated subarticle has is a general desire for MidEast peace. Tewfik^Talk 04:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be restored, with more comprehensicve sourcing. There can be little doubt that Saddam was a very real threat to Israel's security, openly sponsoring inter alia Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Abu Nidal Group, as well as paying $25,000 bounties to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.Solicitr 18:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Imminent

And editor has changed this word to "urgent" on the basis that Bush never said it. The article made no claim as to who said it. White House spokesman Scott McClellan, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, Sen. Edward Kennedy and White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett all said it in press interviews. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld used the word "immediate" many times. Both these words have a similar meaning but different to urgent which although also used is a weaker word. The media used imminent often as in this example. The rest of the world still uses the word imminent today and in fact Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently gave a weasel definition of the word by saying "the question of imminence isn't whether or not someone will strike tomorrow, it's whether you believe you're in a stronger position today to deal with the threat or whether you're going to be in a stronger position tomorrow" which shows the word still has prominence. Imminent needs to be used in the article as "urgent" is POV in the context of the world perception of the history of the conflict. Wayne 02:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And Condoleezza rice needs to consult a dictionary. I'm changing it back to 'imminent', as the weasel word "urgent" is original research. Kevin Baas^talk 15:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Image Gallery

I think the image gallery is missing some of the most important photos of this war, such as "Mission Accomplished", Abu Garib, the fall of the Saddam statue, and the burnt bodies hanging off the bridge. The images I feel best represent this war, unlike the current images which are more 'routine'. Angry Aspie 19:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now added pictures like these ones in a gallary to give a proper sence of what's going on.-

• The famous 2003 toppling of Saddam’s statue in Baghdad.
  The famous 2003 toppling of Saddam’s statue in Baghdad.
• 
  The various occupation zones in Iraq.
• 
  Iraqi troops on the eve of battle in 2003.
• 
  A U.S. Iraq war casualty.
• The ethno-religious makeup of Iraq.
  The ethno-religious makeup of Iraq.
• 
  Saddam Hissein on tryal in July 2004.

--Freetown 18:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

International opinions section

As part of the Global Task Force's effort to counter systemic bias, I've added a small international opinions section, which I hope to expand. For understandable, but nonetheless regrettable, reasons, this article is lacking in international views. I wonder if, in addition to a section indicating overall global opinion, we should add subsections to indicating global opinion/reaction to particular issues, e.g. Human Rights, U.S. troop surge, etc.? I'm interested, of course, in any advice and/or help!Benzocane 22:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC) > I wish you best of luck :| The entire section seems weird, it sounds like they're trying to point out all the places they could find support for the war on terror - which even is partly off topic, it would be more interesting to see the support for the war on Iraq.

insurgent deaths

Concerning the insurgent deaths number in the infobox that sources List of insurgents killed in Iraq. I have been calling it a "representative" list of insurgents and militia members killed. I think that is a more accurate word than "comprehensive". And it sounds better than "partial" which can sound deprecating. The list is in no way comprehensive. Just like the Iraq Body Count project counts made from media reports are not comprehensive. Because the media in Iraq does not record all the deaths. The media is not everywhere in Iraq. And they do not report everything for many reasons. See:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003#Undercounting --Timeshifter 10:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Kurds

The Kurdish insrgency and brave Peshmerga malitia deserve more of a mention in theis article.--86.29.255.69 19:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yep!--Pine oak 01:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Why? After America pulls out, the Turks are going to eat the Kurds for lunch and they will become a historical footnote.204.210.238.134 14:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Time line and the structure of the article

I am wondering if this entry wouldn't benefit considerably if we moved the time line section--by far the longest section--to its own entry, as is often done for other conflicts. We could have a summary here of the major events, of course, but the readability and, I feel, encyclopedic nature of the article suffers from the ever-expanding list of detailed occurrences. I'm not saying they're not important--just that they might lengthen this entry to the point of unreadability. Thoughts?

I think this is a good idea. The timeline section now dominates the article, making it difficult for the reader to get a more general understanding of the war. I would support moving the time line section to a separate article while keeping the key points of the timeline summarized in this article. Some precedents for such a change seem to exist in the Timeline of the Gulf War and the Timeline of World War II. --Mackabean 05:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. I've also found other precedents. I'll go ahead and make this change. It also seems in keeping with the "to do" list for this article. Benzocane 22:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have created a separate page Timeline of the Iraq War but I have not yet deleted the timeline section from the main page until we have a summary of the main events of the war instead of a 68 kilobyte section! I will begin to work on such a condensed summary but would appreciate help, of course.Benzocane 22:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a worthy effort to me -- the article is extremely long, and having a very short summarized history would actually be a helpful resource. I would recommend making it very condensed so that you don't end up with two competing versions of the timeline - but of course follow the best examples you've seen in other articles.
I'm tempted to tag the section somehow, but don't think there's a template exactly suited for this type of transition status (i.e. that it has already been moved to a separate article but still needs to be summarized)? There are templates you can use to tag a long article or section, but I don't know of one that specifically calls for summarizing the current material. Also, once the summary is underway be sure to add a "see also" link to the timeline article from the top of the section. --Pladuk 06:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favor of this change, I think it would streamline the article nicely.SlipperyN 13:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea--I'm always for shortening an article. Just a couple of thoughts. Would this new timeline article replace or compliment the existing 2007 in Iraq, 2006 in Iraq...? Also, what would remain on the main article page with regards to events? Part of the reason the timeline keeps growing has to with the popularity of editors first adding items to this page and then people gradually shortening or moving those items to a proper related page. Publicus 17:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, as you'll notice in the timeline. The older years have been more thoroughly edited and shortened while 2007 still has a lot of raw additions to it, which is partly why it is so long.Publicus 17:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Replacing subsections in Timeline section with summaries (and removing month by month and day by day entires)

Now that we have an entry for the Timeline of the Iraq War and a current 2007 in Iraq entry, I'm trying to find ways to protect the readability of this entry by shortening the Timeline section. It seems to me that the first step is removing the month and day subsections under annual headings as this information is now available elsewhere. I will begin this process and would appreciate help/advice!Benzocane 22:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Kudos on your work moving the timeline to a separate article! I think that vastly improves the readability of the main Iraq war article. I am not sure, however, whether removing the months from the Iraq War timeline is in keeping with the Wikipedia style guidelines on this. See here: Wikipedia:Timeline. The guidelines are a bit confusing to me. But all of the timelines I have seen, including the example one given in the style guideline seem to keep the months or dates as the headings. I agree that getting rid of them might improve readabiltiy a bit, but I think it is important to keep consistent formatting across the site. It is a timeline, after all, so in some ways it seems weird to get rid of the months. I wonder if others have thoughts or guidance on this issue. --Mackabean 07:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. It's clear to me that we need months and days as headings in the main timeline article, as well as in the annual summary entry, but it's not clear to me if the style guideline mandates that we have to have that level of specificity on this page. After all, the community also has standards about keeping pages at a reasonable length.Benzocane 15:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I like dropping the months on the timeline for this article and keeping them on the new timeline page. It makes the article a lot shorter--for more detail people can always check the actual timeline article. Publicus 17:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The article on the al-Qaeda in Iraq is worthless

It's here: Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad

The last time it even remotely resembled anything being not completely crap was there: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jama%27at_al-Tawhid_wal-Jihad&oldid=130644162

It was by no means good even back then, but now it's almost beyond repair but scrapping altogether and starting anew. --HanzoHattori 14:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Are al-Qaeda even in Iraq? I think they left just after Saddam fell.--Freetown 01:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There never were al-Qaeda in Iraq. The group the U.S. media claimed were al-Qaeda were based in the no fly zone where Saddam could not touch them (they were anti-Saddam) and Bin Laden refused to aid or support them. After the invasion and until recently the media often called them "al-Qaeda affiliated". Lately I notice the media has begun to call all such groups both inside and outside Iraq "al-Qaeda inspired" due to al-Qaeda as an organisation no longer existing. Wayne 03:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh really?

Few examples:

• Reuters: Al Qaeda in Iraq leader killed: Interior Ministry
• Associated Press: Sunnis Revolt Against al-Qaeda In Iraq
• BBC: Al-Qaeda in Iraq names new head
• CNN: Al Qaeda in Iraq issues virulent manifesto
• AFP: Deputy leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq captured
• Time: Is al-Qaeda on the Run in Iraq?
• Al-Jazeera: Al-Qaeda denies death of Iraq chief

And really, more than half million other links[5] THIS YEAR ALONE.

Meanwhile, Wiki sez:

The term "al-Qaeda in Iraq" may refer to:

• Osama bin Laden's international al-Qaeda network's alleged operations in Iraq.
• al-Zarqawi, who was labeled an "al-Qaeda operative", alleged contacts with the group Ansar al-Islam in Northern Iraq, an area that was outside the control of the former Ba'athist government. (Note: Ansar al-Islam's founder, Mullah Krekar, has staunchly denied any such contacts. [6])
• al-Zarqawi's alleged operations in Iraq under the group Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad
• Alternative name of The Jihad Base Organization in Mesopotamia used by U.S. officials and certain western media.
• The alleged "al-Qaeda operative" Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's alleged operations in Iraq. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is an alias for the deceased leader of al-Tawhid.

It may also refer to alleged links between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein:

• Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda

{{disambig}}

All your claims of "There never were al-Qaeda in Iraq." and all this "allegedly" (and sometimes even "falsely" - ??) are, simply, laughable (and original research). Al-Qaeda in Iraq should be about al-Qaeda in Iraq, and not a bunch of "allegedly" and "alleged". Better tell me that if "certain" media and officials use this term (ha ha, "incorrectly"), then what media do NOT? I'm seriouly asking.

You know how the article should be written? This is how, for example, BBC described the al-Qaeda in Iraq in the Guide: Armed groups in Iraq:

AL-QAEDA IN IRAQ

Al-Qaeda of Jihad Organisation in the Land of the Two Rivers is the country's most prominent insurgent group, blamed for many of the bloodiest bombings and beheadings. It was led by the Jordanian militant, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, until he was killed by a US air strike in June 2006.

He emerged in Iraq as the alleged head of the Tawhid and Jihad group, which was blamed for some of the biggest early insurgent attacks.

These included the truck bombing that killed 23 at the UN headquarters in Baghdad in August 2003 and the blast in Najaf 10 days later that killed a senior Shia cleric and more than 85 others.

Tawhid and Jihad was also known for the brutal beheadings of foreign hostages, which were posted on the internet in video footage attributed to the group.

An internet statement in 2004 claimed that the group had joined Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, although the depth of the links is not clear.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq's hallmarks include synchronised bomb attacks, as well as the abduction and murder of foreign hostages.

The bombs have had a range of targets - from US military personnel to Iraq's fledgling security forces and its Shia community. Shia Muslims have been derided as apostates in messages attributed to Zarqawi.

Igniting sectarian conflict is central to al-Qaeda's strategy in Iraq, according to a letter purportedly authored by Zarqawi and released by the US military in early 2004.

Foreign "jihadi" fighters are widely thought to play a key role in the group, although some analysts say it may have also have a considerable Iraqi membership.

Shortly after Zarqawi's death, al-Qaeda in Iraq named a new leader, Abu-Hamzah al-Muhajir, thought to be a pseudonym.

Uncertainly surrounds the new leader, although the US military released a picture of a man it named as Abu Ayyub al-Masri and said was an Egyptian militant based in Baghdad.

And that's it. This style, expanded and updated (this was 2007). --HanzoHattori 21:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes Really Firstly I was referring to the media in my own country. Secondly it is not OR as you would find if you do the research on scholarly articles instead of relying on the media.
al-Zarqawi refused to swear allegiance to Bin Laden which was a prerequisite for membership of al-Qaeda nor did he or his organization get funding from al-Qaeda. When al-Zarqawi was based in the Herat Province of Western Afghanistan in 2000 there was no contact between the two groups. In 2002 Zarqawi joined Ansar al-Islam in Iraq who were funded by al-Qaeda but he still refused to swear allegiance and al-Qaeda stopped funding them. It wasn’t until late 2003 that Zarqawi met with al-Qaeda and this was only to help insurgents enter Iraq. Zarqawi’s objectives of promoting the sectarian violence are the complete opposite of al-Qaeda’s who are opposed to it. It wasn’t until 2004 that Zarqawi offered to work with al-Qaeda but he still refused to pledge allegiance and al-Qaeda said at the time that he (and his group) were a hindrance to them not a help. It wasn’t until the very end of 2004 that he eventually pledged allegiance for propaganda purposes and was then accepted as a part of al-Qaeda although they both still worked independently from each other.
al-Zarqawi would be more accurately described as al-Qaeda affiliated. It is likely that Zarqawi's replacement is closer to al-Qaeda though. Using the al-Qaeda name for unrelated Muslim terrorist organisations who have similar objectives is a propaganda ploy.Wayne 17:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect vandalism

The term 'hopeless failure' redirects to this article. While amusing, this is clearly POV and unfitting for a source like Wikipedia. I would really appreciate if someone could remove the link {but I'm not holding my breath :) }.

Resently it also went to Aricle-'Islam' for a few day and then was cut out.--Pine oak 01:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

See- Talk page: Hopeless failure [7] , it's back!--Pine oak 01:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Judge prohibits private military contractors / mercenaries

This seems to be the first time the judiciary has stepped in so directly:

A federal judge yesterday ordered the military to temporarily refrain from awarding the largest security contract in Iraq. The order followed an unusual series of events set off when a U.S. Army veteran filed a protest against the government practice of hiring what he calls mercenaries.... Brian X. Scott ... argues that the military's use of private security contractors is "against America's core values" and violates an 1893 law that prohibits the government from hiring quasi-military forces.[8]

I'm going to add this stuff when I get a chance. Also, WTF is up with this ABC News story that got yanked after publication? James S. 23:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting as it answers questions raised in Talk earlier.
::Scott's challenge is for "private sector contractors that are hired by the U.S. government to engage in or be prepared to engage in offensive or defensive combat" (20,000 PSC's are in this category according to the terms of the new contract and the challenge does not cover those PSC's already in Iraq). The government is contesting on the grounds that a 1978 Supreme Court ruling interpreted the 1893 law against hiring mercenaries as meaning the hiring of "mercenary, quasi-military forces as strike breakers and armed guards." Because PMC's are not required to be "strike breakers" in Iraq the GAO says they are technically not mercenaries (if we ignore the Geneva Convention) under U.S. law.

As for your question. You are surprised? On Friday Tony Snow (The Presidents spokesperson) said that Iraq could be another Korea. The U.S. has had troops there for 50 years. The truth is that no one knows how long but the government doesn't want the people to know that. Wayne 04:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

South Korea wanted us there. Are we going to be defending the last Iraqis who stow away in the Green Zone from being able to see their families? James S. 06:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Why this conflation of invasion with occupation?

As far as I recall, noone conflates the invasion of Germany with the subsequent occupation, or the war against Japan with the subsequent occupation. Why do they conflate them here? Do they do it for propagandistic purposes, to make it appear the invasion failed? That is not a good reason to confuse the terms. To pretend that the US is not occupying Iraq is silly. To pretend that the US has not yet accomplished the beginning of occupation is silly. It is obvious to everyone that the invasion is long over, that the organized resistance to the invasion was quickly crushed, and that the occupation has been going on for years, albeit with plenty of problems and resistance. Even if one concedes that the Iraqi infrastructure has badly decayed, and that scores of dead bodies are found in the major cities every day, that still should not constitute a reason to pretend that the invasion failed, or is still being attempted!

"As far as I recall, noone conflates the invasion of Germany with the subsequent occupation, or the war against Japan with the subsequent occupation. Why do they conflate them here?"

Gee I dunno, maybe because the occupation of Japan and Germany saw little fighting compared to the rest of the war, whereas the MOST fighting in Iraq has been seen AFTER the initial invasion and capture of that nation. Answer your question? --MKnight9989 12:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was followed by a bloody occupation, and similarly the US invasion of Afghanistan (but not as bloody an occupation, I think). Do these refute MKnight's argument that occupations are only bloodless? ~~

Problems in opening sentence

The opening sentence seems to begin very poorly: "The main rationale for the war offered by the President George W. Bush"

Shouldn't that be, at least, US President? After all, the article purports to be about Iraq, not the US, yet US domestic terms such as "Democrat" and "Republican" are immediately thrown around, as though the realm of discourse is US domestic roundtables. Furthermore, "rationale" is not really the correct word at all. That is an unsubstantiated attempt to say what was in the mind of the US President, I think (and a very implausible one). Surely, what is meant is that the main "justification" was that. Or, if you believe that the Bush Administration knowingly lied, I suppose you could argue that it was the main "pretense", but that sounds very undiplomatic, and I think the more polite term "justification" is much better.

Note: I'm not going to be bold and touch the article, because I tried editing another article related to Iraq recently, and found that my changes were reverted without discussion or explanation, so I have some suspicion that (probably US) propagandists may be pushing some agendas here, and forbidding changes due to these agendas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harvard yarrd (talk • contribs) 20:33, June 3, 2007 (UTC).

I wouldn't leap to conclusions of propagandist control of these articles. Wikipedia is far less well-organized than that. Lots of people revert without discussion because they're just not very polite; impolite people are much more common in the world than government stooges. When reverted without discussion, the best policy is to initiate discussion, at the article talk page, and with the reverter if necessary. As long as you do it in a respectful manner, it's a very effective approach.

The edit you suggest sounds good; I'll go ahead and try it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Making the lead less US-centric is one thing. As for "rationale" versus "justification", I notice the phrase links to the article Rationale for the Iraq War. As long as we're linking to an article with that title, it makes sense to reflect it in the text, I think. Perhaps there's a better title for that aritcle? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Occupation - Although wellknown for some time - Bush yesterday 6/4/2007 - finally uttered clearly that we were going to be there for a long time - Korean reference. I watched the news and didn't see a single comment ( maybe they were stunned and didn't know what to say). Dig in for a 50 year stay - of course if the oil runs out I suspect we will decide that the mission is accomplished.159.105.80.141 14:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Article - section on projected stay. Still no news stories - that I have heard - about staying in Iraq similar to Korea ( 50+ years). Huge permanent looking airbases, gigantic embassy,etc. Maybe I was the only person in the US who heard that NPR blurb.159.105.80.141 11:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Along similar lines, this: "when a largely British and American force attacked Iraq." Do we need to quote specific sources to substantiate that the Americans (sic -- the usual nickname for US) contributed more forces than the British? I'd have thought that the contributor of more forces should get first billing? ~~

I've read several sources (mainly U.S. military, that say there will be 50,000 troops stationed in Iraq for around 50 years. Wayne 08:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Severely Injured Box number is wrong

it says ~26, 000 seriously wounded. The number on PBS, and every other news network for seriously wounded has been, currently, around ~10,000.

Specific program, station, and quote(s), please? James S. 20:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I'd be interested in hearing the source claiming only 10,000 wounded, perhaps the source was referring to seriously wounded persons who will need long term medical care? If so, the article is only tracking those persons referred to by the US DefDept as "wounded". The long term medical care portion is handled by a different department and a different budget, Veteran's Affairs. Publicus 17:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What about veterans with an amputation? Do they all need long term medical care or are they not seriously wounded? --Raphael1 19:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That's probably what the story on PBS was talking about, those vets wt serious wounds like amputation or brain damage might number around 10,000, while maybe the total number of wounded reported by the DefDept includes around 16,000 less serious wounds for the overall total of 26,000 (10,000 "serious" 16,000 "less serious"). Either way, it doesn't really matter--both groups are counted as wounded. Publicus 13:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I just removed the "severely" injured phrasing from the infobox. I left it as "injured". See Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003. "Severely" is a slippery term. See that main article on Iraq War casualties to understand. I have been editing that page a long time. See the main chart at the top for a more accurate breakdown. Currently it says about US casualties: "3,466 dead. 25,549 wounded in action, of which 11,476 were unable to return to duty within 72 hours. An additional 6,991 non-hostile injuries and 19,197 diseases (both requiring medical air transport). As of 29 May 2007." The source is http://icasualties.org/oif/ - About half way down the page is a table for the wounded and injured. --Timeshifter 13:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

How should the casualties be presented in the box? Estimation? Minimum? Minimum/maximum? Last year the Pentagon stated that KIA/DOW accounts for 1 in 11 of the combat casualties and that this only counted serious wounds requiring evacuation. According to the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs combat casualties treated in Iraq and returned to the U.S. as unfit for duty are not counted in the official WIA tally at all. Assuming the Pentagon statement is reliable this means a minimum of 35,000 WIA. It seems that the 26,000 in the info box probably really is only the seriously wounded. Wayne 05:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult to find data but I have found some old newspaper articals that shed some light.
Several sources, both US and British, say that "serious life altering" combat wounds account for 60% of all WIA. In March 2004 Col. David Hackworth stated that the DoD admitted that only serious combat injuries were counted as WIA (at that time) for an official total of 14,000 in 2004 (giving a total of around 24,000 total combat casualties 3 years ago!) It looks even more likely that the 26,000 number in the box is only half the true count and thus was correctly identified as "serious".
I also found the contractor numbers referenced. In April 2004 the estimate of contractor deaths was 900 (again 3 years ago) and it was claimed that only contractor deaths reported in newspapers are counted (much like IBC so the true number will never be known). In the info box "reported" should be next to the 916 for accuracy. Wayne 01:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking into this and have found some interesting facts regarding contractor deaths if anyone wants to follow it up.
The Reconstruction Logistics Directorate of the Corps of Engineers keeps records of the number of contractor casualties but according to the Deputy Director, the U.S. Military deletes all references to casualty figures from their reports before they are made public. I also found an interview with the director of Falcon Security who have "contractors" guarding a weapons and ammunition warehouse in Baghdad. Since 2003 they suffered between 120 - 144 KIA and 192 wounded from a workforce of 500! This one small company at a single location accounts for 40% of the total casualties? I think not. Wayne 17:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read new article

A recent article, Legality of the Iraq war, has been written exclusively by one user. It looks good, but I'd be happier if a few more eyes checked his work for neutrality and such. Thank you. YechielMan 06:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

2001-2003: Iraq disarmament crisis?

This section only briefly (3 paragraphs) describes the case for war made by the Bush administration and the domestic and worldwide reaction. I believe we need to do justice to the six month long saga by describing the buildup to the war in more specific terms. This would include, in my eyes, a discussion of pre-invasion opinion polls and intelligence for starters.

In that section there's wiki links to at least 12 different articles covering the 2001-03 disarm crisis. We're trying to keep the article brief with the details on various aspects, especially those prior to actual war breaking out, on related articles. Publicus 13:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

My Opinion

I have made a quote of my opinion.

When the Iraqi War is over; it will be a victory by ear; not by fist.

''Meldshal42'' 22:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please see the header of this page: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iraq War article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Source for future plans, korean model

[9] --BMF81 11:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Order of Coalition

The only logical order of Coalition forces being listed is 1.Great Britian 2.Australia 3. the United States 4. Poland Sgt Simpson 07:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)