Talk:Iraq War/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

A Series of Unfortunate Posts

The reasoning behind my posts were merely to illustrate a fervent political/ideological bias which, I believe, pervades this article. The above arguments regarding current material on this page only serve to support that statement. Obviously, I can agree that any post to any page on Wikipedia is subjective, and hence open to debate. However, merely by making the small edits which I did (that of typing "Coalition Victory" into the results section, several times) the changes were immediately removed within hours of being posted and herein declared vandalism. My profile was additionally banned and flagged for edit warring. The aforementioned actions were then echoed here, noting my failure to achieve a consensus on entering the term, as was my regrettable refusal to engage in civilized discussion. My actions resulted in precisely what I expected they would - namely, they made plain the use of this article not as a reliable source for information (that a young person might use for a history project), but rather a vehicle for a political/ideological view. The repeated deletion of my simple edits, I believe, illustrate a clear effort to purge this article of any points that do not adhere to the overall ideological drive behind it. Anyone can look at this article and see its lack of objectivity. There are 4 sources for casualties (with an additional casualty link), three phases of the war (invasion, post-invasion, and post-withdrawal (the third could perhaps be called post-post invasion)), one-third of the nine points in the results section redundantly cite the insurgency, and amidst the 17 subheadings of the article, 4-8 are the most apparent in ideological bias(casualty estimates, criticism and cost, humanitarian crises, human rights abuses, and of course, followed by public opinion) - and don't forget the separate section regarding the awarding of Iraq oil contracts. This says nothing of the six divisions of belligerents or the five divisions of commanders. In seeking to stake an "anti-Iraq War" claim, this article has become a parody of itself, and that is unfortunate, as I have always valued the vast array of information on Wikipedia. In regards to any protests of my own misguidedness/bias/etc. (no I will not respond - yes, that illustrates my uncivilized nature) keep this in mind: only those who actively support an ideology seek to silence opposing points of view. This page exposes that shortfall. In my opinion (of course), the quick removal of my simple edits and the equally swift denouncement of my civilized nature make apparent that there is a clear effort to sanitize this article of any points that do not adhere to an overall ideological bias. Perhaps my statements here will remain long enough to be read by a few people before they too are stricken from the website. Quite a striking reality concerning what Wikipedia, a site that once billed itself as an "Encyclopedia," has become. Revihist (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ. You explicitly used misleading edit summaries to confuse other editors such as m or labeling major ideologically driven changes as “grammar” or “spelling” improvements. Deliberately lying to and confusing other editors with blatantly false editing summaries shows a lack of respect for other editors in itself. Engaging in sock puppetry after other editors showed up to support the consensus version did you no favors either, those are actions editors regardless of political affiliation get blocked over all the time. You could have discussed your objections with other editors to obtain accommodation as others do, but elected not to. Furthermore, the current no-headline infobox format is the product of extensive discussion and compromise and was agreed on by near all editors as the least bad option. It’s hard to accommodate everyone, but when near all sources including former defense secretaries, historians, officers, and centrist news media (never mind the legion of international sources) all describe the ultimate outcome as a strategic mess, we can’t promote a minority and partisan view without sacrificing all the, neutrality, reliable source, and undue weight principles that make us an objective and independent source of information. For that reason, it’s perfectly legitimate to cite military references regarding the interminable nature of the insurgency for the sake of allowing readers to grasp the flow of the conflict. Additionally, It can’t be called a victory or said to have ended militarily when the strategic objectives the Coalition laid out weren’t met and given that military sources themselves assert that security improvements quickly plateaued and tribe allied insurgent groups like the one lead by the deposed Ba’ath Vice President were launching hundreds of attacks a month against the coalition and gearing up for offensives after the withdrawal. This isn’t just a hippie, “anti-war” pov either, historians including retired officers such as Westpoint’s Prof. Daddis say the efforts of polemicists and bureaucrats like Paul Bremer to spin the war as a great triumph betrayed by a civilian government represents a form of historical revisionism that is incompatible with analyzing the nuanced nature of the war. The article should be based on what sources say, not the political talking points of partisan groups. Freepsbane (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Concerned Historian - Despite my notification that I would not respond, I must conclude my argument here with this. Thank you for the response. I could only have made the point discussed herein that much more apparent via a visual aide. You have provided it most appropriately. Also, thank you again for backing up my statement regarding the use of this page as a tool for partisan talking points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revihist (talk • contribs) 04:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Cut down the intro

As it stands the current lede of the article is not compliant with our policies per WP:LEDE, specifically, I feel like the current lede is much too wordy, too detailed, and too much "he-said, she-said"; moreover too many primary sources are cited. In general a section like this is a nightmare for the average reader looking to gain a basic understanding of the Iraq War. As such, I am proposing that we cut the section down significantly. My first draft can be viewed below. Please help me edit this, and try to keep it below 5 paragraphs. Feel free to start a sub-page for editing if that is more convenient. If there are no objections to my current proposal I will plow ahead with the changes. Colipon+(Talk) 17:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The Iraq War was a protracted armed conflict in Iraq that began with the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States. It continued for much of the next decade as an insurgency emerged to oppose the occupying forces and the newly formed Iraqi government. The United States officially withdrew from the country in 2011, but the insurgency as well as various dimensions of the civil armed conflict continue.

The George W. Bush Administration offered a wide range of explanations for its decision to invade Iraq; the most prominent reason was that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and that the government of Saddam Hussein posed an immediate threat to the United States and its coalition allies. Select U.S. officials accused Saddam of harboring and supporting al-Qaeda, while others cited the desire to end a repressive dictatorship and bring democracy to the people of Iraq.

The invasion began on 16 March 2003. The U.S. launched a "shock and awe" surprise attack without declaring war. Iraqi forces were quickly overwhelmed as U.S. forces swept through the country. Saddam was captured in December 2003 and executed by a military court three years later. However, the power vacuum following Saddam's demise as well as the mismanagement of the U.S. occupation led to renewed sectarian violence between Shia and Sunnis as well as a lengthy insurgency against U.S. and coalition forces, resulting in thousands of U.S. casualties. The Bush Administration responded with a troop surge in 2007.

The U.S. began withdrawing its troops from the country in February 2009, after the election of President Barack Obama. Nonetheless, a substantial American military presence continued in the country until December 2011.

As a result of the war, Iraq held multi-party elections in 2005. Nouri Al-Maliki became Prime Minister in 2006 and formed Iraq's first stable post-Saddam government. Since the U.S. withdrawal, significant violence has continued in Iraq. Grievances between various sectarian groups remain unresolved, and general quality of life in Iraq remains poor. As of 2014, the country on the verge of a renewed full-blown civil war involving the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS).

Object, if we're going to cut it down, we'd all be well served by a lengthy discussion about what salient points deserve to make it into an intro instead of having a version unilaterally rammed through without consensus. Freepsbane (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• And I'm certain there will be many points of contention between all the members on various issues. For instance: "Select U.S. officials accused Saddam of harboring and supporting al-Qaeda" is the sole premise pertaining to that purported connection and therefore is implied as valid. I'm certain I don't need to point out that the numerous sources composed of congressional hearings, intelligence assessments and so forth have all said there was no prewar collaboration. Therefore, in it's current form, the suggested intro would be advancing premises that are at best fringe and thereby undoubtedly run afoul of Wikipedia:Undue weight guidelines. Freepsbane (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Firstly I'd like to emphasize that I am here in the spirit of friendly discussion. This is the reason I did not unilaterally change the article on first instance. But I think the point needs to be made here that anything is better than the status quo, which is far too long to be cogent for the average reader, far too long to be a useful encyclopedic resource, far too pedantic and will likely lose the interest of the reader, and lastly does not comply with our policies and style guidelines. I am by no means of the opinion that Saddam collaborated with Al-Qaeda, nor do I feel strongly about its inclusion in the intro; this is just a first draft that comes from my overall assessment of the article. I would caution against dismissing this proposal outright and continue instead discussing which points should go in and which should not in the spirit of building a workable consensus for all. Colipon+(Talk) 19:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Noted and you've got my thanks for talking it all out with us. Also, I'm in full agreement about it being too long and full of extraneous and often redundant information. It'd certainly help the article if we could cut it down into a more succinct intro and I'm certain this would be a good place for everyone to hammer out a final version. No objections to your ultimate goal. Freepsbane (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Suppose it'd be a good idea to put a note on the article so the other editors know we'll be rewriting it. Freepsbane (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Freepsbane, thanks for your cordial response. So let's get right down to it - which parts of the proposed revisions above do you believe should be tweaked? Are you comfortable with its structure? I included the Al-Qaeda link only because the Bush Administration had included the 'suspected link to Al-qaeda' as part of the rationale to go to war, not because I would like to state it as a fact. What would be a better way to re-write this, or do you believe it should be included at all? Colipon+(Talk) 23:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Considering the size of the article, I think it would be worse to cut it down to that extent. Have you guys started a sandbox to work on it or are you planning to? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I would disagree with the notion that the length of the intro has to be necessarily commensurate with the length of the article, if only for the reason that the length of the article itself is not justifiable. See the Barack Obama article for a good (and appropriately sized) article intro for a lengthy article. I have begun a draft at User:Colipon/sandbox and welcome other users to contribute. Colipon+(Talk) 14:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I second that the intro should be more compact. Also the opening paragraph states that "roughly 96.5 percent of the casualties suffered by the U.S.-led coalition were suffered during the second phase, rather than the initial invasion" while leaving out the IMHO vital information that the invasion/first phase has been justified by incorrect data and was breaking international law. I'm not sure if I would consider this neutral regarding relevancies but I sure don't think the casualties suffered by one party only necessarily needs to be addressed in the 1st paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.107.114.242 (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I hardly ever visit this page 'Iraq War', today I had to come here to find out something, and indeed: "cut down the intro"! is exactly my feeling about this lead section. Today it is 1184 words, one and a half full screen. Awfully long! You guys who know a bit about this war (as I don't): please make that lead manageable for the non-expert Wiki-visitor. 400 words, perhaps 500. Please. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone who is watching this page still have further input on this issue? Colipon+(Talk) 02:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This is an ongoing war!

I've said this repeatedly, and the most recent events continue to prove my point. Charles Essie (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm tempted to agree. Seeing as how a coalition of Ba'ath loyalists lead by the Baath era VP of Iraq, in a devil's pact with ISIS just drove the legally recognized government from North Iraq and took a metropolis like Mosul and now are in the process of making war against the Shia government and even setting up their own pretender goverments, it's pretty much every major belligerent from the war plus the Iranians duking it out. I'd support adding a note at the listed end date of the war stating that it represents the withdrawal of the coalition, but the war is still ongoing. The Soviet war in Afghanistan is probably a good example of how to record this kind of event. Freepsbane (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Charles Essie (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Not really sure if it is right now, I would say that it is possible for the war to "resume" if the US decides to re-enter Iraq (I don't believe that it should be an entirely different War though should that happen). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.188.11.107 (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The war didn't end when the US withdrew, it simply continued on without it just like the vietnam war did after the US withdrew from there in 1973. This conflict is ongoing, and to say otherwise is a biased statement that leans towards the US government's POV.XavierGreen (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a different article for the insurgency. This particular conflict is different and I think depends on how you would define insurgency at this point. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

When exactly did the war end and then begin again? The insurgency is the same one post invasion, the only difference is that the US withdrew. To state that the war ended in 2011 is US POV.XavierGreen (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Charles Essie, can you explain how this affects how the article should be written? TFD (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The article currently states that the war ended on 15 December 2011, that's incorrect, the war never ended. Charles Essie (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "Iraq War" is sometimes used to denote only the period of conflict involving the presence of foreign troops, similar to how the the name "Soviet war in Afghanistan" is used to denote the period of conflict in Afghanistan that involves Soviet troop presence. The conflict continued after the Soviets left, but nobody says that the Soviet war in Afghanistan is still ongoing. The best solution to this problem I think is to change the title of this article to Iraq War (2003–11). This title better reflects the content of this article. Another option is to keep the current title and merge the content from Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal) to here. However, this article is already very long, so I oppose this idea.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking we keep the article exactly the way it is, while making the proper adjustments to the infobox and the lead section to reflect that this is ongoing war. Charles Essie (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

If we do that, we need to add post-US withdrawal content into the body of the article as well (The lede and infobox is a summary of the material in the body). We have to go all the way, not just half way.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Charles Essie (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Not to me. Like I said, this article is already too long. It's better and simpler to just change the title.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The events occurring now in Iraq are so intimately bound up with the U.S. invasion, and Iraq War altogether, that I have to agree with Charles Essie (among others above). Yes, the article will be longer, but to end the war in 2011 and separate it from ongoing events is deeply misleading/dishonest (or just wrong: I don't think anyone is trying to mislead or deceive readers). We have an obligation to present the war objectively, so if adding a paragraph at the end and a few sentences to the lead is necessary, we can cut some sentences elsewhere. -Darouet (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree the article should not say the war ended and should provide information about the on-going conflict. It is similar to conflicts in many other countries where insurgents will oppose the central government sometimes for decades. TFD (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It already does. This article talks about the US involvement/intervention in Iraq, which lasted from march 2003 to December 2011. There's already a section called 'post U.S. withdrawal'. We are pretty much talking about two different conflicts. The US war in Iraq, and the continuing of the insurgency against the Iraqi government. Coltsfan (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

They're not two different conflicts, they're two parts of one conflict, the American-led war is over, but the insurgency/civil war is ongoing and is escalating. Maybe we could split this article in two, one article about the war from 2003 to 2011, and another about the entire war from 2003 to the present, just like how we have separate articles for the different phases of the War in Afghanistan (1978–present). Charles Essie (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the way it is. Much more simple and efficient. This one talks about the conflict of 2003-11. The post U.S. withdrawal conflit already got an article of it's own. Don't try to complicate something that's already complicated. Coltsfan (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm okay with this.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I think one could make the case that a larger war, "The Persian Gulf War" or the "Great Levantine War" has been more or less non-stop, with some ceasefires and realignments, since 1979. Of course, that would be "original research." 24.167.52.195 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed...--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I see two phases. The first was the U.S. invasion which ended with "Mission Accomplished", the second was an insurgency that has not ended. The (temporary?) withdrawal of U.S. troops is really the Vietnamization of the war, rather than its end. TFD (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

To illustrate the problem of the phrase "Iraq War". Here's a quote from a recent survey: "Seventy-five percent do not think the Iraq War was worth it".[1] Notice that it says "was", not "is", meaning the the Iraq War is over. In this case the phrase "Iraq War" is used to refer to the US war in Iraq. If we are to change the scope of this article to include the post-US withdrawal phase, we'd need to use a different name for the title than "Iraq War". I think "War in Iraq (2003-present)" is a better alternative.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

FT, that's an American poll. -Darouet (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

So?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's a link to 2003/2004 poll results for the EU and U.S. (Table 5.5 - US for 2004 onlu) for "Do you think the war in Iraq was worth the loss of life and the other costs of attacking Iraq or not?"[2] This is just "original research." TFD (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm cool with "war in Iraq". That's phrase is not a proper noun, unlike Iraq War. "War in Iraq" is a bit too generic for a title though. A more specific title would be "War in Iraq (2003-present)".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I would say there's no need to add the years in the title, as this war is commonly known as the Iraq War (or War in Iraq). That being said, I totally agree that this is an ongoing war, and I've said so for quite some time. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

But this article is pretty much about the US war in Iraq (March 2003 – December 2011) and that is not a ongoing conflict. There are plenty of other articles about the ongoing fight and the struggle against the insurgency (here). Coltsfan (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

That is just like splitting the Vietnam War article into Vietnam War (1959-1973) and Vietnam War (1973-1975). --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Not quite. The Vietnam war started in 1946. You got the French war (1946-1954), and the civil war (1955-1975, with the US direct involvement from 1964 to 1972). It's already divided into the two phases of that conflict. That's what the sources tell us. And here, the sources tell us that this war effectively ended at december 2011. The number of deaths had reached pre-2003 levels. But then, just after the US withdrawal, the insurgency went back again (the second phase of this war). But if you want to put all this insurgency in a single page, well, actually the fighting in Iraq started back in 1991 and continued non-stop since then. Coltsfan (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Not the same. The Vietnam War broke out when the FNL launched its guerilla campaign with Northern support in 1959, five years after the conclusion of the French War. And the Iraqi insurgency never ended, it just temporarily scaled down (pretty much like the FNL in the late sixties). --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Then you should change the article about the Vietnam War. And history, for that matter, because it doesn't support what you are saying. Coltsfan (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it was much more of a short lull than neat ending. Washington Institute for Near East Policy says[3] major Sunni insurgent groups like al-Douri's ]were still very much intact and sheltered by friendly tribes by the time of the withdrawal. That makes it much closer to the temporary ceasefires the Soviets inked with the Mujahedin in Afghanistan in the year preceding the withdrawal or Vietnam's Paris Peace Accords. That analogy's even more relevant given that key players from the war like al-Douri are said to be as big as ISIS[4] and leading[5] the hodgepodge of militants, former Awakening and Ba'athists running all over north Iraq. Freepsbane (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The first and second Indochina wars were separated not only by a "lull", but also by the Geneva Conference. There has been no such thing in Iraq. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I placed my reply in a funny part of the article so that may've made my point unclear, but I was referring to the accords the states signed prior to their withdrawal. That said, you've got another point about the complete absence of any conference between the belligerents or general ceasefire. That's another chunk of evidence in favor of your position. As I said before, I'd be in favor of adding a note mentioning that the conflict continued after the Collation's withdrawal. Freepsbane (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, there is the Status of Forces Agreement, that was a formal agreement between Iraq and the US to end their war there. But if you expect some sort of pact or "conference between the belligerents", you better seat and wait because they have being fighting each other since 1991 (first the Shi'a factions against Saddam, a sunni, and now the Sunnis against the Shi'a). Plus, you got the infobox that says "Rise of sectarian insurgency after U.S. withdrawal and spillover with the Syrian Civil War" and "Resurgence of al-Qaeda in Iraq and Syria", with the proper links. And there is also an entire section about it. Coltsfan (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The Vietnam War also had a brief "lull", namely the Paris Peace Accords. Still, there is no talk of dividing the Vietnam War into two pages. The Iraq War may be over from an American perspective, but in Iraq it is obviously an ongoing conflict. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The Vietnam War is already divided in two articles, as I said before. But let us be clear that this war is far more complicated. What is happening in Iraq it's part of a far longer conflict between sunnis and shias that has been going on for a thousand years. But, to your credit the ongoing conflict in Iraq already got a article of it's own. This is about the 2003-2011 war. All civil wars, can be found here. This article already makes it clear that the sectarian war is still going on, but the "first phase" of the Iraq War, the US war (what this article is all about) is over. The sectarian war drags on, as you can see here. Coltsfan (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

A war doesn't necessarily end only because the United States withdraws. While Iraq has had decades of internal strife between Shiites and Sunnis, tensions didn't fully escalate before the removal of Saddam Hussein by the US-led coalition and the subsequent fighting between the Iraqi government, Sunni militias and Shia militias. As TFD mentioned, Iraq is now in a phase of Vietnamization. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's fair to mention that in the run up to the withdrawal, analysts were already saying that activity by major insurgent groups [6] like the Naqshbandi was escalating and their cells were staging daily attacks against the government throughout Sunni areas of Iraq. So calling it a pause or claiming it was close to being over is misleading. It's not two wars, the only difference is that after the withdrawal and after they were able to hammer out their coalition those groups shifted from guerrilla warfare to taking and holding territory. Freepsbane (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course, there was only some minor skirmishes, no escalations prior to 2003. Just some 300,000 dead in a revolt here, 82,000 in a rebellion there. But you gonna count that? Please. I'm sorry, but all you two are saying is speculation and original research. You are trying to get ahead of yourselves on that matter. What will decide when the war ended is not us. What's up to us is if we are going to follow that or not. There is an ongoing conflict alright, but different scenarios and different characters, maybe all part of the same puzzle but two different scenarios. I say we wait before making any change. In 1973, when the last US soldier left vietnamese soil, we would have said it that war had ended. But it would be only after the events of 1975 that we would make the corrections. So don't get ahead of yourselves. Coltsfan (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I would love to see your sources then. You may say it's original research, but I've dropped various sources from groups like WINEP confirming that the very group that played the leading role in sacking Mosul was already spreading and launching an increasing number of attacks prior to the withdrawal. Unlike the Shia revolt these are the same groups and they, according to reliable sources were active during both phases of the war. The burden of proof lies on you if you want to claim this is a completely unrelated conflict. I've already posted sources contradicting that. Freepsbane (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

My sources? Allow me...1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8... All theses sources say that although there was still combate going on, the Iraq War was over. The insurgency (on different levels, like since 1991) was still going on, of course. But the "main" war (that this article is all about) was in fact over. Coltsfan (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Those sources are all quotes of politicians declaring the war to be over. Look at the source guidelines, what a politician from one of the major belligerents says isn't a definitive fact. Furthermore, if you look at every similar article, the withdrawal of a single belligerent from a war does not mean an end if all the other parties are still fighting. In this case saying the "main" war seems like contortion when sources say al-Douri's group was intact and active and just three years later overran North Iraq's major cities while in a coalition with other belligerents from this war. If were go by the Soviet-Afghan article as an example, it's acceptable to split a conflict after a major phase, but it isn't proper to say it "ends" simply because the withdrawal of one of the many belligerents. Freepsbane (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Those are RS. And like the sources say, the insurgency was still going on, but the main conflict was somewhat done. The [civil] war might have restarted but this conflict here, was done. After the US withdrawal, the violence went back again. I would have no problem calling it Iraq War (2003–11) though. Coltsfan (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

If we took statements from politicians leading the belligerents as reliable sources in determining the facts of a conflict, then I take it we'd have to rewrite quite a few articles. Those claims were contradicted by analysts affiliated with the military and quite honestly that's more believable and verifiable than political rhetoric. Like Vietnam and Soviet Afghanistan you can't clearly say the "main" conflict was done or over when those belligerents are three years later marching on Hue, Kandahar or Mosul. Iraq War (2003–11) could certainly be part of a way to more clearly define phases. Freepsbane (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

If CNN, Daily News, World News and USA Today are not RS, then a lot of articles should be rewritten indeed! Coltsfan (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Coltsfan, you're muddling what it means to use a reliable source. CNN and USA Today are, in general, reliable sources. If they quote a politician, we can trust that they are accurately reproducing what that politician said. But the fact that CNN and USA Today are reliable sources does not imply that whenever they quote a politician, that politician is speaking the truth. Freepsbane's objection is that you're presenting the opinions of politicians as reliable sources, simply because they're reported in reliable sources. If USA Today's news staff reports that the Iraq War is over, that's one thing. If USA Today reports that a politician claimed the Iraq War is over, that's an entirely different matter. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thucydides411, the sources not only bring quotes from politicians, but also bring analysis of the conflict. The sources that I showed clearly state that there is/was a consensus among the news media that the war formally ended on december 2011, although they recognize that there was still a insurgency to fight (hence Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal)). Coltsfan (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Coltsfan, I didn't get that from reading the articles. The only article which makes a statement about the war being over is the NY Daily News article, while the others simply report on statements by Obama and other administration officials. The NY Daily News' headline makes the claim about the end of the war, but the NY Daily News is a tabloid, and is pretty famous for its "colorful" headlines. Other than the NY Daily News, the article that comes closest to saying that the war is over is the last CNN article you posted, which says that "America's contentious and costly war in Iraq officially ended Thursday." That's entirely in line with what a number of editors here have been arguing, namely that the American phase of the war has ended, but that the war continues. If you disagree with my reading of the articles you posted, then give quotations from them. Simply claiming that they "clearly state" that the war is over, and then claiming that this is a media consensus, is not enough. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thucydides411, you got the NBC source says "after a ceremony Thursday in Baghdad formally marking the end of the war, the timing and all other details of the departure of the last convoy were kept under tight secrecy due to security concerns. The low-key end to the war was just another reminder of how dangerous Iraq remains, even though violence is lower now than at any other time since the 2003 invasion." The USA Today also makes an analysis of the conflit on the fifth paragraph. The CNN source covers the ceremony that marked the end of the Iraq war (as they said it very clearly). The focus of this article, as it's currently written, is about the US war on Iraq. The sectarian violence that spread between sunnis and shias is listed on many different articles about it (see here). For instance, the fighting between the Iraqi government and the insurgency, from 2004-2011, is barely mentioned. As I said before, I have no opposition to renaming the article "Iraq War (2003-2011)". The perception is that this war is going to be just like the Afghan war. Coltsfan (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Coltsfan, the NBC source talks about the "formal" end to the war because it is discussing Obama's declaration that the war is over. The author doesn't state that the war is over. These articles are discussing Obama's declaration, and the ceremonies that the US army held to "formally" end the war. They're not weighing in on whether the war itself is over. We could make the distinction you're tacitly endorsing, that of renaming the article to restrict it to the period between the US invasion in 2003 through the US pullout at the end of 2011, but I'm not even sure that makes sense. With the US again involved, we don't know whether the pullout really marks the end of the "American" phase of the war. The difficulty is that because the war is still going on and its future course is very uncertain, we don't know how it will be divided up in the future. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Um "Mission Accomplished" at all? A politician's pronouncements do not reality make. Appeals to authority aside, the only things those prove are that politicians claimed the war was over at various points. Extrapolating more than that is just original research. Analysis from the military noting that attacks were escalating is a tad more empiric. Freepsbane (talk) 03:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Appeal to authority? Did you even read WP:RS? Btw, only three out of the eight sources I posted are mostly quotes by politicians. And btw, the "Mission accomplished speech" marks the end of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The day of the speech is the day that the invasion was formally declared ended. Coltsfan (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Ideally, we should have an umbrella article called War in Iraq (2003–), with the invasion, the civil war, the pre-withdrawal insurgency and the post-withdrawal insurgency being linked to as main articles in the chapters, which would then only have to provide short summaries, making such an article more comfortable to read. What do people think? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

We should definitely have an umbrella article, that's mainly what I wanted anyway. Charles Essie (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not know what a president would do when "counseling" with over 400 American servicemen. It's advice, is not it? And Americans are already bombing Iraq. 177.182.50.110 (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, the Iraq War never ended! Charles Essie (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree the Iraq War ended when the U.S. troops departed at the end of 2011, and the end of Operation New Dawn. The conflict after the U.S. and Coalition troops is related to the conflict that occurred after their departure, but is separate.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

White House calls 2014 Bombing of Iraq a war under "Congress’s 2002 authorization of the Iraq war"

The phase of the war that this article narrates has finished. What can be argued is that the current conflict is a war between ISIS and the Iraqis/Kurds, etc, is a continuation of this one, but with a clear different context. And there is also the argument that this article would be excessively long (more than already is). Coltsfan (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Coltsfan there are new facts. Obama is bombing Iraq today under the "Congress’s 2002 authorization of the Iraq war" see ref. [7]. Please address this argument. Secondly, the article does not become longer as the details of this continuation are covered in a separate article as all major developments. Regards. Nina Companeez (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Still doesn't necessarily mean that the US is back at war with Iraq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:117:C080:520:5E26:AFF:FEFE:79A4 (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The White House calls it's bombing in Iraq a war and it continues to use the "Congress’s 2002 authorization of the Iraq war" to do so. I guess you have to explain how that is not a continuation or the war in Iraq. Nina Companeez (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If that is so, then the article War in Afghanistan (2001–present) should be deleted and every war in Afghanistan's recent history should be on the same article and not splitted. Coltsfan (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Rhetoric typically occurs in the absence of argument, as a substitute for argument.

Your comparison doesn't makes sense. Feel free to address my arguments, if you can't... Nina Companeez (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You dismiss my argument and ignore it all together, proving that you have a weak one. Coltsfan (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, what you just said is a fallacy.

Secondly, that you could not refute my argument proofs that it is strong. Nina Companeez (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't know how to articulate yourself very well, do you? Coltsfan (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

What you say now is an ad hominem, nothing else. What's next Name calling or trying to refute my argument? Nina Companeez (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Read the discussion above. You brought NO new information to the table. And please, stop reverting until a consensus is achieved. If you persist, you can be block for WP:EW. Coltsfan (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The argument you could not refute is new. Nina Companeez (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

My point of view is supported by sources that are in the article already and in this same talk page. Just read the discussion above and bring new arguments. Coltsfan (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep i brought the new argument and souces and you failed to refute them. Nina Companeez (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

But the only thing that "your" source says is that the WH is using the 2001 authorization to fight Al Qaeda to attack ISIS. It does not say that this is a ongoing war. This is WP:OR. Coltsfan (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, that shows that it is an ongoing war. It seems to me that you do not understand WP:OR. Nina Companeez (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't! The source doesn't say it's an ongoing war, hence WP:OR. Coltsfan (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you know that the US is fighting the same people in Iraq now as they did in 2004-2011.Nina Companeez (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Btw, the 2001 Authorization for use of Military Force against Terrorists started the War on Terror. The 2002 Iraq Resolution is the one that authorized the Iraq War. At best, we can say that your sorce proves that the 2014 american intervention in Iraq is a continuation of the global war on terrorism. But your source does not say that this is a ongoing war. Sorry. Coltsfan (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with statement above by Coltsfan.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Even if the same conflict is ongoing, this article is too big to take any more

While I agree that the conflict is ongoing in what has been an essentially continuous timeline over the past decade, for the purposes of creating a useful encyclopedic reference, it is most probably time to start a new article on the current conflict involving the Islamic State and link it from a headnote here. If such an article were to be created, what should it be called? EllenCT (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The current conflict is covered here: Iraqi insurgency (2011–present). I guess we could call this article "Iraq War (2003-2011)". Coltsfan (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The war never ended. I am fine with the current naming and agree with EllenCT solution to address the length. Nina Companeez (talk) 01:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a better way to cover this is with separate articles all under the History of Iraq primary article, with an article about the Iraq-Iran War, Persian Gulf War, the different no fly zones, the Iraq War (invasion, rest of the war, conclusion), the post-2011 insurgency, and the current ISIS conflict.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree but it is worth noting that iCasualties does list the 2 US deaths so far that were part of ISIS as casualties of the Iraq War (but I agree that in itself is not enough to say that the war has resumed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.188.11.107 (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't make any sense. Would you say World War 2 ended in 1943 just to make it's article shorter? We need to have an accurate article, if necessary, rewrite the whole thing, but don't say the war is over, when clearly it isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.6.205.198 (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually it is, the war officially ended in December 2011, what is going on right now is not a part of the Iraq War, no one with any authority to say so has.

Can you present any source of some autorithy stating the war ended in 2011? I never read anything about it. It is the war of an insurgent group, created during the US invasion to fight against the US and it's allied Iraqi government, and now, after the US "vietnamized" Iraq and left, it collapsed.

Burden of proof

I'm curious about what basis is used to declare the Iraq War concluded on 15 December 2011. In a traditional war between two nations, you might have a formal end where a treaty is signed, but this isn't the case here. It is a more open ended conflict, where fighting did not end when American forces left Iraq, between the Iraqi government forces and insurgents. Rather, it continued and has now expanded again so as to once again include American and other forces. Undoubtedly, it is a different phase of the conflict, but shouldn't the burden of proof be on showing that the Iraq war has ended in order for it to be declared ended here? ~Rangeley (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Danish Politicians

On a smaller scale petty question, what is the purpose that Danish politicians are serving under the Commanders section? Not to undermine the work of the Danes, but surely, we should either replace them with commanders of bigger forces such as Italy and Poland and replace Rasmussen, who serves absolutely zero purpose there as he became NATO SecGen at the very end of the war and should be replaced with Jaap de Hoop Scheffer who was there for most of Iraq War or George Robertson who was there at the invasion. Besides the Leaders list is too long anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.106.29 (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I removed the Danes from the infobox. Colipon+(Talk) 01:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Post-invasion views on WMD

Shouldn't this section remove the plural from the title? It's not post-invasion views on WMD, it's just one view on it and should it be called "Post-invasion view on WMD". And, speaking of which, that section is incredibly one-sided and is against wikipedia POV policy. I think the section should be removed until the POV pushing issues are fixed. Anyone else agree? Cowicide (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Trimming the intro to manageable, professional size, part 2

For all those concerned, please see an updated draft for the consolidated lede section below. All of your comments are welcome; please do not simply "oppose" or criticize the revision. Constructive input would be highly appreciated. I have a copy incubating at my sandbox. You are welcome to edit there if you would like.

The Iraq War was a protracted armed conflict in Iraq that began with the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States. It continued for much of the next decade as an insurgency emerged to oppose the occupying forces and the newly formed Iraqi government. The United States officially withdrew from the country in 2011, but the insurgency as well as various dimensions of the civil armed conflict continue.

The George W. Bush Administration offered a wide range of explanations for its decision to invade Iraq. The most notable was the assertion that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and that the government of Saddam Hussein posed an immediate threat to the United States and its coalition allies. Select U.S. officials accused Saddam of harboring and supporting al-Qaeda, while others cited the desire to end a repressive dictatorship and bring democracy to the people of Iraq.

The invasion began on 16 March 2003. The U.S., joined by several coalition allies, launched a "shock and awe" surprise attack without declaring war. Iraqi forces were quickly overwhelmed as U.S. forces swept through the country. Saddam was captured in December 2003 and executed by a military court three years later. However, the power vacuum following Saddam's demise as well as the mismanagement of the occupation led to renewed sectarian violence between Shia and Sunnis as well as a lengthy insurgency against U.S. and coalition forces, resulting in thousands of American casualties. The Bush Administration responded with a troop surge in 2007. After the election of President Barack Obama, the U.S. began a gradual withdrawal of its military from Iraq, formally withdrawing all combat troops by December 2011.

As a result of the war, Iraq held multi-party elections in 2005. Nouri Al-Maliki became Prime Minister in 2006 and formed Iraq's first stable post-Saddam government. However, due to decreased U.S. engagement and the sectarian-focused policies of Maliki's government, a divide emerged between Shia and Sunnis and led to further fighting. Grievances between various sectarian groups remain fundamentally unresolved, and general quality of life in Iraq remains poor. In the summer of 2014, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) captured various major cities in northern Iraq and declared a worldwide Islamic caliphate, eliciting another military response from the United States and its allies.

Looking forward to hearing everyone's feedback. Colipon+(Talk) 01:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me. However, I'm not sure if cutting the intro so drastically is a good idea. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the feedback. Let's talk specifics then; which part do you think we need to expand more on? civilian casualties? criticism of the rationale? Islamic State? User above says we need to cut the intro to a readable length of 400 or 500 words. This version is 384 words, so we a bit of room to expand. We should avoid anything too detailed, pedantic, or overly formal. Keep in mind our readers first principle. Colipon+(Talk) 22:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the WMD allegation was more than the "most notable" rationale for the war. I'd say something closer to, "The George W. Bush Administration based its rationale for the war principally on the assertion that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and that the government of Saddam Hussein posed an immediate threat to the United States and its coalition allies." The intro also really has to mention that the WMD allegations were false, since this is one of the most notable aspects of the war. I would put this mention immediately after the sentence about the principle rationale for the war: "After the war, no evidence of the alleged Iraqi WMDs was found." It's also worth mentioning that the WMD rationale and misrepresentation of intelligence faced heavy criticism internationally both before and after the war.

There are two important aspects of the war that are left out of the above intro. One is the casualties, (we should state both scientific estimates and body counts), while the other is the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war. We should mention the number of war refugees along with the number of casualties. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Revision 3

Thanks for everyone's feedback; please see revisions below.

The Iraq War is a protracted armed conflict that began with the 2003 invasion of Iraq led by the United States. The invasion toppled the government of Saddam Hussein. The conflict, however, continued for much of the next decade as an insurgency emerged to oppose the occupying forces and the post-invasion Iraqi government. The United States officially withdrew from the country in 2011, but the insurgency as well as various dimensions of the civil armed conflict continue.

The invasion began on 16 March 2003. The U.S., joined by the United Kingdom and several coalition allies, launched a "shock and awe" surprise attack without declaring war. Iraqi forces were quickly overwhelmed as U.S. forces swept through the country. The invasion led to the collapse of the Ba'athist government; Saddam was captured in December 2003 and executed by a military court three years later. However, the power vacuum following Saddam's demise as well as the mismanagement of the occupation led to widespread sectarian violence between Shias and Sunnis as well as a lengthy insurgency against U.S. and coalition forces. The Bush Administration responded with a troop surge in 2007. After the election of President Barack Obama, the U.S. began a gradual winding down of its involvement in Iraq, formally withdrawing all combat troops by December 2011.

The George W. Bush Administration based its rationale for war principally on the assertion that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and that Saddam's government posed an immediate threat to the United States and its coalition allies. Select U.S. officials accused Saddam of harboring and supporting al-Qaeda, while others cited the desire to end a repressive dictatorship and bring democracy to the people of Iraq. After the invasion, no substantial evidence was found to verify the initial claims about WMDs. The rationale and misrepresentation of pre-war intelligence faced heavy criticism within the U.S. and internationally.

As a result of the war, Iraq held multi-party elections in 2005. Nouri al-Maliki became Prime Minister in 2006 and formed Iraq's first stable post-Saddam government. However, by 2009, due to decreased U.S. engagement from the Obama Administration and the sectarian-focused policies of Maliki's government, tensions worsened between Shias and Sunnis, which led to further fighting. Grievances between various sectarian groups remain fundamentally unresolved, and general quality of life in Iraq remains poor. The war caused significant civilian and military casualties (see estimates below). In the summer of 2014, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) launched a military offensive in Northern Iraq and declared a worldwide Islamic caliphate, eliciting another military response from the United States and its allies.

I incorporated the criticism fo the rationale. I incorporated a mention of "casualties", but I didn't want to get into the numbers game; in my experience that usually causes a he-said, she-said back-and-forth that pollutes the intro with too much information. There are too many varied estimates, it's better to just direct the reader to the entire section dedicated to this issue (or they can read the infobox). I also did not 'cite' the criticism segment; I am of the view that the war is so widely criticized that no one will actually dispute this as a fact, but I watered down the section a little so that this is not in breach of NPOV. Additionally, I moved "rationale" to the third paragraph, rather than the second, because that could also be seen as too critical of the U.S. government.
Additional feedback is welcome. I hope we're getting closer! Colipon+(Talk) 15:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to focus now on the last paragraph. Let's begin with this sentence: "As a result of the war, Iraq held multi-party elections in 2005. Nouri al-Maliki became Prime Minister in 2006 and formed Iraq's first stable post-Saddam government." It's a stretch to call Nouri al-Maliki's government "stable," especially in 2006. Iraq was essentially in a state of civil war from 2004 onwards, with violence peaking in 2006. Deals with Sunni tribes and increased American military presence reduced the violence afterwards, but fighting has continued up to the present day. The sentence should reflect these facts (it may take two sentences to say this).

The next sentence reads, "However, by 2009, due to decreased U.S. engagement from the Obama Administration and the sectarian-focused policies of Maliki's government, tensions worsened between Shias and Sunnis, which led to further fighting." I don't know if the increase in violence can really be attributed to decreased U.S. engagement. At least, that's a fairly controversial statement. This wording also makes it sound like the worst violence came from 2009 onwards, when it was in the period 2004-2007, when estimates indicate hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died. We should say that sectarian violence continued on a lower level after the Sunni Awakening and Surge, drastically increasing in 2014.

Finally, I do think some statement of the range of casualty estimates is appropriate in the intro. Most statistical estimates of the death toll have been in the range of half a million to a million casualties. I think the phrase "hundreds of thousands" is appropriate, with a citation to the most recent significant paper on the subject, Hagopian et al. (2013) in PLoS Medicine. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. The "decreased engagement" and "sectarian policies" line was mostly to tie the war to the on-going strife with ISIS, but I get where you are coming from. Perhaps you should suggest the full sentence of alternate wording that you'd like to see? For Maliki I can simply change to "Nouri al-Maliki became Prime Minister in 2006 and stayed in power until 2014." Probably worth mentioning is also that the worst violence occurred between 2004-7 and that the violence dropped significantly due to the U.S. signing up Sunni militias and the troop surge. Colipon+(Talk) 22:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Fourth Revision

The Iraq War is a protracted armed conflict that began with the 2003 invasion of Iraq led by the United States. The invasion toppled the government of Saddam Hussein. The conflict, however, continued for much of the next decade as an insurgency emerged to oppose the occupying forces and the post-invasion Iraqi government. The United States officially withdrew from the country in 2011, but the insurgency as well as various dimensions of the civil armed conflict continue.

The invasion began on 16 March 2003. The U.S., joined by the United Kingdom and several coalition allies, launched a "shock and awe" surprise attack without declaring war. Iraqi forces were quickly overwhelmed as U.S. forces swept through the country. The invasion led to the collapse of the Ba'athist government; Saddam was captured in December 2003 and executed by a military court three years later. However, the power vacuum following Saddam's demise as well as the mismanagement of the occupation led to widespread sectarian violence between Shias and Sunnis as well as a lengthy insurgency against U.S. and coalition forces. The Bush Administration responded with a troop surge in 2007; the heavy U.S. security presence and deals made between the occupying forces and Sunni militias reduced the level of violence. After the election of President Barack Obama, the U.S. began a gradual winding down of its involvement in Iraq, formally withdrawing all combat troops by December 2011.

The George W. Bush Administration based its rationale for war principally on the assertion that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and that Saddam's government posed an immediate threat to the United States and its coalition allies. Select U.S. officials accused Saddam of harboring and supporting al-Qaeda, while others cited the desire to end a repressive dictatorship and bring democracy to the people of Iraq. After the invasion, no substantial evidence was found to verify the initial claims about WMDs. The rationale and misrepresentation of pre-war intelligence faced heavy criticism within the U.S. and internationally.

As a result of the war, Iraq held multi-party elections in 2005. Nouri al-Maliki became Prime Minister in 2006 and remained in office until 2014. The Maliki government enacted policies that was widely seen as having the effect of alienating the country's Sunni minority, which worsened sectarian tensions. In the summer of 2014, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) launched a military offensive in Northern Iraq and declared a worldwide Islamic caliphate, eliciting another military response from the United States and its allies. The Iraq War caused hundreds of thousands of civilian and military casualties (see estimates below). The majority of casualties occurred as a result of the insurgency and civil conflicts between 2004 and 2007.

Please check again. Colipon+(Talk) 19:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This is another call for responses on the above revision. If you no one else responds, I will go ahead and put it up. Colipon+(Talk) 02:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I like your revision. One correction. Last sentence in para 2 is not quite correct. GW Bush announced the withdrawal of US troops in September 2007 and the withdrawals began in December of that year and continued throughout 2008. I would suggest a redraft to say, "The U.S. began a gradual withdrawal of its forces in December 2007 under President Bush, and after the election of President Obama, continued the withdrawal, etc. etc. Smallchief (talk 18:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Colipon, I guess that's okay. If anyone else thinks something is missing or if it can be improved, then they can edit themselves. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Major asymmetry in graphical presentation of war

This article has just over 50 images, the vast majority depicting either American/British politicians or soldiers in various ways. Two photographs of destroyed Iraqi army tanks appear, and one image is shown of insurgents. There are a number of photographs or graphs depicting American casualties, though most estimates put the number of Iraqi deaths from this conflict at around 100 times the number of American deaths.

An effort should be made to rebalance the article, if images can be found depicting more of the Iraqi perspective in this conflict. -Darouet (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source about iraq

here you go: UN figures projected that more than 1.7 million Iraqi civilians had died as a result of the sanctions, between 500,000 and 600,000 of whom were children https://books.google.com/books?id=2MbouuI0a50C&pg=PA112&dq=UN+figures+projected+that+more+than+1.7+million+Iraqi+civilians+had+died+as+a+result+of+the+sanctions&hl=iw&sa=X&ei=MqVlVcORIoL9UpDAgfgN&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=UN%20figures%20projected%20that%20more%20than%201.7%20million%20Iraqi%20civilians%20had%20died%20as%20a%20result%20of%20the%20sanctions&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orcohen45 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense I removed

Prior to September 2002, the CIA was the Bush administration's main provider of intelligence on Iraq. In September, a Pentagon unit called Office of Special Plans (OSP), was created by Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, and headed by Feith, as charged by then-United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to supply senior George W. Bush administration officials with raw intelligence pertaining to Iraq. Seymour Hersh writes that, according to a Pentagon adviser, "[OSP] was created in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, wanted to be true—that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons (WMD) that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States. [...] 'The agency [CIA] was out to disprove linkage between Iraq and terrorism,' the Pentagon adviser told me."

Falsely implies that the intelligence agencies weren't reporting Iraq had WMDs, when they clearly did.

As part of its weapons inspection obligations, Iraq was required to supply a full declaration of its current weapons capabilities and manufacturing. On 3 November 2002, Iraq supplied an 11,800-page report to the UN Security Council and the IAEA, stating that it had no WMDs. Copies of the report were also unofficially supplied to several European journalists. Columbia, chair of the Security Council, allowed US officials to secretly remove 8,000 pages from the report before it was viewed by the full security council, and on the basis of this the report was declared incomplete and Iraq in breach of its obligations. The removed pages contained details of US and European companies and government agencies who had historically assisted Iraq in developing its chemical and biological weapons capabilities.

Illiterate nonsense just links to more illiterate nonsense. The report was fully read by the weapons inspectors and it had nothing new in it--as acknowledged by Hans Blix on January 27. [8]

Shortly before the invasion, Hans Blix, the lead weapons inspector, advised the U.N. Security Council that Iraq was cooperating with inspections and the confirmation of disarmament through inspections could be achieved quickly if Iraq remained cooperative.

A shameless rewrite of history. Blix actually said "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance – not even today – of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace." [9]

I also removed

During inspections in 1999, U.S. intelligence agents supplied the United States with a direct feed of conversations between Iraqi security agencies as well as other information. This was confirmed by the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.

because the article does not discuss these past inspections in any detail. Clearly it is just an unfair cheap shot, particularly when it ignores Iraq's own systematic violation of the resolutions.

CJK (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Hi CJK, just responding to your note on my talk page and to this addition that you made to the section on U.N. weapons inspections. The text you added, a direct quote from the May report given to the U.N. Security Council, gives the impression that somehow weapons inspections accomplished little and that the Iraqis may have been still bristling with chemical weapons:

the long list of proscribed items unaccounted for and as such resulting in unresolved disarmament issues was not shortened either by the inspections or by Iraqi declarations and documentation. From the end of January 2003, the Iraqi side, which until then had been cooperative in terms of process but not equally cooperative in terms of subsistence, devoted much effort to providing explanations and proposing methods of inquiry into such issues as the production and destruction of anthrax, VX and long-range missiles. Despite those efforts, little progress was made in the solution of outstanding issues during the time of UNMOVIC operations in Iraq.

However, this text in isolation carries exactly the opposite sense provided by the adjoining points in the report summary:

8. In the period during which it performed inspection and monitoring in Iraq, UNMOVIC did not find evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items from before the adoption of resolution 687 (1991).

9. Inspections uncovered a small number of undeclared empty chemical warheads which appear to have been produced prior to 1990. Those and a few other proscribed items were destroyed.

10. Following a determination by the Commission that the Al Samoud 2 missile system exceeded the range limits set by the Security Council and hence was proscribed, the Commission implemented a programme for destruction. Some 70 missiles and associated equipment were destroyed under Commission supervision before its operations were suspended. At that time, a decision by the Commission was pending as to whether the Al Fatah missile system also exceeded the ranges set by the Council.

11. Inspections and declarations and documents submitted by Iraq, not least during the period under review, contributed to a better understanding of previous weapons programmes. However, the long list of proscribed items unaccounted for and as such resulting in unresolved disarmament issues was not shortened either by the inspections or by Iraqi declarations and documentation. From the end of January 2003, the Iraqi side, which until then had been cooperative in terms of process but not equally cooperative in terms of subsistence, devoted much effort to providing explanations and proposing methods of inquiry into such issues as the production and destruction of anthrax, VX and long-range missiles. Despite those efforts, little progress was made in the solution of outstanding issues during the time of UNMOVIC operations in Iraq.

12. For example, as described in the present report, extensive excavations undertaken by the Iraqi side and witnessed by inspectors showed that a large number of R-400 bombs declared to have contained biological agents and to have been unilaterally destroyed in 1991 were in fact destroyed. While it was valuable in suggesting the credibility of some information provided earlier, the operation could not verify the total quantities of biological agents destroyed, still less the total quantities produced.

13. Again, with respect to anthrax, the Commission, as it reported, had strong indications — but not conclusive evidence — that all the quantities produced had not been destroyed, and that hence even today such quantities could remain. While the Iraqi side continued to claim that no documentary evidence remained of the destruction operation, it took two different steps in an effort to prove its declaration that all had been destroyed. As described in the present report, the Iraqi side undertook a chemical analysis of soil samples from the site where a quantity of anthrax was declared to have been dumped in 1991. While the results of the analysis were consistent with the declaration that anthrax had been dumped at the site, the study could not provide evidence of the quantities destroyed. The other step taken by the Iraqi side was to supply lists of the persons who in 1991 had been engaged in the operations to destroy anthrax. Regrettably, those lists were received only shortly before the suspension of inspections and the Commission did not have the opportunity to embark on a series of potentially important interviews.

In my view, the most relevant text is the first point quoted above, providing a general overview of their findings: In the period during which it performed inspection and monitoring in Iraq, UNMOVIC did not find evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items from before the adoption of resolution 687 (1991). Ultimately, secondary sources are most important for deciding how to make use of this primary source material. -Darouet (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

The Lancet is an excellent source; and if anybody wishes to remove sourced content, then they need to obtain consensus for it. The fact that Stumink has been reverted by multiple editors suggests no such consensus exists. Both Stumink and myself are at 3rr right now, so I for one won't be reverting further; but hopefully that acts as a spur for discussion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Stumink's edit, but I do believe that, if the Lancet number is given in the first paragraph, perhaps the PLoS number should be there too. I will think of a way of bringing that into the text. -Darouet (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Stumink's current compromise isn't bad. Note that those numbers represent the number of Iraqis who died from violence. -Darouet (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

You mentioned that you wanted to add PLOS but PLOS figure for violent deaths is 132,000 for the entire war so 151,00 for 3/4 years wouldn't be the minimum estimate. Does PLOS mention its violent death figure for 3/4 years? If so I would think that should be added to the lead as the minimum. Stumink (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I skimmed the PLoS article recently and will read it in greater detail, but I doubt they'd be able to break down the deaths into 3 or 4 year intervals that way, based on the methodology. That's because they estimate a pre-war mortality rate and a "within-war" mortality rate up until 2011. Also, concerning the numbers themselves, they estimate 460,000 excess deaths (55,000 of those estimated through additional migration calculations) from 2003-2011, over 60% of which are due to violence. That would be 276,000 due to violence, or assuming a constant mortality rate from 2003-2011, 138,000 violent deaths in the first four years. -Darouet (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

No offence, but that seems like a lot of assumptions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a lot of assumptions. Actually though, in figure 5 Hagopian et al do break down mortality by year, and it's higher in the first 4 years. Also, they effectively endorse the Lancet results in their discussion, which tries to understand why their own mortality rate is lower. One reason, they surmise, is that reporting error increases as time passes, making more recent studies less reliable. Another reason is that families may be unwilling to report deaths of their own members who fought for the insurgency. Another is that as families break up due to civil strife, it becomes more difficult to interview families neutrally, with remaining families less likely to have lost members. Anyway the list goes on. -Darouet (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 1 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. There is no agreement that other topics challenge this one as primary topic of the name "Iraq War". Cúchullain ^t/c 13:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Iraq War → Iraq War (2003–2011) – Per consencus reached at Iraqi insurgency (2011–2013) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC) UASR (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support multiple Iraq/Gulf Wars -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support - as above. Jrcrin001 (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose It is the Iraq War. Everyone knows it as the Iraq War, thus no confusion results, thus no clarification is needed. Perhaps no other war has the years of fighting in the title. It's not Iran–Iraq War (1980–1999), Second Anglo-Dutch War(1665–1667), etc. etc. Why is it to be the only war involving Iraq that has the years in the title? Gulf War is not being page-moved to Gulf War (1990–1991). Can't see any reason for moving it. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support EDIT: support Iraq War (2003-11) per George Ho. Red Slash 17:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Red Slash 07:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• Move to Iraq War (2003–11). The period looks easy to understand. Why hesitate to shorten? --George Ho (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree with YeOldeGentleman that there is no confusion about the Gulf War and the Iraq War. Moreover, this move would editorially conclude that the Iraq War ended in 2011; in previous discussion we never reached a consensus that this is true. Even if this article primarily addresses the conflict between 2003-2011, there is no reason to declare it really ended then, especially at a time when U.S. warplanes and military trainers are still active or on their way to Iraq. If in the future there is another distinct Iraq War, perhaps this proposed move will become useful. -Darouet (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support but I understand where Darouet is coming from. I also feel that the war didn't really end in 2011. I think it simply entered a new phase. Which is also why I suggested the creation of a new umbrella article (see here). Charles Essie (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support - move to Iraq War (2003-11) per user:George Ho.GreyShark (dibra) 14:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Coltsfan (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Iraq War" is the common name and the primary topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, Iraq War is the common name of the conflict. Other conflicts that have occurred in Iraq are often known by other similar but unique names.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support and move Iraqi insurgency (2011-2013) to Iraq War (2011-present). The conflict never ended in 2011 and there is a distinct continuity between the two. These two articles merely demarcate two distinct phase: one driven by the United States and another driven by the Islamic State. Assuming that there is no historical connection between the two through a difference in nomenclature is quite inaccurate. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME, and other wars are known by other distinct names, so it seems unnecessary. DimensionQualm (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The US-led invasion is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Jenks24 (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Umbrella article

I think there should be a new umbrella article about the entire war from 2003 to the present. The discussion is taking place here. Charles Essie (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Iraqi Opinion Section

"In 2006, a poll conducted on the Iraqi public revealed that 64% of the ones polled said Iraq was going in the right direction and 77% claimed it was worth ousting Saddam Hussein.[375]" 

Both of these statistics are supported by the source but they are both from January '06. The source presents them amongst other data for the same questions from various other dates including more recent dates. The source doesn't give any greater prominence to these dates. I can't see any rationale for using them in preference to the most recent data provided by the source 52% and 61% respectively. --IanOfNorwich (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I've updated the page to the most recent stats as above, although they are still only from 2006. This [10] suggests by 2008 public support, in Iraq, for the initial invasion had fallen further, though an even more recent source would be good. --IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)