Talk:Iraq War

"Second Persian Gulf War"

Greetings, @Swatjester. To avoid confusion, we should stick to the more widely recognized name, "Iraq War". In case you were unaware, the Iran–Iraq War was known as the First Gulf War, while the Gulf War of 1990–1991 was in fact also known as the Second Gulf War. If we were to follow this naming convention, the Iraq War should be called the "Third Gulf War", but that term isn't widely used. This inconsistency is the issue at hand. Omitting this WP:FRINGE name entirely might be the best solution to address this problem. Skitash (talk) 10:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, I think it is more widely known as the Iraq war. Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that. The WP:FRINGE claim here is in fact that the Iran-Iraq War is widely known as the First Gulf War, which is really isn't. That claim is completely unsourced in the Iran-Iraq War article, and sourced only to a single Iraqi journal article in the Gulf War article. It's not widely used otherwise, and I've never seen it used outside of Iraqi or Iranian sources. In contrast, the phrase "Second Gulf War" *is* widely used worldwide to refer to the Iraq War. So if the purpose is to avoid inconsistency, the actual change should be removing the fringe naming from the Iran-Iraq War article, not this one. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 14:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

If there's not going to be any further discussion, I'll be re-introducing the "Second (Persian) Gulf War" alternative name here -- the Gulf War article already attributes the various alternative names adequately enough so I'll see if there's any language that can be cribbed from there to improve the presentation of naming history here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the operations inside Iraq by Coalition Forces (CF) are known collectively as "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (OIF) which is a theater of operations within a wider war known as the "Global War on Terror" (GWOT). The operations by CF within Iraq and Afghanistan are not two separate wars and should not be labeled that way, just as we do not label the various theaters of operation during WWII as the European war, African war, and Pacific war. Incidentally, the operations inside Afghanistan by CF after September 11, 2001 were known collectively as "Operation Enduring Freedom." Dougjaso (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

That's simply not correct as a matter of common usage nor historical usage. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are absolutely two different wars; they are not comparable to the WWII theaters of operation, as Iraq and Afghanistan were not allies of each other. Additionally, Operation Enduring Freedom is not the same thing as the war in Afghanistan -- it specifically covers the period from 2001-2014 but also includes actions in the Phillipines (OEF-P) and the horn of Africa (OEF-HOA). ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

PP

Will we need to ask for page protection if the wp:disruption gets too much? Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

suggest we need a section on "political impact"

I feel the article realy needs a section on "political impact", meaning the notable political reactions recently to the Iraq War, specifically the highly important consensus in the USA, from both parties that this war was highly negative. this includes statements by George W Bush himself, indicating this. i tried to add some sources data to the article on this, and was asked to open a section on the talk page. i would welcome the chance to discuss this. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

For a start, why is what Vance or Trump think is important, the war ended in 2011, and why were you referring to something We said in 2023? Also much of this is already covered, in the sections about legality and the criticisms section. Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

"why is what what trump or vance thinks important." amazing. this is an encylopeida. staements by national leaders are notable. this is a major gigantic historical event. the later reactions by major national leaders is a notable and important way to address this issue. Sm8900 (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

i would gently suggest that if you are seriously asking me why the statements of a president of the US are important, then that takes us too close to being a reddit forum, rather than wikipedia. could we please discuss this as an encyclopedia. i'm sorry, but that reply seems a bit unreasonable to me. i never thought Id hear a response like that here. hoo boy. ok, i do thank you for engaging. Sm8900 (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

obviously it seems that you own this article, so I don't wish to disrupt things with my own reasonable ideas. if that's the consensus here, then there is not much chance of altering it. i do appreciate your replies. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

But he was not president at the time, of the invasion, or the withdrawal, thus his views had no relevance to its outcome or prosecution. and read wp:AGF. Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

ok. i appreciate your reply. my point is very simple. i am referring to the political impact in all the years after, right up to the present day. so my whole point was the reaction of major notable national leaders,duuring the entire time period after the war ended. again, including any and all years, right up to the date today.

so any and all presidents since then have some relevance, but especially the views of the president from the same party as george w bush himself. Sm8900 (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

An impact means it has had an effect, not that people have an opinion on it, so any RS say this has an impact on Trumps election? Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

"political impact " specifically and explictly means a change in the political discourse, landscape, or nature of beliefs or opinions on each side of the political spectrum. so thats why i labeled the section "political impact." by the way i want to thank you, for being a good sport and being willingg to fully discuss here., Sm8900 (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Time for others to chip is as we are badgering the process. Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

ok, thats totally fair. Sm8900 (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• The text that was added and reverted was wrong at many levels. The subject would be better described as political legacy. As such, it is part of the aftermath. If we are going to include detail on this, we should be relying on how this is assessed in good quality sources. The shallowness of the text is unencyclopedic. The text added draws on quotes etc that come very close to being primary sources and therefore, sailing close to WP:OR. A lot of the subject is also woven into other sections of the article. Without considering the article as a whole, tacking on a new section makes the article disjointed. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  the sources you are referring to do not exist. it is obvious you are skewing away from reflecting the clear consensus amongst politicians, which is what the whole section was about. you obviously would like to lean towards peer-reviewed journals, in order to get the views of noted academics and historians on the entire topic. so you are choosing to somwhat sidestep the point of the proposed idea, and then disagreeing with it on that basis. Sm8900 (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  every article on the website uses news articles. that is not what WP:OR means. you are sailing close to not knowing what a core principle means, and using it to oppose some possible good ideas for editing here. Sm8900 (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  if we can't get consensus on this, then i may open an rfc. Sm8900 (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  from, WP:OR:

  A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

  ...A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

  --Sm8900 (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  The text that would be added makes no coherent case or argument. It has no clear theme, thesis or point. It does not show an analysis. This would require secondary sources - preferably of good quality. That would then be encyclopedic content. Research is the analysis of primary material. Drawing together the data is the first step in research. The added text alludes to a thesis, which, if stated, would be OR (where the thesis does not exist in sources). But without this, the text lacks the cohesion and substance that would make it encyclopedic. If the thesis is not presented in sources, it probably isn't noteworthy - or perhaps it hasn't been found. Either way, the addition as made isn't supported. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  How do you know? Have you already read the text you are mentioning? (My impression is rather that it hasn't even been written yet, but then your criticism would make no sense.) Gawaon (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  yes, i already wrote it, and then it was removed. Sm8900 (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! It would probably be good to add sources to the lead sentence of that text, as well as of each subsection, to avoid the impression that it could be OR and based on a one-sided selection of sources. Otherwise the text reads fine to me, though some copyediting is needed and I would shorten the long quote in the UK section. Gawaon (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  And yes, I had read the text before making my comments. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  ok, i changed the first paragraph to be less generalized and broad. Sm8900 (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

proposed text

here is the proposed text:

Political impact

The overall consensus amongst most of the world community was that the Iraq War was a mistake and was detrimental to the world. at the start of the war, there were signifcant objections from major leaders and governmental entities. For example, on January 29, 2003, the European Parliament passed a nonbinding resolution opposing unilateral military action against Iraq by the United States. According to the resolution, "a pre-emptive strike would not be in accordance with international law and the UN Charter and would lead to a deeper crisis involving other countries in the region".

Some of the most noteworthy changes in later political consensus on the war was in major countries which participated, notably the United States.

United States

By 2016, the public consensus in both major parties of the United States was that the Iraq War was based on invalid reasons, did not accomplish anything positive, and was highly detrimental. George W Bush admitted in his 2010 memoir Decision Points: “The reality was that I had sent American troops into combat based in large part on intelligence that proved false … No one was more shocked or angry than I was when we didn’t find the weapons. I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do.”

During the 2016 debates, Donald Trump frequently stated the invasion was totally wasteful and did not produce any useful results. When Jeb Bush seemed to defend the Iraq War in 2016, he was widely criticized, and had to reverse his answer, saying, "“Knowing what we know now I would not have engaged—I would not have gone into Iraq,”

The Republican Vice-Presidential candidate in 2024, JD Vance, labled the Iraq invasion as disastrous.

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, public opinion on the war was very negative.

One article in 2023 noted:

By then [2003] it was already obvious that the choice to go to war had turned into one of the most controversial decisions taken by a post-1945 British prime minister, but Campbell could not have foreseen how deeply British politics was to be shaped by Iraq over the next 20 years. It was to tear at successive Labour leaders, weaken the intelligence agencies and paralyse the process of authorising the use of force overseas.

Rather than prompt a sober re-examination of the true influence UK prime ministers had on US administrations, it instead took Britain further from the centre of Europe. ...the Iraq war was a different order of scandal; politicians were not caught with their trousers down or fingers in the expenses till, but instead allegedly doctoring the truth in an attempt to justify war.

References

--Sm8900 (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Military situation

Since the political impact of the war is stated in the article, shouldn't we also include who won the war in the military situation (If it was Inconclusive or An Operational success for the coalition, etc.)? Ali aj809 (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Rudeness

Stop the rudeness to iran 78.150.125.128 (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

What rudeness are you talking about? Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

New draft

I have an draft Draft:Course of the Iraq War beacuse section in this article is too long.

The draft is not yet completed. BangladeshiStranger🇧🇩 (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Addition of Ayad Allawi to infobox

Ben Azura, with this edit, you would readd Ayad Allawi to the infobox. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is to summarise key facts from the article. They were removed because they are not mentioned in the article - their inclusion is not supported by the article. A link is not a source. Also, WP:ONUS applies. If an edit is challenged, there is a burden to establish a consensus for inclusion - not just reinstate the challenged material. The material was initially removed with the edit summary: Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE - not supported by body of article. Perhaps if you did not understand this (though it appears to be reasonably straight forward) you might have ask for an explanation at the TP. Also note, WP:BRD. It is appropriate to initiate a discussion when an edit is reverted - ie it is not WP:BRR. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I added Allawi to the article. I thought you could explain if Allawi and Maliki qualify for being commanders for infobox purposes because technically it is during the "Post-Invasion" that they have any responsibility. If Allawi is removed I think Maliki should also be removed. Can you shed some light on this? Ben Azura (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's how I see it: the Iraq entry should include anyone who held the office of Prime Minister of Iraq (which is the commander-in-chief of the Iraqi armed forces and thus is the appropriate office to represent Iraq) during the 2003-2011 period, excluding the Iraqi Governing Council period as it was subordinate to the CPA during that time. As such, following Saddam there are three possible candidates: Ayad Allawi, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, and Nouri al-Maliki. Maliki pretty indisputably qualifies, and there are some weak arguments as to why the other two may not but I personally would include all three. If there's information that needs to be brought into the article in order to get there, it shouldn't be too hard to pull the appropriate sources from their respective articles. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Ben Azura, this article is about the war, which extends past the invasion. Swatjester, the guidance is clear. To be included in the infobox, the article needs to evidence they were key or significant. Usually this means more than just a passing mention that they held a particular position. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Human Rights Abuses

Section update: $42 million in damages were awarded in November 2024 to former prisoners at Abu Ghraib. See https://www.democracynow.org/2024/11/14/baher_azmy_caci_guantanamo_lawsuit_torture 2600:1001:B128:A069:C805:F112:660F:A404 (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)