Talk:Iraq War/Archive 29

Proposed small addition to background: paragraph on political, historical background
I'd like to propose that we add one paragraph on U.S.-Iraqi relations, prior to the Bush Administration, to the background section. The Iran-Iraq war was the time in which Iraq acquired chemical weapons (a critical issue for this article), and a time of improving U.S.-Iraqi relations. The invasion of Kuwait was a sharp reversal for those improvements, and set the stage not only for the First Gulf War but also for the eventual invasion. As CJK has pointed out, the Clinton Administration also adopted a policy of regime change, and the sanctions, bombing, and policy could easily be mentioned briefly.

This small change would give greater historical and political context, and make the background a little less focused on Bush Administration claims of WMD.

CJK is opposed to some (not all) of these changes, as he noted above, but I'm curious what other editors think as well. I could use Phebe Marr's book as a source, and a few other books as well, and try to keep things concise. -Darouet (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you know perfectly well what others would think: so long as any additions reflect badly on the United States they are okay. If they provide an even-handed account of the facts, they are not. That is the reason why 100% of my edits are blanked without any discussion of the merits of 90% of them.


 * CJK (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There should be some mention of US Iraqi relations before the war, and it should mention that the UK was a close ally of the U.S. in these relations, and perhaps also mention Iraq's relations with France and the Soviet Union and Russia. I suggest using a source about the 2003 war which would mention what aspect of the past was significant.  It would allow us to present comparisons of the 1990 and 2003 wars.  Also, while Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, which is already mentioned in the article, we should not imply that the invasion followed the logic of the act.  TFD (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Darouet and TFD that the background section needs expansion. PNAC's January 16, 1998 letter to President Clinton should be included. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century has 5 references for the statements “The television program Frontline, broadcast on PBS, presented the PNAC's letter to President Clinton as a notable event in the lead-up to the Iraq war. Media commentators have found it significant that signatories to the PNAC's January 16, 1998 letter to President Clinton (and some of its other position papers, letters, and reports) included such later Bush administration officials as Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Richard Armitage, and Elliott Abrams.” PNAC's role in the creation of the Iraq Liberation Act should also be covered. As TFD first mentioned, we should make it clear that the Act authorized the President to assist friendly groups with: broadcasting assistance (for radio and television broadcasting), military assistance (training and equipment), and humanitarian assistance, and that the Act specifically refused to grant the President authority to use U.S. Military force to achieve its stated goals and purposes, except as authorized under the Act in section regarding training and equipment. -Truthwillneverdie (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

we should not imply that the invasion followed the logic of the act

Section 3 of the act read: It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

Moreover, the reasons cited in section 2 were broadly similar to the reasons later advanced by the Bush administration.

And while the Act did not authorize military force, the Clinton administration nonetheless bombed Iraq in 1998, 1999, and 2000. The reasons cited for the 1998 bombing were basically the same as those cited by Bush later.

CJK (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The neoconservatives differed with Clinton in 1998 and Blix in 2003 - and France for that matter. It is historical revisionism to pretend otherwise.  TFD (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Clinton in 1998:

''Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire Gulf war. Now Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission. I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world," and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before. We are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again."''

''On Iraq, we stand together. Saddam Hussein must know that we are determined to prevent him from threatening his neighbors and the world with weapons of mass destruction. The Prime Minister and I would both prefer a genuine diplomatic solution. The best way to stop Saddam from developing an arsenal of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them is to get the inspectors back to work with full and free access to all relevant sites. But let me be clear: If Saddam does not comply with the unanimous will of the international community, we must be prepared to act, and we are.'' Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are:

''The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and lawabiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.''

''The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian makeup. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.''

The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

''My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.''

''In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.''

''Good evening. Earlier today I ordered America's Armed Forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States and, indeed, the interest of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons.''

''The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi Government, a Government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a Government that respects the rights of its people.''

''So long as Saddam remains in power, he will remain a threat to his people, his region, and the world. With our allies, we must pursue a strategy to contain him and to constrain his weapons of mass destruction program, while working toward the day Iraq has a government willing to live at peace with its people and with its neighbors... Now, over the long-term, the best way to end the threat that Saddam poses to his own people in the region is for Iraq to have a different government.''

CJK (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not debating club, and it has already been explained to you that articles must be based on secondary sources. If you do not like that policy, then take your argument to the policy pages.  TFD (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You have provided no secondary sources.

CJK (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * That is because I am not providing text to add to the article. TFD (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You said we should not imply that the invasion followed the logic of the act. No citation was given for this perspective.

CJK (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Your selective presentation of primary sources imply that the invasion followed the logic of the act. I cannot provide a citation for my perspective on your text, because so far no secondary source has analyzed it.  TFD (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If no secondary source has analyzed it, then why should we adopt your interpretation?

CJK (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No need to accept my interpretation of your theories, because without secondary sources your theories are pure OR and do not belong in the article. TFD (talk) 04:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I never advanced any theories in the article.

CJK (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Possible compromise on Blix in the intro
''After being critical of Iraqi performance in his January report, Blix on 7 March suggested that Iraq was taking more proactive steps and that proactive cooperation could resolve key remaining disarmament tasks in a matter of months. But shortly after inspections ceased he indicated that only limited new information had been provided by Iraq to resolve these issues.''

CJK (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * That is synthesis - you need a secondary source to support your connection. TFD (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no synthesis. This is just a straight up report of the facts.

CJK (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "Proactive" and "limited" are absurdly vague in this context. What actual information does this give a reader? EllenCT (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Your problem is with Blix, who used those words, not me.

CJK (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * CJK, see synthesis:
 * "A simple example of original synthesis: The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.
 * "Both parts of the sentence may be reliably sourced, but here they have been combined to imply that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research."
 * You should have the basic ability to follow links and read and understand policy. You have wasted the time of many editors through your walls of boring text, and pretense that you do not understand policy.  Do you not understand the policy or are you trying my patience?
 * TFD (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Blix himself combined the material in his 19 March statement: ''These efforts by Iraq should be acknowledged, but, as I noted in this Council on 7 March the value of the information thus provided must be soberly judged. Our experts have found so far that in substance only limited new information has been provided that will help to resolve remaining questions.''

I would say you and others have wasted time by using very trivial disagreements as an excuse to blank all edits. The walls of text appear to be necessary given the rampant ignorance displayed by certain users regarding "boring" facts.

CJK (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, you have posted your remarks before, other editors have responded and you should now move on. TFD (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Nobody has responded to this proposal except for you, for reasons that were shown to be wrong.

CJK (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing?
Did the Iraq War really end with the coalition withdrawal? I think it ended for them but not for Iraq. After all, the violence has gotten much worse in recent months, becoming more like a civil war than just a simple insurgency. Seems to me that nothing ended. Charles Essie (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree, but if the idea that the war didn't end with US withdrawal is seen to reflect poorly on the US, good luck. EllenCT (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The "2011: Conclusion" heading is U.S. centric and not a NPOV, "2011: U.S. withdrawal" would be better. Expansion of the “Post U.S. withdrawal” section would be valuable as well as something about the post U.S. withdrawal in the lead.  Perhaps you can propose text if you have ideas? Bernardwoodpecker (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It all depends on what the reliable sources say, not what actually happened. If the article was being strictly factual the start date would be 16 December 1998, not 20 March 2003. CJK (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bernardwoodpecker here, if someone has time to research and make these changes. -Darouet (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

A test of good faith
I have a sandbox here. I suggest that users look through the sandbox and identify elements that can be incorporated into the article. If there are no elements that can be incorporated into the article in any way shape or form, that will confirm the lack of good faith on the part of the users opposing the edits. Only the most biased of hacks could be satisfied with the current propaganda article.

CJK (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What a hilariously biased invitation. Do you expect to be taken seriously? ( Hohum  @ ) 22:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Legal vs. Practical justification
Here's the point I am trying to make: saying that the U.S. and U.K. invaded because they said Iraq had threatening WMDs is wrong not merely factually but also fails to distinguish between the legal and practical justifications offered for the war.

The reason Bush and Blair made a big deal about WMD possession is because they were going through the U.N. trying to justify their policies to the world in a legalistic manner. The resolutions said Iraq couldn't have WMDs, and as confirmed by 1441 in November 2002 Iraq was in material breech of the disarmament paragraphs of Resolution 687. Hans Blix in January said Iraq hadn't come to "genuine acceptance" of disarmament. So the U.S. and Britain (along with opposing countries like France) jumped to the conclusion that WMD existed. They said they were disarming Iraq in accordance with the resolutions.

But this legalistic case over WMD possession merely supplemented the practical case emphasized over and over again by Bush and Blair: given the overall pattern of behavior of the regime, it was imperative to act before it could acquire even more threatening weapons in the future. The world had up to that time lived with an Iraq that, according to the coalition, had had WMDs for quite a while. Nobody claimed they were going to use those WMDs in the near future if they did not act. Instead, it was made clear (as late 17 March 2003) that the threat of weapons being used was actually years into the future.

Now I find this all to be straightforward and self-explanatory. But for some reason people think I am just making this up, something which I don't understand. I gave three secondary sources pointing out that, according to stated policies, they did not invade based on a WMD threat that existed in 2003. This was simply ignored, so I am restating my points here.

Paul Pillar:


 * "If prewar intelligence assessments had said the same things as the Duelfer report, the administration would have had to change a few lines in its rhetoric and maybe would have lost a few member's votes in Congress, but otherwise the sales campaign—which was much more about Saddam's intentions and what he “could” do than about extant weapons systems—would have been unchanged. The administration still would have gotten its war. Even Dick Cheney later cited the actual Duelfer report as support for the administration's pro-war case."

TIME article from September 2002:


 * "A flurry of white papers will be brandished as evidence of what weapons Saddam has. But the Bush Administration's determination to topple him is based less on the weapons of mass destruction he has now than on what he might get later--and what he might one day do with them."

The book Cobra II:


 * "For the Bush administration, Iraq was an inviting target for pre-emption not because it was an immediate threat but because it was thought to be a prospective menace that was incapable of defending successfully itself against a U.S. invasion." (P. 64)

CJK (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If you want to mention the real reasons for the invasion, rather than just the stated reason, then you need to present all the opinions on what those reasons were in accordance with weight. TFD (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

As already explained to you, the legal case and the practical case were both explicitly stated reasons. Bush on 17 March stated:


 * In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act, in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687 -- both still in effect -- the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will.




 * We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.

CJK (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You're mischaracterizing Bush's statements on Iraq. The administration launched a veritable media blitz designed to portray Iraq as an imminent threat, even going so far as to imply that Iraq might soon detonate a nuclear weapon in an American city. It's all in the source you provided earlier, which we discussed at length. I agree that there were other motives behind the war, and that WMD was merely the method the administration chose to justify the war, but the administration made very strong claims about an imminent threat from Iraq. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence that George W. Bush or Tony Blair called Iraq an imminent threat.

CJK (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's another speech (from Dick Cheney):


 * Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors -- confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today, and the ones he will continue to develop with his oil wealth.

He also emphasized the threat from nuclear weapons, rather than chemical or biological.

So to summarize: in the important speeches before the war neither Bush, Cheney, or Blair claimed that there was an imminent threat. They said that the WMDs would be used in the future when they had been built up more.

CJK (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I went over this in such detail before that it's not even worth arguing about . The pronouncements by both the Bush and Blair administrations on Iraqi WMD were so dire that it's laughable to claim they didn't present Iraq as an imminent threat. If we can't agree on this, then we have irreconcilable differences over the English language. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I presented numerous speeches and three secondary sources to back up my judgments. You have presented merely your own prejudiced views.

CJK (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You provided my source, titled, "In Their Own Words: Iraq's 'Imminent' Threat". It was a very informative source, so I'll have to thank you for finding it. You used it when it was useful to you, but disregarded it when it wasn't. I quoted from it earlier. Anyone can go back and judge for themselves, and I'm very confident they'll read the Bush administration's statements in the same way as I (and your source) do. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

So you cite a partisan source from an organization whose goal was to make the Bush administration look bad, and that trumps Pillar, TIME, and Cobra II?

This is just mythmaking. I have quoted Bush, Blair, and Cheney all pointing to a future threat. If they wanted to say it was an imminent they would have said "imminent threat". Instead, the current threat that was identified was the behavior of the regime which would lead to it acquiring more dangerous weapons for actual use in the future.

CJK (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't help it if you refuse to read. Bush administration officials used the word "imminent" many times, as your own source says. They also used the phrases "urgent" and "present threat," and the notorious line, "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." This is all in the source that you previously cited in order to bolster one of your arguments, but now reject as "partisan," since it's now clear the source contradicts one of your core arguments.


 * This isn't myth-making. Newspapers before the invasion widely reported on the Bush and Blair administrations' characterization of Iraq as an "imminent threat." You can search Lexis Nexis to see newspapers from the run-up to the invasion. Here is a sampling of the results:


 * Sydney Morning Herald, Bush makes case for war; Iraqi weapons "could kill millions"; Promise to spare the innocent, 30 January 2003:


 * The Australian, Bush defends stance on Iraq, 2 January 2003:


 * New York Times, As British Antiwar Sentiment Rises, Blair Defends Iraq Stand, 14 January 2003:


 * New York Times, U.S. Aides Split On Assessment Of Iraq's Plans, 10 October 2002:


 * If the Bush administration disagreed with these characterizations of its position, one might expect it to have contradicted them. Instead, the administration itself used the phrase, "imminent threat," and put together a group called the "White House Iraq Group," whose job it was to convince the public of the urgency and extreme nature of the threat from Iraq. Bush and Blair's public rationale for war has, since the launching of the invasion, been widely characterized as resting on the claim that Iraq was an imminent threat.


 * I take it you disagree with these characterizations of the Bush administrations positions, but you are up against the sources here, and you're using very selective and dishonest highlighting of certain words in Bush's statements to make your point. The way you've been highlighting certain words to make it seem that Bush was characterizing Iraq as a future threat, when reading of the passage makes it clear that Bush was characterizing Iraq as a present threat, has been very misleading. I've shown you how several of the passages you highlighted said the exact opposite of what you wanted, but you insist on calling any reasonable reading of Bush's statements, or adherence to secondary sources, as "myth-making." -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

That is just a few newspapers who misrepresented his argument at the time. Neither Bush or Blair said there was an imminent threat. Urgent does not mean imminent. "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" does not necessarily imply imminence as in within the next year. I gave three sources which you ignore.

CJK (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It's hysterical
It's hysterial how little is written on the Ba'ath Party insurgency... They are barely mentioned, they are one of the best organized forces in Iraq, and this article barely mentions them.... I just think that's strange, those crazy maniacs deserve a bigger emphasize in this article. --TIAYN (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Starting the narrative at 2002 makes no sense
I don't understand why the narrative starts at 2002. It makes no sense, not only because the disarmament issue began in 1991 but because it had been bipartisan uncontroversial U.S. policy since 1991 to remove the regime.

George H.W. Bush stopped the Gulf War not because he wanted to preserve the regime but because he didn't want to fray the coalition. He approved of covert operations to overthrow the government back in 1991. In January 1992 he issued a statement that said:


 * The coalition fought a limited war for a limited but vitally important purpose. It prevailed. Saddam's Iraq is weak and isolated, unable to impose its extremist policies on the region or the peace process. Nevertheless, the American people and I remain determined to keep the pressure on Saddam until a new leadership comes to power in Iraq. As was the case from the outset, our quarrel is not with the people of Iraq but with the dictator whose misrule has caused terrible suffering throughout the Middle East. We will maintain U.N. sanctions and keep Saddam's regime isolated, a pariah among nations. We will work to ensure adequate food and medicine reach the Iraqi people under international supervision, while denying Saddam the means to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction.


 * We salute the efforts of thousands of brave Iraqis who are resisting Saddam's rule, both inside and outside of Iraq. The United States reiterates its pledge to the Iraqi people and the Iraqi military that we stand ready to work with a new regime. A new leadership in Baghdad that accepts the U.N. resolutions and is ready to live at peace with its neighbors and its own people will find a partner in the United States, one willing to seek to lift economic sanctions and help restore Iraq to its rightful place in the family of nations.

Similarly, the Clinton administration announced in January 1993 even before it took office that it would never normalize relations with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. It said it's policy was no different than Bush's. In June 1996 it even backed an abortive coup. In October 1998 it signed the Iraq Liberation Act, passed by a 360-38 vote in the House, which codified regime change as official American policy. In December 1998 Clinton said "So long as Saddam remains in power, he will remain a threat to his people, his region, and the world." 

The Republican Party platform in 2000 called for "the full implementation of the Iraq Liberation Act, which should be regarded as a starting point in a comprehensive plan for the removal of Saddam Hussein and the restoration of international inspections in collaboration with his successor. Republicans recognize that peace and stability in the Persian Gulf is impossible as long as Saddam Hussein rules Iraq." The Democratic platform said "In Iraq, we are committed to working with our international partners to keep Saddam Hussein boxed in, and we will work to see him out of power." 

As should be abundantly clear, the decision that Saddam had to go was not something made up by the George W. Bush administration in 2002 but rather was seen as a self-evident necessity ever since the Gulf War. No other policy short of regime change was ever seriously considered from 1991-2003. Accounts of the Gulf War in those years routinely portrayed Saddam's survival in power as an American defeat. The reason was obvious: not because of any specific threat but because it was assumed by pretty much everyone that Iraq would always be a long term danger so long as it was under reckless leadership. Otherwise, it would be like FDR calling off World War II when France was liberated and saying "okay, we liberated France so we can just live in peace with Hitler".

CJK (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should have more discussion of the back-history to the war in this article, beginning as early as the Iran-Iraq war, when Saddam first acquired the chemical and biological agents that later became the primary justification for the 2003 invasion. I don't think we should say the war began before 20 March 2003, because I don't think many sources would agree. No comparisons to WWII are required, though. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not the war began on 20 March 2003 the fact that there was immense hostility between Iraq and the United States between 1991 and 2003 is of direct relevance to this article in a way the Iran-Iraq war is not. The policy of regime change was established back in 1991 and continued uninterrupted until 2003. As early as July 1991 76% of the public said not removing Saddam during the Gulf war was a mistake. A majority of the American public favored sending troops back to the Persian Gulf to remove him from power in April 1992, June 1993, and February 2001. The reason there was no invasion under the Clinton administration was merely because of its hypersensitivity to the political consequences of casualties, not because there was no desire to get rid of the regime. Iraq was bombed continuously between December 1998 and March 2003. More people probably died because of sanctions prior to the war than died in the war itself, highlighting the absurdity of not explaining in detail the events prior to 2002.

CJK (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * We could go back to the Sykes–Picot Agreement, which began a century of Western intervention in the region. But this article is about the war and we have other articles to cover the pre-history of the war.  Also, what aspects of pre-history are relevant is a matter of judgment, and need to be sourced to articles about the war and explain which authors found which aspects relevant.  The focus of the article must be on the war itself, not a justification for the invasion.  TFD (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The direct relevance of 1991-2003 has been explained to you. There was a consensus among both parties and the American public throughout that time period that Saddam had to go. This is essential backstory to the invasion.

CJK (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Whether or not it has "direct relevance" is not something for us to determine. Your thesis is that the U.S. attacked Iraq because of the events from 1991-2003.  we must not present our personal views in articles but should explain the views expressed in mainstream secondary sources.  TFD (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I am contending that there was a straightforward consensus between 1991 and 2003 that the regime had to be changed. Are you saying that is of no relevance?

CJK (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Asking for help regarding CJK's edit on the saddam hussein article
Hi all

I stumbled upon an edit made by CJK on the saddam hussein article. I feel the edit removes relevant stmts presented by sources. I have started a discussion about this on that article's talk page. I was hoping i could direct those of you who think you can assist to shed light on my concerns to that discussion

Please feel free to participate but lets continue the discussion over there.

PureRumble (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Nonsensical WMD debate
I truly do not comprehend the undue focus on WMD possession, let alone why it is falsely presented as the only official reason for the invasion. For 12 years three U.S. Presidents said Saddam had to go, stating that Iraq would never have peaceful intentions in the long run while he was in charge. Whatever WMD he happened to have on hand at the moment was of minimal relevance to this. Even if he did have the WMDs people claimed he had in 2003 he hadn't used them for the last 15 years. Many people who were against the invasion pointed this out at the time and used this to argue that whatever arsenal he had wasn't a threat and that deterrence was adequate. This was certainly the French and German position. So even if they had found WMDs it would simply be argued that they were not militarily threatening to a powerful nation like the U.S.

And why on earth does this silly discussion end with "LOOK NO WMDs!" when we know Iraq had the capability to resume production of chemical and biological weapons if it wanted to? Why should anyone change their minds about the validity of the invasion by the fact that Saddam had no WMDs but could get them if he wanted to?

CJK (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * CJK, this isn't going to go anywhere: you've had so many responses from so many people in the last few months that it's too much to ask everyone to continue engaging on this particular issue. Because you interpret sources differently from all other editors on this page, and often interpret sources differently than the authors of those sources themselves, there's no viable route for us all to reach a consensus with you.


 * I agree with you that we should include some information (maybe 2-5 sentences) on U.S.-Iraqi relations prior to 2002. Namely, we should mention Iraqi use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war (apparently sanctioned and supported at the highest levels of the U.S. government in 1987-88 ), mention U.S.-Iraqi fallout because of the first Gulf War, and mention something about the Clinton Administration's position. -Darouet (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm just sick of this nonsense about making WMD possession the end-all-be-all of the Iraq War. Iraq was perfectly capable of producing WMD if it wanted to, as was confirmed by the U.N. and the ISG investigation. So if you thought Saddam would use WMD, despite not having used it between 1988 and 2003, it makes absolutely no practical difference if WMD existed at the time or not. It only made a difference in the legal setting at the U.N. The same U.N. that determined in November 2002 that Iraq was in material breech of its disarmament obligations.

I would say the above facts are of far more relevance to the invasion of Iraq then what happened in the Iran-Iraq War.

What part about this do you believe I am just making up?

CJK (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection
IMHO, this article would benefit from Semi-protection. Bernardwoodpecker (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

CNN opinion piece in lede
"CNN released an article stating that the war was started to secure oil supplies." So what? How notable is this article? How widely accepted are its conclusions among foreign policy experts? Is it cited in scholarly literature? Would the author's opinions be notable if CNN hadn't published them (not endorsed them)? The lede is arguably excessive already, while WP:RS cautions us against using opinion pieces because they are "rarely reliable for statements of fact." This text is ridiculously undue and should be removed immediately.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. ( Hohum  @ ) 18:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

War on Terror?
The Iraq War is mentioned as part of the "war on terror", which was indeed the official goal for invasion - a kind of response for 9/11 attacks. However, it is pretty much clear Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with al-Qaeda's terror attacks. Is it really still considered as part of the War on Terror?GreyShark (dibra) 18:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It clearly became part of of the "War on Terror", which afaik many sources confirm. Whether it was originally, or effective is another matter. ( Hohum  @ ) 18:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not dubious any more than the entire War on Terror article is dubious; the US government coined the phrase "War on Terror", and President Bush defined Iraq as that war's "central front".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We do not change the name of the "Salem Witch trials" just because there were no witches (or that's what we are told). TFD (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

New scientific paper on death toll
5 Canadian universities have produced a new study which shows the number of deaths is at 461,000, this should be included in the death count, and all other non scientific measurements, such as the IBC, should be removed. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/10/16/New-study-puts-Iraq-war-death-toll-at-500000/UPI-70861381921075/ and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24547256 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aqibkhan570 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should be noted as well. -Darouet (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Number of private contractors
I am not a Wikipedia expert so I didn't want to change anything before discussing it with the pros.

This article has these figures: (US) Security contractors 6,000–7,000 (estimate)[4] where citation [4] is a government website.

The article [] on the largest private contractor Academi has different figures, namely: It is estimated by the Pentagon and company representatives that there are 20,000 to 30,000 armed security contractors working in Iraq, and some estimates are as high as 100,000, though no official figures exist.

This means that at least 1/3 of the US forces were PRIVATE. Kind of a big deal. Shouldn't it be mentioned in the Iraq War figures rubric? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magneez (talk • contribs) 12:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This is, certainly, important information. A good start for you, Magneez, would be to do some research and find reliable journalistic and/or academic sources that discuss the number of private contractors fighting or serving in Iraq. -Darouet (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Here are a couple to start:, . -Darouet (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing?
Did the Iraq War really end with the coalition withdrawal? I think it ended for them but not for Iraq. After all, the violence has gotten much worse in recent months, becoming more like a civil war than just a simple insurgency. Seems to me that nothing ended. Charles Essie (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I added "Since the U.S. military's withdrawal, significant violence has continued in Iraq,[95] as Sunni militant groups have stepped up attacks targeting the country's majority Shia population to undermine confidence in the Shia-led government and its efforts to protect people without American backup.[96]" to the intro. I think the "Post U.S. withdrawal" section needs expansion if someone has time. Bernardwoodpecker (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The war is still ongoing because it dies more then 1000 persons/year in fighting. Reko (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I think, since nobody has posted any objections, that this article should be restructed in a way that reflects that this war is ongoing. Charles Essie (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree. The implication that wars end when the U.S. leaves is not a good one to be making.CircleAdrian (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly, what's going on right know is the continuation of the same war that's been going since 2003! I'm going to make some changes to this page to reflect that this is an ongoing war, if anyone disagrees, let's talk about it. Charles Essie (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems like the reasoning is valid, so I will await your changes before I review the article.--Soulparadox (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I already made them. Charles Essie (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I see that someone has already reverted the changes I made, I would very much like to discuss our disagreements here, maybe we can reach a consensus. Charles Essie (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's clearly still an ongoing conflict. I've reverted it to your version and asked the reverting editor to look at the talk page discussion.Freepsbane (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The conflict that is happening after the war is in Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal). This article is about the war between Iraq and the Coalition forces that lasted from 2003–2011. Anything that happens after December 15, 2011 goes in the Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal) article. Even though there's still conflict going on in Iraq, this war started in 2003 and ended in 2011. Example: Afghanistan was been in war since 1978 but the Soviet war in Afghanistan article refers to the 1979–1989 war and the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) article refers to the 2001–present war. AbelM7 (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal) is not a new conflict, it is the latest phase of the Iraq War, just like the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) is the latest phase of the War in Afghanistan (1978–present), we all know that the War in Afghanistan did not end when the Soviet Armed Forces left, and it will probably not end when we leave. Charles Essie (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This article refers to the 2003–2011 war. Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal) refers to the 2011–present war. The Coalition war is over but the Insurgent war is still going on. This article focuses on the period when the American, British, Australian and the rest of the Coalition Forces were fighting in Iraq and not what is happening after. AbelM7 (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the problem, this article dosen't fully regocnize that this is the same war with the same players, the fact that the coalition left makes no difference, the war is continuing, the War in Afghanistan (1978–present) didn't end after the Soviet Armed Forces pulled out, or when the Taliban was overthrown. Charles Essie (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither life nor history have neat brackets that declare, "here is where this conflict ended, and another took its place." We can describe the present conflict in great detail elsewhere, but it should of course be noted here. Readers of this article, were they told that the war was over and fighting stopped, would be misinformed, and that would be, in part, our responsibility. -Darouet (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I added For the current insurgency, see Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal). in the header for people looking for information about the current Iraqi insurgency. AbelM7 (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're both missing the point, the current conflict is not the successor to the Iraq War, it's the continuation of it, the coalition was just one belligerent that left in 2011, all the other belligerents never stopped fighting, just because the coalition started the war dosen't mean they finished it, Austria-Hungary started World War I, but they certainly didn't finish it! Charles Essie (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal) is the result of the aftermath of the Iraq War. This particular war ended in 2011. AbelM7 (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're not giving any reason as to why this post-U.S. withdrawal fighting is considered a separate part of the war and not a continuation of it. Yes that article covers the post-U.S. withdrawal info in more detail but it doesn't mean it's part of a different war. Spellcast (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Iraq War = Coalition Forces vs. Iraqis. Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal) = Sunnis vs. Shias. Of course most of the people are going to be the same since the Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal) started immediately after the Iraq War. AbelM7 (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But despite the U.S. withdrawing troops in 2011, they are still actually participating against this insurgency. This source says that just last month, the U.S. has shipped emergency missiles and drones, so to say the U.S. isn't still fighting is wrong. Also, I removed "Coalition victory" from the infobox. As you can see from Success of the Iraq War, this doesn't seem to be that black and white of an issue yet to safely call this a victory. Spellcast (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * USA is supporting the Iraqi government by sending them weapons but it is not a part of that war like how the Russian Federation is supporting the Syrian government in the Syrian Civil War but it is not a part of it. The Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal) is a civil war. And I'll add a source for the Coalition victory. AbelM7 (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how all the gains achieved by the surge were temporary and limited with the country is just as violent and balkanized as ever and AQI and their confederates are in control of the same area the coalition fought them in, that probably wouldn't count as a victory in the strategic sense in any way. Withdrawing with no apparent gains does not a victory make. If pushing guerrillas back and withdrawing in good order were all it took for victory, then you probably should go and change the Soviet war in Afghanistan outcome to a | Soviet victory. After achieving a tactical victory and withdrawing in 89' their Najibullah government was strong enough soundly defeat a combined Mujahideen attack against Jalalabad and to hold on to the country till the coup in 92. That's a better track record than Malaki's government. By that precedent, it'd seem quixotic to declare victory when just a few years after the coalition withdrawal the same jihadis the coalition fought are in control of growing areas of the country and the Malki government is crumbling.Freepsbane (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * AQI gaining control of the area happened after the Coalition left. The Coalition overthrew the Ba'athist government, captured and executed Saddam Hussein, occupied the country and set up a new government. That's a victory for the Coalition. AQI didn't gain control of the area in the Iraq War but during the Iraqi insurgency that is going on. For the Soviet war in Afghanistan, in that case, then yes the Soviet Union won that war. The Najibullah government was the one that was defeated in the Afghan Civil War 1989-92, not the Soviet Union. I'll go ahead and change it to Soviet victory. AbelM7 (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, as an addendum comparing Russia's support for Assad to Washington's support for Malaki is not the best analogy ever. The Soviet support for the Najibullah government they established after their withdrawal is a much more fitting analogy when it comes to attempted nation building. The success or failure of the government in Iraq more than anything determines whether the intervention was a success or not.Freepsbane (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As for whether this is a Coalition victory or not, I've made a separate thread below at . Spellcast (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If the Iraq government falls then it would be a Iraqi government defeat not a Coalition defeat. AbelM7 (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we're getting off topic, this discussion was supposed to be about the fact that after the coalition left, every other belligerent kept fighting, that means the war is ongoing, since when does the withdrawal of just one belligerent mean the end of a war, World War I continued after Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman and Russian Empires left and World War II continued after Nazi Germany fell.
 * P.S. I just read a | New York Times article that says exactly what I've been saying. Charles Essie (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Then the Russian Civil War is the continuation or a part of World War I since most of the same belligerents from World War I fought in the Russian Civil War. The Iraq War is the Coalition Forces vs. the Iraqi Forces. The Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal) is the Sunni vs. Shia groups. The Iraqi insurgency emerged after the Coalition forces left and this is what happened in the aftermath of the Iraq War. The level of violence increased after the Iraq War ended, starting this insurgency. AbelM7 (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Since the begining of the recent Anbar clashes, many media outlets have described it as part of the Iraq War, CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS described the war as ongoing today. Charles Essie (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * War is going on in Iraq today but not the Coalition one. The Iraq War lasted from March 20, 2003 – December 15, 2011 and the Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal) is started on December 18, 2011 – present. AbelM7 (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Iraq War was just as much a civil war/insurgency as it an invasion/occupation, the two are not mutually exclusive, the occupation ended, but the civil war/insurgency (which began at the same time) is ongoing. Charles Essie (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Iraq War ended on December 15, 2011. The post-withdrawal insurgency emerged in the aftermath of the war. AbelM7 (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The Iraq War was formally declared over on 15 December 2011. Changing the title to Iraq War (2003-11) might clarify things.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The "Iraq War" was also declared over in 2003 (remember the Mission Accomplished speech), the war wasn't over then and it's not over now! Charles Essie (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Revise Introduction
Hello all, I propose that the introduction to this article be majorly revised. There is a banner proposing that the article as a whole may be too long, but the introduction is certainly too long; you have to scroll to even begin to see the table of contents. This is a major deterrent to readers wanting a concise summary of the main points. Furthermore, the degree of detail vs. concision in the introduction varies substantially between paragraphs. The first paragraph of the intro seems like a good and concise summary of the war, but is followed by an excessively detailed and long summary of the rationale and justification for the war. Paragraphs 2-4 could probably be condensed into one paragraph with a much-abbreviated summary of the WMD controversy; interested readers can get the details in the article body. The following paragraph is a good summary of years 2003-2007, but probably could put greater emphasis on the severity of the 2006-7 Civil War that involved the most fighting and bloodshed of the war's second phase. Then we have two paragraphs giving excessively detailed timelines of the scale-down from 2008-2011. The final paragraph seems like a good summary of post-2011 developments. As a final recommendation, the introduction includes the number of the American forces killed in combat, but it seems appropriate to at least mention estimates or ranges of estimates of Iraqi civilian and military and other nations' combat losses. Obviously those figures are in the info box and article body, but it seems quite inappropriate to only mention American losses in the intro when Iraqi losses were greater by orders of magnitude. What do you all think? I hope that my criticisms have not caused any offense, but I find this introduction quite disappointing overall, especially for such a high-quality and high-profile article. Can we work together to improve it? DM Mirlo (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Great Article
Hello, When I was there we called this Operation Iraqi Freedom, renaming it might effect this....but 2003-2011 sounds right. I added a missing source to; 2005: Elections and transitional government...and it looks good. Needs an assessment and proper sources on The Invasion, but couldn't make any improvements...its length made sense.Wnicholas70 (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Also please remove naked Abu Grhaib picture alone with the completion of the "Prose" in Human Rights Abuses....I find it disturbing and anachronistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.232.180 (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Renaming
I suggest we rename this article from Iraq War to Iraq War (2003–2011) which will cover the period and the outcomes that happened when the Coalition forces were fighting Iraq and rename Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal) to Iraq War (2011–present) or Iraqi Civil War (2011–present) (Iraqi Civil War redirects to the 2006–2007 Civil war in Iraq) which will cover the current period and outcomes of the Sunni vs. Shia conflict. AbelM7 (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Intresting idea, I think this could done in a way that solves our dispute about whether this is an ongoing war or not, maybe this could be done in the format of the wars in Afghanistan and Somalia, with a main article and several sub-articles about the different phases, because like the above wars, this is one war different phases, I think that's a fair compromise. Charles Essie (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Iraq has been in war since 1980 starting with the Iran–Iraq War which lasted from 1980–1988. There was two years of peace that followed but that is nothing compared to the amount of years of wars. We could create an Iraq War (1980–present) article that covers all the different conflicts that have occurred since then:

AbelM7 (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Iran–Iraq War (1980–1988)
 * Persian Gulf War (1990–1991)
 * Iraqi no-fly zones (1991–2003)
 * Iraq War (2003–2011)
 * Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal) (2011–present)
 * I'm not quite sure the Iran–Iraq War, the Gulf War, the no-fly zones are part of this conflict, the first two are pretty self-contained and the third was not really a conflict as much as it was simply part of the sanctions on Iraq. Charles Essie (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it could be arranged this way;
 * Iraq War
 * Invasion of Iraq
 * Iraq War (2003–11)
 * Iraq War (2011–present)
 * Charles Essie (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it's necessary to bracket this conflict with dates in order to allow us to write that the conflict is over (as it must be by definition if we declare it ended in 2011). That said, the departure of U.S. troops is an important marker in this conflict, as Abel has pointed out. The ongoing insurgency can be briefly discussed and made apparent to readers while placing greater emphasis on the troop withdrawal by making this proposed change. In the end, I think we have to consider how history, in the long term, will view the dates of the "Iraq war." Scholars in the future may well put an end date of 2011. -Darouet (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The using of dates is supposed to help differentiat the different phases of the war, you see, Iraq has been in state of nonstop war since 2003, the first phase was the invasion, the second phase was the insurgency against coalition and government forces, and the third phase is the ongoing post-occupation insurgency. Charles Essie (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The 2003 invasion and post-invasion should be kept together in the article like how War in Afghanistan (2001–present) has the 2001 invasion and post-invasion together. I think we should rename the 2011–present conflict as Iraq War (2011–present) or Iraqi Civil War (2011–present). AbelM7 (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * support the OP in that Iran-Iraq, Persian Gulf, 2003 and post-withdrawal are all Iraq Wars too. This is POV and biased to the Eurocentric vision to only highlight the US invasion as the sole war. Either that or loink this to a disambiguation page. Links >> US in Iraq: They broke it but didn't fix itLihaas (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Changing the title to "Iraq War (2003–11)" isn't a bad idea. However, I strongly oppose creating a new article called "Iraq War (2003-present)". The Iraq War was formally declared over on 15 December 2011. Something like "Conflict in Iraq (2003-present)" is more acceptable. Also, having the term "civil war" is highly contentious.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The "Iraq War" was declared over in 2003 (remember the Mission Accomplished speech), the war wasn't over then and it's not over now! Charles Essie (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And by the way, how is the term "civil war" highly contentious, 9,000 people were killed last year alone! Charles Essie (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The Iraq War is over. The United States and the Coalition accomplished it's initial objective of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. The insurgency activity, while never eliminated, was depleted, and improvements in public security were made while the coalition remained in Iraq. The insurgency didn't increase to the level it is now until AFTER the coalition left. That is why the post US withdrawal conflict is considered separate from the Iraq War. The Iraq War is over. There is no arguing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.90.88.16 (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia relies on supporting evidence from competent reliable sources. That doesn't necessarily mean the word of one of the combatants. WP:RELIABLE sources, preferably by respected historians, political experts etc would be the best basis for supporting dates for when a war is over. Bring sources, not your opinion. ( Hohum  @ ) 19:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "The "Iraq War" was declared over in 2003 (remember the Mission Accomplished speech)" - yes we all remember that charade, but it was patently untrue. Have you never heard of politicians misrepresenting the truth? &#32;  Djapa Owen (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Coalition victory?
I've made a separate thread for this issue from the above thread. This source (from a tabloid by conservative author Amir Taheri) was used to cite a Coalition victory. It seems that was found by simply Googling "US victory in Iraq" and selecting one of the first links. But if I was to Google the opposite, you'll find sources that say something different or that's it's unclear who the victor is yet. According to a 2013 opinion poll, most Americans don't believe the war was won. My point is we can't just cherry pick sources that say one thing. You have to look at the overall consensus of how this is reported. Correct me if I'm wrong and maybe this will change years down the line, but currently it doesn't seem to be that black and white of an issue to be considered an undisputed victory. Spellcast (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I based the coalition victory due to the fact that the Coalition forces overthrew the Ba'athist government, Saddam Hussein was executed, the country was occupied, a new government was setup and the Sunnis never overthrew the new government when the Coalition was there. If that happens during this insurgency war then it wouldn't be a Coalition defeat but a Iraqi government defeat. Just because Americans say in a poll that they don't believe the war was won doesn't change the facts that the Coalition forces defeated Iraq. If there was a big Iraq War victory celebration then Americans wouldn't be believing the war was lost. There's still Americans that believe that there are still US troops in Iraq so don't be surprise if they aren't informed about the war. If there was a poll saying most Iraqis believed that Iraq won the war and defeated the Coalition forces would we put "Iraqi victory"? Maybe a "Both sides claim victory". Yes I did looked look for the first links because I was asked to provide a source (I actually typed in "Iraq War victory" to see which result I would get). I wasn't going to find an article that questions the reasons for the Iraq War, the morals, whether it was worth it, talk about all the money that was spent, whether the impact of the war will be positive or negative or say it was defeat because Iraq didn't magically become a utopia, the Iraqis are still experiencing hardships and that the Sunnis have risen to fight. The success or failure of a war is not determine on morality, whether or not people's lives improves or if another conflict happens. Otherwise all wars are failures. AbelM7 (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that placing "Coalition victory" as a result of the war benefits the article in any way. In fact, considering the unforeseen catastrophe that followed the formal defeat of Iraqi forces, I think it would be misleading. -Darouet (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This article focuses on the Iraq War, which the Coalition forces defeated the Iraqi forces. Any gains by the Coalition during the Iraq War that are reversed by the Sunnis during the Iraq insurgency will be placed in the Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal) article. AbelM7 (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The info box states outright that the result was a Coalition victory, but as discussed here such a statement does not cover the whole picture. Perhaps it should be changed to read Result: Defeat of the Ba'athist regime? To suggest that the ongoing insurgency is not related to the war is as silly as George Bush's statement that hostilities were over. This can be discussed in the body of the article, but it does not make sense to have an absolute statement in the info box. &#32;  Djapa Owen (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Simply put, any claims of victory fly in the face of a majority of think tank, journalist and numerous polls of the American public that say otherwise. Giving undue weight to a minority assertion such as that would be contrary to a WP's neutrality guidelines. Furthermore out of the bench marks for success that the coalition leaders laid out: removing Al-Queda's presence, building up a stable nation and tamping down sectarian violence none of them have been met. AQI has gone from having virtually no presence in the country prior to the war to controlling large swaths of West Iraq and using them as staging grounds for attacks in Lebanon and Syria, the Iraqi government is paralyzed by political crisis and hopelessly Balkanised, it's Suni tribes are in open revolt and fighting alongside AQI in Fallujah and the rump central government is increasingly dependent on Iran and reduced to it's defacto junior partner. Whatever tactical victories the coalition may have scored don't change the fact that when judged by the Coalition's own goals the strategic situation is much worse than it was prior to the war. If a single editor is so bent upon introducing a biased opinion into the article, then it's only right to balance it with a set of sources asserting the mainstream position that the war ended a strategic failure for the coalition.Freepsbane (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a qualified "victory" along the lines of "Coalition tactical victory; Failure of Coalition strategic objectives" or "Coalition tactical victory; Coalition strategic objectives not achieved" could work and accurately describe the tactical/nation-building war outcomes if condensing everything down to a sentence is so badly needed. Freepsbane (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a major problem with the arguments of those of you who are arguing against a coalition victory based on opinion polls: Since when does PUBLIC OPINION decide the facts of who won a war? We must stick to the facts. Saddam Hussein was overthrown and executed. The insurgents lost way more fighters than the United States did, and they only became the serious problem they are now AFTER the withdrawal of the US and other members of the Coalition. Furthermore, what the majority of the public believe isn't always true. There have been numerous cases throughout history where the majority of the public were wrong. Tell me, did this opinion poll ask those who participated what they knew of the Iraq War. Did they ask them how many men they thought each side lost? Did they even bother to check if the participants had their facts straight. If this is anything like other opinion polls in the past, they did not. Speaking of polls, have any of you guys checked the statistics concerning the knowledge of US citizens in regards to their own history? I have, and it is extremely disappointing. The fact of the matter is that most people in the United States don't have much knowledge of American history beyond the basics. Oh, there are quite a few exceptions, mind you (myself included), that have a genuine interest in our nations past and modern history, and there is no shortage of experts on the subject, but these people are sadly in the minority. Does anyone here remember that poll that showed that more people in the United States could remember the names of all the characters on the Simpsons than those who could name the amendments in the Bill of Rights? Yeah, the majority of the public sounds really knowledgeable. Not! In reality, most people get their information from the press, which, though reliable, doesn't cover all the details. I distinctly remember them covering all the AMERICAN casualties during the war, while at the same time barely mentioning anything concerning the number of Iraqi insurgents killed. Look, I'm not trying to call anyone stupid for using an opinion poll as a basis for their facts. I'm just saying that we need to stick to the FACTS, rather than OPINION. It is important to understand the difference between the two when editing an article. If you look at the facts, the Iraq War may not have been a total victory for the coalition, but it was certainly not a defeat. If anything, it was at least a partial victory. The Vietnam War was an American defeat. The Iraq War wasn't. Toolen (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Your logic is flawed Toolen, a victory is not about who has the most casualties and you know that as you admit the US lost the Vietnam war despite the huge number of Vietnamese casualties. The info box gives a reasonable account of the things that were won and those that were not won without unsupported patriotic affirmations. Nothing in the infobox says the coalition was defeated, but you admit above that the result "may not have been a total victory for the coalition". Lets try to represent it as accurately as possible then shall we? &#32;  Djapa Owen (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

My logic is not flawed, as that is not the only reason I give for why I consider the war an overall victory. Nice insult under the edit summary by the way. Real mature. You think that just because I'm arguing that the war was at least a partial victory that I'm affiliated with Bush? You think I'm just some patriotic dumbass who thinks that everything the United States does is right? Well, that shows what you know. I'm not, however, looking for a fight. Let's just change it to say initial coalition victory, shall we? Toolen (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Insult? Do you consider "why quote a political charade?" to be an insult? Isn't that a fair description of Bush declaring hostilities over before any real carnage started? &#32;  Djapa Owen (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Any claim of victory for one side or the other has to reflect what reliable sources say. I don't think that most sources say the result was a Coalition victory. Toolen, if you disagree, and think that most reliable sources do consider the Iraq War to be a Coalition victory, then please provide the sources you are basing this opinion on. The important thing to remember is that the talk page does not exist for us to debate the outcome of the Iraq War, but rather for us to discuss how best to reflect the views of reliable sources in the article. It really doesn't matter what we personally think about the outcome of the war. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I remember George W. Bush declared a "crusade". This has not be won (or is the Iraq christian?). As far as I remember he declared to finish the threat of WMD - how could he put an end to something that did not exist in the first place? He declared to bring democracy. He declared to ban AlQaida influence and so on and on. I think a "victory" of a war should mean that at least SOME of the goals of the war should be won. To kill Hussein was - officially - not a goal. To kill people in the Iraq was opposed to the declared "accuracy" of this war - so it is in fact a sign, that the goal of this war was not won. AlQaida influence is bigger than before, the war led to an uprise in the Muslim world against the United States and made this world less secure. No, even if we take to account that most wars are not "totally" a victory - this one is definitely as far from a victory as it could be.

I am German, and I think our Wikipedia-article about the Iraq War is way better in many aspects. Sources, facts, opinions, results, goals, history, who was part of the coalition, who was not and why, ... . Martinvonberg (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)