Talk:Iraq War/Archive 33

link to "Iraqi Civil War (2014–present)" v. "Iraqi Civil War (2014–2017)"
24.47.158.59 changed a link to Iraqi Civil War (2014–present) to make it refer to Iraqi Civil War (2014–2017). The latter is currently a redirect to the former.

The lede for that article ends, "On 9 December 2017, prime minister Haider al-Abadi announced victory over ISIL, though others warned that they expected ISIL to fight on by other means." I sincerely hope that this war has ended. However, I do not believe we yet have enough evidence to be confident that this war is over -- or will end before December 31, 2017. I'm reminded with great sadness of George W. Bush's Mission Accomplished speech, over 14 years ago. Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief. DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

US v. U.S.
Thanks for replacing "U.S." with "US". Might you have the time to change all the other occurrences of "U.S." to "US" in this article?

"Manual of Style" says, "use US by default when abbreviating, but retain U.S. in American or Canadian English articles in which it is already established, unless there is a good reason to change it. ... use US in an article with other country abbreviations, and especially avoid constructions like the U.S. and the UK." This "Iraq War" article includes "UK", so this Wikipedia:Manual of Style recommends we change them all. DavidMCEddy (talk) 12:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will in the near future! Michipedian (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to change "U.S." to "US" in this article, but my edits are oftentimes undone, although it is consistent with the Wikipedia manual and there is no consensus of usage in this article whatsoever. We may need to revisit this issue. Jmake2016 (talk) 07:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

War Result in Infobox
According to many other articles on Wikipedia, this war is listed as a victory for the US and Coalition forces. Should this result be included in the infobox of this article? Although the withdrawal of US forces in 2011 eventually led to the rise of ISIS, the coalition left behind a free and stable Iraq that was in control of its own territory and had free elections. Pair that with the decrease in insurgent violence and the toppling of Hussein's regime, and I believe it's hard not to say that this was a US-Coalition victory. Jmake2016 (talk) 07:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See this long discussion about the subject in 2014. Also, a search for sources on the who won also disagrees. Lucasjohansson (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2018
Please change "July 2004" to "June 2004" where it says "Bremer served until the CPA's dissolution in July 2004." Hudsonc601 (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC) Hudsonc601 (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Gulumeemee (talk) 06:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

"PEJAK"
The article refers twice in succession to a party it calls "Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan", abbreviated to "PEJAK". But the link goes to an article called "Kurdistan Free Life Party", abbreviated to "PJAK" without an "E" - this also makes sense, as the Kurdish-language name of the party is given as "Partiya Jiyana Azad a Kurdistanê" (so there's no word in the name beginning with "E"). I'd change this myself, but since the spelling with an "E" appears twice I suppose the writer may have had a reason to use it. So I've simply mentioned it here.213.127.210.95 (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nujabaimage.jpg

British v. US spelling in a URL
Changing British to US spelling in a URL, as you just did, replaces functioning URLs with broken links. Not all the URLs you change worked, but some did. I'm reverting you edits. DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Syria and the Iraqi Insurgency (repost)
I have reposted this here on request from from: Syria and the Iraqi Insurgency.

You keep reverting my edits of Syria's role in the Iraq Insurgency. Your sources are allegations and/or contradicted by many other sources. One of your articles claims that Syria helped ferry/encourage fighters to go to Iraq in 2003, not true, military officials noted no Syrian role in recruiting fighters to go to Iraq, (https://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/15/world/a-nation-at-war-damascus-syria-fears-the-unknown-what-s-behind-us-threats.html) the official Syrian position was dissuading going to Iraq (https://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/02/world/a-nation-at-war-the-islamic-world-for-arabs-new-jihad-is-in-iraq.html) and alleged Syrian intelligence spooks like the radical anti-American Islamist Abu al-Qa'qa' dissuaded his followers from going to Iraq in 2003. (https://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1003/p06s01-wome.html) These volunteers were recruited and bused by the Iraqi government at consulates around the Arab world not by the Syrian government (https://www.economist.com/special-report/2003/03/27/volunteers-for-the-war). These fighters flowed in from Jordan as well, (https://www.npr.org/news/specials/iraq2003/northam_alkarana.html) as well as Lebanon (https://www.upi.com/Arab-volunteers-join-Iraq-battle/96171048954848/). In 2004 Syria was involved in the killing of an AQ smuggler to Iraq, something unlikely if Syria was supporting them (http://joshualandis.oucreate.com//syriablog/archives/2004_09_01_faculty-staff_archive.htm). The Syrian government claimed in 2005 over 1k fighters were arrested by Syria, on the charge of heading to Iraq (https://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/24/politics/syria-stops-cooperating-with-us-forces-and-cia.html). Corroborated by clashes with Syrian security forces (https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/world/middleeast/syrians-clash-with-fighters-linked-to-the-iraqi-insurgency.html) Razan Zaitouneh noted forced disappearances and acknowledges the arrests by the Syrian government of those trying to get to Iraq, although she inaccurately reports of Syrian government encouragement during the first month of the war.(http://archive.is/N6N6S#selection-45.1-50.0) Jihadist forums as well refer to Assad as an "American boot-licker" for his crackdowns (http://archive.is/9SdxO#selection-45.1-50.0) and furthermore this was noted by Abizaid, other US military officials (http://archive.is/iGtYr) and as well as major opposition leader and former Syrian VP Abdul Halim Khaddam (http://archive.is/SFtDi#selection-45.1-50.0). They all note of either Syrian crackdowns or lack of Syrian government involvement in the insurgency. In 2007 a US spokesman noted Syrian efforts to crack down on the fighters trying to get into Iraq and a reduction of the the flow, (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rice-to-meet-with-syria-at-iraq-conference/) even Petraeus who contradicts his own narrative notes of "robust efforts" by the Syrian government (https://www.joshualandis.com/blog/syria-gets-credit-for-gains-in-iraq-jihadists-come-from-us-allies/). Wikileaks cables document over 100 repatriations of Libyan fighters trying to get into Iraq by the Syrian government and heavy cooperation with the Libyan government (https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08TRIPOLI500_a.html). Trials for suspected militants attempting to sneak into Iraq (https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07DAMASCUS1143_a.html) and meetings on Syrian efforts on the border issue (https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07DAMASCUS836_a.html). In 2008, more appraisal from US officials (https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/world/middleeast/28syria.htm) and a US commander noted helpful cooperation with the Syrians, though noted isolated instances of corruption in both Syrian and Iraqi border patrols (https://www.thenational.ae/world/mena/syria-stops-insurgents-on-iraq-border-1.525878?videoId=5771275459001). By 2009, the border crossings were fully under control. (https://www.newsday.com/news/world/on-syria-border-no-sign-of-saddam-loyalists-1.1646990). The Syrian government actively attempted to crack down on the smugglers, however this was a difficult task as smuggling had been a tradition in the area for centuries and the Iraq-Syria border was really just a formality and top this off with local corruption which plagues Syria. Even the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies noted that "preventing militants from crossing its [Syria's] 380-mile border with Iraq is daunting" and that Syria "lacks sufficient resources to do so" (https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/media/csis/pubs/050919_saudimiltantsiraq.pdf). The idea that Syria ever supported the insurgency are just allegations and/or from inaccurate or contradicting sources. 24.57.43.93 (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The lede omits that there was nothing to the WMDs and the Iraq-ALQ operational relationship
The lede should absolutely note that there were no WMDs found, that there was no Iraq-Al-Qaeda operational relationship, and that the administration pressured the intelligence community and misused raw intelligence to paint a deceptive picture of Iraqi WMDs and an operational Iraq-Al-Qaeda relationship. This is the first time I've glanced at this article and it's astounding that this is not in the lede. There's a throw-away line about how the rationales for the war "faced heavy criticism", which falsely presents the issue as if the debates around Iraqi WMDs and the Al-Qaeda ties are of a partisan nature, rather than settled.

Absurdly enough, the lede goes into the weeds on how "old" chemical weapons were found (which is irrelevant to the rationales for invading Iraq) - devoting three full sentences to it nonetheless! Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with Snooganssnoogans on this. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The lede goes on at length about the small numbers of scattered, old, degraded chemical artillery shells found in Iraq. The POV that's clearly being pushed is that Iraq had WMD, vindicating the Bush administration's rationale for war. This is contrary even to the findings of the US inspections that followed the war, which concluded that Iraq did not possess WMD. The lede should clearly state what is overwhelmingly reported by reliable sources, which is that Iraq did not possess WMD. The issue of WMD should also be put much higher in the lede, given its centrally to the case for war. Right now, this central issue in the war is buried a few paragraphs into the lede. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The culprit for most of these issues, along with the Cheney's-opinion-as-fact sentence discussed above, is this series of edits that rewrote parts of the lead section two months ago. Content that was sourced in the body was removed as "unsourced" and new content found nowhere in the body was added straight into the lead with no regard for balance and due weight. Prolog (talk) 07:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Surprise, surprise, added by the same editor who went to 4RR pushing Cheney's opinion as settled fact in the lead. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The relevant section of the lede also starts with "President Bush obtained congressional approval from a Democrat-led Senate and Republican-led House authorizing war-making powers." This omits that Congress was fed deceptive and massaged intel that substantiated the inaccurate claims made by the Bush administration, making it appears as if Saddam had an active WMD program and was working with Al-Qaeda - that's pertinent context. It makes it seem as if this was a consensus decision made by equal actors when in fact the executive branch was deceiving the legislature. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * When the protection for this article ends, I encourage an effort to seriously revamp this article. It's a disgrace that Wikipedia is portraying one of the most important events of the 21st century in such an ahistorical and deceptive way. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that it needs to be rewritten. The chemical shells should not be omitted, but should be mentioned in context (i.e. "The only chemical weapons found were defunct shells..."). Likewise, the history of Saddam portraying that he had a clandestine program as an act of deterrence should also be included. In short, Saddam made a bluff and got called. Buffs (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The old chemical weapons belong in the body, not in the lede. The old chemical weapons have nothing to do with the justifications for invading Iraq. Iraq was not invaded because it used to have chemical weapons. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The claim that Saddam Hussein was bluffing would have to be sourced, and probably attributed to whoever is making the claim, especially given the fact that Saddam Hussein repeatedly and very publicly insisted that Iraq did not have WMD in the lead-up to the invasion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Indeed he DID make that claim. He also went to GREAT lengths to make it look like he was covering up a clandestine program. Finding that information is not difficult. Likewise, the case for war against Iraq was NOT isolated to just WMD and an AQ relationship, but also (among others) violating sanctions (thereby nullifying the cease-fire) and shooting at US aircraft in the no-fly zones (this itself is an act of war). Buffs (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * As evidence, you're citing an Op-Ed written by a supporter of the Iraq War in 2003, just as it was becoming clear to the public that Iraq had no WMD, and as supporters of the war were moving on to the next rationalization - that they had been "duped" by Saddam Hussein. The Op-Ed that you cite was thoroughly refuted at the time: . Iraqi officials repeatedly insisted in many fora that Iraq had no WMD. They opened the country up to intrusive inspections to prove that it had no WMD. The idea that they were trying to fool everyone into thinking that they had WMD is absurd, and it was invented in the immediate aftermath of the invasion by certain supporters of the war as a new justification, once the initial WMD argument fell apart. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree it should be in the lead. I would point out too that even though the Bush administration falsified the intelligence, the resulting report had no credibility. While it is true that "Congress was fed deceptive and massaged intel that substantiated the inaccurate claims made by the Bush administration," the majority of Democrats particularly in the House opposed the resolution. (Sens. Kerry, Clinton and Biden were notable exceptions.) The vast majority of foreign intelligence agencies that were provided the report rejected it, which is why the U.S. was only able to assemble 29 other countries for the Coalition of the Willing, most of which had negligible populations or military capacity. TFD (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree with Snooganssnoogans. These were the core justifications for the war, so it only makes sense what came out of them is mentioned in the lead. François Robere (talk) 11:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Syria and the Iraqi Insurgency (repost)
I have reposted this here on request from from: Syria and the Iraqi Insurgency.

You keep reverting my edits of Syria's role in the Iraq Insurgency. Your sources are allegations and/or contradicted by many other sources. One of your articles claims that Syria helped ferry/encourage fighters to go to Iraq in 2003, not true, military officials noted no Syrian role in recruiting fighters to go to Iraq, (https://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/15/world/a-nation-at-war-damascus-syria-fears-the-unknown-what-s-behind-us-threats.html) the official Syrian position was dissuading going to Iraq (https://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/02/world/a-nation-at-war-the-islamic-world-for-arabs-new-jihad-is-in-iraq.html) and alleged Syrian intelligence spooks like the radical anti-American Islamist Abu al-Qa'qa' dissuaded his followers from going to Iraq in 2003. (https://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1003/p06s01-wome.html) These volunteers were recruited and bused by the Iraqi government at consulates around the Arab world not by the Syrian government (https://www.economist.com/special-report/2003/03/27/volunteers-for-the-war). These fighters flowed in from Jordan as well, (https://www.npr.org/news/specials/iraq2003/northam_alkarana.html) as well as Lebanon (https://www.upi.com/Arab-volunteers-join-Iraq-battle/96171048954848/). In 2004 Syria was involved in the killing of an AQ smuggler to Iraq, something unlikely if Syria was supporting them (http://joshualandis.oucreate.com//syriablog/archives/2004_09_01_faculty-staff_archive.htm). The Syrian government claimed in 2005 over 1k fighters were arrested by Syria, on the charge of heading to Iraq (https://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/24/politics/syria-stops-cooperating-with-us-forces-and-cia.html). Corroborated by clashes with Syrian security forces (https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/world/middleeast/syrians-clash-with-fighters-linked-to-the-iraqi-insurgency.html) Razan Zaitouneh noted forced disappearances and acknowledges the arrests by the Syrian government of those trying to get to Iraq, although she inaccurately reports of Syrian government encouragement during the first month of the war.(http://archive.is/N6N6S#selection-45.1-50.0) Jihadist forums as well refer to Assad as an "American boot-licker" for his crackdowns (http://archive.is/9SdxO#selection-45.1-50.0) and furthermore this was noted by Abizaid, other US military officials (http://archive.is/iGtYr) and as well as major opposition leader and former Syrian VP Abdul Halim Khaddam (http://archive.is/SFtDi#selection-45.1-50.0). They all note of either Syrian crackdowns or lack of Syrian government involvement in the insurgency. In 2007 a US spokesman noted Syrian efforts to crack down on the fighters trying to get into Iraq and a reduction of the the flow, (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rice-to-meet-with-syria-at-iraq-conference/) even Petraeus who contradicts his own narrative notes of "robust efforts" by the Syrian government (https://www.joshualandis.com/blog/syria-gets-credit-for-gains-in-iraq-jihadists-come-from-us-allies/). Wikileaks cables document over 100 repatriations of Libyan fighters trying to get into Iraq by the Syrian government and heavy cooperation with the Libyan government (https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08TRIPOLI500_a.html). Trials for suspected militants attempting to sneak into Iraq (https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07DAMASCUS1143_a.html) and meetings on Syrian efforts on the border issue (https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07DAMASCUS836_a.html). In 2008, more appraisal from US officials (https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/world/middleeast/28syria.htm) and a US commander noted helpful cooperation with the Syrians, though noted isolated instances of corruption in both Syrian and Iraqi border patrols (https://www.thenational.ae/world/mena/syria-stops-insurgents-on-iraq-border-1.525878?videoId=5771275459001). By 2009, the border crossings were fully under control. (https://www.newsday.com/news/world/on-syria-border-no-sign-of-saddam-loyalists-1.1646990). The Syrian government actively attempted to crack down on the smugglers, however this was a difficult task as smuggling had been a tradition in the area for centuries and the Iraq-Syria border was really just a formality and top this off with local corruption which plagues Syria. Even the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies noted that "preventing militants from crossing its [Syria's] 380-mile border with Iraq is daunting" and that Syria "lacks sufficient resources to do so" (https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/media/csis/pubs/050919_saudimiltantsiraq.pdf). The idea that Syria ever supported the insurgency are just allegations and/or from inaccurate or contradicting sources. 24.57.43.93 (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The lede omits that there was nothing to the WMDs and the Iraq-ALQ operational relationship
The lede should absolutely note that there were no WMDs found, that there was no Iraq-Al-Qaeda operational relationship, and that the administration pressured the intelligence community and misused raw intelligence to paint a deceptive picture of Iraqi WMDs and an operational Iraq-Al-Qaeda relationship. This is the first time I've glanced at this article and it's astounding that this is not in the lede. There's a throw-away line about how the rationales for the war "faced heavy criticism", which falsely presents the issue as if the debates around Iraqi WMDs and the Al-Qaeda ties are of a partisan nature, rather than settled.

Absurdly enough, the lede goes into the weeds on how "old" chemical weapons were found (which is irrelevant to the rationales for invading Iraq) - devoting three full sentences to it nonetheless! Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with Snooganssnoogans on this. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The lede goes on at length about the small numbers of scattered, old, degraded chemical artillery shells found in Iraq. The POV that's clearly being pushed is that Iraq had WMD, vindicating the Bush administration's rationale for war. This is contrary even to the findings of the US inspections that followed the war, which concluded that Iraq did not possess WMD. The lede should clearly state what is overwhelmingly reported by reliable sources, which is that Iraq did not possess WMD. The issue of WMD should also be put much higher in the lede, given its centrally to the case for war. Right now, this central issue in the war is buried a few paragraphs into the lede. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The culprit for most of these issues, along with the Cheney's-opinion-as-fact sentence discussed above, is this series of edits that rewrote parts of the lead section two months ago. Content that was sourced in the body was removed as "unsourced" and new content found nowhere in the body was added straight into the lead with no regard for balance and due weight. Prolog (talk) 07:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Surprise, surprise, added by the same editor who went to 4RR pushing Cheney's opinion as settled fact in the lead. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The relevant section of the lede also starts with "President Bush obtained congressional approval from a Democrat-led Senate and Republican-led House authorizing war-making powers." This omits that Congress was fed deceptive and massaged intel that substantiated the inaccurate claims made by the Bush administration, making it appears as if Saddam had an active WMD program and was working with Al-Qaeda - that's pertinent context. It makes it seem as if this was a consensus decision made by equal actors when in fact the executive branch was deceiving the legislature. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * When the protection for this article ends, I encourage an effort to seriously revamp this article. It's a disgrace that Wikipedia is portraying one of the most important events of the 21st century in such an ahistorical and deceptive way. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that it needs to be rewritten. The chemical shells should not be omitted, but should be mentioned in context (i.e. "The only chemical weapons found were defunct shells..."). Likewise, the history of Saddam portraying that he had a clandestine program as an act of deterrence should also be included. In short, Saddam made a bluff and got called. Buffs (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The old chemical weapons belong in the body, not in the lede. The old chemical weapons have nothing to do with the justifications for invading Iraq. Iraq was not invaded because it used to have chemical weapons. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The claim that Saddam Hussein was bluffing would have to be sourced, and probably attributed to whoever is making the claim, especially given the fact that Saddam Hussein repeatedly and very publicly insisted that Iraq did not have WMD in the lead-up to the invasion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Indeed he DID make that claim. He also went to GREAT lengths to make it look like he was covering up a clandestine program. Finding that information is not difficult. Likewise, the case for war against Iraq was NOT isolated to just WMD and an AQ relationship, but also (among others) violating sanctions (thereby nullifying the cease-fire) and shooting at US aircraft in the no-fly zones (this itself is an act of war). Buffs (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * As evidence, you're citing an Op-Ed written by a supporter of the Iraq War in 2003, just as it was becoming clear to the public that Iraq had no WMD, and as supporters of the war were moving on to the next rationalization - that they had been "duped" by Saddam Hussein. The Op-Ed that you cite was thoroughly refuted at the time: . Iraqi officials repeatedly insisted in many fora that Iraq had no WMD. They opened the country up to intrusive inspections to prove that it had no WMD. The idea that they were trying to fool everyone into thinking that they had WMD is absurd, and it was invented in the immediate aftermath of the invasion by certain supporters of the war as a new justification, once the initial WMD argument fell apart. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree it should be in the lead. I would point out too that even though the Bush administration falsified the intelligence, the resulting report had no credibility. While it is true that "Congress was fed deceptive and massaged intel that substantiated the inaccurate claims made by the Bush administration," the majority of Democrats particularly in the House opposed the resolution. (Sens. Kerry, Clinton and Biden were notable exceptions.) The vast majority of foreign intelligence agencies that were provided the report rejected it, which is why the U.S. was only able to assemble 29 other countries for the Coalition of the Willing, most of which had negligible populations or military capacity. TFD (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree with Snooganssnoogans. These were the core justifications for the war, so it only makes sense what came out of them is mentioned in the lead. François Robere (talk) 11:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request
The following URLs are dead and should be updated to live links:


 * https://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rm/221274.htm --> https://2009-2017.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rm/221274.htm
 * In the above citation, archiveurl, archivedate and deadurl should be removed as the link is no longer dead.


 * https://www.state.gov/m/ds/rls/rm/143420.htm --> https://2009-2017.state.gov/m/ds/rls/rm/143420.htm

-- Green  C  21:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Note that I have not reviewed the sources. Courtesy ping . Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Academic books and articles
A gazillion academic books and journal articles have been published about the Iraq War. We should (1) add these to "further reading" and (2) use them to rewrite the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

agreed. I'll also note that while a substantial literature exists on US-Iraqi cooperation during the Iran-Iraq war, and on a US policy of regime change in the aftermath of the first Gulf War, the background focuses instead on UN resolutions concerning weapons inspections. This gives the false impression of a UN mandate for the Iraq invasion in the opening sentences of the article body, which amounts to a gross mischaracterization of the UN and international community's attitude towards the preemtive invasion of Iraq.

Journal articles are easier, but here are a few books I'll hope to consult to contribute something to a re-write: Will need to hit the library for most. -Darouet (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Road to Iraq: the making of a neoconservative war. Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, Edinburgh University Press, 2014.
 * Iraq: a political history from independence to occupation. AI Dwaisha, Princeton University Press, 2009.
 * The political road to war with Iraq: Bush, 9/11 and the drive to overthrow Saddam. Nick Ritchie, Routledge, 2007.
 * Deceit on the road to War: presidents, politics and American democracy. John Schuessler, Cornell University Press, 2015.
 * The Modern History of Iraq. Phebe Marr and Ibrahim Al-Marashi, Routledge, 2017 (4th edition).


 * See also:
 * Pillar, Paul R. (2011). Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy: Iraq, 9/11, and Misguided Reform. Columbia University Press.
 * Jervis, Robert (February 4, 2010). Why Intelligence Fails: Lessons from the Iranian Revolution and the Iraq War. Cornell Studies in Security Affairs. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
 * Betts, Richard K. (2007). Enemies of Intelligence: Knowledge and Power in American National Security. Columbia University Press.
 * Joshua Rovner. 2015. ixing the Facts: National Security and the Politics of Intelligence (Cornell Studies in Security Affairs).
 * Michael MacDonald, Overreach: Delusions of Regime Change in Iraq, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014)
 * Babak Bahador, Jeremy Moses, and William Lafi Youmans. “Rhetoric and Recollection: Recounting the George W. Bush Administration's Case for War in Iraq,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 48:1 (2018): 4-26.
 * John J. Mearsheimer, Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011)
 * Jane Cramer and A Trevor Thrall. 2013. Why Did the United States Invade Iraq? Routledge.
 * Jon Western, “The War Over Iraq: Selling War to the American Public,” Security Studies 14, no. 1 (2005): 106–139;
 * Jane Cramer, “Militarized Patriotism: Why the US Marketplace of Ideas Failed Before the Iraq War,” Security Studies 16, no. 3 (2007): 489–524.
 * Benjamin Miller, “Explaining Changes in US Grand Strategy: 9/11, the Rise of Offensive Liberalism, and the War in Iraq,” Security Studies 19, no. 1 (2010): 26–65.
 * Alexandre Debs and Nuno P. Monteiro, "Known Unknowns: Power Shifts, Uncertainty, and War," International Organization 68, no. 1 (January 2014): 1–31.
 * Ahsan I. Butt (2019) Why did the United States Invade Iraq in 2003?, Security Studies, 28:2, 250-285, Security Studies.
 * Louis Fisher, “Deciding on War against Iraq: Institutional Failures,” Political Science Quarterly 118:3 (2003): 389-410
 * Lawrence Freedman, “War in Iraq: Selling the Threat,” Survival 46:2 (Summer 2004): 7-50
 * Chaim Kaufmann, “Threat Inflation and the Failure of the Marketplace of Ideas: The Selling of the Iraq War,” International Security 29:1 (Summer 2004): 5-48
 * Ronald Krebs and Jennifer Lobasz, “Fixing the Meaning of 9/11: Hegemony, Coercion, and the Road to War in Iraq,” Security Studies 16:3 (2007): 409-451
 * David A. Lake, “Two Cheers for Bargaining Theory: Assessing Rationalist Explanations of the Iraq War,” International Security 35:3 (2010-2011): 7-52
 * David Mitchell and Tansa George Massoud, “Anatomy of Failure: Bush’s Decision-Making Process and the Iraq War,” Foreign Policy Analysis 5:3 (July 2009): 265-286
 * John Mueller, “Simplicity and Spook: Terrorism and the Dynamics of Threat Exaggeration,” International Studies Perspectives 6:2 (May 2005): 208-234
 * Colin Dueck, “Ideas and Alternatives in American Grand Strategy, 2000-2004,” Review of International Studies 30:4 (October 2004): 511-535
 * Andrew Flibbert, “The Road to Baghdad: Ideas and Intellectuals in Explanations of the Iraq War,” Security Studies 15:2 (April-June 2006): 310-352
 * Stephen Biddle, Jeffrey A. Friedman, and Jacob N. Shapiro, “Testing the Surge: Why Did Violence Decline in Iraq in 2007?,” International Security 37, no. 1 (Summer 2012): 7–40
 * Colin H. Kahl, “In the Crossfire or the Crosshairs? Norms, Civilian Casualties, and US Conduct in Iraq,” International Security 32, no. 1 (Summer 2007): 7–46
 * Austin Long, “Whack-a-Mole or Coup de Grace? Institutionalization and Leadership Targeting in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Security Studies 23, no. 3 (2014): 471–512
 * Thomas Meyer, “Flipping the Switch: Combat, State Building, and Junior Officers in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Security Studies 22, no. 2 (2013): 222–58
 * Deborah Avant and Lee Sigelman, “Private Security and Democracy: Lessons from the US in Iraq,” Security Studies 19, no. 2 (2010): 230–65.
 * William A. Boettcher and Michael D. Cobb, “Echoes of Vietnam? Casualty Framing and Public Perceptions of Success and Failure in Iraq,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 50, no. 6 (December 2006): 831–54;
 * Erik Voeten and Paul R. Brewer, “Public Opinion, the War in Iraq, and Presidential Accountability,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 50, no. 6 (December 2006): 809–830.
 * James P. Pfiffner and Mark Phythian (eds.), Intelligence and National Security Policymaking on Iraq: British and American Perspectives (Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 2008).
 * When I find the time, I will try to read some of these and add text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * If anyone does add text to this page, do not forget to add it to the pages of the Iraq War architects, as well. I've noticed that the pages of several Iraq War architects fail to accurately reflect what they did before and during the Iraq War. For example, I had to revamp Douglas J. Feith's page a month ago. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I recommend Robert Jervis, "Reports, Politics, and Intelligence Failures: The Case of Iraq," Journal of Strategic Studies 29, no. 1 (February 2006): 3-52.


 * I do not think though that this article needs very much information about the reasons for the war. Compare with the sinking of the Maine, the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, Pearl Harbor, the Tonkin Incident. TFD (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Syria
and please stop editwarring. I started this discussion for this dispute. U|Takinginterest01, where does any of the sources you provided say that the Syrian government support the the Iraqi government in its war against the US? I have made quick look into some of the sources you gave and I didn't find sources stating that clearly. See WP:SYNTH don't combine multiple sources to conclude something that is not in any of sources. Could you provide us a quote where the sources states that the Syrian government supported the Iraqi government in it's war against the US?--SharabSalam (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, you might want to note that I've already started a discussion and presented my evidence here:Syria and the Iraqi Insurgency. Please read it and tell me what you think. 24.57.43.93 (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well its better to discuss this issue here-SharabSalam (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting arguments, although he should move them to this talk page for awareness. Some of his points may be valid, but I haven’t delved into his sources yet. Tycoon24 (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with 24.57.43.93. His sources are solid.
 * , why are you claiming the New York Times and other reputable sources are not noteworthy? What sources are you alleging tell contradictory reports compared to what reputable sources have reported? Your removal of these facts are otherwise incorrect. Tycoon24 (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I am not part of this dispute. I said that the New York times source and the other sources Takinginterest01 provided don't say that the Syrian government supported the Iraqi government during its war with the US. So I agree with the IP address. I feel like you are talking about a different issue not related to this article, right?--SharabSalam (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read: Syria and the Iraqi Insurgency. Many conflicting reports on alleged Syrian government support, even opposition leaders, US commanders and more admit of Syrian government crackdown. 24.57.43.93 (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The article I read simply said Islamists from Syria were going to join the jihad in Iraq (the phone call from the kid to his dad, and his dad saying good luck). I haven’t seen that Syria’s government formally played a role against the US in Iraq. If that’s true, where is the source? Tycoon24 (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree still waiting for to response.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not that there aren't any sources, it's just that they are either based off of allegations mainly from Allawi/Maliki/Bush administration officials or are contradicted by other reports, source and officials. My point is that there is no concrete reliable evidence of Syrian government material support for Iraqi resistance groups or AQI. 24.57.43.93 (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier the belligerent section and the supported by section should contain only entities that are clearly part of the war or clearly supporting one or more parties in the war. WP:SYNTH sourcing are unacceptable in the infobox.-SharabSalam (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * First I would like to address the people who say that Syria officially denied things related to this, official claims and reality are two very different things this should be obvious and to believe otherwise would be naive, but with that aside I have provided numerous sources proving Syrian support for Iraqi insurgents/resistance/rebels etc. In this quote from the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/world/middleeast/07syria.html) it says:
 * So Syria is walking a fine line, forging an “enemy of my enemy” relationship with the Iraqi Baathists and insurgents while still maintaining an alliance with Tehran. It is a risky strategy that carries the added danger of possibly incurring the wrath of Al Qaeda. “The conference brought together those people with a stake in Iraq and some of those who have not allied with America’s biggest foe, Al Qaeda,” said one political commentator, who asked not to be identified out of concern for his safety, referring to the canceled July conference. “This was a risky move by Syria, because it could draw attacks.
 * While also quoting the former Syrian Information Minister, “Syria looks to the resistance as freedom fighters, like George Washington fighting the British,” said Mahdi Dahlala, a former Syrian minister of information. “We understand that the rising up against occupation is a natural phenomenon.”
 * While it is said that Syria did crackdown on financial cells and others affiliated with the insurgency, it should be notable that on articles pertaining to the current Syrian Civil War there are multiple articles that show in the infobox under support Turkey (at times Jordan, Israel and the United States are even listed under the "support" section of infoboxs where al-Nusra/JFS/HTS are listed as combatants), including in battles where al-Nusra played a role, by the logic shown here Turkey (as well as the other states) should be removed as a 'supporter' because Turkey has arrested foreign fighters near the border going to join al-Nusra and has also arrested financing cells and so on, much like the way Syria has cracked down on some cells.
 * In this article (https://www.albawaba.com/news/report-former-vice-president-iraq-under-syrian-army-protection) it clearly states that Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri was in Syria under Syrian protection, it is even written on his wikipedia article that he was in Syria and held ties to Syrian officials, on the article here on wikipedia it says regarding his relationship with Syria, According to veteran intelligence officer Malcolm Nance, al-Douri and the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council developed deep relations with Hafez al-Assad and the Syrian Ba'ath party, despite historical differences between the two Ba'ath factions. Al-Douri urged Saddam to open oil pipelines with Syria, building a financial relationship with the Assad family. After the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, al-Douri allegedly fled to Damascus, Syria where he organised the National Command of the Islamic Resistance which co-ordinated major combat operations during the Iraqi insurgency
 * In this article (https://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/2009/02/28/syrias-role-in-the-iraq-insurgency/) it says, Syrian security personnel waved buses of foreign volunteers across the border into neighboring Iraq to fight the Americans. At the same time, Iraqi Baathists still loyal to Saddam Hussein fled in the opposite direction, finding safe haven in sparsely populated eastern Syria. There, they established the New Regional Command, a headquarters from which to raise funds, procure weapons, and train personnel for the insurgency in Iraq. The base was critical because it ensured they would be free from harassment by U.S. forces. and For two years, Syrian personnel facilitated the activities of foreign jihadists and Saddam loyalists with the implicit approval of Damascus. The regime had two major incentives.
 * In this article (https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2012/07/omar_farouq_brigade.php) it says Al Qaeda in Iraq, which has long had a strong presence in Syria, with the assistance of the Assad regime. The terror group has used Syria to recruit, train, and arm fighters to wage jihad. Syria also has served as a transit point for foreign jihadists to enter Iraq.
 * In this article written by the guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jun/08/iraq-al-qaida), it says The call to jihad was openly encouraged by the Syrian government, says Abu Ibrahim (a nom de guerre); it also arranged for buses to ferry fighters, speeded up the issuing of documentation and even gave prospective jihadis a discount on passport fees. Meanwhile, the Syrian media were banging the drum for jihad. (The US has repeatedly accused Syria of involvement in terrorism in Iraq; the Syrian government vehemently denies this.) Eyewitnesses recall Syrian border police waving to the jihadi buses as they crossed into Iraq. From the Grand Mufti of Syria, a man known for his religious tolerance for more than 50 years but who issued a fatwa legitimising suicide bombing just before the outbreak of the Iraq war, to a 16-year-old Christian boy from Damascus whom Abu Ibrahim remembers volunteering to fight alongside radical Muslims in Iraq, much of Syria was galvanised to resist the American invasion next door. 
 * Next I would like to point to this faction al-Awda a Baathist insurgent group that collaborated with the Syrian Government, which is led by another Baathist official who was given refuge in Syria. This clearly points to Syrian support for the insurgency.Takinginterest01 (talk) 04:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The NYT article is based on the conclusions of analysts/diplomats, not concrete evidence: Syria is encouraging Sunni Arab insurgent groups and former Iraqi Baathists with ties to the leaders of Saddam Hussein’s government to organize here, diplomats and Syrian political analysts say. Furthermore, your own article contradicts the claims made in the AlBawaba and neoconservative LongWarJournal that you cited that Syria supported Al-Douri (JRTN) or AQI with: ''Douri deeply distrusts working with the Syrians because he distrusts the Iranians, who are strong allies with Syria, Mr. Salem said. [...] is a risky strategy that carries the added danger of possibly incurring the wrath of Al Qaeda. “The conference brought together those people with a stake in Iraq and some of those who have not allied with America’s biggest foe, Al Qaeda''. The quote regarding the former Syrian diplomat also doesn't prove anything, it's merely his opinion that Syria (the Syrian government or people?) views the Iraqi resistance in a positive light, he never says the Syrian government supports/arms them.

The Al-Bawaba article is based on the allegation of an anonymous Gulf diplomat: ''The former vice-president of Iraq is being sheltered at a military base in the Syrian capital Damascus, according to a Gulf diplomat, speaking to the British Telegraph newspaper. '' As well as what Malcom Vance claims, it's just an allegation. An allegation which is contradicted by the very same sources you use to prove Syrian government support to al-Douri! There were many conflicting reports about al-Douri, that he was captured, killed, was in Syria, Kurdistan, Dawr, etc.

The Jewish Policy Center is a pro-Israeli neoconservative think tank (https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Jewish_Policy_Center) not the most unbiased of sources, I'd argue POVediting here. Also, When I clicked on your link I was expecting to be greeted with some sources to their claims, but I got nothing makes it much harder to fact-check. I would also consider it an analysis.

The claims made in the Guardian article is based off of two anonymous sources, an anonymous interview of a man who goes by the pseudonym of "Abu Ibrahim" and unnamed witnesses who claim that Syrian border guards " waving to the jihadi buses as they crossed into Iraq." (which even if it were true, doesn't necessarily pin the blame on the senior Syrian leadership but rather corrupt officers or elements in Syrian border patrol) Interviews and claims, especially anonymous ones should not be treated as gospel and more investigation needs to be done. According to WP:IV: Interviews are generally reliable for the fact that the interviewee said something, but not necessarily for the accuracy of what was said. and according to Acceptable sources: Sources which are wholly anonymous are not acceptable, even in support of a weasel-word claim (which should be avoided anyway).

This Abu Ibrahim claims that: ''The call to jihad was openly encouraged by the Syrian government, says Abu Ibrahim (a nom de guerre); it also arranged for buses to ferry fighters, speeded up the issuing of documentation and even gave prospective jihadis a discount on passport fees. Meanwhile, the Syrian media were banging the drum for jihad. (The US has repeatedly accused Syria of involvement in terrorism in Iraq; the Syrian government vehemently denies this.) However sources from 2003 contradict almost everything he says: While Syria heavily opposed the Iraq Invasion and many Syrian officials considered the resistance to be legitimate The New York Times reported that: Officially the Syrian government discourages anyone from going, considering untrained volunteers an added burden on the Iraqi government. Farouk Sharaa, the foreign minister, while flaying the United States this week for waging the war, also told the Syrian Parliament that volunteers should be dissuaded. Some Syrian men said the staff at the Iraqi Consulate, which in a twist of real estate sits across the street from the American Embassy, told them they could not go. [...] One reason Syria has been discouraging anyone from leaving is that the road to Baghdad is considered too dangerous.(https://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/02/world/a-nation-at-war-the-islamic-world-for-arabs-new-jihad-is-in-iraq.html) Ibrahim claims that the Syrian government ferried buses of fighters to go to Iraq, however Der Spiegel reported in 2003: "We will help you as much as possible," says [Iraq] embassy spokesman Nuri Tamimi: "Anyone who wishes to go to Baghdad as a wartime volunteer is not required to pay a visa fee." As soon as a group of 45 people has been assembled, '''the [Iraqi] embassy charters a bus that takes the fighters to the Syrian-Iraqi border free of charge. From there, al-Dhilal, a bus company owned by Saddam's son Udai, takes on the travelers, also free of charge.(https://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/cover-story-a-bus-ride-to-jihad-a-243701.html) The Economist reported that these recruits were being recruited all over the Arab world at Iraqi embassies, not only in Syria: Iraqi embassies across the Arab world' are recruiting volunteers armed with a passport, two photos and a ticket to Damascus. (https://www.economist.com/special-report/2003/03/27/volunteers-for-the-war) It needs to be emphasised that this was the work of the Iraqi government, not a Syrian one. Even the hawkish United States who are by no means pro-Syria in any way admitted this, The New York Times reports: ''Syria denies facilitating the travel of any volunteer fighters across the border or allowing weapons across. Top American military officers have said they know of no official Syrian role in recruiting volunteer fighters, although Syrian identification papers have been found on some of the dead.''(https://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/15/world/a-nation-at-war-damascus-syria-fears-the-unknown-what-s-behind-us-threats.html). Likewise, the allegation from the United States was that Syria was: allowing Iraq,s embassy in Damascus to recruit fighters for Saddam (https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/03KUWAIT1250_a.html) not that the Syrian government recruiting fighters to go to Iraq, but were allowing Iraqi embassies to recruit volunteers (as did many other countries) and the keywords here are "FOR SADDAM", these volunteers were to fight alongside the Iraqi military, not some insurgent group or al-Qaeda.

Al-Awda was a Baathist organization which, yes, had ties to the Syrian government led by the mysterious Mohammed Younis al-Ahmed. Although accused by the Iraqi government of leading/arming/funding the Sunni Insurgency, there are in fact there are contradictions with this: Such as the fact that his organization was made up of both Sunni and Shia and some from his organization indicated that he was of Shia origins and coming from Shia areas in Nineveh governorate. (https://web.archive.org/web/20130721140719/http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/sectarian-division-plague-iraqi-baath-party) His organization was a political one focused on on securing political rehabilitation, amnesties and the repatriation of Baathist exiles (https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/opeds/4cb5e0af99213.pdf) it was opposed to Al-Douri which wanted to violently overthrow the Iraqi government and even made friendly contact with the Coalition in 2009. 24.57.43.93 (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The sources don't support the labeling of Syria as a supporter of the Iraqi government or the Sunni insurgency. There were various accusations about Syria not doing enough to prevent insurgents from crossing the border, but that's quite different from Syria actively supporting the insurgency, much less the Iraqi government during the invasion. The labeling of Syria as a supporter of the Iraqi government and the insurgency looks like synthesis and original research to me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Do we have a consensus to remove Syrian government support to the Iraqi insurgency in the infobox, because it is original research and that there exists too many conflicting reports? 24.57.43.93 (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Opinions cannot be stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice
I don't know why editors keep on adding back in this material:
 * However, with no stay-behind agreement or advisers left in Iraq, a new power vacuum was created and led to the rise of ISIL.

The cited sources report on interviews given by Dick Cheney and Leon Panetta, who give their personal opinions that the US withdrawal from Iraq led to the rise of ISIS. Wikipedia policy is very clear on this: these are opinions, not verified facts. WP:WIKIVOICE says, "Avoid stating opinions as facts." Cheney and Panetta's opinions can be included in the article only if they are represented as the opinions of Dick Cheney and Leon Panetta. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , First of all. Do you have sources that challenge these "opinions"? Secondly these people have authority. They are not just some random people. The first one Dick Cheney Former Vice President of the United States, the second one also has authority that's why these articles are not marked as op-ed and I and you know that there are a lot of reliable sources in the internet that support that. At the very least you can use attribution only if you found sources who have the same weight of authority as Dick Cheney and the other and disagree with them. regards.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter how much "authority" you think someone has. We don't present opinions as fact on Wikipedia. The cited articles put Dick Cheney and Leon Panetta's statements in quotation marks. That means they're attributed statements - the opinions of the people who said them. If you have a problem with Wikipedia policy, and you think we should make an exception for former Vice Presidents of the United States, then go ahead and propose a change on the talk page of WP:NPOV. But until you do that, opinions are opinions, and facts are facts, and the two aren't the same. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , again these people have authority. This is like saying what a scientist has said. Also NPOV if you have reliable sources with the same weight that challenge what Dick Cheney and others have said then please present them. If not, then we have two opinions one is your personal opinion and two the former president of the US and other reliable sources opinion. Your personal opinion is interesting but it's irrelevant in Wikipedia... --SharabSalam (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If their opinions are being presented, then they need to be identified as opinions. Instead, the text in question is presented as fact, which is definitely inappropriate. Further, the text was placed in the lead, but WP:LEAD states that "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article", and these points are not. Mentioning this information in the body, identified as the opinions of Cheney and Panetta, may be valid. But the lead is "a summary of its most important contents" of the body, and their opinions would not likely qualify. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Please read the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. It may surprise you to know that Dick Cheney is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. No politician is. Reliable sources are things like newspapers (excluding the opinion pages), articles in scientific journals, and books written by scholars in the relevant field. Claims made by politicians, no matter how much you respect their authority, are not considered reliable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This statement is overbroad. You need to read that policy yourself, specifically WP:PARTISAN. Rather, those opinions may be included, if editors deem them valuable, but must be identified as opinions. Here, identifying the opinion as Cheney's may well make it unreliable per se – I would not choose to include it. But opinions are not barred entirely. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not overbroad. I never said that Dick Cheney cannot be used as a source for his own opinions. He's not a reliable source for statements of fact, which is how he's being used here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * SharabSalam, you state above that "if you have reliable sources with the same weight that challenge what Dick Cheney and others have said then please present them." But the cited article itself includes that challenge: "many critics accuse the Bush administration of propelling the group’s growth by invading Iraq in 2003, which set in motion a series of events descending parts of the country into anarchy." If Cheney's opinion is included, this response must be as well. As for Panetta, he states that Obama agreed with him, but Panetta believes Obama did not fight hard enough to retain troops in the country. The question becomes whether these opinions are noteworthy, given the amount of space it would take to include them and the responses. Rather, they appear to be cherry-picked to place blame on Obama, when the question requires deeper discussion, with sources better than a couple of interviews. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It's irrelevant whether or not other people challenged Dick Cheney's opinions. The only relevant question is whether Dick Cheney is a reliable source for statements of fact, and since he's an individual who is merely stating his opinion, he's not. If his opinions are to be included, it must be with attribution, whether or not anyone else challenged his opinion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If his opinion is included, it is absolutely relevant that others have challenged that opinion, as (per WP:RS) "all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources" must be covered. I have argued throughout that the opinion must be attributed, but responses to his opinion are relevant and required as well. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I think we actually agree on what the policy is. It's just frustrating that you keep on misrepresenting what I'm saying. When determining whether or not a politician's statements can be used as a reliable source for statements of fact, it is completely irrelevant whether or not other people have contradicted their opinions. Above, is arguing that Dick Cheney's opinions can be treated as facts, and stated in Wikipedia's voice, because as a former Vice President of the United States, Cheney is an authoritative figure. SharabSalam is also arguing that unless equally authoritative people have contradicted Dick Cheney's opinions, those opinions should be treated as facts by Wikipedia. Those interpretations of Wikipedia policy are wrong. Politicians are not reliable sources for statements of fact, and whether or not other people contradict them is irrelevant to determining whether their opinions can be stated as facts. When WP:RS talks about different views, it is talking about views in reliable sources, not views of unreliable sources. There is a different aspect of WP:NPOV which says that we should cover a range of notable opinions, but that's a separate issue from what SharabSalam is arguing here - that Dick Cheney, as a former American VP, is a reliable source for statements of fact. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Literally the first thing I wrote above is "If their opinions are being presented, then they need to be identified as opinions. Instead, the text in question is presented as fact, which is definitely inappropriate." Do you imagine that we disagree on this? Whether Cheney is a reliable source is indeed debatable – I also stated above that I would not include his opinion. But if his opinion were included, the response should be as well. More broadly, as I stated above, the relationship between the Iraq War and the rise of ISIL is complex and could fill an article of its own. Reducing the discussion to one sentence sourced to a couple of opinions is clearly inappropriate. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Alright let me make everything clear here. I think Former Vice President Dick Cheney and Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta opinions are worth inclusion and because I think these people have authority and much knowledge this makes what they said presented as a fact unless gave us opinions that contradict what these sources said. That was my rationale I told Thucydides411, that the removing is unjustified and that he/she can use attribution instead of removing and after that he/she should present the other side argument if there is no one who contradict what these people said then it can be treated as a fact IMHO. Also I didnt know that it is in the lead so I now think it should be moved to the body.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with this - it needs to stay. No evidence has been provided to the contrary, and people at the highest levels of authority who have knowledge of this have provided their assessment. Unless evidence to the contrary is provided, this information stays. Tycoon24 (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * yea, I mean currently we only have Thucydides411 opinion which is zero in the left side(it doesnt weight anything in Wikipedia)-SharabSalam (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Laszlo_Panaflex, please explain why you feel that a power vacuum wasn’t created after the US left Iraq without any stay behind agreement or plan? There are more sources that back up these facts. If you c any provide evidence that tells otherwise, then I will re-add this important information - with even more sources. Tycoon24 (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thats the problem that we only have Thucydides411 opinion in contrary which is zero in the left side(it doesnt weight anything.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You have violated WP:3RR (1, 2, 3, 4). Placing this statement in the lead also goes against WP:LEAD. Please gain consensus for this addition before restoring the content again. : I appreciate your protection of the page, but you left the disputed content in place, which is inappropriate for reasons stated above. Please remove the content until consensus to include it has been formed. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me be more clear so you can comprehend:

ISIS Fills Power Vacuum in Iraq Fundamentally Created by U.S. Foreign Policy The power vacuum occurred “because the U.S. occupation and the destruction of the Iraqi state made Iraq dependent on the U.S. for its security and defense.” And so when Obama left without any plan or troops to defend, the power vacuum resumed. Denying this your opinion. I can keep going, source after source. If you can’t provide evidence to the contrary, I will re-add the information with more sources and more context. Sorry if the truth hurts your feelings. Tycoon24 (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Just as the article with the Cheney interview states, there are as many others who argue the invasion itself led to the rise of ISIL, as well as those who acknowledge both as factors: To state one side as fact ignores the complex discussion, with numerous books debating the topic at length, and neither side clearly prevailing. This requires an extensive discussion in the body of the article, and no clear conclusion can be stated in the lead as one has not formed. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be in the lead I agree. I did some research on this issue. There is no disagreement that the power vacuum led to the rise of ISIL. The disagreement is about what caused that power vacuum. Some argue that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was the reason of the power vacuum and some argue that "with no stay-behind agreement or advisers left in Iraq" led to power vacuum. I found many politicians who disagree with what Cheney said. So now I agree with what said and adding the other view (WP:BALANCE) as well. I don't agree with removing it.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Where in the body would you have it moved? El_C 21:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably to this section Iraq War under the first paragraph that ends with "into the Kurdish land"--SharabSalam (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. El_C 22:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

This should absolutely not be stated in Wiki voice. It is shocking that editors would not only argue that Cheney and Panetta's opinions should be stated as fact in wiki voice, but that they would seriously edit-war to keep this trash in the article. I'm sure I've disagreed with Thucydides every time I've encountered him, but on this, he's indisputably right. If editors want to state this in wiki voice, then they need to substantiate it with RS. The Iraq War has been covered by lots of high-quality academic sources. Given the abundant RS coverage of this war, it's frankly embarrassing that the Wikipedia article uses Cheney (who lied the US into the war) and Panetta (who is a proponent of the lie that Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda had an operational relationship) to state their uninformed theories in wiki voice as if they were fact. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * don't be shocked please. Do you agree with removing it? The editwar that happened was about removing it because it's """opinion""" although Thucydides has presented no reliable source that disagree with Cheney and Panetta's opinion. My finial position in this issue is attribution+not in the lead+present the other point of view. BTW I am not part of the editwar that happened.-SharabSalam (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (1) It should obviously under no circumstance be stated in wiki voice, (2) if this is in the lede, which I was not aware of, it is even more astounding and it should absolutely not be there (whether as attributed opinion or wiki voice), (3) if this is to be included in the body as attributed opinion, it must be in the context of what RS report about their claims. Cheney and Panetta are not credible authorities on this issue, and RS must be used to provide the context for their claims. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note on protection
The fact that the page was protected on the wrong version was unintentional, but changing it back (even if the other version can be argued to be the status quo ante) is an unusual step which I rarely do (only in cases of clear tendentious editing, and so on). It would show favour to one side of the dispute. El_C 17:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, but you are leaving in place an opinion stated as fact, in the lead when it is not discussed in the body, going against two policies. All but one editor agrees that the addition should at least be attributed as opinion and not included in the lead. So leaving the disputed addition in place itself favors one editor (who went to 4RR to put it in place). Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The out come of the discussion will show that "the opinion" is a fact or not. I am not in favour of attribution unless other contrary opinions exist that have the same weight. The protection was a good idea both sides dont agree which version is right.-SharabSalam (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's just random. At the time right before I applied protection, the other version was up. It's just by chance that it was reverted seconds before. Unfortunately, I am not familiar enough with the dispute to comment further at this time. 3RR was breached, again, just as protection was applied, so it was not possible to take into account. And now that the page is protected, further reverts are not possible, so I'm inclined against sanctioning the editor at this time, unless other problem areas are shown in this regard. If there is consensus to modify the existing disputed portion in some way, I can edit the protected page to that effect, even before a more overaching consensus about the version in its entirety is formed. El_C 18:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So not only does his version stay in place, he is also not to be sanctioned, despite clear violation. Boffo. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's just the way the cookie crumbled. As well, blocks are to prevent disruption only. They are not meant to be punitive. The case can be made (and I have made it myself) that deterrence should also be a factor, but unless you can show similar (recent) issues, it does not apply. But feel free to list the 3RR violation on AN3 to get the opinion of another uninvolved admin. Make sure, however, to note that the page is currently fully-protected. El_C 18:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't make a report because the page is protected and Tycoon24 is participating in the discussion so Admins would consider the sanction as a punishment (being blocked is not a punishment).--SharabSalam (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you look over the discussion above, you'll see that and  are fundamentally disputing Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. They're arguing that statements of opinion made by Dick Cheney in an interview should be stated as a fact, in Wikipedia's voice. I've tried to explain to them why this is in violation of Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources, but they're not interested in following the policy. Tycoon24 has now breached 3RR. Refusing to acknowledge one of Wikipedia's core policies (WP:RS) and ignoring WP:3RR is disruptive. I'm used to content disputes on Wikipedia, but I rarely see editors who flatly refuse to acknowledge and follow core policy, especially after it has been explained to them. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * NBC news and the hill are both reliable sources what are you talking about?. former vice President and former secretary of defense comments are also reliable unless you have sources that contradict what they said. You solution was removing the whole paragraph? I asked you when I reverted you to do attribution and provide the other side argument. I am not conflicting with any policy here. see also my latest comment above.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we can put some weight to a view if both the former Secretary of Defense of a Democratic administration and the former Vice President of a Republican administration are expressing it. We are interested in what reliable sources publish, and they publish that view. Whether it needs to be further qualified is one thing, but I'm not sure it fails RS threshold. El_C 22:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * NBC News and The Hill are certainly reliable sources for the fact that Dick Cheney and Leon Panetta said what they said. There's no indication whatsoever that NBC News and The Hill endorse the content of Cheney and Panetta's statements. You really have to read WP:RS, because your insistence that prominent politicians are reliable sources for statements of fact is at odds with that policy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

you keep refering to WP:RS when it literally has nothing to do with what you are saying. You should be referring to this policy instead WP:WIKIVOICE. You removed that text saying it's an opinion yet you didn't provide any contrary opinion, an opinion from a reliable that disagree with what Cheney and others said. The policy clearly says I asked you to provide me sources with the same weight that disagree with what Cheney said. You didn't provide anything and keep saying it's an opinion: no it's NOT, okay? when there is no actual disagreement except your personal opinion it's not an opinion.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a perverse take on Wikipedia policy. Per your understanding, we would allow the inclusion of any opinion reported by RS in wiki voice (which we would otherwise write up as WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) no matter how ludicrous, unless the claim has specifically been debunked by other RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need the media to endorse a view they publish. El_C 22:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Are you reading what SharabSalam is arguing above? They're saying that when Dick Cheney gives his opinion in an interview, it's not an opinion, but rather a fact, and that Dick Cheney's opinions should be stated in Wikipedia's voice. This is really disruptive. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Is it just Dick Cheney, per se., though? El_C 23:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It is noteworthy that this is a self-serving "conclusion" for Cheney to be making, as he exonerates himself for the criticism that the invasion and removal of Saddam created the vaccuum. Thus he is not just rendering an opinion, he is stating a defense. Even if attributed to him, with his position noted, opposing views must be provided. Better yet would be secondary, uninvolved sources to discuss the different viewpoints. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * That sounds reasonable. Do you have any you could provide? El_C 04:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "Is it just Dick Cheney, per se., though?" At the moment, yes. SharabSalam and Tycoon24 are citing a statement that Dick Cheney makes in an interview to source this claim. That's it. They haven't presented any news article that makes this claim, no scholarly work that makes this claim - just a quote from Dick Cheney. If they want to present this statement as a fact, they need reliable sourcing. It's not incumbent on others to find someone else whose subjective opinion contradicts Dick Cheney's subjective opinion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , Not just the former vice President but also the former secretary of the state. These people have authority and knowledge on the subject more than a journalist. I didn't know these people like former vice President and former secretary of state were biased at that time.
 * Also the discussion is making progress and I have clearly stated that I think it should be attributed, moved from the lead and other POV should be included(which I asked for from the beginning). I am against your edit which was removing it.
 * Do you still think we should remove the paragraph? Everyone here except you have said that it should not be deleted. We need to make one decision so we can get rid of the protection and end this dispute.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I've only objected to opinions being stated as fact, as I clearly laid out (see the title of the above section). It doesn't matter if Dick Cheney knows more than journalists about the subject. He's not a reliable source. Beyond what anyone may think of Dick Cheney himself (and many have a very dim view of his credibility on Iraq), he is a politician. His statements don't go through the rigorous editorial process that a journalist would have to go through. He may be politically motivated to make statements that are false or misleading. Just read WP:RS, and show me where it states that claims made by famous politicians should be treated as fact. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Can someone explain to me why the original power vacuum "opinion" can stay (which has zero citations)?
 * However, the power vacuum following Saddam's demise and 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.
 * If in fact the above statement is true, which currently has no citations to validate, this supports what some are perceiving as "opinion," that the power vacuum resumed following the Obama administration's move to leave Iraq with no stay-behind agreement or advisers - which led to the rise of ISIS. Why is it all of a sudden an "opinion" when the power vacuum resumed after Obama's mismanagement of the wind down in Iraq? You can't simply claim the power vacuum existed at one time, but all of a sudden no longer mattered after US policy under Obama made the same mistake as the previous administration. Yes, the power vacuum was created when Saddam's regime was toppled. And the very problems that this created didn't end simply because Obama became president. When Obama left Iraq without a plan to stem the power vacuum - it resumed, leading to the rise of ISIS, which numerous reliable sources have covered. Tycoon24 (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You are quoting from the lead, which isn't required to include cites (per MOS:LEADCITE) as long as the material is cited in the body. Here the Aftermath section includes a similar discussion, though it could certainly be better sourced. In March you removed content from the lead because it wasn't cited, which should not have been done; you also added content to the lead that is not in the body. The WP:LEAD is a summary of the body and should not contain material that is not in the body. Those edits will need to be revisited when the article is unlocked. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Good feedback! Thanks Laszlo Panaflex. So would it be better if I discuss more about the power vacuum in the Aftermath section, which would then make more sense to include in the Lead? The point I'm trying to make, which I think you understand, is that the power vacuum is a real thing that didn't just go away because Bush was longer president. When the US left Iraq without with no stay-behind agreement or advisers, the result was it created a new power vacuum and the rise of ISIL. Tycoon24 (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Just noticed this on WP:NPOVN. In case it's still relevant: is right; these opinions should be attributed and left out of the lead. In addition to Chaney having a questionable public image, both men were involved in policymaking regarding the US presence in Iraq, and so a COI must be assumed. It's that simple. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree. They are best treated as primary sources.  They can be used, with caution, only if attributed.  They do not (and cannot) qualify as RS, so definitely can't be used to speak in WP's voice.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  23:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

-- This whole edit war is stupid. People are arguing that an opinion made by an authority figure is, by default, a factual statement. Ok so we have Dick Cheney saying a certain thing. Position of authority makes it fact? If this is the case, then Donald Trump saying we need to build a wall to keep the Mexicans out is also FACTUAL.

Stating an opinion as fact is one of the simplest fallacies one could resort to in a debate and yet here we are on the wiki, arguing semantics. Shame on us. This isn't truth seeking. This is assertion.

WMD in the lede
I agree that the following text has no place in the lede:
 * However, hundreds of chemical weapons were found in Iraq, which were determined to be produced before the 1991 Gulf War, and intelligence officials determined they were "so old they couldn't be used as designed." From 2004 to 2011, US troops and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on six reported occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons from years earlier in Saddam Hussein's rule. Roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs were discovered.

The scattered findings of old, depleted shells left over from before 1991 are a relatively minor aspect of the war. This text brings these findings in direct connection with the Bush administration's pre-war claims of an Iraqi WMD program, as if old, unusable artillery shells constituted that claimed WMD program. This information could be included in the body of the article in some form, but it's not significant enough to be in the lede, and it does not belong in a discussion of the rationale for the war. The phrasing, beginning with "However," is a particular problem, as it implies that these degraded artillery shells contradict the claim that no WMD were found. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * See my comment above:
 * According to the source used in this article, President Bush based his rational on invading Iraq for several reasons, among which was “Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), ... of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,” Source. Therefore, the discovery of WMDs, although old but still deadly - even causing deaths during the Iraq War - is very relevant and necessary to include. What reasons are there to exclude this important information? Tycoon24 (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC) Tycoon24 (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Synthesis of published material: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The policy provides two examples where facts can be juxtaposed to provide an implicit conclusion:
 * "The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world."
 * "The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, and since its creation there have been only 160 wars throughout the world."
 * In this case one could argue that finding degraded WMDs justified the invasion (which you argue) or that it showed the war was based on a false premise. Before presenting either argument we need a reliable source that presents it.
 * TFD (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The old artillery shells were potentially harmful to people who had to handle them, but not a usable arsenal. This is what the head of the American post-war inspection team, David Kay, said about these artillery shells :
 * He said experts on Iraq's chemical weapons are in "almost 100 percent agreement" that sarin nerve agent produced from the 1980s would no longer be dangerous.
 * "It is less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point," Kay said.
 * And any of Iraq's 1980s-era mustard would produce burns, but it is unlikely to be lethal, Kay said.
 * You're stringing together a few different facts to try to argue that these degraded artillery shells somehow justified the invasion. Not even the Bush administration made that argument. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The text is grotesquely misleading and UNDUE. It's nothing short of shambolic to add three in-the-weeds sentences to the lede about how old defunct WMDs from the 1980s were found. Iraq was not invaded because it used to have a WMD program in the 1980s, and it's beyond belief that anyone should state so with a straight face. Certainly no RS has been brought forward to state that this was a major cause of the Iraq War. The sole reason why this is being added to the lede is to mislead readers by muddying the waters on the WMD question. In the scope of the war, the discovery of these defunct weapons and how people were getting wounded by them are minor details that belong in the body. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, i find it very hard to beleive that you have hear nothing from the media of the justifications of the iraqi war being the allegation (from Bush) of Iraq posessing WMDs. Here is for example a news article. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/mar/26/usa.iraq And i quote: ''"If George Bush thinks his deceptive rationale for going to war is a laughing matter, then he's even more out of touch than we thought. Unfortunately for the president, this is not a joke." He added: "585 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq in the last year, 3,354 have been wounded and there's no end in sight. George Bush sold us on going to war with Iraq based on the threat of weapons of mass destruction. But we still haven't found them, and now he thinks that's funny?"'' This is FAR from the only source mentioning this. I'm actually inclined to ask you wether you have been living under a rock for the past 2 decades. Because as far as i know, it is actually rather common knowledge that Bush went to war using the threat of weapons of mass destruction It was such a BIG part of his campaign i can't beleive you would even deny it. Also another point worth noting. If we have people in positions of authority who maintain a deceptive rationale then should we be holding these people with the highest regards of credibility? Such can be dangerous for ourselves. A thing is true or false regardless of who is verifying it to be so. Are we just going to keep silent about the OIL? ''United States crude oil prices averaged $30 a barrel in 2003 due to political instability within various oil producing nations. It rose 19% from the average in 2002. The 2003 invasion of Iraq marked a significant event for oil markets because Iraq contains a large amount of global oil reserves. the iraqi war'' didn't do nothing for the American oil prices. It seems to me that these allegations of wmds were simply a false flag threat to justify a literal invasion. (along with the war veteran testimonials it raises a lot of questions) You have war veterans saying the war was about oil and opium after all. -- 159.100.84.247

Please fix the archiving
The archiving feature is archiving stuff that is only a few weeks old. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ I guess.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

WMDs
According to the source used in this article, President Bush based his rational on invading Iraq for several reasons, among which was “Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), ... of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,” Source. Therefore, the discovery of WMDs, although old but still deadly - even causing deaths during the Iraq War - is very relevant and necessary to include. What reasons are there to exclude this important information? Tycoon24 (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of these weapons had been turned over to the UN and were later looted by irregular soldiers. The rest were lost and the Iraq government was trying to locate them in order to turn them over to the UN. TFD (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

-- The Four Deuces i don't see how that is even a reason to disclude the information, as it was entirely relevant to Bush's campaign when he started to invade Iraq. It was such a big part of his campaign that it became something of a global (albeit macabre) meme. There are so many sources you can find where Bush is saying on the news we gotta find those WMD's in Iraq etc etc etc. I feel like removing this relevant information is basically censorship, trying to erase history. -- 159.100.84.247

NY Times when the old-ass weapons were first reported on: "The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale... they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war. All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2019
A CBS news report is cited right after the sentence "In October 2002, Congress authorized President Bush to use military force against Iraq should he choose to." To guard against link rot, please add an archive-url (http://web.archive.org/web/20190823053520/https://www.cbsnews.com/news/congress-says-yes-to-iraq-resolution/) and an archive-date (2019-08-23). 123.201.225.33 (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Need Subheadings
Some of the section of the article are long, meandering and difficult to follow. Subheadings are called for. For example, the Pre-War events section comprises 8 paragraphs with lots of facts. I added some subheadings to this section today but they were removed without real explanation ("not helpful" is not an explanation). --NYCJosh (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)