Talk:Occupation of Iraq (2003–2011)/Archive 3

Difference of approach with allies
Would there be any way to explain the differences between the US and British approches ? I have tried to be a little bit more explicit, mainly by summerising the articles which are linked in the section and putting photographs, but it seems that this is seen as POV. Would anyone have a suggestion for a good formulation ?


 * [[Image:Masked_us_soldier2.jpg|thumb|A typical American soldier wearing a combat helmet, sunglasses and displaying his weapon]]
 * [[Image:British_soldier_iraq.jpg|thumb|A British soldier, wearing a soft hat, and going to the contact with the population. Sunglasses are discouraged in order to allow eye contact.]]


 * US soldiers are usually not very well prepared to counter guerilla warfare, and some of them are even non-professionals. As a result, the soldiers live in the constant fear of being attacked. They leave their armored vehicles only relunctantly, wear body armours and kevlar helmets, and display their weapons openly. Additionally, they limit contacts with the local popultaion, and tend to treat any civilian bearing a riffle as an ennemy combattant -- leading to numerous tragic accidents.


 * British soldiers, in particular, are professionals. Their basic training includes dealing with small intensity warfare, and a number of them have an actual first-hand experience of peace-keeping operations, from Ireland and Yugoslavia notably. As a result, British soldiers have less problems going to the contact of the populations and displaying a more friendly appearance.


 * Eventullay, the hierarchic system of the British Army gives far more autonomy to non-commissioned officers than the US system does. As a consequence, British patrols are far more autonomous.

The concerns raised by Silverback are that this formulation

1) don't account for the different levels of danger in the Sunni triangle

2) sunglasses are more protective against UV radiation

For 1), I would suggest putting something like "On the other hand, the level of danger in the US and British zones are different, and it can be assumed that part of the problem comes from the environment in which the US troops work being more hostile and forcing them to adopt a more rough attitude"

For 2), I think that the British soldiers not wearing sunglasses pretty much eliminates the argument.

Any suggestions are welcome ! Rama 17:09, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I think you need to explain how Americans are unprepared to counter guerilla warfare, I assume you are not claiming that the British could have done a better job in the street fighting of Falluja, but rather that somehow the British are better at converting radical wahabi fundamentalist's into peace loving muslims, but can you give some examples?--Silverback 17:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Basically, the point of this section, as I understand it (and think it might be expanded) is that the British avoid inducing more hostility by, say, shooting civilians in the streets. I do not by any way mean to say that US soldiers have an habbit to use Civilians for target practice, but there have been numerous isolated incidents that many think have greatly jeopardised the chances of the US troops to be accepted as a liberating force rather than an occupier. So it is not as much converting extremists to moderation, than avoiding to convert regular population to more or less supporting the resistance, or even joining it. So what about this text :


 * US soldiers are usually not very well prepared to counter guerilla warfare, and some of them are even non-professionals. As a result, the soldiers live in the constant fear of being attacked. They leave their armored vehicles only relunctantly, wear body armours and kevlar helmets, and display their weapons openly. Additionally, they limit contacts with the local population, and tend to treat any civilian bearing a riffle as an ennemy combattant, which led to numerous tragic incidents.


 * British soldiers, in particular, are professionals. Their basic training includes dealing with small intensity warfare, and a number of them have an actual first-hand experience of peace-keeping operations, from Ireland and Yugoslavia notably. As a result, British soldiers have less problems going to the contact of the populations and displaying a more friendly appearance. Eventullay, the hierarchic system of the British Army gives far more autonomy to non-commissioned officers than the US system does, which grealty eases the work of urban patrols.


 * Overally, the British attitude is reported to induce less hostility in amongst the civilian population, thus reducing the risks of increasing popular support of the Iraqi resistance because of fear or reaction to incidents. It has also been noticed that the level of danger in the US and British zones are different; it can be assumed that part of the reasons for the rougher behaviour of US troops is hostility of the environment. In any case, the problem is self-feeding, and it is difficult to exactly indentify the causes of the phenomenon -- though the redeployment of the British troops might provide more balanced comparisons between the two approaches.

Does anybody has remarks to make about this version ? In the negative, we might want to include it. Rama 17:41, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I feel the way to deal with this, as with most edit disputes, is to provide very good references for any point you make that might be challenged, and to make sure you express your point in a neutral tone, or else to make sure you carefully paraphrase or quote your reference, which should be provided after the sentence or paragraph, like this.


 * A large part of the problem with your edit, I feel, is the way it's written. For example, "US soldiers are usually not very well prepared to counter guerilla warfare, and some of them are even non-professionals. As a result, the soldiers live in the constant fear of being attacked." (1) Who says that U.S. soldiers are usually not very well prepared? This claims need a reputable reference; (2) "some of them are even non-professionals": the "even" is POV because it seems to express surprise or disapproval, and you would be better saying xx per cent of them (or give a number) are not professional soldiers but are XXX, and provide a reference; (3) Is it because they are not professional that they live in constant fear of attack? Or is because they are constantly being attacked?  You're linking your various points and drawing the conclusion with "as a result," but without providing a reference that supports your conclusion.


 * Again, you use the expression "as a result" when you discuss the British experience, and again, your conclusion is not supported by a reference. For example, how many (or what percentage) British soldiers in Iraq have had first-hand experience of peace-keeping operations, and what percentage of American soldiers have had this experience? Does the training of American soldiers not include how to handle low-intensity warfare? And so on. If your claims are factual, then you'll be able to find references for them. It might be a bit of a pain doing this, but the sources are probably out there, because so much has been written about this. Perhaps some British and American army websites, or recruitment websites. Slim 19:30, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Good points... So, reworking my copy :p


 * A large percentage of the US troops are non-professionals (National Guard or Reserve); according to National Guard spokesmen, there are presently about 30500 National Guards stationed in Iraq and Kuwait -- about 18 percent of the total 166000 US soldiers  (See also  ). They tend to stay in armoured vehicles when possible, wear body armours and kevlar helmets, and display their weapons openly. Additionally, they limit contacts with the local population, and tend to have loose rules of engagements, which led to numerous tragic incidents (see  for details)


 * Having these figures is good.
 * Say more about what a National Guard is, because most readers won't know.
 * Although you say a large percentage of U.S. troops are non-professionals, it seems that an even larger percentage of British troops are non-professionals. Here you say 18 per cent of Americans are National Guard/Reserve. In the Guardian article you site below, it says that the UK has sent 26,000 soldiers and 6,000 reservists, which means about 20 per cent of the total (32,000) are non-professionals.
 * You don't provide a reference for your last two sentences. And you don't provide a reference for the conclusion in your last sentence, namely that the loose rules of engagement (and what are they?) have led to tragic incidents. The Iraq Body Count group is not in a position to analyse how the rules of engagement have led to incidents, and the website doesn't try to.


 * British soldiers, in particular, are professionals . A number of them have an actual first-hand experience of peace-keeping operations, from Ireland and Yugoslavia (Bosnia) notably (see for a recent history of the regiments presently engaged in Iraq).


 * That Guardian article you found is a very good reference. I would say "in particular" sounds a bit POV, as though you are writing a commercial for them. And be careful with the word "professional," because if what the Guardian says is true (and if I have counted properly), the British army in Iraq is around 20 per cent non-professional.


 * The hierarchic system of the British Army gives more autonomy to non-commissioned officers than the US system does, which greatly eases the work of urban patrols. Overally, the British attitude is reported to induce less hostility amongst the civilian population, thus reducing the risks of an increase of the popular support for the Iraqi resistance because of fear or reaction to incidents. The BBC comments that in the British Army, counter-insurgency techniques are part of the basic training for soldiers and officers alike (see "Devolved authority" in ).


 * Hierarchical
 * I would say these claims are debatable. You have a source, so you can use them, but I would say "According to the BBC . . ." at the very beginning of this paragraph. Or "According to Major such-and-such, in an interview with the BBC . . . " because the person saying this is British army, and is therefore not a disinterested source.


 * It has also been noted that the danger is higher in US-controlled areas, and it can be assumed that part of the reasons for the rougher behaviour of US troops is hostility of the environment. In any case, the problem is self-feeding, and it is difficult to exactly indentify the causes of the phenomenon -- though the redeployment of the British troops to areas considered more difficult might provide more balanced comparisons between the two approaches.

Hope this helps. Apologies if I'm being too fussy. Slim 05:35, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Self-perpetuating, rather than self-feeding?
 * the reasons for the rougher behaviour -- POV -- "the reasons for the differences in the behavior of U.S. troops is. . . "
 * Last sentence is good, because you're basically saying you stand to be corrected, which is nice and NPOV.

I hope this is an improvement over the previous version. Thank you to Slim for the constructive and helpful comments. Rama 21:25, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Your bodycount site is too general to support the numerous tragic incidents point. The BBC article fails to successfully make its point and flies in the face of historical precedent.  The U.S. troops were known for their initiative in WWII and that was acknowledged to be one of their advantages over the Germans, as demostrated by a lot of the vehicle modifications and tactical innovations during the hedge row fighting.  The difference in the regions in Iraq is the decisive difference.  I have a friend who just got wounded last week when his stryker vehicle was attacked by a suicide car bomber in Mosul.  His armor saved his life.  This theory about the difference between the British and Americans does not explain all the attacks upon Iraqi civilians in the U.S. occupied areas, which are far more numerous than in the British occupied south.  BTW, the bodycount site you relied upon, counts the suicide bombers themselves has casuaties as well as those kill by insurgents.   There is no reason to think that the lower level of British carefulness would work in the Sunni triangle, recall that even the U.N. and humanitarian workers have been attacked there.--Silverback 22:09, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The bodycound site is linked to because it seems to be the authoritative site for a complete count of all incidents. I do not mean to imply that all the incidents related there qualify for the "Trigger-happy" tendency (as the media say). Perhaps we could put a comment to explain this more clearly, or link to several articles about individual incidents, but I find the later a little bit arbitrary, tedious and non-statistical, to be frank.


 * The level of initiative the US troops might have displayed during WWII is certainly interesing, but rather irrevelant for this perticualr issue, is it not ? The BBC article cites a senior British officer; perhaps it would be better to include the quote directly in the WP article. Do you think that this might address the issue in an appropriate manner ? Note that the final paragraph does address the point of the "intrinsically dangerous" nature of the US-occupied areas. Rama 22:37, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rama, I think your new version is much better. I have a few remarks about it, which I'm going to insert into it, so I can see what I'm writing about, so look above. Slim 05:35, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Slim, for the time you consacrate to this unrewarding task. I will make no mystery that my mother tongue in not English, and that the fluctuation of the differnt versions might lead to odd constuctions convying unintented nuances -- this is the case of the "in particular" that you noticed, which was supposed to introduce the British troops as an example of an ally of the USA; so if some of my sentaces are unnatural, unclear or offensive in any way, by all mean do not hesitate to report the issue.


 * A large percentage of the US troops are non-professionals (US National Guard or Reserve) ; according to National Guard spokesmen, there are presently about 30500 National Guards stationed in Iraq and Kuwait -- about 18 percent of the total 166000 US soldiers ; some figures go up to 40% of the occupation force in Iraq . These non-professional have been reported to display a lesser level of preparedness than professional troop, yet have been engaged in combat . US troops tend to stay in armoured vehicles when possible, wear body armours and kevlar helmets, and display their weapons openly. Additionally, they are defiant of the Iraquis , limit contacts with the local population, and tend to have loose rules of engagements, which led to numerous tragic incidents (For instance . These incidents are unfortunately too numerous to comprehensibly linked to; see  for a comprehensive, but raw, list of all Iraqis killed -- the incidents reported there are not all imputable to recklessness on the part of US troops).


 * British soldiers are professionals . Elements of the British Territorial Army have been engaged, but the reservists are most likely to take a support role in the event of conflict, and include specialists such as medics . A number of the British troops have an actual first-hand experience of peace-keeping operations, from Ireland and Yugoslavia (Bosnia) notably (see for a recent history of the regiments presently engaged in Iraq).


 * According to a British senior officer quoted by the BBC, the hierarchic system of the British Army gives more autonomy to non-commissioned officers than the US system does, which greatly eases the work of urban patrols. Overally, the British attitude is reported to induce less hostility amongst the civilian population, thus reducing the risks of an increase of the popular support for the Iraqi resistance because of fear or reaction to incidents. The BBC comments that in the British Army, counter-insurgency techniques are part of the basic training for soldiers and officers alike (see "Devolved authority" in ).


 * It has also been noted that the danger is higher in US-controlled areas, and it can be assumed that part of the reasons for the differences in the behavior of U.S. troops is hostility of the environment. In any case, the problem is self-perpetuating, and it is difficult to exactly indentify the causes of the phenomenon -- though the redeployment of the British troops to areas considered more difficult might provide more balanced comparisons between the two approaches.

Thank you again very much, Slim. Rama 10:03, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Silverbak, I think it would be clearer if you added your comments in the followinf of the discussion, if you don't mind. I copy-pasted it thereafter, I hope this does not cause any trouble ?


 * The final paragraph, "mentions" the intrinsically dangerous nature, but this difference is so momentous it invalidates the rest, especially when one considers that if the British had been willing to take on duties in the more dangerous areas, they could have. Their actions speak louder than their words, they know their methods work only in lower grade insurgencies of different types.  The article neglects that American soldiers are involved in rebuilding and economic stimulation projects, even in the violent areas, everything from rebuilding schools, hospital, and infrastruction to small business loans, and your proposed text, neglects the roles of foreigners among the insurgents whose motivations are presumably different, and neglects that the insurgency is now more aimed at soft Iraqi targets and preventing the elections, and also neglects that according ot the UN,  the US and Britain are no longer occupying forces.--Silverback 19:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The "if the British had been willing to take on duties in the more dangerous areas, they could have" is interesting, but as I recall, even if their areas are reputed "easier" then the US ones, the British have had their share of incidents themselves. Anyhow, the idea behing this passage (as I understand it) is to caracterise the different approaches of the troops, more than the amongh of attack they get (this is an interesting issue as well, of course, but is discussed somwehere else).


 * The article is apparently being selective about which troops on each side they are focusing on.--Silverback 20:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't get you on this...

The "American soldiers are involved in rebuilding and economic stimulation projects, even in the violent areas" is interesting too, of course, but I feel it belongs to a "reconstruction" section more than to this one, does it not ? I aslo fail to understand what the "the roles of foreigners among the insurgents whose motivations are presumably different" has to do here, wouldn't it be better in "Iraqi Resistance" ?


 * Foreigners came in a violent purpose, not to be pacified by British techniques. The whole premise of this proposed addition and the BBC article (not a NPOV source) that inspired it is a generalization about the approaches of the two forces.  The fact that American's have to move about the streets in armored vehicles to avoid being easy targets for IEDs, cannot be generalized to a non-personal or more distant approach overall.  Americans in small business loan offices will not be wearing sunglasses, Americans building schools along with Iraqis and with Iraqi children around are not viewed as "distant".--Silverback 20:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Indeed, but the purpose of the perticular part of the article is merely to discuss the was US and UK patrols behave. Actual battles are of course outside of its scope.

As for the "according ot the UN, the US and Britain are no longer occupying forces", could you provide a link ? But this also belongs to somewhere else -- though it might motivate a removal of the word "occupation" in the text, of course.


 * search this article for "June 28".--Silverback 20:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I fail to find any mention of an official UN statement. Can you further help on this issue ? Rama 20:43, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I was mistaken, I thought the resolution 1500 was more explicit, it turns out that while it wasn't explicit, this resolution was generally interpreted as recognizing the sovereignty of the interim Iraqi government and the end of the occupation.--Silverback 08:41, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, are there any more comments (preferably in the form of alternate proposal) ? Slim, any suggestion ? In the negative, do we consider ourselves agreed on this version ? Thanks ! Rama 15:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Intro
In my view, the intro gives too much attention to the war itself. I prefer that this info either be deleted or moved to its own section. Maurreen 07:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Occupation?
For whatever it's worth, the occupation officially ended in the summer. So I think that either 1) the article should be renamed or 2) this article should be confined to what happened before the official end date and another article added for the period after that date. Maurreen 07:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * We were precisely talking about this, could anyone provide references about this official end of the occupation ? As for now, we have failed to do so. Thank you ! Rama 15:31, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's right in the article: June 28, 2004. I think we should rename this Post-Invasion Iraq, 2003-2004, and discuss the issue of the occupation, its formal end, and how some consider it still to be continuing in the article.--Pharos 15:35, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The article mentions US transfert of sovereignty, but does not mention any internation recognition. I have checked UN Resolution 1500, but it makes no reference of the present Iraqi government, only "welcomes the establishement of the broadly representative Council of Iraq on 13 July 2003 (...)" . In this state, opponent can easily argue that the Iraqi government is a puppet government no more legitimate that, say the government of Afganistan after the Soviet invasion. To prevent such objections, I think we need some substantial references. Anyone cares to find something ? Thanks ! Rama 15:44, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

UN Resolution 1546, adopted June 8, 2004


 * The Security Council,

Welcoming the beginning of a new phase in Iraq&#8217;s transition to a democratically elected government, and looking forward to the end of the occupation and the assumption of full responsibility and authority by a fully sovereign and independent Interim Government of Iraq by 30 June 2004,


 * etc. --Pharos 16:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This version may be easier to read, the italics I put in the above quote were in the original.--Pharos 16:20, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Good point. Still official recognition from member states should be documented, as well as concerns about the independance of the Iraqi government, and its relationships with the former occupiers. I am quite happy that we finally have something substantial about the UN and present Iraq ! Rama 16:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, we should discuss controversies about the real independence of the Iraqi Interim Government. As to recognition by member states, I think almost all have given it, including just about all the Middle Eastern countries including even Iran, but I think Libya may be an exception. I imagine a handful of other countries very opposed to the US probably also refuse recognition, like North Korea or Cuba, but I'm not sure to what practical effect. It would be interesting to see a comprehensive list of this. Anyway, the point is it's not like France is refusing to recognize it.--Pharos 17:04, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Other references might be available via the Coalition Provisional Authority, for whatever that's worth. Does anyone have a preference about 1) keeping the current title and scope, 2) changing the title, maybe to "Postwar Iraq", or 3) making a new article, maybe for "Transitional Iraq" or "Iraq interim government"? Maurreen 17:11, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is already an article on Iraq Interim Governing Council (but not Iraqi Interim Government, which is a redirect) and Iraqi sovereignty too, perhaps that stuff should be more integrated here. I considered changing the scope of this article, but it strikes me that despite the handover of power, the overall situation in Iraq has not changed sufficiently to warrant a different article. Hopefully after the elections in January, if things go relatively well, then we can start something new. As for the current period, unfortunately I don't think the term "postwar" is accurate, because there is still a lot of violence going on. As I stated above, I think Post-Invasion Iraq, 2003-2004 fits best and is most neutrally descriptive.--Pharos 17:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Post-invasion Iraq?

 * Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2004 as title and scope work for me. Do you envision a new article for Iraq after the election? I forgot to mention it earlier, but part of my concern is also the article length. It's now at 45 kb, and 32 kb is the recommended maximum. Maurreen 04:54, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Word "insurgent" is not NPOV
I prefer the word Rebel! --195.7.55.146 17:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that "insurgent" is at least generally inappropriate here. Maurreen 04:58, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)