Talk:Iraq Study Group Report
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
[edit] Image
I appreciate the humor, but do you really think an image of the press secretary hitting his head a) qualifies for fair use in this situation and b) is at all relevant to the article. I'm sure there are some more informative photos about. Joshdboz 10:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- I second that. I'll remove the image. -- Kendrick7 18:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Joshdboz 22:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily disagree with the removal but since it was apparently in response to a question about the report, it seems it does have some relevance even if not enough to merit inclusion Nil Einne 18:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Study Group recommendations
As has been stated publicly, "All options are open". Does the Study Group propose restoring Saddam to power? If not, why? What role do they see for Saddam?
In fact I have heard this proposal made, so far only by journalist. Are there others, outside the media, who have had the courage to publicly propose this?
What does "All options are open" mean? Does it include or exclude Saddam Hussein?
-- Petri Krohn 18:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
No, that has never been an option, and currently Saddam Hussein is on death row in Iraq. By saying "All options are open", the group just meant that they would keep open minds. Joshdboz 01:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Restoring Saddam is like trying to put humpty dumpty together again. It's an incredibly bad idea and won't work. Once you've made the mess, you're pretty much have to live with the consequences. Obviously All options are open doesn't mean every single thing. For example, the US could chose to nuke every single country including themselves to hell, hopefully destroying everything and ending the mess. However obviously this wasn't what they intended when they said all options open Nil Einne 18:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Options that were downplayed or not considered
- Panel members say they were not given a mandate to consider increasing the number of American troops in Iraq because their military briefers dismissed out of hand the premise that it was possible to increase the number of American troops in Iraq, on grounds that not enough were available. (Never mind the public comments by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, reported in this space yesterday, suggesting otherwise.) More than 30 pages of the report consist of biographies of commission members and lists of people they interviewed; we counted just five pages devoted to the matter of U.S. troop levels in Iraq -- most of it dismissing out of hand the idea that more troops might be necessary to fight the Sunni and Shi'ite jihadists who prey upon Iraqis. [1]
It may be a matter of dispute whether "all options were open". --Uncle Ed 15:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to me that this option was open as such, but it's not possible and will just make things worse so it was ruled out. All options open doesn't mean we have to consider every single option in detail. I'm pretty sure they didn't even consider the Saddam Hussein option (see above) and definitely not the let's just take out the world option for example not because all options weren't option but because these options were so silly they never even occured to people to consider. Similarly, the troops option was presumably silly enough that they didn't see the need to consider it in great detail Nil Einne 18:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I changed the article thrice here to try an improve the wording. From what I can gather, the WT is a bit of a biased source so we have to be careful when referencing them, especially as that's an op-ed not a report. More importantly, it appears inaccurate to suggest it was not considered given that the report does mention this and explains why it isn't viable. Nil Einne 18:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Troop withdrawals
I think there are contradictory reports or interpretations in the press:
- ...the Baker commission stopped short of endorsing Democratic calls for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops by a certain date. NY Post
- The Iraq Study Group yesterday urged President Bush to withdraw almost all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by the beginning of 2008 ... (Wash Times)
I'd guess that the Post is too conservative and is trying to make the ISG report sound less definite than it is. Washington Times wouldn't say ISG "urged ... almost all" unless it was so. Gotta believe the broadsheet over the tabloid, eh? --Uncle Ed 20:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- The criticsm here suggests the report is deliberately vague, and essentially will allow the President to do whatever he wants anyway, while pointing to this document for support. -- Kendrick7talk 21:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I've gotta say this report is a joke. I figure at best they could allow Iran to develop it's nuclear program in exchange for getting Iran to ask their clients not to shoot at US forces as they leave, but that may be asking too much from them. 65.185.190.240 23:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 9/11 Link
What is the purpose of that link? --Ireon 12:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- If you mean to the 9/11 report, some commentators have made the comparison between the two panels. I could take it or leave it though. -- Kendrick7talk 13:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps there is some logic here. Many Americans still believe there is a link between 911 and Iraq via Al-Qaeda. But perhaps that is not relevant - what are the similarities between the two commissions - how they were appointed, carried out their assignment, their membership, etc. Trigari 03:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Removing the link. Without a reason or comparison in the article, it just seems POV. - Aaronwinborn 19:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- The war was start because of the link Alqaida-Irak and will finish in part because of the Iraq Study Group Report. An article talking about Alqaida-Irak Link should appear in the article. Yug (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Incorrect. [[Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda|No such link has been demonstrated]]. Peter Grey 21:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Link to military industry/pressures ?
The Iraq Study Group Report talk it about the fact that military industry had encourage to this war, and that US policy should act without such pressure (encouragement) ? Yug (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Background Information of the Report
I feel there is some crucial bits and pieces missing. Off the top, the congressional mandate, then the actual creation of the report, and the bipartisan commission that pulled this off. 71.170.35.230 02:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Iraqi Army Capabilities
The statements regarding the weakness of the Iraqi Army do not purport to be verbatim from the Report, although most of them are; and the remainder are straightforward conclusions: as for example where the Report says that one year's American funding for the Iraqi Army is "less than the U.S. spends in Iraq in two weeks", the article simply says "less than 4 percent". Divide 2/52 and you will conclude likewise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.58.91.213 (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Question over # of pages
According to the article, the report has 160 pages, while the downloadable copy linked only contains 84 pages. Which number is correct? Russianmissile 04:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- The hardcopy apparently has 160 pages. -- Kendrick7talk 04:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- yes, the official downloadable version is 84 pages, but the book is 160 pages which includes maps. some sites actually allow you to download this version. here's one site, but i'm not sure how long this link will last, so i'm not sure if it should be included in the external links of the article[2].74.131.184.207 19:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV on Reactions Section
We only see conservative reactionary voices to the report, but none of support for the report. Seems a little NPOV. 165.106.221.105 16:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'll find some and add it. The hyperbolic crticism got reported right away, since it was so sensational. - F.A.A.F.A. 23:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV in scope and task
The article claims:
"(It does lay blame with Al Qaeda as a destabilizing actor.)"
The report says:
"The challenges in Iraq are complex. Violence is increasing in scope and lethality. It is fed by a Sunni Arab insurgency, Shiite militias and death squads, al Qaeda, and widespread criminality. Sectarian conflict is the principal challenge to stability. The Iraqi people have a democratically elected government, yet it is not adequately advancing national reconciliation, providing basic security, or delivering essential services. Pessimism is pervasive." page 6
"It [Iraq] is now a base of operations for international terrorism, including al Qaeda" page 9
It needs to be made clear that the report states that al Qaeda is only one of the factors, and that it wasn't an factor in Iraq before the 2003 invasion. - F.A.A.F.A. 23:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- I deleted the sentence. A 'conclusion' has no place in 'scope and task' - F.A.A.F.A. 20:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV in Reactions
I have tagged this article due to the lack of balance in the "reactions" section and elsewhere in the article. The description of the "contents" is inadequately developed and very piecemeal. It needs a more thorough accounting of the contents of the whole document. There needs to be more balance in the presentation of "reactions"; right now, there is negative criticism presented and no positive reactions presented, even though there have been many positive comments made about the report throughout the mainstream and the alternative media. The document is fully accessible for reading and verification. There is too much reliance on news accounts (secondary sources) and too little use of the primary source in defining the contents of the report. It is not "original research" to quote from the text of the report directly rather than to quote secondary sources quoting it. This article needs more work. --NYScholar 21:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Associated Press
KP, the AP is very much a reliable source, considering that most newspaper editors in the U.S. and around the world are willing to buy their material. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] bold quoting
Is there any reason for the bold added to the ISG Report excerpts? Does it signify anything or convey information otherwise lost with normal font weight? 69.137.223.153 00:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- It is easier to read I think.Wikidudeman 23:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Military Concerns
This section is blatantly pro-war. I suggest that it be made more NPOV. Also, the Washington post link cited for this section (reference #12) does not work.Celsiana 03:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- How is it pro war? What parts of it are pro war? Also, I am unable to fix the Washington Times page. It might just be something happening right now but if I load it separately it loads and if I try to click it from wikipedia it won't load. I don't know what it is and it might work later.Wikidudeman 23:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A few factual errors.
This article has a few factual errors in it and uses media sites which seem to not of even read the report as sources. For instance citation 3 from the BBC states that U.S. troops should "says US troops should be withdrawn from combat and instead used to train Iraqi" however the report itself says no such thing and actually says that a withdrawal of U.S. troops within any foreseeable future would ensue sure chaos in Iraq.
| “ | Because of the importance of Iraq, the potential for catastrophe, and the role and commitments of the United States in initiating events that have led to the current situation, we believe it would be wrong for the United States to abandon the country through a precipitate withdrawal of troops and support. A premature American departure from Iraq would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions, leading to a number of the adverse consequences outlined above. The near-term results would be a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy. Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return. | ” |
Wikidudeman 00:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
