Talk:Battle of Abu Ghraib

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

I mean no disrespect to the people who fought and died in this battle, but it needs to be brought to the style of an encyclopedic description. Ashmoo 02:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] largest military action since the end of the war?

"The Battle of Abu Ghraib was the largest military action since the end of the war by anti-Coalition forces."

I believe this is incorrect. Wasn't the battle for Fallujah larger? --Vagodin Talk 12:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The contention that the war is over is widely held to be false, I would be more comfortable if the claim is true that it be stated as "since the announcement of the end of major combat operations by President George W. Bush on May 1, 2003." --Dananimal 02:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

There are definite issues with POV here I edited an instance where it was stated that "an insurgent force of 200 - 300 armed insurgents..." this sort of constant reiteration of rhetorical political labels is quite distracting aside from the POV issues it portends, and is linguistically redundant and incorrect.

Those characterised as terrorists could also be characterised as guerrillas or resistance-fighters for instance.

eg. "under which armed insurgents attacked with grenades, small arms, and two vehicle-born improvised explosive devices, or massive car bombs."

If attackers are said to be using: "grenades, small arms, and two vehicle-born improvised explosive devices, or massive car bombs" do they need to be refered to as "armed insurgents", isn't that obvoious?

Refering only to defenders dying when refering to US forces in a foreign land is plain confusing. I have changed this to clarify. --Dananimal 01:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties

Are the two deaths in addition to the 44 casualties mentioned? --Dananimal 01:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

What references? --Dananimal 01:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that the claim : The attack, which has been called "...the largest coordinated assault on a US base since the Vietnam War" should be referenced. --Dananimal 01:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Claiming "Information compiled by the author from various U.S. Army and Marine Corps reports, News sources covering the story, and eyewitness accounts of the E 2/10 Marines." with no further information is enough for me to blatantly doubt the veracity of this article. —Dananimal 15:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

In addition to the numerous POV issues, some of which others have described above, I'm concerned about the title of this article. I usually hate using Google searches as criteria, but they can be a handy metric for recent events like this one. In this case, "battle of abu ghraib" doesn't bring up much, and, ominously, this article is the first hit. Many of the other results appear to be from United States blogs, op-eds, and such, usually using "the Battle of Abu Ghraib" to refer to the political issues arising from the torture of prisoners by US forces at the prison there, not this specific shooting battle. At best, this term is used to describe the April 2005 fighting only by US military sources, which in this case is hardly a neutral source. So, what to do? Along with a deep trim of all the unsourced POV-pushing, maybe it should be merged into Abu Ghraib or Abu Ghraib prison? Rename it? Other ideas?CDC (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoax?

Is there any reason that this article should be considered as non-fiction?

  1. No references
  2. No references
  3. No references

If it cannot be varified it is worthless.

Does anyone know if this actually happened? Can they please supply some refernces.—Dananimal 04:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7364844/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24808-2005Apr4.html http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9B58E3BD-ABF0-41B8-BC43-8E900EC2391E.htm http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2004/n09212004_2004092104.html http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200504/s1337134.htm http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/02/iraq.main/ okay?

What is not okay is the lack of a signature on your addition to the talk page or the fact that you leave a bunch of links without incorperating them as references for the article.
I found who you are through page history but leaving these links here is unconstructive.
I came to this article to edit it's profound style issues, and found a complete lack of referencing. Maybe you would like to add these references apropriately, thanx. Dananimal 07:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It is my belief that this person isn't very WikiExperienced and was hoping that someone like yourself would add these very good citations. He/she probably is only viewing this article because of first hand knowledge of the event, and maybe not interested in editing. I happend on this article because my unit, 102nd Field Artillery was there (we know it really happened). However, the NPOV that I question is the writing by the Marine who wrote the article. Obviously it is biased, and I don't believe a Marine Captain to be the commander in charge of this. After all, the 102 FA claims that their own Lieutenant Colonel Mark Ray was in charge of perimeter defense. I was at FOB Spartan with the majority of the 102nd, and not at Abu Ghraib, so I can't vouch for who was really in charge. I can say that we need some citations listed on this article. Maybe it should be re-written with the above citations as a source, because the Marine that wrote it definately doesn't have NPOV. --JAYMEDINC 16:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not very experienced in Wikipedia, other than referencing articles. I was there on 2 April 2005 during the attack on FOBAG. I will try to dig up some of my copies of the info releases and some pictures. The attack definitely happened, and the account given is very close to correct. Some details will always be under dispute, obviously, as happens in any fog of war. LTC Ray was indeed in charge of FOB security in the general sense, but the Marine contingent was in charge of perimeter security (the wall and the gates), thus the Marine CPT was indeed in charge of the majority of the combat action. I was an Army soldier tasked out to the Marines as part of the ad-hoc outer patrol during the last stages of the battle. CPL (not SPC) McClellan was my roommate, both in college and in Iraq. I personally find it insulting that some web-junkie would refute a battle where brave men and women fought and died simply because he wants to argue. I think the main reason there was limited media coverage (and thus, no public knowledge of the event) is that Pope John Paul II died the following day. I'll be back with more specific references and documentation. -Pevrs114 15:46hrs EST 14 April 2007

[edit] Merger discussion

[edit] Support

I support this merger. This incident cannot be compared to the Battle of Berlin etc. Lurker (said · done) 11:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  • I believe this article should be deleted on the basis that the dramatized events were neither a "Battle" nor a significant engagement, basing this soley on the author's "facts". However I have yet to see any evidence that this event occured at all.
  • I believe this article warrants it's own article, as do all battles. --JAYMEDINC 19:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with JayMed, we don't merge Berlin and Battle of Berlin Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 02:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with JayMed, but also agree that this article needs clean up. I was at Abu Ghraib a couple days before the attack and have some detailed knowledge of what happened but will not add because of it would be original research. I can confirm that the 102d FA was in overall C2 of the security of the FOB, and the Marines, I believe Echo Company, were the actual forces manning the security positions. Howver, several members of the 102d FA did get citations for actions that day in direct contact with the enemy. Hardnfast 20:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Abu Ghraib

I notice that many of the comments relate to whether this happened or not, many are also asking for references. I am a reference because I was there and I just did some editing to the article. If you would like more concrete references, please annotate more thoroughly on the web site on how to tag references to an article. I would like to tag video and spot reports to certain areas but do not know how. Additonally, for those who question the statement about the "largest coordinated enemy attack since the end of major ground operations......" this statement was from press releases from the PAO of MNC-I and the Pentagon. This phrase is also included in most if not all of the Combat Action Badge citations issued for thsi engagement.

Balrog 64 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Balrog64 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Concur with Balrog 64. I was stationed at Abu Ghraib during the attack, and, unless there are quite a few of us suffering under the same delusion, there are a number of us who recall that the event took place as stated on the page. The account is accurate. I don't recall the bar of proof for many other, accepted events in history being as high as that advocated by some of the comments. Think about that as you try to cast doubt on the contributions of a group of Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines who risked their lives and fought hard that evening. fdh


My son received a purple heart at Abu Ghraib. He will not talk about it to me or his wife. This article has been very helpful to me. I would like to know what the names of the 2 Marines on tower 4. Steven’s wound was to his hand. This was his second tour in country. cb-former medic

[edit] Where to start?

I've been thinking of addressing some of the issues raised by the various tags attached to this article.

Firstly, is it genuinely notable? Policy draws a line between events of short-term newsworthiness and long-term notability. This seems to fall into the former not latter group.

Secondly, it is written from a neutral point of view? Where is the balancing perspective from the non-American protagonists? Where is the political context? These are present in the cited Washington Post article but absent here. It also uses both weasel words and peacock terms to advance its point of view.

Thirdly, most of the detail is unsourced. While user:Balrog64 and others have vouched for its accuracy, this conflicts with the Wikipedia policy of no original research. A more appropriate home for this article might be Soldiers magazine

Fourthly, the repeated use of military acronyms makes it difficult to understand.

Fifthly, this seems to me to be a battle only in the loosest sense of the word. In military terms, a 40-minute firefight involving relatively small numbers of combatants is either an "action" or an "incident". Describing it as the largest coordinated assault etc is extraordinary. What about the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, for instance?

Any comments or reactions? ROGER TALK 08:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

At present the article doesn't provide any justifications for this battle being notable to anyone other than its participants (what did the battle change? why was it special?). The claim that it's the "...the largest coordinated assault on a U.S. base since the Vietnam War" is both uncited and unlikely - and I'm not sure if the prison should even count as a 'base' as it was an objective being protected by US forces. Unless some evidence of notability can be provided the article should be merged into the Abu Ghraib prison article or just deleted. Despite what is raised above, there needs to be something more to a battle than for it to have occured for it to be notable - following that logic indicates that every single clash in every single war warrants an article. --Nick Dowling 09:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The prison wasn't a base. It is within Forward Operating Base Abu Ghraib. --JAYMEDINC 13:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
My view is that it should reduced to a well-referenced paragraph or two and then merged into the Abu Ghraib prison article. ROGER TALK 10:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
If it is merged into an article, it should be merged into Forward Operating Base Abu Ghraib. --JAYMEDINC 13:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is written as a US military report. This is the main problem w/ this article. In fact, this is a Wikipedia problem as guidelines limit the references to English language ones. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I run up against the English languages sources problem all the time. In this case though there is a remarkable degree of consensus in mainstream media reports (listed above), including Al-Jazeera ones. These broadly make an effort to provide balance. The issue here is the extent to which this article is one-sided and the degree to which it relies on anecdotal material. The Wikinews article is very different. ROGER TALK 12:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is the problem with this page. I can attest because of personal knowledge that much of what is on the page is true from the standpoint of the American forces in Abu. I suspect therefore it has been written by people who were there from their experience, which of course violates the original research prohibition. I've attempted to find references to back up those accounts, but have failed so far only finding those news articles that say the battle took place. I suspect that we won't have sources for much of what is on the page until the military releases after action reports. Hardnfast 13:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe this article should be rewritten entirely, using the sources and references only. Not first hand accounts. --JAYMEDINC 13:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
On your fifth point of view, comparing this attack the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, I think the key word here is coordinated attack. The attack on the Marine barracks was the act of suicide bombers in trucks acting somewhat independently not too dissimilar from the Khobar Towers bombing. This attack was coordinated in the fact that they used indirect fire (rockets and mortars) against the base, used RPG's, crew served and small arms fire to suppress guard towers and drove a suicide VBIED into one of the towers. They finally followed up the VBIED with a direct assault. Additionally, blocking attacks were made along the MSR's to prevent reinforcement / relief of the defenders. Hardnfast 16:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anecdotal evidence paragraph

The following paragraph seems to conflict with WP:No Original Research and WP:Verifiability:

While official U.S. military reports state only 40-60 insurgents were involved in the attack, anecdotal evidence suggests differently. First, 58 bullet riddled bodies were discovered in a neighborhood mosque two days after the battle. Second, 20 newly captured prisoners accused of participating in the attack were inprocessed into the detainee population within 10 days of the attack. Third, the official estimate of 40-60 does not take into account the associated diversionary actions against Falluja, Camp Victory and the IED ambushes emplaced along the access roads. Lastly, the first arriving helicopter pilot was heard to say that he estimated hundreds if not more muzzle flashes from around the entire FOB coming from the surrounding apartment buildings, villages and fields.

ROGER TALK 10:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Though I agree with Roger that the paragraph does not comply with wikipedia plicy I hesitate to say that the article in its entirety should be deleted. I recommend instead that the article be reviewed and possibly merged into the Abu Gharaib article that already exists due to the limited content of this article.--Kumioko 16:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be deleted in its entirety either but I don't think it should stay as it is. I nominated it because consensus here seemed impossible. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Abu Ghraib. Please add your thoughts there. ROGER TALK 17:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge to Abu Ghraib prison

There was a significant amount of discussion regarding merging this with Abu Ghraib prison in the a recent AfD, but the closing administrator opted to defer a decision on a merge. Therefore I am bringing up the issue here. Does anybody believe that this is not best served by merging it back into the prison article - or at the very least - renaming this article to propery reflect that it is more a raid than a battle? ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge as per my AfD comment. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Merge --ROGER TALK 22:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I'm more inclined to say rename or merge with FOB Abu Ghraib. --JAYMEDINC 22:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment and proposal The raid was on a location widely (universally?) known as Abu Ghraib Prison; major news media - MSN News, Washington Post, CNN, Al-Jazeera and BBC - reported the raid location under that name; and many prison detainees were injured during it. As the Fay Report confirms, the function of the FOB was to provide perimeter security for the prison and force protection for the US military staff working within it. If it is not merged into Abu Ghraib Prison, I suggest it be renamed to Raid on Abu Ghraib Prison. --ROGER TALK 04:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok but the problem is that "Forward Operating Base Abu Ghraib" was created a few days ago (at the time of the AfD) w/ no single reference. What is FOB in fact? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a jargon word meaning, I suppose, a temporary fort. --ROGER TALK 06:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Just about all the large bases where American forces are station in Iraq are referred to as either Forward Operating Bases (FOBs) or Camps (some both i.e. FOB Camp Bucca), Abu was always referred to as a FOB not a Camp. The prison which was turned over to the Iraqi's in 2004, and the American run detention facility which closed in 2006, were both located inside the walls of the FOB. Hardnfast 14:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Question - I'm getting conflicting information as to whether the FOB housed the prison, the prison housed the FOB, or that the two are essentially identical and that "FOB Abu Ghraib" is just a moniker the US military applied to the prison when they took over operations. The impression I get (along with the quality of the article about the FOB) leads me to believe that the two can be merged themselves, as well - but what do you think? ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Pre-2003 when the Iraqi's ran the complex, the entire complex was devoted to being a prison. The complex was set up with an outer wall with guard towers and several separate buildings which housed prisoners. When the American forces took over, the complex served different roles, detention and area control operations (the facility is very close to two key roadways leading from Baghdad to Fallujah). In 2004, a building in the complex commonly referred to as the hard site was turned over to the Iraqi's. This building is what you would commonly think a prison looked like, concrete structure, bars etc. It is also where the famous abuse photos were taken. Much of the rest of what was prison space in the complex was converted into soldier housing, office space, storage and one even had an AAFES Exchange in it. For the Iraqi corrections officers to get to work, and for Iraqi citizens to visit friends/relatives at the hard site, they first had to clear American security at the complex's entry control point. Also within the complex, there was an fenced in area called Camp Redemption which housed detainees who lived in tents.(see link for a idea of how it was set up at one point) The differences between the hard site prison and this area are:
1. In Redemption, American soldiers guarded the detainees, in the prison Iraqi correctional officers (with training & guidance given by American Department of Justice officials) watched the prisoners.
2. In Redemption the residents were detainees. These were people arrested up by coalition forces waiting for their trial in Iraqi courts. The hard site contained only those convicted in the Iraqi courts.
As I said, besides guarding the Iraq prison and the detention facility, the complex also had soldiers and Marines who conducted missions in the area and operations along the MSRs. Hardnfast 17:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Merge. Most historians and news sources would agree that this event was caused in large part by the abuses at the prison that were advertised world-wide, yes? Given the little amount of information here in this article, and that the Prison article is not already overly long, and the relevance of the one to the other, it makes sense to merge them into one article. If it took place at the prison, it should be documented under the prison, especially given that it was not an actual "battle" by definition and thus probably simply does not warrant its own article. --ScreaminEagle 12:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree that the event was 'caused' because of the abuses that took place there over 1 year prior Abuses happened late 2003, hit the press early 2004 and this attack was in spring 2005. The reason this attack took place because the facility contained apx 4,000 detainees, many of whom were leaders in the insurgency. One goal of this attack was to release them (the tower hit with the VBIED was near Camp Redemption); another reason of course is because the place was infamous, both before and after the American usage ... a victory there, releasing lots of detainees would have been a propaganda coup. My two cents anyway. Hardnfast 13:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. Some hairsplitting here, I feel. The abuses made the prison, and surrounding fortifications, iconic within the Muslim/liberal world of all that was wrong with the American presence in Iraq and the complex' exceedingly high media profile ensured widespread subsequent publicity. While the release of prisoners may have been one of the objectives of the insurgents, commentators have concluded that this was secondary to delivering a propaganda "bloody nose", which they did. And, frankly, the more that the anecdotal material bangs on about running out of ammunition, largest attack since Vietnam, secret American fatalities etc, the more the insurgent propaganda machine is oiled. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 14:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)