Talk:Iraq War troop surge of 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-01-05. The result of the discussion was keep.


Contents

[edit] Name Change

I strongly believe that the current name of this article, "Iraq troop surge of 2007" is not at all appropriate for the purpose it serves. Iraq has a long history and has been involved in more wars than just the Iraq War. There have been all kinds of troops in Iraq and fighting against Iraqi troops. To name this article Iraq troop surge of 2007 is wrong and strongly politically incorrect.

The current war in Iraq involving US troops is referred to by Wikipedia as the Iraq War. Therefore, I propose that the name of this article be change to "Iraq War troop surge of 2007." This would keep the emphasis on the fact that the surge is in regards to the event (Iraq War), not the geographic location (Iraq).

If there are no objections to this proposal in a few days I will go ahead and alter the name. Tomertomer 03:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

The AFD on this article has asked whether the title "New Way Forward" is WP:POV in favor of Republican interests. Comments? We could move the page to another name, but what would that name be? It seems to me that the President has reinforced and the press has adopted "New Way Forward" as the working title of this strategic initiative. If there is another (sourced, citeable) name to refer to it, I fully support a page move, but be careful of WP:NOR. Two last points, ... (1) I don't see that in itself it is particularly Republican/optimistic name. (2) Who gets to name it? It seems to me that if it is Bush's plan, then he gets to be " the Decider" of its name. Comments? MPS 20:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Using names given isnt a problem, its done with most programs, like the Great Society or Great Leap Forward. Using this name is not a problem. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree; I think the name is neutral for the reasons you two have mentioned.Sean Kass 23:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The name isn't the problem. I think it was the speculative nature of the topic coupled with its highly political content that got people jittery. And as for that question, I'm not going to say anything here, we've all read the Articles For Deletion page. Bsiatadshmia 18:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Speech

I just watched Bush's speech, and he laid out a series of numbers that could be added and sourced in this article ([1], for example). I hope this article gets somewhere...I would hate to have spared a dying article. PTO 02:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name Change???

Given that Bush didn't actuially use the words in his speech (but Tony Snow [2] agreed on Jan 8 that their announced strategy is called "The Way Forward") should we continued to call this article "The New Way Forward"??? Some of the press is still using "New Way Forward". I think there's also the option of calling it US strategy change in Iraq, announced January 2007 or something. MPS 16:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

How about moving it to The New Way Forward in Iraq, if it survives the deletion vote? --Uncle Ed 18:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The White House Fact Sheet for the implications of the speech did refer to it as "The New Way Forward in Iraq" so retitling the article to that might make sense. Edison 23:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's a big question... NPR reported today that Defense Secretary Bob Gates and Peter Pace stood before the Senate Armed Services Committee today. [3] Yesterday it was these two and Condi. At what point should this article continue to document the sales pitch and congressional critique of the "surge" plan. I mean there is clearly news/history to be recorded, but it's not clear to me whether this should occur at Iraq War or if there should be a fork article. What I am saying related to the name change is maybe The New Way Forward should be page moved to something like "Iraq troop surge plan 2007" google news links ... with this name we can document the debates and whether or not the surge continues to be 21000 or if he Democrats block this. MPS 02:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that there is no inherent problem in using the name given to the program (e.g. Great Society), I would support a move to something along the lines of "Iraq Surge of 2007." It seems like the media and politicians have used the word "surge" to refer to the planned changes much more than the title of the speech. Savidan 03:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I read an editorial today that said liberals prefer the term 'escalation' and as a result oppose the word 'surge'. I am going to do a page move to proposed increase in the number of troops in Iraq and I am sure it will change from there but it should not stay as it is.

MPS 00:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... or we can just stick with The New Way Forward. It involves a troop surge, some might say it involves an escalation, but these are only components. Further, its not a proposed increase... ~Rangeley (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Good comment. Two thoughts in reaction: (1) I am sort of confused about the general wiki-apathy with respect to this article. I think I will add some more content but I would hope I don't end up being the sole author. I myself don't particularly care about the title as much as the article content(2) you are right that Bush "committed" the forces rather than "proposed" them, but the "New Way Forward" seems to be an ambiguous description of the policy. How about increase in the number of US troops in Iraq (2007). I am very open to alternatives, but for now I want to spent more mental energy improving the article content. I want to add more comments by critics and supporters of the policy. perhaps a better title will appear obvious after I do this. MPS 01:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
At the very least some date should be added to this title and the sooner the better to avoid mass re-editing of links when all the pages linking to this article need to be changed to the new title (for increased speed and full avoidance of double redirects).--Wowaconia 16:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The name we should stick with is the name that most are referring to this as, "The New Way Forward." Its not a description, its a proper noun, ie a name. I completely oppose your moving of it because we had a whole discussion on the deletion page with people who said we couldnt use the name, but these people were in the minority and the fact is that we can have articles with such names as The New Way Forward. To have the article not deleted, and then go and change the name anyways after discussion yielded results against it is just plain silly. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The proper name for what, the speech or the surge? I support the current article name (Iraq troop surge of 2007) even as I recognize "New Way Forward" and "New Way Forward in Iraq" as legitimate names for the speech. The fact is that ever since Jan 10, the media have not referred to the speech as "The New Way Forward" as prominently as they have talked about the "troop surge" strategy/proposal. The scope of this article is no longer just the speech, but it is the strategy and the political wrangling over what it will be. IMHO, of course. What do you think the scope of the article should be? MPS 02:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On change to include word "Surge"

The title should be changed to Iraq troop surge of 2007. All of the media is referring to this as a "troop surge" and to even find this page I had to go out to Google and site search "20,000 troops" on site:Wiki after every combo of "Iraq" and "surge" in Wikipedia's own search box got me nowhere. While its true Pelosi when asked the question about the surge answered it calling it an escalation, she did not correct the Reporter and insist that it be called an escalation but knew what he was talking about and responded to the question about the surge.

More telling is that on Pelosi's own House website the title arguing against aspects of the policy is "Congressional Leaders Call on President to Reject Flawed Iraq Troop Surge" http://speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0021

Even Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) spoke as if the terms were interchangable saying "I think it would be best for the country if we got to vote on that surge or escalation." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070107/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

More importantly Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) states
"1. If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view."

I think the reason this is getting so little traffic is because no one can find it under its current name.

--Wowaconia 16:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Also this title does not need to include the word "plan" because some surged-in troops are already there - http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/article2175830.ece

So whether the surge goes up to the full 20,000 plus or gets shut down at this level there has already been some kind of surge, so the title is valid either way.
--Wowaconia 16:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As there seemed to be a pre-existing move to place "surge" in the title, and as it followed the wiki-standard (listed above), I changed the title. I also went through and updated all the links on other pages that were linking to the old version and updated all the double redirects that were linking to very old versions.--Wowaconia 17:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with this name change. Good job!!!!! MPS 20:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I endorse the current title (Iraq troop surge of 2007). Savidan 20:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Keane (U.S. soldier)

Anyone want to help with the article on Jack Keane? There has been some talk about this individual, see Talk:Jack Keane (U.S. soldier). This individual was one of the key proponents of the "surge" idea. --70.51.232.12 20:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Segment on term "Proposal"

I moved this segment here for discussion off the main page:

I think the part in red should be dropped altogether-

The distinction about whether this was a 'proposal' ("proposed troop surge"[4], "iraq proposal"[5]) is also notable. During the speech, Bush indicated that he had committed to a troop increase. As a result, there appeared to be little tangible action that congress could do to counteract the "proposal" (for example, stop the deployment or change the strategy). Instead, the 110th congress debated witholding military funding and other symbolic measures to oppose Bush's chosen strategy."
I don't think this information makes any sense unless Bush or his staff actually referred to this policy as a "proposal". Since the Constitution makes him "Commander and Chief" he doesn't need to propose any orders he gives the military to Congress (except declaring War) he just orders it done, Congress has "the power of the purse strings" and can limit or strip funding. Of course if someone can find Bush or his spokespeople using the term "proposal" this could go back in. As he seems intent to preserve and promote the power of his office, I would be surprised to see him use the term "proposal".
The part in Blue, should be expanded into its own segment later in the article, though a brief mention of it could be in the intro.
Also, note that "witholding military funding" should not be placed next to the term "symbolic measures" as that would not be symbolic but would be one branch of goverment using all its Constitutional power against another branch and would be deemed a "Constitutional crisis", this stripping of funds during an unpopular war has yet to happen in US history (not even in Vietnam, or the even less popular War of 1812).
--Wowaconia 14:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mention of Iraq study group report's objection in article?

There should be a mention of the Iraq Study Group Report objection to adding More Troops for Iraq. In the report it mentions that

“ Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation. ”

Wikidudeman (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, You seem to be reading in "anti" context that may not be there. The word "sustained" says to me that the ISG doesn't think that simply having troops there will alone solve the problem. Per WP:NOR I would hesitate in drawing "anti" conclusions from the fragment you quoted. I encourage you to find other passages in ISG that make that claim, but I would want it to be something more ...uh... compelling? slam dunky? I can't think of the word. MPS 20:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


No, The report clearly states that additional troops will not help the problem in Iraq. This is what the full text of it says...
“ More Troops for Iraq

Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation. A senior American general told us that adding U.S. troops might temporarily help limit violence in a highly localized area. However, past experience indicates that the violence would simply rekindle as soon as U.S. forces are moved to another area. As another American general told us, if the Iraqi government does not make political progress, “all the troops in the world will not provide security.” Meanwhile, America’s military capacity is stretched thin: we do not have the troops or equipment to make a substantial, sustained increase in our troop presence. Increased deployments to Iraq would also necessarily hamper our ability to provide adequate resources for our efforts in Afghanistan or respond to crises around the world.

 ”

That's is from page 30 of the study group report.Wikidudeman (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok... so ISG says that a "sustained" increase( I am reading sustained as meaning "lasting a long duration of time") wouldn't change anything in itself, but a short term surge would quell violence in the short term. I submit to you that the "surge" plan intends to achieve its goals via two concurrent efforts: (1) surge troop presence for a short time to quell the violence and (2) institute counterinsurgency and New Iraqi Army handover plan under the leadership of Petraues (sp?) to achieve the "political progress" currently not possible under the present violent climate. Under this two-pronged plan, (I submit that) proponents of the surge plan intend to comply with ISG since the troop levels will be a temporary increase (until, say November 2007) rather than a sustained increase. Am I making sense? If I had to summarize my post here, I would say that ISG does claim that a long term increase is not alonse sufficient but the "surge" plan as currently advertised does not statea long term perpetual increase. MPS 23:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it's nitpicking. If anything a short term increase in troops would be of less effect than a long term increase in troops. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Surge" is just a restoration of last year's troop levels

In early November of 2006, there were 152,000 US troops in Iraq. After the "surge" is completed, there will be...153,500.[6] Thus, the article shouldn't present the "surge" as a substantial increase just because Bush talks like it is in his speeches. EDIT: Here's a non-blog source: [7] 71.203.209.0 05:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commonly used phrase?

After all the debate over the title of this article, I find it mildly ironic that it opens with "The Iraq War troop surge of 2007 is a phrase commonly used to describe U.S. President George W. Bush's strategy change..." I actually have never heard this phrase used in this exact formulation. I don't know, maybe I'm alone on that... 65.95.3.129 16:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard that phrase used to bescribe it. Those I work with on Fort Bragg have taken to calling it just "The Surge", more often than not in a melodramatic manner ;) Parsecboy 18:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
We can't call it "The Surge" because that title doesn't make it clear precisely what "surge" is being referred to. 71.203.209.0 04:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The title also fails to make it clear that we're talking about American troops. Zocky | picture popups 07:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BBC Baghdad says it's working (for now at least)

Baghdad diary: Relative lull --HanzoHattori 09:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USA kill or capture strategy in Iraq merge

I think article USA kill or capture strategy in Iraq should be merged here, as it is a small part of the Iraq War troop surge of 2007. It seems almost if the USA kill or capture strategy in Iraq is a POV fork, no reason for it to be separate. Perhaps a subpage that dwells on the strategies and tactics of the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 might warrant moving the content there, but a single page for a single tactic makes no sense.--Cerejota 12:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The reports state that the 'kill or capture' policy was agreed summer/fall 2006,[8] which predates the final surge decision by some way. I think they are distinct policies, the 'kill or capture' policy would have remained had the surge decision gone the other way. So I think the articles should be kept separate; just as the Washington Post article doesn't link the policies. Also the surge is a Baghdad and Al Anbar Province policy, but the Iranian policy generally applies elsewhere in mainly Shia areas. Rwendland 12:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Obviously good intent here in consolidating content into one article, but I disagree that this article should be merged to the surge article... the Surge article deals more with the formation of the plan. Where I think a merge or rename would be in order is if there was an article on Iranian involvement in the Iraq War. The kill and capture strategy article curently only deals with how we deal with Iranian actors found in Iran... this could be expanded to document how Iran has or has not been involved in the war and how the US has treated those caught intervening in the Iraq war. MPS 14:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Disagree, the topic is significant enough in the context of Iran-US relations that needs a separate page. I also disagree with renaming. This is an official name. Sina Kardar 20:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Political Ploy

Shouldn't there be something about how this "surge" or "escalation" or whatever term you prefer isn't really a change in strategy at all, but instead a part of a continuing pattern throughout the Iraq occupation to increase troop levels by a couple dozen thousand every so often? It is a fact that seems to be overlooked by mainstream media quite a bit. The least that could be done for the article's sake is post it as an opposing "viewpoint", even though it isn't an opinion. Fifty7 04:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


Oh, I disagree absolutely- but this is the effect of loosely using the meaningless term 'surge' in this context. 'Surge' is merely a logistical term, referring to a temporary manpower increase. It says nothing about what one does with those troops- and thus posters like Fifty7 can be led to conclude that the Keane/Petraeus strategy is just more of the same, with additional troops; when it is in fact a new anti-Rumsfeldian operational concept, of which the extra manpower or 'surge' is merely one aspect. Solicitr 15:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lakoff Quotation

The last sentence of George Lakoff's comments should be deleted. The opinion of a Professor of Linguistics as to the meaning of a word is fine (although hardly politically unbiased in this example)- but his opinion as to the prospective success or failure of military operations is outside his field of expertise and carries no weight whatsoever. If you want a tea-leaves opinion pro- or anti-, quote a professional soldier or military analyst.Solicitr 16:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Results of the surge?

Rather than only mention political points scored on the surge, wouldn't it be worth mentioning the actual outcome for Iraq? It should not be too difficult to mention the Iraqi and US death tolls, for example, or the 500+ deaths in the worst car bombing attack since the war began. Sad mouse 18:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is time to start talking about the results of the surge in Iraq. Petraeus recently testified to Congress about how things are going with the surge. Several members of congress have voiced their opinions on the results of the surge. A results section is needed. Bbrown8370 18:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Confusing. If there have been no published results of the surge, then at least THAT fact should be put in the article. I came here to see what ever happened with the old "troop surge." But the article doesn't even mention what has or hasn't happened. Someone who knows should put it in the article. If there have been no results, then that should be in the article.Tragic romance 06:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

LuckyMitch, Regarding the category title. I think the issue is that "The Surge" is a limited part of what should be a much broader STRATEGY. Now, it might be better to have a "US Policy and Strategy in Post-Invasion Iraq", which could keep The Surge, ( and it's effects in the "Big Picture" ) in better context. Yes, I think another article describing this limited operation's context in the broader strategy is the way to go. Mikelieman (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of renaming the section "US Policy and Strategy in Post-Invasion Iraq". That way it will give the reader further insight about what the overall objective of the surge is. I think that we should combine our information to keep things neutral for the reader; my information on its success in bring down violence, and your information on its failure to reach its benchmarks. Do you agree?--Lucky Mitch (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Too much on the US politics of the surge; not enough on the actual surge

The article should lead with: How many troops were "surged", from/to where, when and what were they doing?

Some people are saying that there has been no surge in Al Anbar Province (supposedly, US troops were pulled out of Al Anbar and sent to Baghdad). The political debate is interesting, but the article should lead with the actual facts. (who, what, where and when, etc) --Calan 13:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Surge or no surge in Al Anbar?

FYI, I found this, but it's not very athoritative:

There has been NO troop surge in Al Anbar. No surge. Since Al Anbar has NOT seen a troop surge, any "progress" there CANNOT be due to the surge "working". Get it? This needs to be thrown right back at any and all who spout off about the surge working. That line is a LIE. [9]
Absolutely an opinion, and based on my service in Al Anbar, a hugely inaccurate one. Angncon (talk) 08:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia could do the debate a good service, right now, if someone could verify that there has been a surge in Al Anbar or not. --Calan 13:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll answer this one. "The sheik who forged the alliance with the Americans, Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, traced the decision to fight al-Qaeda to Sept. 14, 2006, long before the new Bush strategy, but the president's plan dispatched another 4,000 U.S. troops to Anbar to exploit the situation. As security improved, the White House eagerly took credit." [10] Bbrown8370 05:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Part of the overall strategy in Iraq has ALWAYS been to enable the Iraqis to help themselves. In early 2004, our unit was one of many that were attempting to organize tribal resistance to the insurgency in Al Anbar. Enabling indigenous resistance to an insurgency has long been a major tactic in counterinsurgency doctrine for most countries. Only after a push of several thousand extra troops did some of the tribes finally have the confidence to publicly fight back. Many tribes in Iraq saw the political fight in America as a sign of our eventual withdrawal, and did not want to side with us as they would be punished by the insurgents once we left. The decision to surge troops, as opposed to withdrawing, showed the people of Iraq that we were determined to fight the insurgency. This allowed the fledging 'counter-resistance' organizations to grow quickly. The improved security in Al Anbar was a combined effort. The tribes as well as the troops deserve the credit. Angncon (talk) 08:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


It might be relevant to both the al-Anbar surge and a future Results section of the article that "The most prominent figure in a U.S.-backed revolt of Sunni sheiks against al-Qaida in Iraq was killed Thursday by a bomb planted near his home in Anbar province, 10 days after he met with President Bush." [11] It shows that despite the widely reported al-Anbar success, opponents retain the ability to strike at the leaders of the strategy against them. Bbrown8370 18:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


= Summary? I just read through the Iraq war article (discussion page is locked there), the Iraq War 2007 time line, and this article. There really is no discussion of the results of the troop surge in Iraq, or of what the current strategy actually is. Maybe a nice summary of that could be written into this article. Also, as another suggestion: This page (and all of the pages on the Iraq war), is way too long. It is really an article about the politics of the troop surge, which doesn't seem to me to be an important enough subject to warrant more than a few paragraphs. I would suggest very aggressive editing for length here (for example, is the section entitled 'December 14 comments' adding anything to the article?), but of course this is up to the regular editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.161.1 (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 21:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] name of article

This article isn't about the surge at all - it's entirely about the planning and debate prior to the surge. I propose it be renamed to 2007 Iraq War troop surge buildup or somesuch. Totnesmartin 15:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something is wrong with this article.

You know, I'm a HUGE fan of Wikipedia, but this is without a doubt one of the worst articles I've ever seen. Don't get me wrong, it looks well-written and has lots of good citations and all that stuff, but I didn't find the information I came here for. It's like this article deliberatly rambles on about the buildup of the surge to avoid answering the questions I came here for. Like for example, what are the results of the surge? What about the dramatic improvement in conditions over there that we hear about on the news all the time? I came here to fact check those claims, but I don't see anything about it. If I didn't know any better, I'd say that this article just goes on and talks about buildup stuff that could have been summarized in a few paragraphs at the begining so it can avoid answering those questions.

The very least that you could do is put in something about the ACTUAL SURGE ITSELF and how it was implemented. Or at least put up some box at the top that tells people that this article "may or may not be biased" or something along those lines (I've seen those boxes. I know you have them, Wikipedians). I wouldn't really call it biased, but it certainly leaves a lot of good information out. So if it is "biased" it's biased in what it DOESN'T say rather than what it does.

The tiny section at the bottom "Results of the Iraq War troop surge of 2007" isn't adequate, either. I know there's more to it than that. This article makes no mention of the dramatic decrease in violence that I hear about all over the place. Is that just a myth? I suppose it could be, that's why I came here, becuase Wikipedia has always been a good source for unbiased information in the past. I'm not entirely sure if I can continue to place so much trust in it anymore after this.

Surely others have noticed this too. I'm not the only person who thinks that this article needs drastic improvement, right?. Shouldn't you Wikipedians be more responsible with important articles like this one?

Just some thoughts. I'll wait to see if this makes an impact or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.164.62 (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath. For general knowledge, Wikipedia is fantastic. When it comes to political articles, it becomes a forum. As evident by this, as well as other articles on Iraq, there is absolutely no interest in describing the event itself, only the political controversies of the decision. Articles such as this are nothing more than an editorial against politicians. There is plenty of evidence regarding the outcome of the surge. However, those outcomes do not fit into the author's view of the current administration and will not be cited. The article should be scrapped entirely. It tells the reader nothing but political spin. Angncon (talk) 08:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I dunno if I'd go that far, but it does seem biased. Maybe Wikipedia should only cover general knowledge things instead of things that go this specific? Nah, that's a bad idea. In my experience, controversial articles that have a large and prominent controversy about their neutrality around them are articles that become less controversial, like the George Bush article, which appears pretty unbiased to me. Maybe if someone made a big deal out of the neutrality of this article, it could be helped. So I'm officially making a big deal out of it, but who will listen to me? Is there somewhere on wikipedia where I can go and voice my opinion of this article so others can try to fix it?

I really wish I could help, but I'm afraid I would make this article worse if I started messing with it. Can someone PLEASE help this article? 63.245.164.62 (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I added a section on the timeline for the surge, not simply the political pre-cursors. I included troop deployments, troop levels, and comments by numerous political and military leaders on the progress. There maybe some repeated information in the article that will have to be edited. In an attempt to maintain NPOV, I have included analysis from both left and right websites, as well as prominent comments from both Dems and Reps.

I also expanded the section on the effects of the surge to include more up-to-date information, as well as several graphics that depict main points of progress.Angncon (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Very nice. Now if it's biased at all, it's biased the other way! It could still use some improvement, but this looks better than I had hoped it would. Thanks a lot! 63.245.164.62 (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What's "the other way"? I specifically didn't want to float this or any article in either direction. Personally, I despise those on both ends of the political spectrum. They are severe minorities that only appears as a majority because of the elevation of their voices. My user site shows my affiliation with political parties: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Angncon Angncon (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind that that was sort of tongue in cheek. I wasn't serious, but if it was biased (and it's probably not), then it'd be biased the other way (meaning that it's pro surge-is-working). Of course, that's probably just because the surge IS working, as far as I can tell. 63.245.164.62 (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Working?

Is there really street-level talk that the surge is working? The whole idea was less than realistic to begin with; AFAIK the surge is not even supposed to work, but rather to delay criticism and redirect public attention in the USA. Luis Dantas (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean by 'street level talk'. That seems more of an opinion. I can give you 'street level' observations from four combat tours, (including my current one in Baghdad). Over here, it is almost universally accepted that the increase in troops paved the way for the significant reduction in violence. While there may have been many contributing factors that have been substantial, none of them could have been accomplished without the decision to increase troop levels.
Of course more troops reduce immediate violence, that was never at doubt. But how does that translate into a conviction that the surged worked, when General Petraeus himself basically admits that it did not (with only 6 benchmarks out of 18 showing any sign of improvement at all)? I honestly don't get it... it is after all called a surge mainly because it can not and will not be maintained, isn't that so? Luis Dantas (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I can't seem to find anywhere, in any documents that state the purpose of the surge was to achieve these 18 benchmarks. The only place I can find it is in political rhetoric. According to the wording of United States Public Law 110-28, passed by Congress, the 18 benchmarks were specifically meant as a guidepost on whether Congress would continue funding the war. There is absolutely no mention of these 18 benchmarks to be used as the success criteria for the troop surge. Aside from that, there have been two official reports that lists which of these benchmarks have been achieved. Both of these reports were listed well prior to the conclusion of the troop surge. To date, there has been no official release of the current number of benchmarks that the Iraqi government has achieved. I would venture to say that there has been no report because the politicians in Congress can better exploit the old numbers from last summer. Not that they were any indication of the surge's success anyway.Angncon (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Insurgent groups in Iraq were vying for power after what they perceived to be an imminent U.S. withdrawal. Even most of the pro GoI (government of Iraq) groups were reluctant to side with the U.S. as they did not want to be left high-n-dry (similar to the Shiite rebellion after the Gulf War). For reasons of self preservation, they though that it would not be wise to fight the insurgency, which would possibly control the country after the Americans were forced to leave. A 'surge' in troops, (as opposed to a withdrawal), gave most of these groups the confidence that we would not leave them to fight the insurgency alone.
While the increase in troops itself could not be credited for every security gain, it has been the catalyst that has enabled it. In Al Anbar, the tribal leaders had tried unsuccessfully for years to rally the populace against the Sunni insurgency. With the increase in U.S. troops, people and organizations came out publicly to fight the insurgents. They named this movement 'the Awakening'. In Baghdad, troops from the surge as well as those no longer needed in Al Anbar, fought with the 'awakened' Iraqi government and populace against the Shia insurgents. This eventually forced Sadr into a ceasefire. I have heard much talk (from the U.S.) giving Sadr the credit for reducing violence with his ceasefire. But this is like giving Japan credit for ending WWII with their surrender.
Sorry, I think it is rather misleading, actually borderline dishonest, to call such an artificial troop increase a catalyst. It's a stopgap measure in a best case scenario. And your last comment is very odd; OF COURSE it makes sense to give Japan credit for ending WWII with their ceasefire (it is commonly misunderstood to have been a surrender; it was not). Luis Dantas (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
After fighting in four tours of duty, I believe that I have a much more complete picture of the ground truth than most Americans who get their information from a box in their living room. I have spoken first-hand to the Sunni tribes in Al Anbar who awakened once they determined that the United States was not the paper tiger that Al Quaeda had preached to them. I was in Baghdad when the Shia militia became overwhelmed with the thousands of additional American troops. You may call what happened in 1945, on the battleship Missouri a ceasefire or surrender. Semantics aside, it was America that forced it on the Japanese, and it was America that forced it on Al Sadr. Neither of them were given any choice in the matter. I cannot give credit to either.Angncon (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether the events were accomplished by accident or design, the surge started a domino effect that brought the country back from extreme chaos. Over here, there is no doubt in the soldiers, the GoI, or on the street as the the cause for reduced violence. The only place I ever hear any doubt is when I travel back to the U.S. Angncon (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The surge is an obvious (and blood-costly) bluff overblown by dishonest propaganda. It does nothing significant but to maintain false hopes for way longer than they should live. Luis Dantas (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


Wow, how does someone who has actually witnessed the results of the surge from the front lines answer a statement like that? I can't understand how someone can still consider the surge a 'bluff' that has done 'nothing significant'. Even the huge drop in American Casualties is significant. Yes, there still is much political strife, much like America. There still is government corruption, much like America. There still is violence, much like America. But it is getting better; much better. Unfortunately, there are some people who will NEVER allow themselvs to admit this.Angncon (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:US Casualties.jpg

Image:US Casualties.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


You are correct. Images of charts or graphs may not be used under fair use as they can be easily replicated. Therefore I replicated the chart with information provided by the Department of Defense, and is also similar at the same website as the original graphic, http://icasualties.org/oif/. Angncon (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:ISF Casualties.jpg

Image:ISF Casualties.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Got it fixed. Same as previous.Angncon (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is Clinton's Comments Too POV?

On the Jan 13th episode of Meet the Press, Senator Clinton expressed why she thought there was a significant reduction in violence in Iraq. She stated,

"I believe in large measure because the Iraqi government, they watch us, they listen to us. I know very well that they follow everything that I say. And my commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009 is a big factor."

I know this was not nearly all she said, but this is the part shows her arguement of why the troop surge is not the reason for the reduction in violence. Would adding this be POV? I mean, to me it kinda is, because I think that it is so far off of what I have witnessed that it makes her look kinda silly, (if not conceited). But, then again, others could see it as valid. Any thoughts from the (real) civilian world? Angncon (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It would seem like quote mining to me. What she said had various interpretations. The snippet "...they follow everything that I say" in particluar would look pretty bad if mentioned out of context! As for her actual arguement, I've read pro-war conservatives writing in National Review saying the same thing: Historically, the only time the Iraq government has delivered on its promises is when it's held to strict benchmarks/deadlines and threatened with punishment for breaking them. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Instead of adding Clinton's comments, the article ought to include some of the comments of Noah Feldman from the Council of Foreign Relations:
""These questions can be stated with some precision. They begin with the issue of how to interpret the comparative reduction in violence since the surge of United States troops began nearly a year ago. Does the decrease show that more troops on the ground were necessary to impose effective control over territory and persuade insurgents to back down? Or is the reduced violence a sign instead that the prospect of imminent United States withdrawal has made Iraqis more hesitant to foment a civil war from which the United States will not save them? Whatever the answer, the practical consequences are huge: either we keep troop levels relatively stable, drawing down slowly while we consolidate increasing stability, or we accelerate withdrawal to underscore our seriousness about leaving."" 24.32.208.58 (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree; pressuring the government of Iraq (GoI) tends to result in political progress. However, completely tying this to the insurgents is a simplistic view of the war. Pressuring the Iraqi government has never stopped insurgents from trying to destroy the Iraqi government. Regardless of the political progress in Iraq, the enemy gets a vote. Their goal is the destruction of the GoI, and the withdrawal of all U.S. forces. Threatening them with the exact thing they want will not stop them from fighting. For instance, just after the Democrats, won the majority in the 2006 election, violence in Iraq grew to its greatest level than any other time during the war. I am in no way blaming the increase in violence on the Democratic party. The trend was going up before the election. But, it shows that the insurgents care little about U.S. politics or pressure.
As with all previous insurgent wars, the situation in Iraq is very complex. There are political factions within the GOI that have connections to insurgent militias. These factions can be pressured to reign in their militias. But the entire insurgency does not have ties to political parties in the GoI. The overwhelming majority of the insurgency simply wants the GoI destroyed. No amount of political pressure will pacify them. They must be defeated militarily, which is what brings us to the troop surge.
I tend to agree with the National Review article in that we must continue to pressure the Iraqi government for political progress. But the CFR article does not seem to stand on anything, it just asks questions, and gives opposing solutions.
As for Sen Clinton's remarks, I believe her statements are relevant. Quote mining would be if I used a statement by some unknown guy named Bob. Sen Clinton is one of the most powerful members of Congress, a key American leader, and has been tremendously active in military affairs for years. Her quotes on the troop surge are very relevant and valid to the article, it just may present a one-sided POV.Angncon (talk) 07:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
However, completely tying this to the insurgents is a simplistic view of the war. Pressuring the Iraqi government has never stopped insurgents from trying to destroy the Iraqi government... the insurgents care little about U.S. politics or pressure. That's your opinion. Some reliable sources agree and some reliable sources disagree. That's the debate that Feldman was summarizing in his article. Compare Clinton's quote to Nancy Pelosi's point-by-point counter-report made after Petraeus' September report. What the 'results' section needs is to include that view as well and represent it fairly.
When it comes to the 'timeline' section: My objection isn't to including Senator Clinton's position, I just think that that one miniced quote in particular does not do a very good job of reporting what she believes. If any recent quote by Senator Clinton should be added to the article, than her recent comment where she says that our troops should be out in "60 days" is much more relevant. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


You are right, it is my opinion of the current situation, and opinions are not allowed in Wikipedia. However, insurgents do attempt to overthrow the ruling government by the use of force. By their definition, and their actions, they want the government to fail. That is not an opinion, it is textbook a definition and historical fact, and the basis of my statement. Also, I would have never insist on putting my statement in the article as it would not be Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The discussion boards, however, are different.
I agree that we should have different subject matter experts on the subject, especially from groups like CFR. However, Feldman's article itself states that it is an OP ED (opinion editorial) and, like my own opinion, is not based on fact. As an admitted opinion, it is Wikipedia:No original research, is not a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and isn't allowed by Wikipedia rules. I know there are other similar articles by subject matter experts on the same subject that we can find to replace it.
Also, the public opinion poll on the Iraq war has nothing to do with the troop surge. Is there a poll that talks about the surge, itself. The poll that is there is a 'content fork' WP:CFORK, and should be removed. As I stated earlier, I don't have a problem with opposing views. But adding things that don't support POV or the article itself will lead to soap-boxing Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
I think a quote (any quote) on Sen Clinton's view on the surge is valid, as well as Rep Pelosi's counterpoints. But a quote where Sen Clinton states that she wants the troops home in 60 days and does not address the surge itself is not valid to the subject.Angncon (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


Feldman's article itself states that it is an OP ED (opinion editorial) and, like my own opinion, is not based on fact. It is just an editorial, but it's a notable opinion in the same way that the New York Times opinion article The State of Iraq: An Update currently in the "Iraqi Security" section is notable. In and of themseleves, editorials can be used as reliable sources-- especially if they come from foreign policy and military policy experts with years and years of experience.
Also, the public opinion poll on the Iraq war has nothing to do with the troop surge. Is there a poll that talks about the surge, itself. How on earth is the poll not related to the surge? Gallup explicitly asked people if more troops made the situation in Iraq better, and 43% explicitly stated that- yes- it made things better.
I think a quote (any quote) on Sen Clinton's view on the surge is valid, as well as Rep Pelosi's counterpoints. At some point in the future (later in the week, later than that... whatever) I'll go through and add quotes from them. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


I looked at both NYT articles in the "Iraqi Security" section, neither of these articles were the one you stated. However, there is a citation of the same name by the Brookings Institute, that was later published in NYT as an "op chart"(!?). So what happens when one organization publishes an article, not listed as an opinion, and then it is published elsewhere as an opinion? That's a new one on me. I think, in order to maintain a neutral point of view, both citations should be framed as as the original articles frame them. That is, if it is presented as an opinion in the citation, it should present that in the article. Presenting any opinion, regardless of its source, as fact is dishonest. A good representation of this is in the "January 11 to 18" section that states, "New York Times opinion columnist David Brooks said that the speech was "nearly impossible to figure out." This maintains its NPOV by clarifying that it is from an opinion columnist.
I would caution, though, about soap-boxing. It is fast becoming prevalent in the article, by both points of view. The article is moving away from the subject of the troop surge itself, and quickly becoming a depository for opinions. (See my comments on limiting Petraeus' analysis below.) It is enough to state one side or the other, but it is soap-boxing to provide opinions after opinions that provide little to no facts. Notable exceptions such as recognized subject matter experts or key American leaders excluded.
Well, before the information on the public opinion poll was changed on 01:21, 20 February 2008 by 24.32.208.58 (which happens to be your reported IP address), it stated, "An early February 2008 Gallup Poll found that 60% of Americans believe the decision to invade Iraq was a mistake." There is no mention of the surge in this statement. My point was valid, as this was the statement before it was changed. [1]
What is the section on "Effects on Elections" supposed to be saying? There is one sentence that seems relevant, where McCain's surge in the election "could" be tied to support of the troop surge. The remainder of the paragraph just wanders around.Angncon (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


So what happens when one organization publishes an article, not listed as an opinion, and then it is published elsewhere as an opinion? That's a new one on me. I think, in order to maintain a neutral point of view, both citations should be framed as as the original articles frame them. I don't think it's necessary to label the nature of the published article. I think it would make more sense to attribute the quoted information to the writers, and not to the publishers (who may vary). One publisher may call it an opinion piece and one may call it just an article. It would be factually inaccurate to describe in the article something that O'Hanlon writes as a "statement by the Brookings Institution" or preface it with "According to the Brookings Institution". It's just a statement by him, not by the organization as a whole. So, I think the best wording would be something like "In December 2007, Micheal O'Hanlon stated that". It would be problematic to add the label "opinion piece" to that sentence-- since O'Hanlon believed that his report was unbiased, vertifiable fact and he initally published it as such-- so tags like that ought to be left out.
I would caution, though, about soap-boxing. But it's not soap-boxing if it's just restating the views of foreign policy experts, government officals with experience in the area, et cetera.
What is the section on "Effects on Elections" supposed to be saying? Beats me! Honestly, why should we have a section that's devoted to nothing but rank speculation on future events? What's the point? This is an article based on facts in the present and in the past-- not guesstimations about how the next election will turn out. I think that the section should be deleted in its entirety. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All Jewish?!

I removed the external link that opines on the ethnic heritages of the surge's supporters. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The article's structure = Thoughts

As a reader, the mixture of quotes, encylopedia-style prose, and timelines in the article makes it sort of difficult to read. The article is also incomplete on a lot of things.

For example:

  • November 30, 2007: U.S. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), an outspoken congressional critic of the Iraq war said he saw signs of significant military progress during a brief trip to the Middle East last week.
"I think the 'surge' is working."Murtha: Surge is working

Murtha clarified what he meant soon afterward. He stated that: "The fact remains that the war in Iraq cannot be won militarily, and that we must begin an orderly redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as practicable" and that the Iraqi government has "failed to capitalize on the political and diplomatic steps that the surge was designed to provide."

Having the content of the article in timeline form leads to this kind of problem. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't see a problem with having a timeline. It is a standard way of demonstrating a series of events. I think Wikipedia is supposed to be modeled as an encyclopedia. As far as being incomplete, that is the nature of Wikipedia, it is an open encyclopedia that is created by its readers. The claification of Murtha's comments are valid. You should include them in the article to complete his comments.Angncon (talk) 06:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I added some new information to the "Timeline" section. One part that I think that really needs expansion is the "results" section. There's a lot of content at Report_to_Congress_on_the_Situation_in_Iraq#Response that would also fit in this article, and vise versa. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


There has actually been ten reports to congress by the DOD with respect to progress in Iraq. They are required by law every three months. The latest one reported in December 14, 2007. The September one is is the most recognized one due to Congress calling on Gen. Petraeus to testify in person. Here is the latest one http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/FINAL-SecDef%20Signed-20071214.pdf Angncon (talk) 07:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


The reason that I bring up the September Report is that it brought a lot of comments by third party sources-- interest groups, think tanks, military experts, big news stories-- as to the success/failure of the surge. This article should mention that report in depth, not in passing, since it was a major event in public opinion twoards the war. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


  • Revision of the "Results" section: Proposals [part I of a series]

1)The benchmarks paragraph should be in the "Poltics and economy" subsection. It could probably be trimmed to The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported on September 2, 2007 that the Iraqi government had only met three of the eighteen benchmarks created by the US Congress in June 2006, a success rate of only 16.67%. As noted within this report, these benchmarks originate from criteria established dating back to June 2006. Context could be added from the Petreaus report article: On September 14, a White House survey reported "satisfactory" progress on 9 of the 18 benchmarks.[16] Lionel Beehner of the nonpartisan Council of Foreign Relations has called the benchmarks "vague because the metrics to measure them are imprecise."[17] The New York Times stated on May 13 that "Nobody in Washington seems to agree on what progress actually means — or how, precisely, it might be measured."[18] General David Petraeus has stated that his troop level recommendations to Congress are not dependent on the Iraqi government's ability to meet the benchmarks.[19]

2) The actual contents of Petraeus' report needs to be expanded. See what the report's article itself says: Petraeus concluded that "the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met". He cited what he called recent consistent declines in security incidents. He partially attributed those declines to recent blows dealt against Al-Qaeda during the surge. He added that "we have also disrupted Shia militia extremists, capturing the head and numerous other leaders of the Iranian-supported Special Groups, along with a senior Lebanese Hezbollah operative supporting Iran's activities in Iraq." He argued that Coalition and Iraqi operations had drastically reduced ethno-sectarian violence in the country, though he stated that the gains were not entirely even. As such, he recommended a gradual drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq, with a goal of reaching pre-surge troop levels by July 2008. Troop reductions would continue past this point as the situation warrants. Despite allegations that Petraeus' report would be written by the White House[4], Petraeus insisted that he had written this testimony himself, without it having "been cleared by, nor shared with, anyone in the Pentagon, the White House, or Congress."[5]

3) The response to the report should be mentioned. This could be added: The report generated partisan reactions. Some members of the House Foreign Affairs and Armed Services Committees regarded the testimony as a publicity stunt; Representative Ike Skelton stated that “Iraqi leaders have made no progress".[1] Democratic Representative Robert Wexler of Florida accused Petraeus of "cherry-picking statistics" and "massaging information".[1] Republican Presidential candidate Duncan Hunter called the report "a candid, independent assessment given with integrity".[10] Republican Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona stated that "I commend General Petraeus for his honest and forthright assessment of the situation in Iraq."[11] Anti-war liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org published a full-page ad in The New York Times on September 10, 2007 accusing Petraeus of "cooking the books for the White House". The ad also labeled him "General Betray Us".[23] On September 20, the Senate passed an amendment by Republican John Cornyn of Texas condemning the ad. All 49 Republican Senators and 22 Democratic Senators voted in support.[24][25]

Three other reports on the current situation in Iraq-- a General Accounting Office study, a National Intelligence Estimate, and an independent commission assessment by retired general James L. Jones-- were published for Congress around the same time as Petraeus' report. USA Today compared the four reports' findings.[33] The New York Times also did so.[34] In December 2007, The Washington Post's "Fact Checker" stated that "While some of Petraeus's statistics are open to challenge, his claims about a general reduction in violence have been borne out over subsequent months. It now looks as if Petraeus was broadly right on this issue at least".[35]

4) Ambassador Crocker's Testimony made at the same time as Petreaus' should be mentioned in the "politics" section. See what the report's article itself says: Though Crocker acknowledged slow political progress in many areas, and a lack of progress on many important pieces of legislation, he argued that, "a secure, stable democratic Iraq at peace with its neighbors is attainable." Though a national framework has fallen short of being implemented legislatively in key issues such as oil distribution, he observed that "even in the absence of legislation there is practical action as the central government shares oil revenues through budget allocations on an equitable basis with Iraq's provinces." He pointed out that provincial gains have been more pronounced, explaining that "there is abundant evidence that the security gains have opened the door for meaningful politics."[6]

24.32.208.58 (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of the changes in your #1 are valid. However, the amount of information on Gen Petraeus' testimony would be too much. The article is about the surge. There has been a lot of rebuttals to his report, and putting this much information on a related subject would start a WP:CFORK. I would suggest maybe starting another article based on his report and linking it. I think to maintain neutrality, a comment on the report, along with a comment on rebuttals to the report would be sufficient for the article. Angncon (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The report does have its own seperate article-- Report to Congress on the Situation in Iraq. While I see that 3) would arguably be a Pov fork, do you think that the information in 1), 2), and 4) are relevant to this article? 24.32.208.58 (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


I don't think that Petraeus' testimony should be expanded for the same reason that opinion articles should not be included. It doesn't add any facts to the article, and is just soap-boxing. As far as ambassador Crocker and the politicians rebuttals, because they are key American leaders, their opinions on the subject are very relevant. Because of this, it would be 'technically' correct to add their statements, however, this article is on the troop surge, not the Petraeus report. We don't need to start a content fork.
I believe that is would be enough to state that some politicians agree (cite all references) while some disagree (cite all references). This would maintain a neutral point of view and will not convolute the article.Angncon (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


Okay, I've added material to the "Iraq's security" section. I've left all the poltical quotes from 3) out and added in the facts from 1), 2), and 3). So, there are just two statements of opinion in the "Iraq's security" section right now with everything else as vertifiable fact. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please fix "Results of the Iraq War troop surge of 2007" "Iraq's political system and Iraq's economy"

I'm new to this, so I apologize if I'm going about this wrong.

The paragraph 'USA Today stated on February 17, 2008 that US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker "may be hard-pressed to argue that Iraqis have met political benchmarks Congress sought" and contrasted the poltical progress with the recent military progress.[92]' is all messed up.

For starters, the footnote referenced is [92], which is a report by the Brookings Institute, not a USA Today article.

The correct footnote is [86], which refers to http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-17-Iraqcongress_N.htm

I'd also contend that the quote chosen ("may be hard-pressed to argue that Iraqis have met political benchmarks Congress sought") is a gross mischaracterization of the general thrust of the cited article. For starters, the complete sentence is 'Crocker may be hard-pressed to argue that Iraqis have met political benchmarks Congress sought, but in recent days the Iraqi parliament passed a budget, a provincial governance law and an amnesty law that Adnan al-Dulaimi, a Sunni lawmaker, called "the greatest achievement possible for the Iraqi people."'

Another USA Today article (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-02-13-iraq-laws_N.htm) characterizes the passing of the three laws as: 'Iraq's parliament took its biggest step yet toward reconciling the country's rival factions Wednesday, passing three benchmark pieces of legislation that had been demanded by Washington.' and is titled 'In surprise deal, Iraqi parliament passes three laws long-sought by U.S.'

Bottom line is that the passing of these three pieces of benchmark legislation is a BIG deal, and it's not even mentioned in the results.

Itsasecret1983 (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The article mentions: On February 13, 2008, the Iraqi parliament passed three legislative issue that were considered contentious. The three measures were an amnesty law, a law that defines the scope of provincial powers, and the budget for 2008. The amnesty law was one of the benchmarks set by president Bush. The provincial powers law includes a provision for provincial elections, another key benchmark. And the budget should pave the way for the creation of up to 700,000 new jobs for Iraqis. 129.120.185.224 (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Effect on elections - Should be fixed or removed?

The "Effect on elections" section has POV issues where selectively positive and negative narrow reinforcements have been introduced for different candidates. In order to remove the POV issues, we need quite a bit more expansive detail and analysis in this area... but, is that truly the purpose of Wikipedia?

Does this section even truly belong here? Based on Wiki guidelines, I vote for removal of this section. Even if we dig up more facts, polls, etc. that show the surge isn't truly hurting the Democrats (which I CAN do, BTW)... is it really the role of Wikipedia to harbor this pure conjecture and Wiki-analysis either way? No. Cowicide (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I would also support removal, given that the section is based on predictions rather than encylcopedic facts. The Squicks (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)