Talk:Iraqi insurgency/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Class of resistance

i find it incredibly offensive to state that somehow the 'upper classes' and 'educated' are somehow inherently non-violent, while the 'lower classes' and 'uneducated' are somehow inherently pro violent. let me remind you that although gandhi and king were middle class themselves, a large portion of their followers, indeed their foot soldiers in their marches, were 'lower class' and 'uneducated'. let me also remind you that upper class educated people are the ones who started the invasion in iraq. and upper class educated people have presided over some of the most brutal dictatorships of the 20th century, including Mobutu in Zaire, not to mention others. if this is 'neutral point of view' then i am a polkadotted rhinocerous.

Which part of the article are you referring to? I agree with you btw. If anything, the vast majority of violence comes from more or less 'educated' 'upper classes', although typically they manage to convince other people to do it for them. They are the ones who command armies and have their fingers on the nuclear button.The Iraq war is the obvious example for that. - pir 01:07, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I understand your point, but I think your'e taking that part of the article in the wrong way. All I'm saying was that the majority of Sadr's support comes from the poor, which is a fact. Most people living comfortable lives see no pressing need for action; on the other hand, people without jobs, electricity, or water could easily be driven to extreme measures. By the way, personally, I'm hardly for the Bush campaign, but I'm doing my best to keep politics out of here. I'm stating the facts, as my best research has led me to believe. Sometimes the facts don't fit in perfectly with a liberal or a conservative mindset.

Number of coalition casualties

The number of coalition casualties should be corrected not to misrepresent the success of guerilla attacks. Of the 568 American casualties, for example, only 385 are from actual hostilities. See AP article on a summary of the war in Iraq, one year later (search on "casualties of war").

Is there a source for the claim that most of the Islamicist fighters are "free-lance"? It sounds like speculation.

In response to the comment, the assertion that most foreign Islamist fighters are freelance is based on the conclusions of analysts and interviews with the insurgents themselves. I will add that it is not definite that most are not freelance, but that is the general consensus. If you have any other suggestions, feel free to post them. Thankyou

Does anyone notice anything that appears to have been left out or needs to be corrected? It would be a great help if you would share your own knowledge or opinion on the occupation, the Iraqi resistance, guerilla warfare, or any related topics. Thankyou.


Where can I find the actual statistics on the number of guerilla attacks that occured in Iraq in a given month? Preferably a graph starting from May 1, 2003.

The exact number of guerilla attacks per month has been classified by the U.S military. However, we know that there were a total of 3,643 guerilla attacks from the beginning of May to the end of November, 2003, as reported by the Boston Globe http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/11/29/guerrilla_war_in_iraq_spreading/. As of mid-February, a total of over 4,700 guerilla attacks have been logged. Attacks from the end of May to October averaged a dozen a day, following which there was an increase to 18 a day in late October and large spike to as many as 50 a day in early November. Attacks began declining from that high in late November until they reached 15 a day by the beginning of January. The massive U.S counteroffensive known as Operation Iron Hammer, an influx in aid money to placate the population, and finally the capture of Saddam Hussein all served to bring about the decrease. These events caused heavy insurgent losses, both material and psychological, especially for guerilla elements associated with the former regime. In response, the attacks slowed as the guerillas went through a period of reorganization and evaluation of U.S tactics. The attacks rebounded somewhat at the beginning of February, however, to 22 a day.

The use of the term insurgent is somewhat loaded. It implies a degree of legitimacy for the US-led occupation which itself would be viewed by many as an insurgency. I think the term resistance, when used in context, is slightly more objective, and should thus be used here. --prat 00:05, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)

Thankyou for your input into this article. I appreciate the suggestions you have given me for the article. On the use of the term insurgent, I don't believe that describing the resistance as an insurgency compromises any objectivity. If I called them terrorists, or if on the other hand I called them freedom fighters, that would be very subjective. The resistance, which is in essence a guerilla-style rebellion against U.S-led occupation forces, fits the dictionary definition of an insurgency. I will not go about changing the wording once again, however, and I am satisified with the changes. Thankyou again for your help.

Sorry to labour the point, but the Iraqi resistance doesn't necessarily fit the dictionary definition of an insurgency because an insurgency is "specifically : a condition of revolt against a recognized government that does not reach the proportions of an organized revolutionary government and is not recognized as belligerency" (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition). Think how often "insurgency" is used to describe the activities of the French resistance during WW2, say... They're just called "the resistance". If they were only fighting the local government perhaps "insurgency" would be fair, but for now they are fighting a foreign occupation too.

November 31?

From the article:

Occasions where fighters were concentrated in larger numbers included a battle near the town of Rawa on June 13, 2003 near the Syrian border and a large coordinated ambush of a convoy in the town of Samarra on November 31. Both involved groups of roughly 100 fighters.

It wasn't until I added some links to this article that I noticed the 2nd date was bogus: the month of November only has 30 days. While I assumed this was just a typo & fixed it, it's possible that this bogus date was a flag to show this 2nd attack is a hoax. Could someone far more knowledgeable than me verify that there was such an attack, & if so, what the correct date was? -- llywrch 17:37, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I apologize for the typo error. The battle described did indeed occur in Samarra on November 30, 2003 (see http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/30/sprj.irq.main/index.html for reference).

What is the source for those photos ? Ericd 22:31, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm stating the obvious, but feel free to post any questions you have on the topic of this article here in the discussion section. Any updates and any additional information you might have would be very welcome in the article.

"Private contractors" or Mercenaries?

Is the expression "private contractors working for the alliance forces etc.." more accurate or "mercenaries hired by the anglo/american armies" more accurate?

"Private contractors" sounds like innocent civilians, the Aegis and Blackwater dudes can't be even be held responsible for war-crimes...reportedly they have been committing most of them?

"Alliance forces" sounds like "allied forces" the good-guys of WW2... "Axis" of Evil anyone? And is it really an wide alliance as the name would suggest? There is only nominal participation from countries beside US and UK....

What is POV and what is NPOV? I don't know...

Any opinions on this?

I think the term used to refer to the Mercenaries/Security Contractors should be based on (1) historical usage, (2) the tasks they are assigned, (3) which term most accurately conveys their role, (4) the definition of Mercenary in the Geneva Conventions.
(1) I read John Stockwell's book, In Search of Enemies. Stockwell was a senior CIA case officer who played a senior role in the 1974/75 proxie war in Angola. Part of his job was to interview the leaders of the Mercenary groups. He never called them anything other than mercenaries. If America was not involved in this war there is absolutely no way the deceptive euphemism "private military contractors" would be used to refer to them. I believe, in other conflicts, mercenaries are always referred to as mercenaries.
(2) When those four Blackwater Mercenaries died in the firefight in Fallujah, and their corpses were desecrated, the Media described them merely as "Contractors". It was easy to get the impression that they were civilians, construction workerss, or reasonable equivalent. I was fooled, for several days, and I regard myself as a cynic, who is paying attention.
(3) If these guys were filling roles similar to the security guards at the mall, or even the more dangerous role of picking up and delivering cash money, like a Brinks guard, I would have no objection to refering to them as security guards, or "private contractors". But these guys are fulfilling tasks that in all earlier conflicts were filled by regular soldiers. Wait. That is not quite true. They term "private contractor" is also being used to refer to people who are hired to do tasks that in other conflicts were filled by permanent, fulltime CIA agents. Many of the characters who were involved in the interrogation, and abuse, of the Iraqi prisoners were comrades of the mercenaries who worked for they worked for.
(4) I don't think there is any question that they meet the definition of "mercenary" defined in the Geneva Conventions.
(5) I understand the importance of NPOV, and avoiding inflammatory language. It makes articles like this one hard to write. But should attempts to be NPOV prevent us from writing articles that are truthful. Let me make an analogy. Suppose we were writing an article on institutional slavery, in a world where instittutional slavery, like in the antebellum American South, was still in practice? Would we call the slaves, slaves? Or would we let their corporate owners trick us into using some kind of euphemism? If Would we refer to a someone like Spartacus as a labor leader? Would we refer to slave revolts as "labor unrest"? I sure hope not. And I don't think our intention to write articles that aren't inflammatory should lead us to use euphemism that mask the truth.
(6) The widespread, clandestine use of Mercenaries is used to hide some of the costs of the War from the American public. The British are represented as the 2nd largest international force fighting for the Coalition. But there are more than twice as many mercenaries fighting in Iraq than there are British soldiers and Marines. There are approximately as many mercenaries fighting in Iraq as all the other members of President Bush's Coalition, put together. Casualties among the mercenaries don't show up and add to President Bush's embarrassment that the casualties since he stood under the "Mission Accomplished" banner are about seven times greater than the casualitise from the "Major combat operations".
(7) One of the conditions a combabant has to meet to be considered a legal combatant is that they served under responsible officers, in an unbroken chain of command, that reported to, and was answerable to, a real government. This has not been true of the mercenaries fighting in Iraq. They are not subject to the UCMJ. Nor are they subject to Iraqi Justice, thanks to Mr Bremer. Blackwater Security publishes a newsletter. A journalist got on the mailing list for this newsletter. Not long after Marine General James Mattis stirred up controversy by giving a speech about how it was "fun to kill" the Blackwater newsletter published an editorial supporting General Mattis that talked about the satisfaction Blackwater employees had felt when they killed Iraqis.
(8) If America was to suddenly withdraw, leaving mercenaries to be captured, they would not be POWs. They could face war crime charges. Let's be honest in how we refer to them. I vote "mercenary". -- Geo Swan 11:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
-->Adding it in here to respond to discussion. You totally misunderstand the important distinction between mercenaries and security contractors . Mercenaries act in place of soldiers to actively fight a war. The U.S. does not use mercenaries at all (such a prohibition is written into law). Security contractors are only armed for self defense to defend people or infrastructure and do so by contract. They are only permitted to take actions associated with their contract mission to defend and they cannot take action after the defense duties end. They do not have objectives and are not authorized for such missions as taking falujia or finding Sadaam. --Noitall 18:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)


Thankyou for your opinion. I agree with you about the term "alliance." I'm not the one who started using that and I've been removing it from the article. On the issue of the mercenaries/contractors, I think that the term "mercenary" would be too biased in the opposite direction, but you're right, private contractor might not be best either. How about "private security contractor?" Do you think that will be far enough?

I removed the description of the 2003 invasion of Iraq as "illegal"; although that's an arguable case, it's unnessecary to state that here and clearly indicates a bias.

I'm going to condense the article slightly, while leaving all the same information in. There is some redudancy. I did this before, but someone restored what I removed for some reason.

Why not call them mercenaries if that's what they are? "Private security contractors" sounds like weasel words to me. While the war and foreign occupation continues surely it's only fair to call these people "mercenaries" even if they argue that they're just doing "security support".

I changed the photo caption to 'military contractor' and had it reverted for POV reasons and because according to Geneva Convention terminology they weren't 'Military'. I dispute the need to follow GC terminology, but will happily use it to avoid confusion and an edit war. By the same token, using 'Civilian' suggests more than just 'non-military' to readers who aren't conversed with the GC.
I'm changing it to 'security contractor', hopefully this minimises any incorrect readings of civilian and military.
Again, 'civilian contractors' is redundant, if anything else is POV, why not just call them contractors?
Lastly, in researching the case I discovered that they were all Americans, I trust there is no POV issue with including this? Ashmoo 7 July 2005 02:00 (UTC)
Noitall, why did you change American to Coalition in the caption? Surely, American isn't POV. My aim is to get the greatest amount of NPOV info into the small number of words. Isn't American more specific than the vaguer Coalition? Ashmoo 8 July 2005 06:15 (UTC)
They work for the Coalition to guard Iraqi infrastructure and personnel. --Noitall July 8, 2005 07:39 (UTC)
Sure, but why use the vaguer term? Coalition is assumed when American is used, but not the other way around. Ashmoo 8 July 2005 13:35 (UTC)
  • You have it somewhat wrong. When it is American soldiers you can say American soldiers because they do not work for the Coalition (even if the American policy is to support the Coalition, they do not work for them). But contractors who work for the Coalition work for the Coalition. --Noitall July 8, 2005 14:15 (UTC)
So are you saying that there are both 'American security contractors' and 'Coalition security contractors'? If not, my argument still stands, doesn't it? Ashmoo 07:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
That is not what I stated. --Noitall 17:25, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
That's my point. If we say 'American security contractors' the reader knows that they are American AND that they work for the Coalition, as all American sec. contractors work for the Coalition. If we say 'Coalition security contractors' the reader knows one less thing (their nationality). So why would we prefer to use a word that conveys less information? If you feel this is some sort of POV issue, please outline it so that we aren't talking at cross purposes. Sincerely, Ashmoo 01:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, last time. Using anything else but Coaltion is inaccurate. You are focused on nationality, but in general, I think you are quite wrong since many are not American. In any event, it is irrelevant. The issue is not whether they have a valid U.S. citizenship but whether they are working for the Coalition. --Noitall 05:37, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Let's keep this civil, hey? I'm focusing on nationality because in every report of wartime casualities I've seen, if the nationality of the dead are known it is included. It seems it is something people want to know. Very rarely is the legal employer of the victims mentioned until later in an article.
You also said:
I think you are quite wrong since many are not American.
What am I wrong about? Surely what is relevant is a matter of opinion? And what does 'many' refer to, I'm having trouble parsing the sentence.
In the end it seems to come down to whether the nationality of the victims, or who they are working for, is more important to include in a photo caption. Do you agree? And I believe using American gives both pieces of info, whereas Coalition only gives the later.
It would be nice to get a 3rd party's opinion. Regards, 23:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
When something happens to a U.N. Peacekeeper, we don't try to find out what country s/he is a citizen of when addressing in an article. When an article talks about Kofi Annan, they don't say Ghana Secretary-General of the United Nations. --Noitall 00:00, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

--Noitall 00:00, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well, you're wrong about UN Peacekeepers. Do a search of UN Peacekeeper deaths and the first sentence will invariably mention the nationality of the deceased. We are talking about wartime deaths, so Kofi Annan isn't particularly relevant.
Additionally, it is ambiguous whether Coalition refers to the Coalition of the Willing or the Coalition Provisional Authority. Ashmoo 01:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
You are right about the Peacekeepers, but they maintain their identity under the UN mantle. Kofi is an example because he does not maintain his identity under the UN mantle. Likewise, contractors working for the Coalition work for the Coalition and do not have a separate identity. --Noitall 06:04, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand your argument here. What do you mean by maintain their identity? We are trying to decide what is the most relevant info to put into a photo caption Ashmoo 06:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
They do not maintain a separate identity, i.e. Ghanese President of the U.N. I suppose you could write a whole bio on each of them, when they came to America or another country, how they were hired, former military, peace corp, do-gooder, men or women, black or white, African-American or Irish, their job description, etc. It is all irrelevant to the picture caption. --Noitall 07:36, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Now we are getting somewhere. Basically, we have a bunch of info about the photo: location (Fallujah), events (killed, burnt & hanged), number (4), nationality (American), gender (male), employer (Blackwater), employer's employer (CPA) etc.
We need to decide what is most important/relevant to fit into the space provided. Do you agree with me so far? (I don't mean this rhetorically, I really want to know if you agree with this).
What we are arguing about is whether nationality or employer is more important? Do you agree with this?

Ashmoo 00:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The picture itself says nothing about almost any of this. And, as I stated, I believe their bio, which would include all the things and interests I listed, including whether married, number of children, state or country they lived in, health, salary, bonuses, etc. is irrelant to anything on this article. --Noitall 01:09, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say here. I'm honestly trying to grasp your position, so when I end a sentence with a '?' I'm hoping you will answer the question I posed.
The 'etc' was meant to include all of the interests, so we have: location (Fallujah), events (killed, burnt & hanged), number (4), nationality (American), gender (male), employer (Blackwater), employer's employer (CPA), married, number of children, state or country they lived in, health, salary, bonuses, etc.
Obviously, most of these are irrelevant for a photo caption. So far we seem to agree (correct me if I'm wrong) that event 'Mutilated', location 'Fallujah' & occupation 'security contractor' are relevant. The contention is over employer/nationality.
Is this right by your understanding? Ashmoo 01:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


Non-military and civilian targets

Hi Noitall, me again. I'd just like to clarify your "Non-military and civilian targets - earlier reactionary revert of a good and balanced edit" edit. Are you accusing me of being reactionary? Is so, please refrain from making personal attacks, however mild (ie assume good-faith). If not, I apologise for misreading your comment.

Now, some explanation of my changes:

Militants have targeted private contractors working for the coalition as well as other non-coalition support personnel. Some have attempted to label such contractors as mercenaries ...

There are 2 types of contractors in Iraq. non-combat contractors such as telecoms engineers, cooks, accountants etc, and combat contractors, such as security personnel. What the first quoted sentence is supposed to say is unclear, as the link goes to 'private military contractors'. Is it drawing a comparison between non-combat/combat personnel or between contractors under contract to the Coalition as opposed to other organisations? If the distinction is non/combat, then having only 'private contractors' gives no indication to the reader that it refers to people employed for their combat training.

Secondly, I didn't remove the rest of your comments about 'mercenaries' because of any POV issue. Basically, I think it is an unnecessary tangent in an article on Iraq Insurgency. I think it would be better in the 'private military contractors' entry. Ashmoo 03:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The action was reactionary, but since you are talking it out, it is not. I take it back. You stated the issue ok, "private contractors" are used broadly for anything. "Security contractors" are there to protect infrastructure and people. I think it important in this section to discuss this issue, which seems to be brought up a lot in this page and in the media in general. My edit was intended to address both the broad "private contractors" category and the subset "security contractors." I do not have a problem with anyone trying to make my edit more clear or otherwise better it, so go ahead (as you can see, it only the reversions, if I made a good faith edit effort, that drive me nuts). --Noitall 03:50, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ok. But I think the discussion on whether 'security contractors' are 'mercenaries' doesn't belong in an article on Iraqi insurgency. I agree it is a valid subject of discussion, but people come to this article to read about the Insurgents and Insurgency, not contraversies surrounding the organisational structure of their opponents (unless the contraversy affects the insurgents tactics, ideology etc).
I really think the whole paragraph should be moved, but won't do it until I get your ok. Regards, Ashmoo 04:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


History section

I mv'ed the history section to it's own article. This was done to lighten the bulk of that section ... the bytes should be a lil less now for the article. Anything past the transfer should go here and mabey added to the main article after some time [mabey? mabey not] ... JDR

"Reconstruction"

I'm very unhappy with the term "reconstruction" to denote the period after the Allawi takeover, because it is highly POV. Check e.g. [1] for what "reconstruction" is going on according to a Reuters photographer who was there. We need to agree on a different word for this period. I propose something like "interim government" period if that's fine with other people. It is also POV to suggest that the occupation has ended when up to 200'000 foreign troops are still in Iraq, carrying out military action. - pir 10:14, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reconstruction is a good term. The people of Iraq, striving to reclaim their freedom, which was usurped by the previous tyrannical regime, rejecting violence and coercion in all their forms, and particularly when used as instruments of governance, have determined that they shall hereafter remain a free people governed under the rule of law. It is a period for Iraq as the occupying powers by the the United States-led multinational force in Iraq forms the new Iraq interim government and prepares for the country's elections. It is not POV to suggest that the occupation has ended ... Iraq is sovereign. The 200'000 foreign troops are still in Iraq, carrying out military action at the behest of the Iraqi government. JDR

Talk pages are not there to discuss politics but to discuss writing the article. "Reconstruction" is not a NPOV term and I'd like us to agree on a different one to avoid an edit war. As for "occupation", the legitimacy of the interim government is disputed and regarded as a puppet by many, and this POV must not be excluded from the accepted terminology for the article to be NPOV. I'm not being unreasonable here. pir 12:19, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm not discussing politics ... I'm discussing the facts.
"Reconstruction" is a NPOV term. What different term is there? Reconstruction will include your "interim government period" as well as any other events ("failures" and "successes") that will occur till the elections next year. The legitimacy of the interim government is disputed (note that fact) ... but the country is still undergoing a reconstruction. As to the interm gov being regarded as a puppet by many? Yes ... as many thought that the "Reconstructed South" after the US Civil War was a puppet. JDR
" The Reuters reporter I spoke to had been to several KBR-built permanent American military bases in his six month tour of Iraq. "That's where the oil industry money is going," he told me. "Billions of dollars. Not to infrastructure, not to rebuilding the country, and not to helping the Iraqi people. It's going to KBR, to build those bases for the military." According to the Center for Public Integrity, Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root has made $11,475,541,371 in Iraq as of July 1. ... As for the corporate takeover of the Iraqi oil industry, that has become the prime mission of the American soldiers engaged there. Kellogg Brown & Root also does a tidy business in the oil-infrastructure repair market. "The troops aren't hunting terrorists or building a country," said the Reuters photographer. "All they do is guard the convoys running north and south. The convoys north are carrying supplies and empty tankers for the oil fields around Mosul and Tikrit. The convoys south bring back what they pull out of the ground up there. That's where all these kids are getting killed. They get hit with IEDs while guarding these convoys, and all hell breaks loose." " [2]
So building military bases is "reconstruction"? What the Bush men mean by "reconstruction" is most of all a giant subvention for Halliburton et al. Much of the money is not for reconstruction of infrastructure. The money spent does not help to reconstruct the Iraqi economy because it all goes to Western companies. The term "reconstruction" is about as NPOV as "corporate takeover of Iraq" - I guess you'll obejct to me using that word. What's wrong with "interim government period"? - pir 12:59, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1st ... i just did a search in this article. The word "reconstruction" only occurs 4 times.
2nd ... For info on the reconstruction of Iraq, see that article.
3rd ... The "interim government period" is a subset of "Reconstruction".
4th ... Your POV is very appearant, JIMO.
Sincerely, JDR
Of course I have a point of view, did I claim to be so stupid as not to have an opinion of my own? Did I hide my opinions? You have an obvious POV too, and there's nothing wrong with that. Your and my opinions are completely irrelevant in this however, because the only thing which matters is whether the article is NPOV. I do my best to make my edits NPOV and I think I achieve that most of the time. The article as it stands is not NPOV, and I don;t see you making an effort to adress the issue. You have not responded to any of them. What's wrong with "interim government period"? - pir 13:17, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 : Did you try hide your opinion in the edits? yes ... as a commentary ...
 : The article was pretty NPOV before. The article as it stands is not NPOV.
 : What's wrong with "interim government period"? It's a subset of the reconstruction [did u miss that?] JDR
That is not an argument against using the "interim government period". "Interim government period" is a very useful designation, because (1) it is NPOV ; (2) the situation in Iraq now is well characterised by interim government rule, and it will change again when (or maybe I should say if) there are elections and an elected government takes over. If you don't like it please come up with a useful alternative. - pir 15:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Specificall, please state HOW is it NPOV?
The phrase "interim government period" is a designation of one part of the total reconstruction.
There was a reconstruction of Germany ... there was a reconstruction of Japan ... there is now a reconstruction of Iraq. Each had a interim government rule that changed.
The current interim government rule may change (especially when the elections are held) ... but reconstruction will go on. I do not know of a useful alternative, do u have any?
JDR (PS., this is senseless, reconstruction is a NPOV term. I removed the tag. If you want to rephrase the sentences ... please do. BUT the article is pretty much NPOV. JDR 15:59, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC))
Explain one thing to me: why would the Iraqi resistance fight the "reconstruction"? They want the foreign troops and their collaborators out, just like any other resistance movement. What kind of strategy do they follow by targetting the "reconstruction"? - pir 19:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Sabotage and other violent actions are intended to set back reconstruction efforts and to push back progress in Iraqi society towards democracy. The authority is developing democracy is the so-called "collaborators". The violent resistance obeys no authority. Targetting "reconstruction" is key for them and the development of an open democarcy is not what they want. The non-violent group are not targetting the "reconstruction". JDR
"The authority" has as it's new head an ex-Baathist turned CIA collaborator(who worked for Saddam's feared secret service and later committed terrorist acts in Iraq, i.e. bombs targeting civilians) who at once clamped down on the freedom fo the press (banning al-Jazeera for example, re-installing on of Saddam's men to oversee the Iraqi media), it's in the process of restoring Saddam's secret service (renamed from Mukhabarat to General Security Directorate), they introduced a law for declaring martial law, Allawi is reported by a respected Australian newspaper to have killed six jailed suspects all by himself in June, they picked a fight with al-Sadr... - how exactly is that "developing democracy"?? And how exactly is blowing up oil installations pushing back democracy? Democracy isn't based on oil installations, it's based on people having control in a meaningful way over how their country is run.
Some people in the armed Iraqi resistance have an interest in joining the political process, like al-Sadr who can militarily be easily defeated, but who has a lot of political power. In a survey in May he was found to be the third most popular Iraqi political figure, far ahead of Allawi. Sadr clearly has political ambitions and he has made moves to join the political process, and this is also the reason why he has been targeted by "the authority". So I'm afraid, what you say makes no sense to me.
They are not targetting "reconstruction" because they don't like "reconstuction", they are targetting oil installations because they think their oil belongs to them and they don't think "The authority" has a right to use it. What the Iraqi resistance want is kicking out the foreign troops and their collaborators, who are their real target, and it's got nothing to do with reconstrucion. - pir 00:27, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Juan Cole - this article needs some analysis

First of all, there is nothing wrong with articles expressing POVs, as long as they are attributed rather than protrayed as "the truth", and as long as other significant POVs are not silenced. (I really don't think that Juan Cole can be accused of being particularly POV, he's an academic and knows much about the conflict.) So if there's other analysis of the outcome of the Najaf standoff that contradict Cole, please add them - I'd find that very interesting and support it 100%. But please don't keep removing it, as this article really needs some analysis. All the descriptive stuff is very important, but it is not sufficient to give readers a good understanding of what is happening in Iraq. - pir 13:10, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For more opinions on the Najaf outcome check this page. Note also non-Western opnions. A NPOV article needs to include at least the main of these opinions. [3] - pir 13:34, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with articles expressing POVs? YMMV on that ... but not in a history section. BTW, Juan Cole can be accused of being particularly POV, academics can be. Move the analysis of the outcome of the Najaf standoff (pro and con) to a more appropriate space. I'll remove POV disguised commentary in the history section. JDR 14:09, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Have you evr read the NPOV policy? Under the heading "the basic ceoncept of neutrality", it says:
Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic, is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view. -- Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder
The paragraph I added does just that: it describes what a well-informed and respected academic thinks of the situation. It might not even be my own POV, as I haven't made up my mind of the outcome of Najaf. You have no grounds to delete it. - pir 15:27, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Also: what is history but a collection of the views of historians???? - pir 15:28, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
History is what occurred ... you speak of interpretations of history. JDR
Are you serious? Do you believe that history is nothing but the sum of all events that occurred in the past, without any interpretation? Do you mean that the fact that John Doe got up at 7.08 on September 1 1923 and drank a half a pint of milk before going to work, is history with the same meaning as Hitler starting WW2 exactly 16 years later? How do we know Hitler started WW2? It's because historians have looked at documents from the time, evaluated the credibility of the sources and the importance of the data, analysed the data in their historical context, discarding irrelevant data (such as those about what millions of other John Does did at that time), etc. until they came to the opinion that this is what happened. That's what history is - the interpretation of data. - pir 18:40, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The timeline of events is what is important. That is history (both of your example would include this). Meaning, historical context, and opinion are a subjective interpertation of those events (or, of history) [such as importance; the "Doe example" is semmingly unimportant; the "Hitler example" is rather alot more important]. JDR
So you are saying that history is nothing but the meaningless collection of all facts that lie in the past. Weird. Never heard that definition of history before. - pir

As an aside, please note that the BBC's Middle East analyst essentially agrees with Juan Cole [4]. - pir 21:08, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reversion of changes by 164.58.80.66

I've just reverted an edit by User:164.58.80.66. His changes were IMO an NPOV violation; they had the article start with "The Iraqi insurgents (sometimes reffered as resistance by people with anti-US tone)". There may be NPOV problems with the article, 164.58.80.66, but putting a massive NPOV violation in the *first sentence* isn't the way to fix them. -- Cabalamat 18:32, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sourcing

I've temporarily removed the following, which really need to be sourced to be of any use:

Sheik Hareth al Dhari has been described as the Mullah Omar of Iraq

Some believe that the major division in Iraq is not between religious/ethnic groups nor between the general population and violent groups, but between those who collaborate with the foreign occupation and those who resist it

It's in the article linked to in the immediately preceding paragraph [5], paraphrasing the opinion of Wamidh Nadhmi, political scientist at Baghdad university and spokesman of the National Foundation Congress. Why weren't you consistent and removed the following sentence ("Though the divisions in Iraq between religious and ethnic groups (and, inparticular, between the general population and various violent groups) have became more appearant.) ? It's an unattributed, unsourced POV statement for which there is little evidence but quite a lot of evidence to the contrary. - pir 10:05, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I put one sentence back and (temporarily) removed the other. If there's a source or at least an attriution, please put it back if you like. - pir 19:46, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for both of those- I agree. Markalexander100 00:39, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Markalexander100 09:14, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also the following:

Some of the groups that have claimed responsibility for attacks on the coalition occupying forces and sabotage include the "Iraqi National Front of Fedayeen", "The Snake Party", and "The Return"

This was in the sabotage section, but it's expressed as covering any kind of attack, in which case it should be in the composition section. Markalexander100 09:20, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also:

Suicide bombers are used in larger attacks to gain maximum media attention.

Is this really meant to mean that the bombers deliberately kill themselves in order to get attention, rather than because this is an effective way to kill more of their enemies? If so, it needs sourcing. If not, it needs rewording. Markalexander100 09:23, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The reality is that this is primarily a psychological war. The way the war is perceived is actually much more important than the military situation. Since suicide bombing is such a shocking form of attack, and often can be more effective at grinding away at the will of the U.S and intimidating Iraqi police and other forces than just firing an RPG, it has become a favored insurgent tactic. That it is a more effective way for the insurgents to kill their enemies was mentioned elsewhere in the article. [Anon]

I don't believe a word of it. If we're going to include it, we need a source, and not to report is as indisputably true. Markalexander100 00:33, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Markalexander100. The only studies I've seen of the psychology of suicide bombers suggest that they are people who have been severely traumatised by conflict, like being tortured or the loss of a close relative  ; 2/3 of female suicide bombers are said to have lost ther husband or to have been raped. - pir 08:58, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also:

In Kufa, The identity of the attackers was unknown, reportedly though a source of gunfire was near an Iraqi National Guard base (20 killed; 70 wounded). [6] [7] [8] [9].

This is gibberish. Markalexander100 09:37, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's a silly beating-about-the-bush version to avoid saying the obvious (that the Allawi government shoots at peaceful marches) and not contradict the Western media orthodoxy (that Allawi is a good guy in a difficult situation). It needs rewording. - pir 10:05, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

POV phrases

Nationalists - Why are the fighters called Nationalists and not Patriots? Americans are never described as nationalistic. Americans are "patriotic,". The non-western world is never called patriotic, they're nationalistic; and those among them who fought for sovereignty and power are never patriots, but at best nationalists. Nationalism has a pejorative quality.

Foreign fighters - This is used in the article to refer to people who often have ethnic and religious ties with Iraq. Why are Americans in Iraq not called "foreign fighters."?

This is due to systemic bias (and, not inconsequently, undemocratic media ownership and the subsequent framing of public discourse). Wikipedia is a very anarchic example of history writing, but it's far from perfect. And there's not an awful lot Wikipedia or MediaWiki can do to counter it, because the problem is mostly one of demographics, economics and politics. i.e. things will get framed in a certain way because the people writing them are disproportionately white and male, disproportionately American, and disproportionately written by people from white collar backgrounds -- and these people hold a world-view different to other demographics. So, from my point of view, one of the best ways to counter such systemic bias on Wikipedia is to systematically get people involved in who are not white, male, American, or from a white collar background. Another would be to replace capitalism with democratic economics -- Christiaan 16:51, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. My questions were mainly rhetorical. I have an interest in systemic bias issues. - XED.talk 16:39, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I tried to edit a couple Iraq articles, but found that a couple -- especially this one -- were mostly held by British and American anti-Islamic bigots, and found that there was no point in trying at all (unless I enjoyed being the target of bigotted hate-filled flames), so I suspect the reason that this article is so obviously biased, is that it is defended by rabid supporters of the Bush propaganda machine, and it might be that no reasonable person will enjoy entering into such flame contests as they may throw at anyone failing to heed their party line... The fact that this is a wikipedia featured article was enough to make my interest in helping wikipedia rather wane -- this seemed to exemplify the dominance of rich white anti-Islamic bigotry, as mentioned above, in wikipedia Iraq articles. DonaldTrump
Okay, I assume you're talking about me since I responded to some of your earlier comments. You just called me (and/or the other people who have similar points of view) "bigoted", "anti-Islamic", "hate-filled", "rabid", plus the obvious stereotyping of "rich white American". Oh, and my comments are "flame contests". Perhaps you would like to point to a single comment I have made which was bigoted, hate-filled, or even merely uncivil? I'm not the one throwing adjectives around. By the way, your stereotyping is completely wrong. P.S. Please, and I ask for the third time, sign your comments. ObsidianOrder 09:51, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
To me (and probably to most rational people?), this "Go back to dailyKos or your al Qaeda cave or wherever you came from, idiot." is theh a token that an article is not open to real debate. I believe someone (I did not name you, as I do not know you or what you said, but if you wish the claim credit, apparently, I will not stop you) told me to hew the party line and treat the puppet government as a UN sanctioned savior, or something; it was so laughable I gave up. This whole article is so biased, as I thought was the discussion about in this little subthread, that there is really no point in trying to help it, as long as there are strong defenders of the propaganda-slant who will insist on keeping the bias. It is better to laugh at it, and show it to other people as a joke about the US propaganda on wikipedia, so that is what I do -- than to engage in petty little arguments with propagandists, which accomplish nothing.


Unintegrated addition

On 16:44, 24 Sep 2004, Jkh.gr added this large chunk to the foot of the page. It all seems good stuff, and it has been wikified a little since, but it seems to me that this ought to be either integrated further up the page (where some of the groups are already mentioned) or in a separate article of its own, say Iraqi resistance organizations? I could be bold, but I've not edited here before and I don't know the issues very well - do other contributors have a view? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ahmm... It's actually a copy-paste from an article posted to Indymedia. The original is from a newspaper in Baghdad, and was translated into English by FBIS. It's actually linked to in the external links ([10]). It's better to remove the text, it's probably a copyvio. - pir 20:00, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Conflict in Iraq" != "Iraqi Resistance"

There seems to be some people who insist that any mention of a "Conflict in Iraq" should be linked to this article, & not to the more comprehensive Occupation of Iraq, 2003-2004. I fail to understand the logic in this linking. This article, based on its subject line, is only about one party in this conflict: the individuals & groups opposed to the US forces & their allies. The article I've made an effort to redirect the phrase "Conflict in Iraq" to, "Occupation of Iraq, 2003-2004", not only covers both sides but also the larger history of the event. To use an anlogy, using this article to stand for the entire conflict would be exactly like using an article on the Soviet army or the German army alone for World War II, instead of that comprehensive article. Wouldn't you find it confusing & frustrating to follow a link from an article on, say, an Italian Blackshirt regiment or a Japanese warship to find it led to a discussion of the Soviet Army 1939-1945?

Frankly, I find it wrong to include events (for example) as the refusal of 19 Army Reservists stationed in Iraq to take part in a fuel delivery convoy mission under a header that is concerned only with the opposing side. The Iraqi Resistance did not have any direct effect on this refusal; this refusal is best included as a matter related to the more comprehensive article. Let's try to preserve the proper relationship between the articles, so that students consulting Wikipedia are helped, not confused. -- llywrch 18:33, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I apologize. I have been guilty of this for the past few weeks. I saw someone previously link to Iraqi resistance so I simply kept with precedent without realizing there even was a better article to link to. I don't know why it didn't occur to me but now that it has been pointed out I will link future Current events dealing with occupation of Iraq to the obviously better article Occupation of Iraq, 2003-2004. Thanks to llywrch for the heads up message sent via my user talk. -- Dejitarob 00:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

title

haven't read all the discussion points yet, so I apologize if this point has already been raised, but it's not really an Iraqi resistance. The article should be titled something else (I don't propose any specific title, but if you demand suggestions, Iraqi insurgency, Terrorism in Iraq, etc.

Ahmed

Sorry, I don't understand. Why do you think it's not an Iraqi resistance? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 14:41, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute?

Is the Neutrality Dispute notice still needed? If so, what statement are alleged to be POV, and how can we fix them? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 14:45, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

YEH!!! A notice of Bias is needed for this article

It only gives a description of resistance groups it never says why these were formed

I read an Article on French Resistance during the Second World War

This article outlined the causes of the resistance in very clear terms - We cannot discuss resistance without knowing how it was caused

Maybe these points should be considerd

The Iraq war was illegal in international law and it it is seen as such globally (Unless you happen to be an American or an Englishman)

Kofi Anan UN SEc General has also said this war was illegal Iraq did not support any terrorist activity that caused a danger to the USA Iraq had no weapons of Mass destruction The USA has dropped more bombs on Iraq than WW II Tourture has taken place in US controlled prisons 100,000 Iraqi men Women and Children Have died (BBC & Independent estimates Nov 6 - 2004)

The people resist against an illegal occupation just as the French did

The page on Iraqi resistance in this regard has a bais and does not tell the full story - If thousands of tons of bombs had been dropped on the USA - Americans would have formed into groups and resisted - Just as the USA attacked Al Quieda in Afganistan when their twin buildings were bombed with the loss of 3000 lives (BIG STORY)- Would you write about Al Quieda without mentioning the Twin Towers or the Warship Cole

Well 100,000 other human beings are a Big Story too and not to mention this in this article as the root cause of the people of Iraq to resist is a shame - if there is talk on Iraqi resistance than the USA must be mentioned and their crimes (yes crimes as the war was illegal & geneva coventions in prisons are not followed by US forces)in Iraq which cause the resistance

Lalit Shastri India


I'm sorry to say this, but the "causes of resistance" section simply demonstrates too much bias to be included here. I understand your point of view, and I personally share much of it, but it simply is not the type of material that should be put in what is meant to be an objective encyclopedia article. Information on the causes may be more scarce than would be perfect, but some information is included, if you care to look. That will have to be removed. This article really seems to be deteriorating.

Lalit, I understand that you think information is missing. But if the information present is not disputed, then it's best to discuss adding material here, as we're doing, instead of putting the "disputed" notice up. I'd like to suggest that the notice be removed, since the material in the article is good, and that we discuss separately whether adding new material would make it better.
Now as to that new material: the only good way to assess the motives of the Iraqi resistance is to read their statements on the matter. I don't know what the various resistance groups have to say about this, but that would be a good thing to add. As to the war's illegality, I seriously doubt that affects the resistance. If the U.N. would have sanctioned the war, would your average Iraqi fighter have cared much? I don't think so. It seems to me that he would simply see the U.S. as an occupier to be expelled, an infidel to be punished, and Kofi Annan's statements on the matter probably don't mean a thing to him. But the article should show whatever causes can be factually shown, by statement from resistors and the like. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 03:08, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
If the UN had sanctioned the war, a wider multinational force would have participated and the number of atrocities largely caused by the US force's lack of cultural understanding (attacking wedding parties for example) would have been avoided. - VikOlliver

"cause" of invasion

First of all, an invasion is not a natural disaster, like a flood. A flood is caused by rain or other physical phenomena. An invasion is planned and decided on by people, deliberately. So it makes no sense to speak of the "cause" of the invasion. Nothing "caused" it. The American government decided to invade Iraq. (And so did the UK).

Secondly, The invasion was based on a declaration by the president of the USA, subsequently found to be false, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. This is misleading, because it leaves out the other main reasons for the invasion: that Saddam was a threat to regional stablity, that he was an evil dictator who used chemical weapons to massacre a hundred thousand Kurdish Iraqis, and that he refused to comply with US Security Council demands. Bill Samman says that the Bush Administration decided to focus on the possession of WMD issue. But this was not the only reason, nor was it ever AFAIK presented as being sufficient in itself.

Bush used tanks and planes to kill 100,000 Iraqis (source: The Lancet). Why makes him any better than Saddam? --Cynical 21:55, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's foreign propaganda (and a Democratic Party campaign position) that alleged possession of WMD was THE reason for the invasion. Wikipedia should not endorse this propaganda or this campaign position. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 13:49, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

So Wikipedia should reflect US Republican propaganda only? - Xed 23:09, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, actually it should not reflect the views of the US Republican Party at all. Rather, it should report the most relevant views and attribute these views to their advocates. Wikipedia should not adopt any one POV on a controversial matter. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 20:07, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
What does foreign propaganda mean? People who aren't Iraqi? Some people seem to think the only relevant views worth reporting are US ones. Preferably of the party in power. It's the kind of head-in-the-sand position held by people who believe "all terrorists are Islamic". These people are better off sticking to drawing with crayons - Xed 20:20, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I meant "foreign to the US", because I was talking about the idea that "alleged possession of WMD was THE reason for the invasion" (i.e., the US-led invasion of Iraq). I'd like to see not only the two main US views, Republican and Democratic, but also any relevant non-US views. (I guess I should have said "non-US" instead of foreign, but I thought everyone reading this talk page already knew I was American. Hmm, maybe I should mention that at user:Ed Poor. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 20:30, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

I find it disturbing how people here are incapable of seperating themselves from their political ideologies when making contributions to these articles. I removed the extremely biased "Causes of Resistance" section; however, we should never say in the article that the positions taken in that section were "propaganda," as the person above did. We should put our energies to writing a better article (it has really fallen into dissaray, if you care to compare the way it looks now to the way it looked when it was nominated as a good article) rather than constantly scouting for "bias" and replacing the perceived bias with even stronger bias of our own.

Silverback is claiming that the UN authorized the US invasion/occupation

Any Evidence? --Alberuni 06:02, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The support for my statement is documented on the Occupation of Iraq page in the "United Nations Resolutions" section. My statement, as opposed to your characterization of it, does not go beyond this documentation.--Silverback 07:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tweaks

Super nice article, really enjoyed it. I fixed a few typos and tweaked the grammar here & there... invite any/everyone to check my work and make sure I didn't disrupt the overall flow somewhere, or introduce any errors myself.

jkl_sem 05:27, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I believe that it is incumbent upon us all, even if we are striving for impartiality and neutrallity to emphaisise form the start that the US led invasion and occoupation of Iraq was illegal according to Kofi Annan. UN Resolution 1441 had did not authorise violence. Furhter this attack on Iraq violated article 51 of the UN Charter and also violated the Nurember Princpiles and the Hague & Geneva Conventions.

Earlier resolutions authorized violence. The no fly zone was authorized and that was already an act of war, the first gulf war ended in only a truce. But as far as this article goes, it is all moot. The UN has recognized the current Iraqi government and the election process, the occupation is over, the majority Shiites will soon win the election. Any continuing resistance is anti-democratic and has not signed on to democractic principles within any timeframe.--Silverback 13:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The occupation remains [11]. No amount of mincing words will negate this fact. Christiaan 14:20, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Look at the date on your article, perhaps you should say "The occupation used to remain". Hopefully, the international coalition can avoid any reversion to the traditional Iraqi methods and the peaceful methods of democracy and respect for minority and individual rights will prevail.--Silverback 08:34, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The occupation remains. It matters not what the date of the article is, it is still pertanent. To argue that there is no occupation of Iraq is to be in a deep state of denial. Hopefully the Iraqi resistance, like many guerilla fighters before them, will oust the imperial invaders and stop this unilaterist US regime, that has been taken over by extremists, from taking the world to oblivion. Christiaan 9:45, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I sorry I am a bit bewildered. I understand that the point of view that interventions are always doomed to failure even if well intentioned. I also understand the point of view that violence always makes a situation worse. I also am deeply cynical about how Bush and Blair claim to be fighting for freedom in Iraq and are whittling it away at home. But you are saying that you hope the resistance will win. You like me are livving in Britain. Just imagine that both you and me are Irakis, livving in Baghdad, activists in, say, a tiny Iraki Ecological Party. Lets imagine that this is a year on and that Baghdad is about to fall to the resistance. I can tell you I'd be shitting myself. Would you really be saying then that “hopefully” the resistance will win? Dejvid 00:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Let me get this right: some white man's got his limp Depleted Uranium laden dick stuck in your desert, he's killed 100 000 of you invading your country, and half a million beforehand through brutal economic sanctions, he's still hanging around killing and torturing your neighbours [12] while he gets his economic interests in order and you're worried about a few of your brothers who want to kick the fucker out for being bad mannered? Yeah right, be bewildered Dejvid, that's what you're meant to be. I am shitting myself. I'm shitting myself that the U.S. might win; I'm shitting myself about the reassertion of imperial power and the derailing of international law. We know where this has lead the world before. I have no illusions that there will be free elections in Iraq today and nor would I if I was in a "tiny Iraqi Ecological Party". I stand by those in armed struggle against imperial tyranny; they're not threatening to take over the world. Christiaan 01:14, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hey you are stuck in group think and misattributing responsibility. Saddam could easily be considered responsible both for the death of the 100,000 innocent conscripts in Kuwait and for the continuing sanctions and the diversion of oil for food weath to weapons and palaces. In any case, all W has done is eliminate this monster at the cost of a few thousands of lives, and the continuing violence and lives lost are the responsibility of the insurgents. Why think in racist terms? Any who would rather be oppressed by one of their own kind than liberated by another is a racist and irrational. Perhaps it is a sad statement, but other than the obvious discontinuity on prescription and recreational drugs, the US is one of the most free and least corrupt nations on earth. --Silverback 05:22, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
>>I stand by those in armed struggle against imperial tyranny; they're not threatening to take over the world. >>
It is solely your support for the armed struggle I'm focussing on. I am can fully understand why someone in Falujah who has lost a brother might be angry enough to turn to armed resistance. American bombing after the "cesation of hostilities" was not merely wrong but stupid. Bremmer's delaying of elections and economic shock therapy was almost as if calculated to create support for the resistance. I am not the least bewildered that people who have no experiance of democratic society turn to the resistance. That doesn't change that the victory for the resistance will IMO be the end of any hope of a better life for all but those included in the new nomenklatura.
You hav givven me a better idea tho, of why you support the resistance. Thanks for that. You believ that the resistance does not aim to dominate the world but (by implication) that the US does. This seems to me to be a mirror image of the US in Afganistan. The strategy being - back the fundamentalists because that is the best way to beat Soviet imperialism (then) and US imperialism (now). I admit that I am not as hostile to you towards the US but even if you are right that is no reason to be blind to the kind of folk the resistance are. What you are saying is that the Iraqi people should be sacrificed to save the rest of the world. That is a POV that I disagree with but its a valid one but don't go on from that to be blind to what the resistance are all about. Or are the reports of voters of being attacked by suicide bombers today just BBC propaganda? Dejvid 14:35, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I propose removing the mysterious euphemism "traditional methods"

have the insurgents proposed any specific methods? Are all the methods peaceful? if not which ones are and aren't? Left unspecified, traditional could mean anything from conversion by the sword and ethnic cleansing of kurds and the wetland shiites to tribal chieftans.--Silverback 08:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Factual inaccuracies

"Transfer of sovereignty. As 2004 progressed, the guerrillas seemed to move to more advanced military tactics and demonstrated much more assertive organization. On June 28, 2004, the occupation was formally ended by the Coalition, which transferred power to a new Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. With the situation in the south seemingly settled, many hoped that the transfer of sovereignty would help take the steam out of the ongoing Sunni insurgency. Although many Iraqis were optimistic about the government, militants saw it as little more than an American puppet and continued the fight unabated. On July 18, Iraqi militants offered a $285,000 reward for Allawi's assassination."

This is in dire need of revision: The occupation is not over; it continues. Secondly, the "new Iraqi government" was appointed by the American one, and is not independent. I have read that Allawi is a former Ba'athist who worked later for the CIA and MI6, but will check this. I would also like to see sources on the last two sentences; I have read that most Iraqis are suspicious of the Allawi regime. --Trebor

Agreed, the occupation is not over. Why don't you have a go editing the article. --Christiaan 02:48, 16 Jan 2005

OK, I just deleted that part. That OK, everyone? --Trebor

General problems and rewrite 'Foreign Fighters'

Second sentence: "The insurgent groups see themselves as repelling foreign occupiers so that the people of Iraq can settle their own affairs." This is a generalization and not true. Al-Zarqawi has no interest in the 'people of Iraq' settling 'their own affairs', he is there to attempt to establish a Sunni caliphate (this in a predominantly Shi'a country). This is obviously against the wishes of the Iraqi people and he has no compunction in blowing them up to achieve his ends.

Why does the sentence fragment "While roughly analogous to the way the French viewed Nazi collaborators during and after World War II," exist? 'French', 'Nazi' and 'World War II' can be exchanged for thousands of different things. Why can the sentence not just read "Elements of the resistance have shown no regard for innocent civilian bystanders (collateral damage)." Is there something particular about the French and Nazi case? Doesn't it carry connotations of associating the multinational forces with Nazism, given that numerous examples could have been used?

Where did Bush claim that the transition to Iraqi rule would be marked by falling human and economic costs? If I remember correctly, he characterized it as simply one step on a long and hard road. No quote is provided to support what was in fact just a trope used by his opponents; he cannot be found anywhere to have claimed that things would get better after the handover.

The 'Foreign Fighters' section is all wrong and based on a misreading of the international Islamist movement. It also contains factual inaccuracies. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is generally regarded to be the head of the most organized and well-financed (because through al-Qaeda) section of the resistance, who the authors of this article have chosen to place under the 'Foreign Fighter' section, in contrast to the 'Sunni Islamist' section. This dichotomy is somewhat false. Wahabis in Iraq are not fighting for the Iraqi national cause, and they are not there because they are defending the "Arab" or "Islamic" nation.

The article states that "Some elements of the Western media have painted these fighters as anti-democratic Wahabi fundamentalists who see Iraq as the new "field of jihad" in the battle against U.S. forces." Why 'some elements of the Western media'? This is exactly what they are doing, and it is exactly what the international Islamist movement has done since the 1980s. This is well known and documented on this very site. Also, "suspected "al-Qaeda" operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi" should be changed to take into account the strong personal ties between Zarqawi and OBL that date back years and the oath of loyalty Zarqawi took to OBL. (Source: [13])

The activities of Wahabis in Iraq mirror their activities all over the world, in places such as the Caucasus, Kosovo, Bosnia and Algeria. The war Wahabis are fighting against Shi'a in Iraq shows they have no regard whatsoever for the Iraqi national movement, and cannot legitimately be seen as a part of it. It is similarly a misreading to suggest they are there to protect some unified Arabic or Islamic nation (as if pan-Arabism were really a dominant Middle Eastern ideology), as the section of Islam they represent is totally non-traditional (it is, however, traditionalistic) and does not represent the views of the majority of the world's Muslims (most of whom aren't Arabic), nor of the Iraqi people.

Just some things to think about. I will gladly work on correcting what I see as errors myself if approval is forthcoming. This article could be a lot more accurate and a lot more neutral.

--Noung 00:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In the main I think you have focused on key problems with the artical as it stands. I would say tho that pan-Arabism has for long been a significant trend among Sunnis in Iraq tho the Iraq as artificial state wording seems to me to overstate this. Dejvid 02:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Now we have a sentence to the effect that the resistance and the coalition both show no regard for collateral damage. This is ludicrous. Firstly, collateral damage is defined on this site as -

"Collateral damage" denotes accidental damage to civilians and non-military property or lands during war, due to actions that did not violate the laws of war.

This definition clearly does not chime with what elements of the resistance do, as the damage is not accidental but purposeful. Zarqawi's group has attempted to bring about ethnic strife by bombing Christians and Shi'as. They and other groups have also killed civilians who were engaged in planning the election or reconstruction, and civilians engaged in voting. Such people can hardly be considered military targets and their targetting is not collateral damage, it is terrorism.

Meanwhile, the coalition puts much time, effort and lives into avoiding killing civilians. It never has the death of civilians as its goal and indeed many security operations are involved in protecting civilians. Civilians are always encouraged and helped to leave combat zones.

--Noung 12:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NPOV - "Resistance" or "Insurgency"?

re·sis·tance n. ... 3. often Resistance An underground organization engaged in a struggle for national liberation in a country under military or totalitarian occupation. ... The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

What is going on in Iraq is not "resistance" under that definition, because there is no evidence that "liberation" is the goal. Certainly bombing Shi'ite mosques cannot contribute to "liberation" in any possible way. To call this "resistance" is POV.

To be fair, "Insurgency" is not entirely correct either. That is defined as "Insurgency - 1. The quality or circumstance of being rebellious. 2. An instance of rebellion; an insurgence." and further "Rebellion - 1. Open, armed, and organized resistance to a constituted government. 2. An act or a show of defiance toward an authority or established convention." and "Insurrection - The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government." The government in Iraq was not "constituted" until now, although after the elected Iraqi National Assembly is convened and elects a government, it certainly will be. However it was a "civil authority", so this actually is one of the correct meanings (under rebelion, definition 2).

I think the most NPOV description is "Terror Campaign" because that describes the primary tactic but leaves questions of goals (which may be quite varied in any case) and organization (which is not well known) aside. But I will settle for "Insurgency". I believe "insurgency" is the also most commonly used term by news organizations.

If you wish to prevent a move of this page to "Iraqi insurgency": please either give other dictionary definitions of the words "insurgency" and "resistance" and show how they apply, or else show tangible evidence that this is a liberation movement (statements by insurgents do not qualify).

There are other NPOV issues, but let's start with this one. ObsidianOrder 08:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You should probably re-read this talk page as it has been proposed and discussed multiple times. I think "resistance" is the most accurate term, especially when we attempt to use terms with which groups self-identify. Also, dictionaries aren't designed to support arguments of this sort. Meanings and connotations change over time. Dictionaries can be far too vague to nail precise meanings. But if you insist: OED defines "resistance" as "Organized covert opposition to an occupying or ruling power; spec. (usu. with def. article and capital initial) in the war of 1939-45, the underground movement formed in France in June 1940 with the object of resisting the authority of the German occupying forces and the Vichy government; any organization of this type with similar ends." Rhobite 09:06, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
Rhobite - I will look at the archived talk. Can you point me to where this has been discussed? I am unconvinced by your argument. Self-identification is irrelevant when it makes no sense (I can call myself "Emperor of the United States" but that doesn't mean that should be my wikipedia entry). The OED definition does not fit for the following reasons: One, "any organization of this type with similar ends [to the French Resistance]" - the ends of the insurgency appear to be quite different from the French Resistance. Two, I think OED intends "occupying or ruling power" to mean something different from "government", but what exactly? I think there is a good case to be made that the US has at least tried to set up a government and not be a "ruling power". Three, and most importantly, the targets of the insurgency are not limited to (and perhaps not even primarily) the "occupying or ruling power". P.S. Now that I have stated my objections, can we put back the non-NPOV warning? What is the procedure for this? ObsidianOrder 09:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I re-read the talk page carefully (there is no archived talk, I assume?). I do not see any exhaustive or definitive debate of the use of resistance vs insurgency. I do see that at least two people brought up the same objection. My objection stands. This needs to be discussed further, at least. ObsidianOrder 10:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Google News shows the following number of articles using each term: "iraqi insurgents" 3,220, "iraqi insurgency" 1,050, "iraqi resistance" 420. A quick look through the sources which use "resistance": Al-Jazeerah, jihadunspun.com, Antiwar.com, CounterPunch, Indymedia, Iraq Occupation Watch, World Socialist Web Site, uruknet.info and Z-Net. Mainstream news outlets in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere consistently use "insurgency" (including CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Reuters, BBC, Guardian, Times of London, Independent, Telegraph, FT, AFP, International Herald Tribune, Japan Times, Moscow Times, China Daily, Xinhua, ...). I submit to you that "insurgency" is the neutral and commonly accepted term, and that "resistance" is a term primarily used by people with an obvious bias. ObsidianOrder 11:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
So? This merely shows the bias of the media. If you go back to WW2, you'll find that the accepted term for the anti-Nazi resistance in the German press was "terrorists". Should we therefore rename the corresponding article to be consistent with that usage ? - pir 14:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No, because that was *only* in the German press. Here you have a consensus of nearly all media outside the Middle East. If European, US, Russian, Chinese, and Japanese media agree on a term, that's good enough for me. ObsidianOrder 19:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
So far, 24 hours have gone without any additional objections to a move. I will wait for another 24 hours and if there are no further objections, I will move this article to "Iraqi insurgency". I will also replace all instances of "resistance" with "insurgency" in the body of the article, and add a note in the summary explaining that the insurgents and others who view the Iraqi government as illegitimate prefer the term "resistance". I have stated my reasons and cited supporting evidence at length above. If you disagree, then argue your case now. Also: if you feel 48 hours is not a sufficient period for discussion, how long should I wait? I want to make it clear that I do not want to start a revert war, but at the same time I feel strongly that the name should be changed. I am open to reasonable proposals for ways to settle this. ObsidianOrder 06:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You're being very reasonable and I appreciate it. Could you please make this request on Wikipedia:Requested moves? The reason I ask is because this conversation is not very visible. It would be good to get the opinions of people who regularly deal with naming issues on pages. As for changing the text in the article.. I'm against it. The article already uses both terms, "insurgents" and "resistance". And as I said before, you're being too precise in interpreting dictionary definitions - they just weren't meant to support arguments like this. Rhobite 06:45, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, good idea - I will do as you suggested. I think the dictionary definitions do convey the meaning and at least some of the connotations quite accurately. A resistance is a fight against illegitimate authority, and an insurgency is a fight against a (somewhat) legitimate or at least well-established authority. However, if you are right and the definitions are not so precise, why not change to the more common name? The arguments for changing the word used in the text of the article are exactly the same as for the title, plus the lack of consistency would be confusing (i.e. are they the same thing or not?) ObsidianOrder 07:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

pir - you make two points on the requested moves page. One, it's not an "insurgency" because it is in opposition to authority which is not "established"; and two, that some groups are the true "resistance" while other groups which target civilians such as JTJ are not. Regarding the first point, an insurgency is in opposition to "established or constituted" authority, by definition. The government has been getting progressively more "constituted" as the US has tried to include representatives of major political groups, and after the newly-elected National Assembly writes a constitution it will definitely be "constituted". Do you think the fighting would stop at that point? Regarding the second point, I believe there is a lot of evidence that indicates there is no separation between openly civilian-targetting groups (such as JTJ, which you admit is not part of the "resistance") and supposedly non-civilian-targetting groups (if those even exist). The article covers both. ObsidianOrder 15:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, I think we need to be clear about who is a civilian and who isn't. US/UK etc soldiers are obvioulsy not civilians. But in addition, Iraqi security forces, police, and those being trained are not to be considered as civilians. So if you take out attacks on Iraqi police and security forces being trained, and other attacks on the occupation authorities, you'll find that there are not very many attacks targetting civilians. See for example [14] and [15]: athough these numbers need to be taken with a large pinch of salt, they show that there are something like 50-100 or more attacks per day on the occupation authorities now, most of these are obviously never reported in media, whose reporting is vastly biased towards attacks on civilians. The main attacks on civilians are terrorist attacks on shia mosques, shia religious festivals etc., christian churches, etc. etc. These terrorist attacks are clearly designed to push the country into sectarian civil war, as opposed to destabilising the occupation authorities. It is not clear who is behind them. These terrorist attacks are not in the interest of the Iraqi resistance, who are nationalist in nature, and not sectarian. There is speculation that al-Qaeda-type groups are behind them, but there is also speculation that pro-occupation groups are behind them. The conflation of these two different types of violence in Iraq in the current article is pretty bad, and it is indeed highly POV to label groups targetting ordinary civilians as "Iraqi resistance". You say "I believe there is a lot of evidence that indicates there is no separation between openly civilian-targetting groups ... and supposedly non-civilian-targetting groups". Could you provide some evidence for this? I think there is a clear separation. - pir 14:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree that Iraqi security forces (on duty) are not civilians. You agree that groups that target civilians are not "resistance". So we have some common ground. Regarding my claim that there is no separation... First you have the mass-casualty attacks on civilian Shia and Kurds: 121 in Shia mosque in Karbala, 107 in party headquarters in Irbil, 74 in schoolbuses in Basra, 67 in Shia mosque in Kazimiya, 53 in funeral ceremony in Najaf (from iraqbodycount). There are enough of these that it is pretty difficult to claim them as the work of just one splinter group. Zarqawi and his people, who are openly working with the local fighters in Fallujah, have taken responsibility for/confessed to many of these. Second, and perhaps more significantly, you have the assasinations and kidnappings for which there are few good statistics but which are anecdotally the one most common type of insurgent operation. According to the Lancet study the murder rate is around 60 per 100,000 per year, which is well in line with other numbers (e.g. 50-100 murders per month in Baghdad [16]), corresponding to a countrywide total of 15,000 murders per year. I would guess a lot of these (more than half) are politically motivated (or combination of political and criminal, e.g. killing a political target for pay), and of course most target civilians. An example is the casual ambush and killing of Shia on the road passing through Latifiyah and Mahmudiyah [17] [18] which is obviously done by the same people who attack US convoys [19]. Finally you have the violence directed against the general population in areas that have fallen under insurgent control, such as Fallujah [20] [21] and Najaf [22] [23]. You claim that the resistance is nationalist (presumably in the sense of Iraqi-nationalist rather than Arab-nationalist). That is almost certainly not the case for any of the groups, who either want to seize power for themselves, at least within a certain area, or else fight for religious reasons. A captured letter from Zarqawi [24] and a tape by him [25] provide fascinating insight into the mind of the insurgency. Some interviews with insurgents are also worth a look [26] [27]. In my view the insurgency is primarily religious, sectarian and tribal. The notion that it is nationalist is propaganda mostly made for western audiences. I hope you will examine some of the sources I cite and consider this fairly. ObsidianOrder 20:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest we change it to something other than Resistance or Insurgency -- something along the lines of Terrorism in Iraq. --Daniel11 16:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism is defined as violence which targets civilians to achieve political ends. Guerrilla warfare targets authorities, as opposed to ordinary civilians. The vast majority of violence carried out by Iraqi groups is guerrilla warfare and not terrorism. By contrast, with an estimated 100'000 total Iraqi deaths (Lancet study - includes people dying from disease etc.) and 16'000-18'0000 Iraqi deaths reported in the media ([www.iraqbodycount.org]), the majority of which are civilians dying as a result of the US/UK/... occupation, you'll find that an article entitled Terrorism in Iraq will not be to your liking. - pir 14:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
lol... get a grip on reality, man! --Daniel11 17:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
pir - your definition of terrorism and guerrilla warfare is correct (although there are a few other differences like uniforms, and following the laws of war). However, the majority of violence carried out by Iraqi groups is terrorism (I would say over 60%). You just don't hear as much about it, because the papers tend to report more on attacks against US or government targets; many non-spectacular attacks against purely civilian targets go unreported. (As an aside, one question: is killing politicians who do not participate in the government terrorism?) Regarding the Lancet study: it claims 100,000 "excess deaths" from all causes post-war. Aside from the numerous problems with the study design, the raw data looks like this... There are 21 recorded violent deaths over the 18 months after the invasion: 4 children, 13 men, 2 women, and 2 elderly people. Of these, 9 are due to the coalition military, 7 are criminal murders, 2 terrorist attacks, 2 unknown and 1 by the former regime. Of the deaths due to the coalition military, 2 were known accidents. Each raw-data death is a proxy for roughly 3,500 deaths countrywide. Therefore the study suggests 31,500 people were killed by the coalition military. This includes both combatants and civilians. The sex ratio suggests that the majority of those killed by the coalition military were combatants. This is not unreasonable, from other studies: the PDA study [28] which estimates 9,200 military, 3,750 civilians killed during the initial war; the AP morgue survey which counted 5,500 people (civilian or not) violently killed (by anyone) during the first year of occupation in Baghdad and three provinces [29]; and iraqibodycount.com's 16-18,000 number which includes civilians and some combatants killed by either coalition or by insurgents during the war and occupation. All of these studies agree (approximately) if you pay carefull attention to exactly what they're counting. ObsidianOrder 01:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Daniel11 - I agree with the sentiment, but all the alternatives I can think of are either POV or too cumbersome to use. Insurgency has the benefit of being very commonly used, easily understood, and reasonably neutral. ObsidianOrder 21:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, I guess Insurgency is a fairly pragmatic choice, and one that most people will understand. FWIW, here's a usage note from Webster's:
         Sedition is the raising of commotion in a state, as by
         conspiracy, without aiming at open violence against
         the laws. Insurrection is a rising of individuals to
         prevent the execution of law by force of arms. Revolt
         is a casting off the authority of a government, with a
         view to put it down by force, or to substitute one
         ruler for another. Rebellion is an extended
         insurrection and revolt. Mutiny is an insurrection on
         a small scale, as a mutiny of a regiment, or of a
         ship's crew.
...which, I suppose, indicates the acceptability of Insurrection, or Insurgency, or perhaps tantalizingly, Revolution or Rebellion. I dunno, I'm fine with whatever the consensus is, once we've changed it from Resistance. --Daniel11 21:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This proposal is little more than systemic bias at play. "Resistance" is far more accurate and follows Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (identity), which this proposal would conflict with. ?Christiaan 01:12, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How is "resistance" more in conformaty withe the naming conventions? The only self identification I am aware of was the "al Qaeda headquarters" sign openly displayed on their office in Falluja.--Silverback 08:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Stop spamming Wikipedia --Daniel11 01:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"systemic bias" apparently means "things most people agree with but you do not". Unless you care to substantiate your charge of bias? The current name does not follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), which this proposal would correct. ObsidianOrder 02:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It seems that user obsidianorder has gone on a holy war against the term "resistance," changing it in every wikipedia entry that mentions iraq. I think this is short sighted. I believe "resistance" is more appropriate when discussing specific groups who are resisting American occupation of Iraq using violence. Some of these groups are "insurgents" against the emergent Iraqi regime whereas some are only fighting the U.S. occupation. Some use "terrorism" against civilian targets, some do not. I think the term "resistance" is appropriate for groups that specifically identify themselves as members of the Iraqi resistance, whereas "insurgency" is a more general term that is useful in less specific cases. I don't personally object to this article being called "insurgency" since it covers various groups, but I do think that the term resistance should be used in many cases, and that on this page there should be at least a brief discussion of the use of the term resistance vs. insurgency. It is clear from the context of what he has written here that our edit warrior ObsidianOrder has gone on this crusade for NPOV reasons (his original suggestion was "terror campaign.") I don't object to some of his arguments -- I think he's mostly trying to be reasonable -- but I do object to the implication that all Iraqi resistance against US occupation is an illegitimate "insurgency." I am not saying wikipedia should take the position that the resistance is legitimate, but I do think wikipedia should include the information by which some do legitimize the resistance.

I think in the end we have to recognize that there are different points of view at work here, and we will generally not agree on many things. Wikipedia's goal should be to represent those points of view as fairly as possible without simply siding with one. The meanings and usage of terms like "resistance" or "insurgency" are significant in this context. I would like to see both used in wikipedia when appropriate rather than a one-sided jihad against the use of one of those terms. --csloat 21:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Which are the groups that are merely opposing the US "occupation", can you document any run by Iraqis?--Silverback 23:50, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sloat - you say I have 'gone on a holy war against the term "resistance," changing it in every wikipedia entry that mentions iraq'. Not entirely accurate. I have changed the references to this article mostly when people just used its title as a link without bothering to come up with different link text, and I've changed the "default" term used in this article itself. I've left plenty of uses, for example it says right at the top 'sometimes called the Iraqi resistance', which I think is a good thing. Indeed, I agree that some discussion on the use of the terms should be included. Thank you for saying I am trying to be reasonable, I really do try ;) I think "resistance" and "terror campaign" are about equally POV, and while I do believe one of these is correct and the other not, that is just my personal POV, which I am not trying to push. Insurgency is the closest to neutral, and probably should be the preferred term in most cases. By the way this article mentions "resistance" and "terrorism " exactly 3 times each now (outside of the references section, where "resistance" is used 11 times and "terrorism" once). Do you think this is a "one-sided jihad"? ObsidianOrder 01:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I disagree that you can equate "resistance" with "terror campaign" in terms of POVness (for lack of a better word). "Terror campaign" is unquestionably negative, while "resistance" suggests countering (resisting) some other force -- a much more neutral term. I don't think any word is perfectly neutral, but "resistance" is one that need not implicitly legitimize a particular point of view. There are Nazi sympathizers, for example, who would say that the French resistance was illegitimate; shall we change that heading to the "French insurgency" in order to make it more NPOV? I think it's important in this case to use resistance when talking about the Iraqi resistance because they are self-identifying in this manner (see, for example, the video that was posted to the net in mid-Dec. 2004 by members of an Iraqi resistance group). To use the term insurgency as the default preferred term seems to me to equate all of those resisting American occupation in Iraq with the extremist views of al-Zarqawi (who seems to want to destroy the entire political process and perhaps provoke a civil war, whereas many others -- e.g. Moqtada al-Sadr -- are opposed specifically to US occupation and may even seek inclusion in the political process).
Perhaps what you're doing is not meant to be a jihad, but it does distort the meaning intended in some cases (e.g. the al Jazeera article), and it looked from your user page like you made the changes on all those pages somewhat indiscriminately. I think some of them should be changed back to be more precise. I'm not necessarily advocating changing this page back to resistance, but I do think that you jumped the gun in applying that as the new standard to all those other pages.--csloat 10:27, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sloat - no, resistance is "La Resistance", for all intents and purposes. Regarding the French vs the Nazis - I think history has spoken on that. Self-identifying - only as propaganda to the West, since they are very aware of what will resonate with you. "To equate all of those resisting American occupation in Iraq with the extremist views of al-Zarqawi" - I don't think the mere use of the term does that, but I must say that such an equivalence is in fact correct. You will concede that the Fallujan insurgents (fairly representative of the Sunni insurgency) worked hand-in-hand with Zarqawi, right? Do you think that maybe Zarqawi hates the "evil principle" of democracy because it is against God's will (his own words), but the Fallujan insurgents would be all in favor of elections without the Americans? Or in favor of anything other than re-establishing a Sunni dictatorship? Do you really believe that anyone opposed to the elections - ostensibly only because of the American presence - has any reason other than they would like to set themselves up as king? Yeah right. Regarding Moqtada in particular - sure he is only opposed to the occupation. When he said he was opposed to the government because it was "godless", that was just a slip of the tongue. And that's why when his thugs took over Najaf and Karbala, they immediately held free and fair elections. Oh, wait, they didn't, did they? What they actually did was this: [30] [31] [32] ... Face it, the insurgents' primary motivations and goals may differ, but all of them are against a truly democratic political process in principle, regardless of whether the Americans are gone or not. After all, if that were not so, they would be campaigning instead of blowing people up. ObsidianOrder 13:22, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sloat - one more thing, regarding the changes... "more precise"? Especially in the Al Jazeera article? I don't see it. They were banned precisely because they were supportive of the insurgency, not the "resistance". There are a couple of hundred newspapers in Iraq now, and many publish articles which advocate for a rapid withdrawal of US troops, and for increased Iraqi autonomy - that would be "supportive of the resistance". However, Al Jazeera went far beyond that, by broadcasting completely false information of a highly inflammatory character (e.g. the Basra schoolbus bombings were not terrorist attacks, they were missiles fired by a British helicopter). Not to mention repeatedly running every single insurgent video (with admiring commentary). "supportive of the insurgency" is exactly right. ObsidianOrder 13:38, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, your true colors come out now, I see -- no more trying to be reasonable. If you think the Jordanian al Qaeda terrorist has much in common with the former Baathists who want to reestablish a Sunni dictatorship or with native Fallujans who want to kick the U.S. out, you just aren't paying attention (or, more likely, you are only paying attention through your one-dimensional lens). Your spewing propaganda. Zarqawi wants a Taliban-like state. The Sunni resistance wants the return of a secular Baathist dictatorship. If you can't see the difference, you should not be commenting on any of this at all. As for al-Sadr, of course he wants an Islamic state. So does al-Sistani. These people are Shiite clerics, and many (including me) would say religious fanatics. That does not make their resistance to U.S. occupation any less legitimate. Al-Sadr has been cooperating with Sistani and his movement has been offered some power in the new regime. You say all of these people are "against a truly democratic process" -- I don't agree. Nor does it matter. It is not necessary that a person support a "democratic process" in order to qualify as a resistance. Resistance implies resisting, it does not imply "democracy." Many Iraqis -- resisting or not -- see the U.S. occupation as totally illegitimate and the government that implemented the elections as a pawn of the illegitimate occupation. Most Iraqis -- well over 50% and even up to 80-90% in every poll I've seen -- want the U.S. out completely. The word "insurgency" presumes that the government being resisted is considered legitimate. It is not. Again, I think if you're going to call this "insurgency" only, you need to do the same with the French and Algerian resistances. Anyway, I object to your holy war against the term resistance, and I will change it in the places I see it making a difference, but in general I am starting to agree with another poster that it has turned this article into a joke.--csloat 21:27, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nice points csloat. I mentioned this page as a prime example of systemic bias on my user page when the name got changed. However, I have to agree, joke seems a far more appropriate label. ?Christiaan 21:46, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This coming from a guy who "helped organize human shields in Iraq" (of all the damn-fool things) is just hilarious. You keep alleging bias, but you have not made any argument for why it is biased that I can find, beyond merely stating that is how they self-identify. You have not even given any evidence that they really do self-identify as that. ObsidianOrder 00:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You could start with The Islamic Front for the Iraqi Resistance or Jama` ?Christiaan 00:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"True colors"? I have never made a secret of what I think. You don't need to give me a summary of the different components of the insurgency, you apparently missed the part where I said "the insurgents' primary motivations and goals may differ".
"Resistance" basically means a fight against an external oppressive force. People fighting to establish (by your own description) "a Taliban-like state" or "a secular Baathist dictatorship" are not a resistance, their enemy and target is as much the general population as the "occupiers". You don't agree that none of the elements of the resistance want a democracy? Which ones do, then? In short, all of the different violent "resistance" groups want the US out because it will allow them to set up some type of dictatorship, they only differ on what exact kind. That's not "resistance".
You're wrong on one key point though, Sistani does not want an Islamic state (in the sense of government-by-clerics). Iraq is already an Islamic state (in the sense of being predominantly Muslim) and Sistani wants that to be reflected in its laws, as it should. Sistani has tried to counter US influence while supporting the democratic process - perhaps he is the real "resistance", hmm?
Iraqis want the US out - of course, we want to leave as well. I think you missed the question (which was only asked in a few of these polls) about when they want us out. Very few answered "immediately", AFAIK most answers were "around a year". Changes the meaning of the poll completely, wouldn't you say?
Regarding legitimacy - well of course the pre-election government is not entirely "legitimate", since it was never elected. But it is pretty close, seeing how it includes the combined leadership of most major political groups (SCIRI, Dawa, Badr, PUK, KDP). It is a hell of a lot more legitimate than the insurgents. After the elections - why would it not be legitimate? Are you suggesting that there were sufficiently serious problems to invalidate the results? I don't see that.
Finally, "insurgency" does not especially suggest the government is legitimate (which incidentally it is, at least somewhat before the elections, and definitely after), while "resistance" strongly suggests that the insurgents are legitimate (which they are not). ObsidianOrder
To avoid an edit war, I'll propose what I think is a sensible guideline for when to use each term... "resistance" about any actions aimed primarily at decreasing or countering US influence, "insurgency" about actions aimed primarily against the emergence of a new, democratic, prosperous and peaceful Iraq, and "terrorism" about actions aimed primarily against civilians. So an anti-american demonstration is "resistance", an attack against Iraqi troops is "insurgency", and a suicide bomber in a mosque is "terrorism". I think we can all agree on that? ObsidianOrder 23:52, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That sounds more reasonable to me than most of the other things you've said. I will add that the term "resistance" does not, as you imply above, mean "pro-democracy" or "pro-American" or even "pro-liberation." It is defined by being against something (in the instant case, being against the U.S. occupation). So our disagreements about whether Sistani is a religious fanatic, or whether the former terrorists Allawi or Jafaari constitute "legitimate" governmental agents are beside the point. Also, resistance is not defined as "good"; that seems to be an assumption of most of your claims. The resistance leaders do identify as "resistance"; just look at the video that came out in December ("A Message from the Iraqi Resistance") as an example. In any case, I don't want to get into an edit war either, and I think this solution seems reasonable. It does beg the question of whether this particular article is properly named, of course. Just to throw another possibility out there, how about "Iraqi uprising"? --csloat 20:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The vote that determined the title determined the NPOV usage. I propose that "resistance" ONLY be used when it is part of the name of a group and in that case we refer to them by their name, when they take responsibility for some action.--Silverback 20:55, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't part of that vote, so I haven't seen what was discussed, but your proposition is a worse solution than the way things are already. I'm happy to see "resistance" used for actions and organizations who target the American presence as suggested above.
The resistance of some to the word "resistance" is telling. Resistance does not mean good democratic resistance; it just means the act of resisting (and it implies that one is resisting an occupying force). It does not make claims to democratic goals. "Insurgency" presumes the legitimacy of the occupying force, and portrays the "insurgents" as outsiders. When American forces get attacked by Iraqis in Iraq, the portrayal of the Iraqis as outsiders is inaccurate and insulting. --csloat
Resistance does mean resistance against an oppressor. If you are a (wannabe) oppressor yourself, you cannot be the resistance ;) Presumes the legitimacy? - yes, of the government which was composed of the leaders of all major parties, and which was incidentally set up by the occupying force. Portrayal as outsiders? - they are outsiders, I think it should be pretty clear at this point they do not have broad popular support? (which may have something to do with e.g. Zarqawi calling the Shia majority "snakes" and "traitors"...) ObsidianOrder 08:41, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You're wrong. Resistance means resistance against an oppressor (or occupying force) - we agree on that. The term has nothing to do with whether your goal is to become an oppressor yourself (which is generally pure speculation anyway). Resistance is about resisting, it is not about what you want to set up afterwards. As for the portrayal as outsiders, you're arguing catachrestically. There are many Iraqis who are part of the resistance. They are not outsiders. The American occupying force is made up of outsiders. Not to be too pedantic, but "outsider" means "from outside," i.e. not from Iraq. While certainly Zarqawi fits the bill, most of the resistance does not. When Iraqis attack American troops, you want people to see that as the legitimate government being attacked by outsiders. That's totally absurd! Again, I think this page has become a joke, and your latest edit highlights that -- deleting "along with the occupation forces" because that made the occupation look less legitimate -- you have gone on a holy war to delegitimize resistance to U.S. forces in Iraq.
I don't disagree with you that there are a lot of unsavory elements that are part of the resistance. But that does not change the fact that they are resisting U.S. occupation. Even some conservative American and British military strategists have argued that if we want to stop the insurgency (and yes they use that word) then all the U.S. needs to do is pull out, since U.S. forces have become a magnet for various groups. A majority of Iraqis likely support the democratic process, you are right about that. But an overwhelming majority also want the U.S. out of there, and every change you make to wikipedia seems designed to obscure this fact.
In addition, I would point out that there are nonviolent groups resisting U.S. occupation as well -- some which are also working with the government which you say was only "incidentally" established by the U.S. occupiers. Sistani, of course, is the biggest example. You criticize al-Sadr as a terrorist, and you embrace Sistani as some sort of democrat. But Sistani has made it all too clear that between the Americans and the Sadrists, he prefers the Sadrists. (In fact, there would have been no reasonable elections if it weren't for Sistani, and Sistani supported a more truly democratic process mainly because he wanted the U.S. out!)
Anyway like I said earlier I'm not going to try to change the title of this page or start an edit war; I really don't have time for any of this. But I'm sorry to see such abuse of language on the wikipedia, especially about a topic I consider important.--csloat 20:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NPOV problems with the summary part of the article

"The Iraqi resistance are the groups fighting against the U.S. occupation of Iraq and the U.S.-installed interim government of Iraq." -- factually incorrect, this is not what the insurgents do. many attacks have targets unrelated to the Coalition military or the interim government.

"The insurgent groups see themselves as repelling foreign occupiers so that the people of Iraq can settle their own affairs." -- not true of all groups. any quotes in support of this? it would be nice if there was a "statements by insurgents" section. this claim is repeated in several places in the article. I think it's a fair bet at least some fight so they can seize power after the US leaves, some because they wish to establish an Islamist state, and some because they get paid to. Baathists or Islamists seizing power cannot be reasonably described as "the people of Iraq ... settle their own affairs".

"they appear to have shown little regard for the lives of Iraqi civilian collaborators" -- or civilians in general. actually "little regard" is a massive understatement since civilians who are not in any possible way "collaborators" have been deliberately targeted numerous times.

"Elements of the insurgency, along with the occupation forces, appear to have shown little regard in their attacks for innocent civilian bystanders, and groups such as that of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi have deliberately attempted to stir up ethnic strife by bombing Christian Churches and Shi'a wedding ceremonies." -- "along with the occupation forces" is a) factually incorrect and b) irrelevant. "groups such as" tries to distance the "resistance" from such attacks. Additionally, Shia mosques and religious festivals have been bombed as well, and more often and on a larger scale if anything than Christian ones.

"the period since the handover has been marked by the highest rates of U.S. military casualties" -- stats? I'm not sure how this is relevant, considering that the insurgents would need some time to get organized after the war. ObsidianOrder 09:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You make good points, and I think there are also some other issues with the article that will need to be reviewed. It looks like a lot of this was composed by someone with a bizarre political agenda, and little regard for NPOV encyclopedic writing. --Daniel11 20:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"along with the occupation forces" is not factually incorrect. Reports of civilians deaths at the hands of US troops are numerous, even by their own accounts. Some estimates put the death toll at 100 000 Iraqis. You certainly do not flatten cities like fallujah without reckless disregard for those who cannot leave. It is also relevant because it provides critical context. ?Christiaan 01:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You should read the sources and criticisms of that 100,000 figure.--Silverback 08:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Are you claiming "100 000 civilian deaths at the hands of US troops"? Please explain where you get this number. The Lancet study does not claim this. Further: Fallujah is not flattened [33] [34], and by numerous accounts US forces have taken great care to avoid civilian casualties, for example by evacuating civilians and setting up safe areas whenever possible. ObsidianOrder 02:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Which Iraqi insurgents self-identify as "resistance"?

I followed some (admittedly not all) the external links, and found some reporters calling the insurgents a "resistance", but did not find any evidence of Iraqis self-identifying as such. I doubt the actions of the Jordanian refugee from the Afghan conflict (Zachari) could be characterized as a "resistance" even if he self-identified as such. Does any know which links support the contention that bombers and executers in Iraq self-identify as a resistance? --Silverback 15:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, I've looked a little into that, it seems that this term is often used by the insurgents and insurgent-friendly media outlets when they address western audiences (in English) [35] [36]. I really doubt this term is commonly used in Arabic (al-Moqawama). I found one instance of it being used by Al-Sadr, while giving an interview to an Egyptian newspaper. So far zero instances of use by Zarqawi.  ;) ObsidianOrder 23:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oh you mean reporters that aren't credible because they don't share your world-view. Right. And I see you've suddenly become a Arabic psychic who who can tell what the Arab media writes. The Islamic Front for the Iraqi Resistance or Jama` self-identify as resistance. Further more if they're using "resistance" when addressing western media how does that preclude it from being self-identification? And I have another question, which of the resistance groups self-identifies as an "insurgency"? ?Christiaan 14:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly a quick search on google for "iraqi resistance" gets 260,000 hits, while "iraqi insurgency" only gets 83,700. While a search on the website of the most popular Arab news agency gets 54 hits for "iraqi resistance" [37] and 0 for "iraqi insurgency".[38] ?Christiaan 14:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

UN Position

"This point is disputed by the interim government of Iraq under a plan approved by the United Nations" This doesn't make much sense. On the face of it, it seems to say that the interim government is following a UN-approved *plan to dispute the point*. I speculate that what the writer meant to say is that the interim government was created under some plan approved by the UN, but that is not what the sentence says now. (Actually I thought the government was created by the US governor Bremer, as a US puppet regime, but I may be wrong.)

Oops, is this the article where I made a comment before, and was immediately insulted? (I think I was called an al qaeda member, and an idiot.) I don't see it here, but if so, let me know -- at least, if I am to take it that this is somewhere I should not try to help out.

DonaldTrump: Granted, the sentence needs to be rewritten, but so does a lot of the rest of the article. Please sign your posts: just add ~~~~ at the end which will expand into your name and the time. Also, please refrain from making deliberately inflammatory comments. ObsidianOrder 21:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you mean, pretend that the Iraqi Baathist dictarship is not a US puppet dictatorship, why should I pretend that? I mean, would it further the purpose of wikipedia if we all pretend to certain propaganda agendas? I guess it avoids controversy, if we all follow a given party line. Maybe the moral is that unless I'm ready to buy into certain propaganda (that seems silly to myself), I should not try to help correct certain pages such as this one?
"Baathist dictarship"?? Are you referring to the Allawi government? As for why it's not a "puppet dictatorship" - perhaps because it is the closest thing to a participatory government Iraq has ever had? It includes representatives of most major political blocs. The new National Assembly will be even better, of course. ObsidianOrder 00:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Sign your posts ObsidianOrder 00:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

195.14.210.34 contributions

195.14.210.34 added these...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraqi_insurgency&diff=10783006&oldid=10730517

I don't have a problem with them, I mostly tend to agree with the analysis, but they do seem rather editorial/conjecture/original research. Is there a source for these claims? Mainly (a) Baathist cells are dissolved, and (b) Nationalist groups are becoming more influenced by Islamists?

I'll rv the election comment, I think 400 attacks does constitute a "serious attempt to interfere". ObsidianOrder 08:28, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What if they had an edit war, and nobody came?

Some poor editing. Please stop reverting to this. Everybody take a look at Christiaan's proposed changes (basically weak rationalizations for the insurgents, IMO) and decide on what's appropriate for the introductory part of the article. --Daniel11 15:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I hope you're not trying to obscure the fact that you're also trying to revert csloat's edit? this is my edit not the one you posted. It is also clearly not conclusive as to who carries out all these attacks. ?Christiaan 15:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Christiaan; looking over the edits of Daniel11 they seem both destructive and heavily POV. If you want to claim the Iraqi resistance goal was to stop the January election, you need evidence, and you need to explain why they are still resisting now that the election is over. When evidence is presented of Iraqi resistance that avoids targeting civilians, you shouldn't just erase it. I think we all need to keep in mind that there are many different insurgent groups in Iraq, some resisting the US occupation, others resisting the Iraqi provisional government, and a small minority resisting "democracy" generally. Trying to pretend that they have a single goal may be comforting to your own narrow worldview, but it just doesn't represent reality.--csloat 23:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Trying to pretend they have peaceful allies supporting their actions appears to be mere imagination. What peaceful groups have signed onto the anti-shia and anti-democratic attacks? Perhaps there is some remaining Bathist and wahabi sympathizers with the insurgents, but if they are an organized group, they should be documented specifically, not presented as a general sentiment of Iraqis or against the coalition.--Silverback 05:36, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Your edits are Orwellian. You and Daniel11 are doing everything to remove any evidence that the resistance is popular or that there are elements of the resistance who are not terrorists. There are peaceful groups who oppose the occupation, and there are also violent groups opposing the occupation who do not target civilians. I will take out the sentence you're objecting to here just to avoid an edit war, but I am reinstating all the other changes, which you reverted without explanation. Again, I think this entry needs to be true to the reality that there are multiple groups resisting the U.S. occupation, and that they have different goals. Your assumption that they are all allied with Zarqawi, who is anti-Shiite, is at odds with reality and it is completely insulting to the many Shiites who oppose U.S. occupation. Let's not forget what I wrote elsewhere on this page -- Ayatollah Sistani, who is the key reason we had an election in January rather than going by the original Bush plan in the first place, has made it very clear that between the Bush Administration and the Sadrists, he prefers the Sadrists. --csloat 07:54, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sorry to disappoint, buddy, but the occupation is over. I'm sure you must be terribly disappointed -- after all, there's plenty of "popular" "resistance" who "peacefully" share your opposition to the "U.S. occupation" (even when there was an occupation, it was the coalition's, not the U.S.'s) -- but those days are over, Iraq is now governed and legislated by Iraqis. On a no doubt similarly sad (for you) note, it must be a great disappointment to see the end of the "resistance": now that the terrorists have no chance of affecting the political resolution, they're basically just criminals instead of terrorists or even insurgents. When you attack civilians and some hard targets in order to change the political situation, like Al Qaeda or Hamas or your insurgents in Iraq back in the day, you're terrorists; when you're just blowing up civilians for the hell of it, you're really not much more than a serial criminal. It's gonna be harder to stand up for them as this transformation becomes clear to you -- but, I'm sure you'll give it your best whack. --Daniel11 20:16, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The occupation is over? Since when did the Iraqi government get control over U.S. military major operations? ?Christiaan 20:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
To add to this.... if you think the occupation is over will you please send this information to the National Guards who have been kept in Iraq beyond their contracts so that they can make plans to come home? Will you please tell that to the residents of Fallujah, so that they too can return home? While you're at it, please tell Mr. Bush; given his announcement this week that we may be occupying Iraq militarily for a long time to come, it's clear that he didn't get your memo. Message to Daniel11: stop acting as if those of us who are actually looking at the complexities of the situation are somehow pro-terrorist. And read something about the reality yourself, rather than just believing everything you hear on Rush Limbaugh. Every poll in Iraq has consistently shown a majority of Iraqis -- Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, even Christians -- percieve the US as an occupying force. Even the people who won in the election that you think Bush deserves credit for want the US out. Wake up. And until you do wake up, please stop trying to change the historical record to fit your absurd caricature of reality. --csloat 22:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Take 2: What if they had an edit war and a few people came?

Not this again.... ok, first, why do you keep on putting "U.S. occupation," "U.S. this," and "U.S. that" back in, when these are all coalition activities? I understand there's a lot of (justifiable?) bitterness or envy or whatever toward the U.S. in Europe and other parts of the world, but surely even you acknowledge the basic fact that these are coalition activities, not U.S. activities?

Next, why do you keep trying to hide the names of things like the ITG, which people will see anyway once they click on the link? Does it really bother people with your bias to see things like "Iraqi Transitional Government"?

And finally, while there may be people in Iraq who peacefully disagree with the ITG, the presence of coalition forces, Iyad Allawi, or whatever, this article's not about them, it's about the Iraqi insurgency. If you want to mention those who have peaceful disagreements with anything in the new Iraq, why don't you slip it in as one of your many "hidden" messages of support for the "resistance" later in the article? It most certainly does not belong in the introductory paragraph. --Daniel11 11:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I put U.S. this and U.S. that because accuracy is important. This is also an article about Iraqi resistance (not the U.S. invasion) and therefore such terms comply Wikipedia self-identification conventions. ?Christiaan 11:58, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This doesn't answer my questions or address the issues involved... you're still hung up on your obsessive ideas of WP self-identification conventions and "systemic bias." --Daniel11 12:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes it does. Do you have a problem with Wikipedia conventions? ?Christiaan 12:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Where do you answer why you keep hiding the names of important, relevant organizations? Where do you answer why you keep mentioning those peaceful Iraqis who disagree with the ITG in the introductory paragraph of an article about insurgents? And no I don't have a problem with WP conventions, though as I indicated you do seem to obsess about them quite a bit. --Daniel11 12:23, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm not a babysitter Daniel. I'm sure you can work it out yourself. Yes I'm well aware of your personal remarks. ?Christiaan 12:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well I've tried, but somebody keeps reverting me ;) --Daniel11 12:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We need to change the article name back again

The problems associated with the rather politically motivated decision to change this article from Iraqi resistance to Iraqi insurgency are now beginning to show; with Daniel11 attempting to remove all mention of non-violent Iraqi resistance. This article needs to be changed back to its original name to as it is too narrow a definition and it doesn't comply with Wikipedia self-identification conventions. ?Christiaan 11:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now that the non-violent Iraqi resistance has a voice in the national assembly they too are a target of the insurgency.--Silverback 12:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"the" non-violent Iraqi resistance. Haha. ?Christiaan 12:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Since you saw the widespread support for renaming the article, I assume you know that it wasn't politically motivated, and that you're unlikely to succeed in moving it back (but feel free to try). If you're truly concerned about those Iraqis who disagree with some policy of the Iraqi Transitional Government or the presence of coalition troops, and who don't blow people up or otherwise take part in the insurgency, I'm sure there are more constructive ways (on and off Wikipedia) of making a difference than obsessing about the "U.S. invasion," "U.S. occupation," "U.S.-installed government," and so on. --Daniel11 12:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Now that problems are becoming clear with the decision I'm sure Wikipedians are intelligent enough to realise when they've made a mistake. I'm sure you'll understand why I don't respond to your personal remarks. ?Christiaan 12:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Somehow we need to deal with the problem that the merging Iraqi Resistance and Iraqi Insurgency has created. Very clearly there are matters of encyclopedic value that are not being dealt with properly because this merger. It's also being used by politically motivated editors to try and remove any hint from Wikipedia that there might be a legitimate resistance taking place against U.S. occupation. I would suggest we need to either change back to Iraqi Resistance (of which armed insurgency is one aspect) or recreate Iraqi Resistance as separate from Iraqi Insurgency. The first option makes far more sense to me. ?Christiaan 20:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That makes most sense to me too but I don't think the ones who have been censoring this information will go for it either. I'm OK with the second option if it's acceptable to more people, but I also don't want to do it myself... not today, anyway :) But I don't want to continue this rv war, which has gotten ridiculous. I find especially problematic Daniel11's edits, because he blatantly lies about the purpose of the edit in the edit summary. But I don't want to keep rv-ing, and obviously it leads to stagnation in terms of the article itself. Anyway I am for a separate article if the others here will go for it. --csloat 22:43, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Look, you can create whatever articles you want. Personally I don't see what you would have in an "Iraqi resistance" article, but go ahead and do it if you like. I don't see that there's much, if any material that's appropriate for such an article, and as you can see here, you might be contributing to the problem of having several redundant articles on a topic, but I'd be curious about what you come up with. As I say, it's up to you, I'm not going to interfere with what you do on Wikipedia, except to the extent of dealing with your POV shenannigans e.g. in this article (Iraqi insurgency).
As for Christiaan's accusation that I'm "politically motivated" and censoring information concerning a "legitimate resistance taking place against U.S. occupation," consider that the occupation's over, it was never a U.S. deal to begin with but rather coalition activity, and as discussed in the article renaming proposal it's not a resistance. So, apparently the info I'm "censoring" is more a reflection of your political motivation, anti-American sentiment, and so on. First, know thyself. --Daniel11 15:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The reason you don't see why there's enough info for an Iraqi resistance article is you keep erasing it. Frankly I think your edits are abusive and against the spirit of Wikipedia. Your claim that the occupation is over is, of course, complete fantasy, and it has been thoroughly refuted elsewhere on this page. If the occupation is over why is the U.S. still keeping troops there (many staying beyond their time in a sort of back door draft)? Why are Fallujans afraid to go home? You're also a complete moron if you believe the occupation was not primarily a U.S. occupation or that it isn't perceived that way in Iraq.

--csloat 19:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The only things I deleted that are vaguely relevant are Sheikh Jawad al-Khalisi, and the reference to trade unions. So you could have an article about your Sheikh, if he's notable enough (all the Google hits I looked at were repetitions of just one article); and then you could put something about the trade unions somewhere, but since they're victims of your so-called resistance rather than members of it, that wouldn't belong in an article about "resistance." The rest is basically spin that doesn't belong in any article, like claims of "winning hearts and minds" and repeated jabs at "invading" forces, "foreign military occupation," and so on. All in all, based on what I've erased you don't actually have an "Iraqi resistance" article.
As for your supposed refutation of the fact that the occupation is over, well, since the coalition handed authority of Iraq over to Iraqis, the occupation is over, and you can play all day with your refutation for all it matters. --Daniel11 20:53, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You live in a fantasy world. It's nice to believe the occupation is over; I guess you don't have any relatives in uniform over there. If you did you would be aware that it is very much not over. In any case you can keep pretending there is no occupation of Iraq if you like; I'm just putting NPOV on this article and we can take it from there. And yes, someone should put together a resistance article, perhaps me when I have time, because most of the "insurgents" -- particularly the folks around Moqtada al-Sadr -- are actually a subset of the "resistance." It doesn't matter though; as I've noted before, the real experts in this field actually do use the term "resistance" and they actually recognize that the U.S. occupation (1) exists and (2) is extremely unpopular among Iraqis, even those who fear insurgents. And, in fact, as many experts have noted, the insurgency would start to crumble if there were no U.S. occupation to attack. But anyway there's no point in explaining all this to you who would prefer to simply erase elements of the historical record that you don't agree with. --csloat 21:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
So I take it that, according to you, Germany, Japan, and so on, are still under U.S. occupation? (Or do you reverse it, so where it's really coalition troops you call it U.S. occupation, and when it's really U.S. troops you call it coalition occupation?). Speaking of living in a fantasy world, perhaps you should stop ascribing your hopes and attitudes and points of view to the terrorists: for instance, just because you make the silly claim that the insurgency would start to crumble if the U.S. troops left, doesn't mean that the Ba'athists and other terrorists share your opinion, and would actually stop bombing mosques. I wouldn't call your delusions and hallucinations "elements of the historical record." --Daniel11 21:27, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do we need arbitration for this edit war?

This is really getting tedious. I actually have a real job and I can't spend every morning or late night engaged in this rather infantile holy war. It's obvious that Daniel11 and Silverback are not even reading the newspapers (other than, perhaps, free republic or whatever), much less have any idea what is going on in Iraq. They have turned this into a silly holy war. It's embarrassing that this is a "featured article" when we can't even settle on what to call it. Part of the problem is they seem to think that me and Christiaan and anyone else taking the side I am taking are somehow pro-terrorist or pro-"insurgent" or even anti-election. This is foolishness. I think the Iraqi election was a great thing in many ways, though it has not ended the US occupation nor brought a truly legitimate government to Iraq.

We are trying to point out that things are more complicated than "pro-" or "anti-" insurgent. There are many elements of Iraqi resistance. More importantly, the conditions in Iraq are widely perceived as U.S. occupation, as every poll has shown, by a wide margin. Here's a poll from 2004 -- 80% consider the occupation government illegitimate. I think the election helped a lot here but not nearly enough. While more recent polls do show a decrease in support for the Iraqi resistance, the decrease has not been huge, and has not occurred at all among Sunnis. This is what Middle East historian Juan Cole wrote about this issue on March 21 2005: "In the past year, polling shows that the percentage of Sunni Arabs in Iraq who support attacking US targets has gone from 33 percent to 52 percent. That is, strictly in the Sunni Arab areas, support for the guerrilla war has actually grown. (Hamfisted US policies toward Fallujah account for this shift, in my view)." The result of the most recent Zogby poll (Jan 2005) found that 82% of Sunnis and 69% of Shiites want the US occupation to end. Even more alarming, over 50% of Sunnis "believe that ongoing attacks in Iraq are a legitimate form of resistance."

Look, I am currently at a conference on global terrorism that is attended by intelligence experts with security clearances (among others) -- hardly a "pro-insurgent" group of academics. There is general agreement among people here that the U.S. occupation is wildly unpopular in Iraq and they are in fact using the term "resistance" alongside the term "insurgency." That these terms have become so politicized on wikipedia just shows how far wikipedia sometimes is from the real world. Back here on earth, using the word "resistance" does not make one into a terrorist.

Finally you people are bitching that there is no evidence that some Iraqi resistance groups do not target civilians; they have made this explicit and I believe evidence is cited later in the article -- in any case here is some more.

I am reverting the edits once again. There are still many problems with this article but this is a good start. Please don't revert back again without real discussion (not just ad hominems). Or perhaps we should take this whole issue to arbitration. --csloat 17:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Responding to a poll that you favor the attacks does not make you part of the resistance, and certainly doesn't indicate that you are part of a peaceful non-violent resistance. I looked at the news articles which condemned attacks on civilians and Iraqis, and that was not a non-violent group either. Do you have information on what percentage of the attacks are attributable to it, and whether they've done anything be issue a press release? I hope noone has been using ad hominems against you, but please do not revert back until you can cite real information about the non-violent resistance movement.--Silverback 18:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As for whether there are nonviolent groups resisting the occupation, are you serious? I cited evidence that some 80% of Iraqis resist the occupation -- certainly most of those are nonviolent. Have you never heard of Ayatollah Sistani? He is resisting the occupation without violence. How about Sayed Mohamed Baqer Al-Hakim? He is resisting the occupation. So are the many groups who gained power during the January poll. Can you really not read newspapers yourself and figure this out? If you can't, that's fine, but don't make changes to this article if you are not an expert, you are not doing research on this issue, and you are not even bothering to read the news. I mean, come on, this is ludicrous. As for the specific resistance organization that avoids targeting civilians, the group is actually an umbrella organization widely described as including all Sunni resistance groups. Of course, this is not completely accurate because there are Sunni insurgents who are attacking civilians, but nonetheless five seconds on google is more than enough to learn that this is an umbrella organization including many different Sunni groups and is not just some guys who issued a press release.

I see that Christiaan already reverted the edits so I will not change anything but please do not mess with this article anymore until you actually do some research yourself rather than just nitpicking at my research.

--csloat 20:27, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

People who answer a poll that they want coalition troops out of Iraq, Ayatollah Sistani (who's played a major role in defeating the terrorists), and so on, are not part of the Iraqi insurgency, which this article is about. --Daniel11 20:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS on your point that "responding that you favor the attacks does not make you part of the resistance" -- that was never my argument. To resist occupation does not necessarily mean to be part of an organized resistance group. And like I said the majority of Iraqis are against the occupation, though of course most of them are not violent. By voting for leaders who are against the occupation, they are nonviolently resisting the occupation. By carrying signs denouncing the U.S. occupation and demanding Iraqi sovereignty people are nonviolently resisting the occupation. When Hamid Majid Sa'id, the head of the Iraqi Communist Party, calls for unity between the Communist and Islamic parties to fight the U.S. occupation and he is quoted in BBC monitoring as saying "Resistance is a legal right of all people and cannot be denied," he is resisting the occupation nonviolently. I don't know how much clearer this can be -- perhaps you are hoping for evidence of sit-ins at lunch counters or other activities more familiar to you as "nonviolent resistance" -- but things don't always work that way in other countries.

Again, all of this is silliness, and I think Silverback and Daniel11 need to stop editing this article until they have done their homework. I also think we need to change the title of this article back to Iraqi resistance. --csloat 20:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS I just read Daniel11's most recent note above (he wrote while I was editing). This is a good reason to change the title of the article back to "resistance". Sistani (to make the point a third time on this page) has made it clear that he prefers the insurgents (such as al-Sadr) to the American occupation. As do most Iraqis. Your edits are attempts to obscure that fact. Perhaps we need two articles here, one on "resistance" and one on "insurgency", but then we need to indicate pretty clearly the relationship between these and the fact that most of the "insurgents" see themselves as part of a "resistance" movement.

Again, I don't want to jump on a high horse about expertise, but I don't think people who aren't even reading the newspapers have any business editing this article. It's one thing if you want to add information about what little you do know, but if you don't know what you're talking about you should not be shutting up the people who actually do. --csloat 20:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

csloat -- your claim that "Sistani ... has made it clear that he prefers the insurgents (such as al-Sadr) to the American occupation" is completely ridiculous. Here is an official statement by the Najaf Majri'iyah regarding Al-Sadr. To summarize, they accuse him and his followers in no uncertain terms of killing Al-Khoei and several other clerics (of which the sons of Al-Hakim were eyewitnesses), of being involved in an attack on Sistani himself, and of other typical brutish behaviour we've all come to expect from them. Prefers the insurgents?!? Hell no. Sistani may not be a friend of the Americans, but he is adamantly opposed to any violent insurgency, and always has been. ObsidianOrder 15:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One last thing -- as for nonviolent groups resisting occupation, there are several mentioned in the body of the article itself (under "Composition.")--csloat 20:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's not a good reason to change the title of this article back to "Iraqi Resistance," it's a good reason for you to make edits in the appropriate place. If you want to write about Sistani's feelings toward America, consider doing it in the article about Sistani. How Sistani feels (or how you feel) about the American occupation is not a part of the Iraqi insurgency. --Daniel11 21:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You're kidding? You do know the history of this article right? ?Christiaan 22:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Non-violent resistance would be strikes, sitins, protests, anti-occupation publications urging non-cooperation. Citing Sistani as part of the resistance is ridiculous, he knew the Shia would emerge with power in any elections and has been working against insurgent attempt to incite sectarian conflict.--Silverback 22:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let's see, you guys brought up exactly zero pieces of evidence to support your mutilations of this article, and again have not even shown that you have read a damn thing about what is actually going on in Iraq. I am reverting the changes again. I don't think you'll see "sitins" in Iraq, but everything else you mentioned is certainly happening there. I agree that the election gave Sistani power, but it is ludicrous to imply that he is not resisting American occupation. And of course he is not the only one; I named others above, and there are others named in the body of the article.

So here's the deal; we have an edit war, and there are basically 4 people participating in this. What is the next step? Obviously we need outside intervention, or we are just going to keep reverting back and forth until somebody gets tired. Anybody else know how to handle this? --csloat 06:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One more comment -- Silverback the evidence you keep looking for is right there in the damn article. It's under composition, under "nonviolent resistance groups." Daniel11 is now erasing the reference to it but you can't just erase facts you don't like. Why the hell are you guys so invested in pretending that Iraqis like US occupation anyway? You really need to get a grip on reality, or at least just read the news once in a while. --csloat 07:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some more recent evidence of nonviolent resistance. This sort of thing, where a peaceful protest turns violent because of the security officials attacking a crowd of protesters, is all too common. You cannot call these "insurgents," but you cannot dispute that they are resisting. --csloat 09:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Demanding one's full pay is not "resisting the occupation." --Daniel11 10:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As an amusing aside, the people who you say here are "resisting" what you call above an illegitimate government and "U.S. occupation," actually work for the supposedly illegitimate government and with the United States. --Daniel11 10:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And to add just a little bit more irony: as they were security guards, their primary job was no doubt to defend the "U.S.-imposed stooges" against the Iraqi insurgents, whom this article is actually about. --Daniel11 11:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Csloat - that link demonstrates precisely why this article should stay focused on armed insurgents. Self identification issues aside, if the scope of this article is extended to cover anyone that does not echo the US line word for word, at the risk of exaggerating it would encompass everyone in Iraq except Allawi and Chalabi. Is the United Iraqi Alliance, an organization that is clearly not the American's first choice, a part of the resistance? It seems naive to believe that there are not at least some informal ties between members of the UIA and followers of Moqtada Al Sadr. Or to go out on a limb, the Kurdish parties, who may be cooperating with the provisional govt (or whatever it is called) for the time being, but more out of immediate term political expendiency and certainly not out of loyalty to an Iraqi nation? Actually in my mind, this article should be split into two articles, one covering the (for lack of a better name) 'Sunni triangle insurgency' and one focusing on the Al Sadr and other similar organizations among the Shiites. These are two totally different groups with their own backers, aims and motives. Having the primary qualifier be defined in terms of their either violent or nonviolent opposition to US forces is a US centric way to look at the situation. --Bletch 13:34, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
About the intro - I sort of like the old version (pre-edit-war) better than either of the two alternatives being considered now. I'll try to write a new intermediate version when I have some time. To pick some phrases apart ... "also called the Iraqi resistance" is good, it deserves a mention, ideally with an explanation of what the difference is and why some people prefer that term, but all that may be too long for the first paragraph; "against what they see as ..." is editorializing but can stay for all I care; "U.S.-led" is fine; "U.S.-installed" is a stretch, and in any case it refers to an older pre-elections state of affairs; "Not all those opposed to the occupation and/or the government use violent means" hmm right, those are now the political opposition parties, not part of the insurgency, and I will submit to you that there is not much evidence of cooperation between them and insurgents, in fact they are just as much a target for attacks by the insurgents as anyone else; so this really doesn't belong except perhaps in a section dealing with the broader political background that makes an insurgency possible; "favored by many" is pure editorializing and should go. ObsidianOrder 15:48, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks --Daniel11 17:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
ObsidianOrder I find myself agreeing with most of your propositions. I think it is Orwellian to take out any mention of resistance as Daniel and silverback keep doing. Since Daniel said thanks above I assume that means he will back off mutilating the article further every time resistance is mentioned. I also believe the section on nonviolent resistance groups needs to stay in, or perhaps be given its own section. My biggest problem with the edits made by daniel and silver is the implication that the insurgents are only targeting the Iraqi government, which is not even close to true, since many groups focus almost entirely on the occupying forces. Also I think the implication that the US occupation is accepted by the majority of Iraqis -- something that is again and again refuted by poll results as well as every other indication coming out of Iraq. The fact is the U.S. occupation (or "U.S.-led," if you prefer) is vastly unpopular, and that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis -- Sunnis, Shiites, etc. -- want them out, and many are actively resisting them. Again this is not just POV; it is backed up by the preponderence of evidence, and the people criticizing this point never offer counter evidence; they just nitpick at one of many examples and then pretend they've refuted the argument. Perhaps we should break this into two or three articles -- one on "resistance" and one or two on "insurgency" (depending if we want to distinguish between insurgents as bletch proposes above).
I also think we need to make very clear that the movement behind Zarqawi and others who are trying to incite civil war and destroy any civil society in Iraq is tiny, a minority of "insurgents" or "resistance fighters" or whatever. One reason I am so incensed by Daniel/Silverbacks changes is they seem to want to lump all these folks together and pretend that all attacks on U.S. forces are attempts to cause chaos and civil war. This is just B.S. There are few foreign fighters in the insurgency -- less than 5%, though their numbers are growing as of late.[39] Many of the Sunni insurgents are former Baathists and others who had power during Saddam's rule, but they are in no way aligned with Zarqawi and the al Qaeda types (who have made no secret of their absolute hatred for Saddam Hussein, for Baathism, and for socialism generally). It is probably true that the former Baathists are living in a dangerous fantasy world, but it is simply false that they share the same goals as Zarqawi. --csloat 21:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
csloat - yes, I think Bletch's distinction makes a lot of sense, don't know if that's necessarily the best way to organize the material. "the implication that the insurgents are only targeting the Iraqi government" - there are vastly more attacks against Iraqis (both government and civilian) than against US troops (probably a 10:1 ratio). "the implication that the US occupation is accepted by the majority" - well of course not, they want us to leave as soon as feasible, and so do we, but not in a way that results in the bad guys seizing power, and that is something that needs to be dealt with first. I think most Iraqis understand that, even if they are intensely unhappy about it. "many are actively resisting them" - yes, for starters you get harshly critical newspaper articles and so forth all the time, and my impression is that a lot of politicians and government officials definitely do not just do whatever the Americans ask them to. If anything the Shia religious parties in the UIA are the center of "the resistance" since what they are doing often runs against American wishes and American interests. That's ok, but the insurgency is a different kind of animal entirely. "the movement behind Zarqawi and others who are trying to incite civil war and destroy any civil society in Iraq is tiny, a minority of "insurgents"" - is it? The best way to make Americans leave is to peacefully have a scrupolously fair election, form a government, and then politely ask the US to leave. We would have to, because we see ourselves as the good guys. If there was no violence at all this would be much easier. Therefore the main point of the insurgency is not (and logically cannot be) to make the Americans leave, whatever the rank-and-file insurgents may believe. Rather, it is to attempt to recruit a larger chunk of the population into an extremist movement, and to intimidate/kill the moderates. "all attacks on U.S. forces are attempts to cause chaos and civil war" - attacks against Americans are purely a prop, both as propaganda of the insurgency's effectiveness, and to try to provoke an American overreaction which will bring people to the insurgents' side. Most of the attacks are against other Iraqis. So, yes, the goal of the insurgency is precisely to "incite civil war and destroy any civil society in Iraq", although they want that for different fundamental reasons (such as religious, pure desire for power, sectarian hatred, etc). "Many of the Sunni insurgents are former Baathists ... they are in no way aligned with Zarqawi and the al Qaeda types" - they may not be aligned, but they sure work together. Falluja was populated by Baathists who gave Zarqawi a sanctuary and free reign. Something similar is happening lately in Mosul. Lots of other examples of them working together exist. "it is simply false that they share the same goals as Zarqawi" - perhaps, but they have a functioning alliance-of-convenience. There is some evidence the Baathists have expressed dissatisfaction with Zarqawi's methods and targets, and certainly their ultimate goals are different (although perhaps not mutually exclusive). They definitely work together, though, so lumping them together to a degree is warranted. In particular, I think there is no *operational* barrier - there is essentially no group that says "We will only attack Americans, and we will not cooperate with anyone who doesn't draw the same line". If you think that such groups form the majority of the insurgency, you are sadly in error. They all work together, even when they have completely different ultimate goals. ObsidianOrder 02:55, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
oh, and regarding the foreign fighters - I would say they may be 5-10% of the total number of insurgents, but they are probably close to half of the "front-line troops". Most insurgents are in it partly or primarily for profit, and most participate exclusively in non-combat activities such as scouting, carrying messages, smuggling, procuring supplies, sabotage, planting explosives; or in common criminal activity such as burglary, robbery, abduction for ransom, and so forth, deliberately aimed at "enemies of the insurgency". The rear-echelon activities are often for pay, and the criminal activity is its own reward (but with politically-motivated targets, and perhaps additional pay). All of these activities help the insurgents, but cannot be decisive without fron-line troops, hence the foreign fighters are significant vastly beyond what their numbers suggest. Moreover, it appears they have been responsible for *all* the mass-casualty attacks against civilians targets. They also serve as a training cadre. It may be an exaggeration to say they are the backbone of the insurgency, but they are about half the backbone (the other half being a combination of Baathist leaders with money hidden in Syria, former military personnel, and extremist Sunni clerics). ObsidianOrder 03:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"there are vastly more attacks against Iraqis (both government and civilian) than against US troops (probably a 10:1 ratio)" -- source? I don't buy this. A general estimated attacks on U.S. forces at 50-60 a day, so you're saying there are over 500 attacks by "insurgents" on Iraqis each day. I'm skeptical. "they want us to leave as soon as feasible, and so do we" -- we agree on the former; I haven't seen any evidence of the latter but I do hope you are correct. In my estimation, we have a great opportunity to leave now and save face while still helping keep order through a multinational force. Unfortunately it doesn't look like any of our leaders have the courage to make that move. In any case, that's neither here nor there, and it is all POV speculation on both our parts. But the former is measurable (and has been measured).
"'the movement behind Zarqawi and others who are trying to incite civil war and destroy any civil society in Iraq is tiny, a minority of "insurgents"'- is it?" yes, it is. This is verifiable. Your comments about "the point of the insurgency" are pure speculation; in addition they contradict the evidence (such as explicit statements of insurgents). You're assuming "the insurgency" is one united group, which is silly (and you admit as much when you embrace the suggestion of breaking this into two articles). You offer no evidence to support claims that the former Baathists are working with Zarqawi. During Saddam's rule these people hated each other violently -- probably worse than either hated the U.S. The idea that Fallujah was full of people giving Zarqawi protection is ludicrous -- all it took was one household or two to give him shelter; over 200,000 people were expelled during the bloody siege of the city -- do you really think "most" of them were former Baathists working with Zarqawi? It's ludicrous -- there were few if any Saddam loyalists there and few foreign fighters. There were only a tiny number of foreign fighters caught during the assault (IIRC it was fewer than 10).
Speaking of foreign fighters, your comments about them are sheer fantasy. Half of the "front line" troops? What the hell are you talking about? The 5% figure comes from US military sources who would claim higher numbers if they could (I'm not doubting their integrity, just pointing out that if they have any incentive to distort, it would be upward, not downward). You speak about the division of labor within the insurgency as if you had first hand knowledge. You don't cite a single source for a word you say. The 5% figure is based on what the U.S. military is actually observing -- including the numbers they actually catch and kill or arrest. You're just making stuff up.
This is getting tedious. It's one thing to have a productive discussion about how to rearrange this article in a way that looks NPOV from both of our perspectives, but it's quite another to have an ideological debate about these things, especially when you're boldly speculating without evidence and with only a tenuous connection to reality.--csloat 04:20, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Self-identification language removed again by Daniel11

Daniel11 I think you need to take a serious look at the reasoning behind Wikipedia policies on self-identification. I'd ask that you do an exercise and ask yourself how you would describe troops from another country that were occupying your country and you were part of a resistance to them being there. This article is about Iraqi resistance (insurgency), it's not about the occupying fascists (holidaying liberators), so it stands to reason that we describe how the resistance sees the relevant actors and events. Otherwise we dilute the article by ensuring there is a lack of understanding in this regard. ?Christiaan 01:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Iraqi government of Iraq accepts the coalition troops' presence, so it's incorrect to call it an occupation. It stands to reason that we describe the insurgency accurately. Furthermore, as a large number of the insurgents are themselves not Iraqi nationals, one can't simply call them the resistance (even if there weren't other reasons why one shouldn't call them that). You can say further on in the article that such-and-such insurgents consider themselves the "Iraqi resistance," in the same way that you could say somewhere in an article about Saddam that he still calls himself "Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti al-whatever, President of Iraq"; but in the introductory paragraph, and in all descriptive writing about the insurgents, they are not "the Iraqi resistance opposing U.S. fascist-imposed stooges," but insurgents. --Daniel11 01:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The Iraqi government does not have control over U.S. major combat operations and much of the population opposes the continued U.S. presence, so it's somewhat academic what you believe. And your argument that we can't call it Iraq resistance because many particpants are not nationals seems to fall flat on its face when you consider that we are currently calling the article Iraqi insurgency. ?Christiaan 01:41, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what I believe, and I'm not pushing what I believe; what's important is accuracy, and accurately speaking Iraq is governed by Iraqis, so the coalition presence is not an occupation. That we can't call it an Iraqi resistance when it's composed of foreigners is due to the endogenous nature of a resistance; we currently call it the "Iraqi insurgency" because it's the insurgency taking place in Iraq. --Daniel11 02:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oh I see, this is your definition of "resistance" is it? Nationals only? Yeah right. I also see you have some funny ideas about international law. Apart from it being contentious that Iraq is being "governed" by Iraqis the Iraq government does not control U.S. major military operations and nor have military operations ceased. And as article 6 of the Geneva Conventions states:
The present Convention shall apply from the outset of any conflict or occupation mentioned in Article 2.
In the territory of Parties to the conflict, the application of the present Convention shall cease on the general close of military operations.
In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations
?Christiaan 02:40, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, only nationals constitute a "resistance", because there is a defensive aspect to the word, foreigners attacking civilians have a hard time meeting. The coalition has achieved peace and stability, notably enough to allow elections to be held. The coalition is allowed to stay on as former occupiers under International Humanitarian Law conditions which arguably apply, I quote:
  • There may be situations... where the former occupier will maintain a military presence in the country, with the agreement of the legitimate government under a security arrangement (e.g. U.S. military presence in Japan and Germany). The legality of such agreement and the legitimacy of the national authorities signing it are subject to international recognition, whereby members of the international community re-establish diplomatic and political relations with the national government. In this context, it is in the interest of all the parties involved to maintain a clear regime of occupation until the conditions for stability and peace are created allowing the re-establishment of a legitimate national government. A post-occupation military presence can only be construed in the context of a viable, stable and peaceful situation. [5] (http://www.hiciraq.org/infocentre/general/files/IHL_and_Maintenance_of_law_and_order.pdf) (pdf)
--Silverback 01:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A resistance movement is not defined by who is resisting but by who is being resisted. Hence Wikipedia states: a resistance movement is a group dedicated to fighting an invader in an occupied country. You know sometimes Silverback I think you even believe your own rhetoric. ?Christiaan 21:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

election results for National Foundation Congress

I've been unable to find election results for the National Foundation Congress. How many seats did they win?--Silverback 14:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe zero, as they boycotted the elections. [40] --Bletch 17:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey Daniel11 Stop the Edit War

We're going to have to come up with a version here that both sides think is NPOV, and Daniel's destructive edits won't cut it. Stop trying to censor information that upsets your little black-or-white worldview. The world is more complicated than that. There is nonviolent resistance to the occupation. There are groups that only target the occupation and do not target civilians. These are facts. Erasing them does not change them. If you're going to keep doing this, let's just slap a NPOV tag on the whole article and be done with it.

Don't pretend your edits are consistent with the discussion; they are not. See above - it seems to be agreed that the resistance should be mentioned and we should mention why some of us say "resistance" while others refer only to "insurgents." You just keep erasing things. Until someone creates a separate page for the resistance, those paragraphs belong in this entry (and afterwards, a link to them in the new entry belongs in their place). --csloat 11:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you'd like to work on articles concerning peaceful opposition to the Iraqi government and/or the coalition troops, there are numerous places: I just created this, which you might like to work on, or you could start a new article on a related topic, and so on. --Daniel11 12:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There is just not a significant non-violent "resistance". This "resistance" hasn't resisted anything, except perhaps the risk of going to the polls. They aren't even parties to the negotiations for the leadership of the country. The issuing of press releases does not make them a "resistance". The "occupation" ended with the internationally recognized government last summer. No candidate for high position in the country has stated that Iraq is ready for the coalition to leave.--Silverback 19:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you'd read the newspapers once in a while you would see how wrong you are. Nearly every candidate for high position has stated that they want the U.S. occupation to end. If the occupation is truly over then why are Americans still dying over there? --csloat 21:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why are policemen dying in the US? The coalition is providing security, under the auspices of the internationally recognized Iraqi government. All want the coalition presence to end eventually, as does the coalition.--Silverback 06:22, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
American policement die in the U.S., not a foreign occupying army (if one existed, you and I would probably both be part of the resistance against it). If everybody really wants the occupation to end, we have the perfect opportunity to end it now and save face -- declaring victory, praising the elections, and allowing a truly multinational force to handle security on terms determined by the Iraqis rather than the Americans. The reason Iraq is considered still under occupation is that the Iraqi government is not making decisions about the American military -- those decisions are made by the Pentagon and the U.S. military officers in the field. When those decisions are made by an Iraqi civilan government, then we can talk; otherwise you are again persisting in sheer fantasy.--csloat 19:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

revert war compromise?

I'm putting in a bunch of separate edits for parts that have been in dispute in the current edit war. I'm trying to be fair, and in many cases I am rewriting these sections substantially. In any case, please don't revert everything at once, handle them a piece at a time. I'll go over the list of disputed bits and what I think about them:

  • "Not all those opposed to..." - OK.
  • "Foreign Fighters" section - change: it is not used to refer to the US troops, 99% of the time it is used to refer to non-Iraqi Muslim/Arab fighters (Christiaan - thanks for the article you cited, but it doesn't actually support the claim).
  • "Non-violent groups" section - OK.
  • "targeting civilians" - change: some of them claim not to, but many do it, both as disregard and as deliberate targetting.
  • "helicopters" - I don't really care.
  • "coalition forces" or "invading forces" - neither is quite right, since car bombs are commonly used against Iraqi targets (civilian and military). should really be "coalition forces and new government".
  • "car bombs' efficiency has plummeted" - probably true, cite source?
  • "opposition to ... the occupation" or "... to the new political structure" - both, obviously. how about "to the occupation and the new political structure that is emerging"?
  • "Analysis and polls" - whole section needs a rewrite. for polls, we need to find and summarize as many polls as possible (in a table, perhaps) with who took the poll, when, and what the results were, in a (if possible) comparable way. for analysis, Nadhmi's comments can stay (but add cite, and a short summary of his background and qualifications). Juan Cole is not a good source in my opinion, but he can stay as well. I'd add, dunno, maybe something by Fareed Zacharia or Daniel Pipes or Charles Krauthammer to balance it out ;)

ObsidianOrder 18:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am cool with most of these changes. I do think we need to put back the evidence of groups which are not targeting civilians; this is a rather large umbrella group of Sunni insurgents that strictly focuses on military and government targets. You may be right that they also hit civilians by accident or intention, but one could say the same of American forces' targeting -- their declaration is an important historical fact.
As far as Juan Cole, he's the only one of the group of authors that you mentioned with any claim to expertise in Middle East history. Neither Pipes nor Krauthammer even read Arabic. Why is Juan Cole not a good source -- just because you don't agree with him? Sorry, that doesn't cut it. Of course we should cite the polls more directly though; I have links to a couple of them somewhere else on this page.--csloat 19:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Pipes knows Arabic quite well, I think [41]. Juan Cole - he has the credentials but in my experience anything he says is way too heavily colored by his agenda. Regarding particular problems with him: [42] [43] [44]. Yeah, this is just my personal opinion, of course. ObsidianOrder 21:38, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just noticed this. You're right about Pipes knowing Arabic; unfortunately that hasn't made him any less of an Islamophobe and an ideologue. As for the Juan Cole links you gave, sounds like much ado about nothing. So he repeated a stupid claim that the people running an Iraqi blog weren't Iraqi. It was a dumb claim to pass along, but it wasn't his idea and he never claimed it as a fact. In any case, the story hardly challenges his credibility on middle east issues. He does not hide his agenda, but he is generally meticulous about the facts. The Iraqi blog example is an unfortunate exception to that but it is hardly representative of his work (and many of his claims can easily be verified elsewhere).
Osidian wrote "Foreign Fighters ... Christiaan - thanks for the article you cited, but it doesn't actually support the claim"
Newtopia Magazine quotes Jamail as saying, "When we say ?foreign fighters? here, we must recall that every Iraqi I?ve spoken with views the occupiers as the foreign fighters, and not any other Arab who is coming here to fight in the resistance. Most Iraqis I speak with view these Arab fighters as brothers, and the occupiers as the ?foreign fighters.?" I restored this Iraqi POV appropriately. ?Christiaan 19:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The evidence is very weak, there is no indication that this source meets journalistic standards at all. He confidently quotes figures and percentages without mentioning sources, he seems to generalize from experience gained only in the Sunni triangle and from the worst parts of it at that. His intention to stay there may not allow him to speak freely, since he expresses fear for his safety and has to travel with security. We may never know what this person knows until he gets back for good and can speak freely. he may have to stick to the radical insurgent line since he is mingling more and is relying less upon security.--Silverback 10:23, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
For fuck's sake. You could say the same of any journalist embedded with American forces. By your logic no journalist in a dangerous place is credible. So perhaps we should only listen to journalists who haven't been to Iraq? This does not impugn his credibility; this is just a whine. And on top of it you're whining about him being in the Sunni triangle -- where the hell do you think the "foreign fighters" in the insurgency hang out?--csloat 08:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Except I've seen embedded journals cite their sources when quoting statistical data, and when not free to speak the truth, mentioning that. This guy travels around the triangle with very little protection, so has to be able write stuff that is clearly propaganda in order to keep safe and to have access to the insurgents.--Silverback 10:52, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
by the way your revert left the claim from the journalist in it; perhaps you had a change of heart? In any case I am adding more information to the section and hopefully the new version will be more agreeable to more people.--csloat 08:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If I did it was an accident. I'll look for it. This guy is not notable, or journalistic.--Silverback 10:52, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
What the hell does that mean? Where is your evidence that he is writing propaganda? Where does it say that journalists must be "notable"? Who decides when someone is "notable"? Finally, why are you pretending that this journalist is saying something that isn't obvious? The meaning of "foreign fighters" is pretty obvious, and the Americans are foreigners in Iraq. This guy states the obvious and you say he's writing propaganda? You need evidence to support your points; I consider these edits destructive. --csloat 11:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi Resistance

I am thinking more and more that a separate category is a good idea, so I will create it in a bit. Especially after Baghdad saw the biggest protests since 1958 on the 2 year anniversary of its supposed "liberation," it is pretty difficult for the folks who have been stomping their feet about using the term in this forum to continue to pretend that this is not a popular uprising against the American occupation. --csloat 08:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I may be alone in my thinking, but IMHO stuff like that would be better done under Politics of Iraq, as there are too many interractions and relationships between the parties do and do not operate under the auspices of the provisional government. Take Sistani for example, one can almost say that the United Iraqi Alliance is his right arm, and Moqtada al-Sadr is his left arm. --Bletch 16:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with the creation of a new article as well. There is no "popular uprising". Indeed, there are a lot of people who would like the US to have less influence, and to leave soon-ish, but that is quite completely different from the insurgency. There is not much evidence of the political opposition and the insurgency working together, except Al-Sadr who is an ex- insurgent (or perhaps defeated insurgent) and wannabe politician. Anything along those lines should go in Politics of Iraq or Iraqi opposition (post-occupation). ObsidianOrder 05:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and re: the April 9 demonstration (apparently organized and primarily composed of Al-Sadr's men), it is not "the biggest since 1958" since for example the anti-terrorist demonstrations in Baghdad on Nov 28 and Dec 10, 2003 were probably larger (and of course the elections were quite a bit larger too). Al-Sadr *and* the AMS together can bring a few thousand guys out on the street, that's no surprise, actually that's a pretty poor showing. Btw I'll believe the number claimed in the LA Times (and the World Socialist Web Site, among others) when I see a photo like this. But such a photo doesn't exist, now does it? ObsidianOrder 05:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

According to Juan Cole these were the biggest demonstrations since 1958 if they were even half as big as claimed. There is no evidence whatsoever that the antiterrorist demonstrations were "probably" larger, and certainly no scholars who are investigating the issue that I am aware of have come to that conclusion. The demonstrations on Saturday in Fardus Square were likely at least in the "tens of thousands" according to reports; I believe the figure of 300,000 includes demonstrations all over Baghdad (there were demos in other areas, and there were Sunnis demonstrating as well as Shiites). Since you only believe photos, and not respected newspaper accounts, here are some photos for you. Pretty, huh? Perhaps not quite as large as the Lebanese protests from your photos on bbc, but that site claims there were almost a million there -- in Baghdad we're talking about 300k as an upper number. I'm sure there are many other photos of what happened on April 9th, which you can certainly look for yourself. Most US media outlets focused instead on the death of the pope - or was it Terry Schaivo - to take much account of these protests. Your claim that there is no large scale uprising against American power there is simply false, or wishful fantasy at best. IMHO :) --csloat 00:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, the photos are not bad. As it happens, you can count the number of people in them, one photo shows 2-3k and the other 4k, approximately. Surprising how there are no women present, and more than half the slogans are in English, eh? ObsidianOrder 01:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

foreign fighters

I don't think we should delete all mention of "foreign fighters"; I just think we should keep in there the one sentence that explains that some Iraqis consider the Americans and other coalition members to be "foreign fighters" (since they are, in fact, "foreign," and "fighting"). --csloat 09:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My edits were prompted more by the fact that the previous paragraph seemed more preoccupied with the term "foreign fighters" itself rather than the particular group that end up referred to (whether correctly or incorrectly) as foreign fighters. My original edit was an attempt to address that concern without removing information, but that got reverted. --Bletch 17:15, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I know - I guess I was saying I preferred your original edit. The term "foreign fighters" is used often enough in the media on both sides that it is worth using here. I agree with the move to "Non-Iraqi Muslim fighters" for the heading (or whatever it was), but for the content I think this claim should stay. --csloat 19:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In that case, feel free to revert to my original edit then. I do not have a strong personal preference between the two variations. My second variation was an attempt to address the concern of others. --Bletch 19:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Let's just settle this damn thing... when talking about Iraq, in common usage "foreign fighters" means "non-Iraqi Muslim fighters". Everyone uses it that way, not just the US and Iraqi government and US/Western media: how about major newspapers in Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Lebanon, Pakistan... heck, even Al Jazeera does it. And that's precisely how we should use it, after defining it. Yes, literally the US troops are "fighters" who are "foreign" (although if you want to split hairs, the US troops are not "fighters", they are an "army" since they have a unified command), but the term "foreign fighters" through extensive usage has developed a very precise meaning of its own... essentially it is a more polite way of saying "jihadis". The term is used much the same way in other places where the phenomenon occurs (such as Kashmir, Afghanistan or Chechnya). Citing the personal opinions of journalists with dubious agendas is irrelevant. This is simply what the term means now. I think I have given enough examples of use outside "Western media", it's trivially easy to find lots more. I've stayed out of this but now I'm (reluctanctly) going to jump in this edit war and use the term according to what it means, with no hedging. ObsidianOrder 06:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you want to have a section on jihadis instead of foreign fighters that;s fine. Or we should have another page for foreign fighters that explains the misuse of the term by much of the mass media. The point is, the term is disputed, it is disputed by journalists, academics, and ordinary Iraqis, not to mention other Middle Eastern sources, and that dispute remains even though many of them also use the term in the context that is dominant in the west. Explaining the use of this term is not "hedging"; it is simply explaining this term. Again, "foreign fighters" are "fighters" who are "foreign." No amount of jumping up and down will change that fact. And many people are not willing to ignore the obvious literal meanings of that phrase to suit your political agenda. And, in fact, some are pointing out that the U.S. troops are literally "foreign fighters," and that the number of actual jihadi foreign fighters is very small (though unfortunately growing due to U.S. actions, but that's beside the point), especially when compared to the number of coalition "foreign fighters." Don't just erase substantiated points because they make your own ideological position less stable. Deal with it. --csloat 07:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
PS -- Nobody is arguing that the term is not used outside the "western media"; only that people outside the western media (and even some within it, e.g. Robert Fisk) are also using the term in another way, often to point out the hypocrisy of American policy.
csloat - you accuse me of vandalism because I've "deleted facts that are substantiated". I think all that I deleted was opinions which are largely irrelevant to the subject of the main article. And I explained why, see above. Okay, so maybe some people don't like the term, but everyone uses it, and everyone understands it. A lengthy criticism of the term itself, by not-particularly-notable personalities, doesn't belong here. A short criticism, maybe (as in "Some feel the term is biased since coalition troops could also be described as "foreign fighters""). If you want to create an article specifically about them, go ahead, it's actually a pretty interesting subject not well covered by any existing article, and the criticism of the term can go in there. Regarding using "jihadis" instead in this article: I would, possibly. However, there is a good reason why official sources tend not to use "jihadis": "foreign fighters" is neutral, almost bland (compared with e.g. "islamist terrorist infiltrators"), and fairly descriptive of who they are and what they do (and for obvious reasons "fighters" is more accurate than, say, "soldiers"). On the other hand, "jihadis" imputes a motivation, and bring the religious aspect into the forefront, which will irk many people, especially other Muslims who may not agree with these people's idea of "jihad". ObsidianOrder 14:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes "foreign fighters" is bland and broader than "jihadis," that's the point -- "foreign fighters" is a term that can also be -- and is -- used to describe the American presence. I'm not opposed to shortening the reference some -- but it was so long precisely because someone else didn't believe the term was used in that way at all and kept erasing the shorter reference until there was further evidence for its use. You say you are just deleting opinions, but you are deleting factual evidence of opinions, which is something different than just deleting opinions per se. These are opinions relevant to the use of the term. The point is not just that the term is "biased"; it is that the term is a catachresis, an abuse of language, and that the Iraqis (among others) are well aware of that fact, and use the term in another way to highlight that fact. These are important points that belong here, and erasing the evidence of these points does not make them less true. --csloat 15:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If avoiding the term is out of the question, perhaps this info about the term itself could be moved to another article because it simply is not about the insurgency/resistance/whatever. Having a large section picking apart the term "foreign fighter" here is like starting the Voice of America article with a schpiel reminding the reader that this case, 'voice' does not speak for Canadians, Uruguayans and other inhabitants of the Americas. It may be an issue worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, but that particular place might be the best place to raise the issue. --Bletch 16:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. I second what Bletch said. ObsidianOrder 17:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If other people used "Voice of America" to mean those other places, then yes it would be a relevant point to make. Not at the beginning of the article as you state but more appropriately at the end of the relevant section as it is placed here. If you want to create a separate page for "foreign fighters" and only have a line about its use in other ways here that is fine. But just erasing it because you're uncomfortable with that particular usage because your ideology is so one-dimensional is destructive to the goals of wikipedia. --csloat 16:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

csloat, you see, the problem is that none of the references offered actually suggested such usage. there is a step from "i think they would view ... as ..." to "i have observed them commonly refering to ... as ...". "Foreign fighters" is not used to refer to US/coalition troops, certainly not in common usage, and probably not ever, as far as I can determine, except for people like Fisk and Jamail who want to use it as a deliberate play on words. I'm not "uncomfortable with the particular usage", I simply haven't seen any evidence that it exists. I also think it inappropropriate to give that much airtime to rhetoric by Fisk, Jamail and friends. Does that make sense? I also think an article specifically about foreign fighters is a great idea, and objections to the term (even silly ones ;) do belong in there. ObsidianOrder 17:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That is false. One article quotes the Supreme Leader of Iran specifically using the phrase in this manner. The Jamail essay adds that the phrase is used this way by all of the Iraqis he has talked to. Fisk is using it to call attention to U.S. hypocrisy, and that usage is notable. And it is not a "deliberate play on words"; it is a literal interpretation of words. Your comment that it's inappropriate to give air time to reporters whose ideas make you uncomfortable is precisely my problem with many of your edits. Like I said, if you want to shorten this comment to eliminate one of the quotes that's fine, or if you want to erase this section and link to another page for foreign fighters in Iraq that is fine too, but again, I have problems with just deleting the stuff that doesn't fit your politics. --csloat 20:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
While I acknowledge that this is speculation, I strongly suspect that the journalists that have been pointing out the issues term "foreign fighters" do so because they are peeved at the fact that the media (whether rightfully or wrongfully) have embraced (or hijacked) the term "foreign fighters." As for where to raise these issues of terminology, frankly they should be somewhere (after all, Wikipedia is not paper) just as long as questions about terminology don't take precedence over the actual material about the non-Iraqi Muslim fighters. At the risk of beating a dead horse, I still think that sidestepping the terminology issues is worthwhile. --Bletch 19:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just read the shortened version. I think the Jamail quote should stay in but I'm ok with this as is, unless/until we make a separate "foreign fighters" page; the footnotes make the point well enough for anyone who cares to read them.--csloat 20:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By the way, why was the paragraph about Zarqawi removed from this section? I am not particularly attached to it but I didn't see any reason cited.--csloat 00:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I ever removed it? I certainly was not intending to. Well, it's there now. Actually I think the little observation at the end about the role of the media is pretty insightful. ObsidianOrder 01:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

bad faith, someone misrepresented Yamin Zakaria and Pepe Escobar

Neither one of these in the cited articles stated that the Iraqi's referred to the coalition forces as foreign fighters, the just referred to them as foreign fighters themselves. The language in the article misrepresented these sources to suit a POV.--Silverback 11:13, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

You're the one changing reality to suit your POV. The term "foreign fighters" refers to "foreigners" who "fight." The Americans are the largest body of foreign fighters in Iraq, and most Iraqis are aware of that. These authors both use the term "foreign fighters" in a way consistent with its actual meaning (actually, Zakaria is quoting an Iranian, not using the phrase himself). If you want to change the wording of the attribution in a way to make it more accurate I am ok with that but don't just erase it. --csloat 11:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see you are taking responsibility for misrepresenting the support of these writers for the article text. This is about accuracy, you are showing bad faith, you restored the text, you are responsible for it.--Silverback 11:24, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough, I will correct it myself, but stop reverting me. And do not tell me I am showing "bad faith" when you are making up bullshit arguments to impugn the integrity of a journalist who happens to state the obvious in a way that makes you uncomfortable. --csloat 11:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Borderline Vandalism by Davidcannon

If you're going to revert additions, please indicate why, and do not mark your reversion "minor" in order to sneak under the radar. This is basically vandalism and it will be reported as such if it continues. I included new information in the Polls section that was summarily deleted in Davidcannon's reversion -- newer poll information that was backed up by source citations. As for the foreign fighters stuff, I am fine with the most recent edits by Bletch, which keep the relevant information in but make the section more NPOV and more logical. Please do not simply delete relevant facts that don't fit with your narrow worldview.

mercenaries?

I deleted a mention of "mercenaries", just a quick rationale... mercenaries by definition (a) serve the same function as regular soldiers and (b) do so primarily for pay (they would switch sides for more pay). Neither is true in the case of any of the contractors operating in Iraq, even the ones who carry weapons. In particular, their rules of engagement are (in theory, and most of the time in practice) the same as for civilians: they may only return fire in response to an attack, but they may not initiate an attack. They are also under the jurisdiction of civilian courts. "Private guards" or the euphemistic "security contractors" is more accurate. ObsidianOrder 04:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moving info on non-violent parties and protests to Politics of Iraq

I would like to see the info on non-violent parties and protests to be moved to Politics of Iraq for the following reasons:

  1. The current article is oversized; it is 49k long when 32k is preferable.
  2. Current info on non-violent parties and protests appear currently in only a single section (1.6) and what almost appears to be an afterthought in the intro.
  3. The current Politics of Iraq article currently has no references to protests, opposition parties that do not participate in the provisional government and other clandestine politics. Or even a single link to the Iraqi insurgency (!!!).

I'm not going to do this under the duress of a revert war so I'd like to to hear opinions. --Bletch 14:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why not add it to the Iraqi resistance article? I agree with you that all of these articles should be linked to each other. --csloat 16:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

csloat - because there is no Iraqi resistance ;) ObsidianOrder 21:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bletch - I concur. I am not strongly in favor, because I think it is important to connect the two topics esp. for any political groups supportive of the violent insurgency (that would be the AMS, for example), any political protests staged by insurgent groups (e.g. Sadr's latest demonstration), and any "fence-sitters", people who would rather be in politics but who are probably fighting at the moment. With enough cross-links, that would work. ObsidianOrder 21:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, a move back to the broader term of Iraqi resistance will do the trick. ?Christiaan 23:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

did we lose any info?

csloat - you mentioned there was some info that may have been deleted on Sunni groups who had issued statements against attacking civilians. Is this it? "Other insurgent groups have claimed to avoid targeting civilians, and to attack only the foreign military forces [45]." (quoting JAMA). That's in the current version under "Insurgency Tactics". I looked in the old versions but I can't find anything else. ObsidianOrder 03:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's what I was referring to, yes. Thanks! --csloat 09:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Resistance is the broader term

I realise now we've got it back to front. When merging Iraqi resistance and Iraqi insurgency we should have made Iraqi resistance the default and redirected the insurgency to resistance, because this is the broader term. It was a mistake to do it the other way round, and this has become obvious via the efforts of some editors to remove any mention resistance other than that of the insurgency. The Iraqi insurgency is a part of the resistance, not the other way round. It's silly to describe peaceful resistance in an article about insurgents, but of course it's not silly to describe armed resistance in an article about resistance. Clearly we need to swap the names. Anyone now how to do this? ?Christiaan 13:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To talk about the resistance as if it was a monolithic group is pretty erroneous. As I said before, if the scope of this article is to be expanded to anyone opposing the US in any degree, groups like the United Iraqi Alliance would be included. If anything, splitting this article up is much more preferable. --Bletch 14:54, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Heh, just as it is erroneous to talk about the insurgency as if it was a monolithic group, neither of which anyone is suggesting. You're just introducing a straw man. There's no need to split the articles if everything can fit in one, which I think it can. ?Christiaan 17:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It isn't a straw man argument at all, as the unmonolithic nature of the group you describe as 'the resistance' is precisely why there should not be a single broad article. Having a broad article that encompasses anybody that does not kowtow to the coalition is way too broad. Its akin to having an article about "Everybody that dislikes George W. Bush". Just because something is broader does not mean that it is a good idea. --Bletch 18:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Christiaan, I agree with the spirit of your proposal, but it simply does not do enough to correct this grave injustice. We should call them what they usually call themselves, "the lions of the martyr brigades" ("lions of Al-Qaeda" and "lions of Anbar" is also acceptable)... and of course we should refer to the traitors in the puppet government as "apostates", "collaborators" or "snakes". The Americans should be referred to as "crusaders" or "mercenaries", naturally. ObsidianOrder 15:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Come on, OO, he makes a reasonable point. The article itself even says "resistance" is the broader term. --csloat 17:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, it is not a reasonable point. To use the term "resistance" is to imply several things, basically: people who are fighting against a foreign and/or oppressive and/or illegitimate power. The insurgents are fighting primarily against the new Iraqi government and only secondarily against the US/coalition troops (which support that government); the government and troops are neither illegitimate nor oppressive. The term is pure propaganda, and it is obnoxious. I think you have completely bought into the idea of an "uprising" or a popular movement, but it just doesn't exist. The popular movements are the people who won the election, and they are also targets of the insurgents and allies (perhaps allies-of-convenience) to the US. ObsidianOrder 17:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If it's unreasonable then why do we conflate resistance with insurgency in the opening paragraph? They ARE fighting against a foreign oppressive power. It's rich in the extreme for you to sit there telling us we have "completely bought into the idea of an "uprising" or a popular movement" while you are saturated in propaganda the likes of which the world has never seen. May I suggest you get off your ass and go take a look for yourself. The people voted because they called Bush & Cos bluff; they voted because they want the U.S. out of their country. Clearly the reason you don't want the word resistance used is because you believe some level of legitimacy is attached to this word. In making this political decision you have managed to exclude the non-violent aspects of resistance and now we have the laughable situation of describing non-violent aspects of resistance in an article whose name refers to the violent aspects of resistance. ?Christiaan 18:54, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well of course Obsidian, we wouldn't want to refer to opposition to the U.S. as resistance now would we... that might give the game away. ?Christiaan 17:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So does anyone now technically how to do a swap? ?Christiaan 17:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Found it: Help:Renaming (moving) a page#Swapping two pages

Christiaan - you can't do this without a broad agreement to such a move. It is not a technical issue, it is that people don't agree with you. We voted on this, and you should respect the community of wikipedia, which made its preferences quite clear. I think trying to re-run such a vote is in bad faith, it is a huge waste of time, and the results will be the same as before. ObsidianOrder 18:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually much has happened since that vote, primarily the realisation that it was a mistake because editors have since tried to narrow down the content of the article to exclude certain aspects of the resistance. I don't even believe a vote is needed; if you had a ounce of credibility you would admit that it was a mistake purely on the grounds that an insurgency is only a part of resistance not "also known as" as we currently state. ?Christiaan 18:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I pionted out elsewhere, I think you give too much positive valence to the term "resistance". I support the term because it is accurate, not because I want to glorify the insurgents. The term is useful here because it encompasses both the violent "insurgents" and the nonviolent activists against the American occupation. You make claims about their motives that are not borne out by the evidence. There are insurgents who only fight against the occupation. There are resistance groups who do not seek to create chaos or a return to Saddam or whatever the hell it is you think the insurgents hope to gain by fighting the Iraqi government. Many ordinary Iraqis see the Iraqi government as a tool of the U.S. occupation. Moqtada al-Sadr had tens of thousands - perhaps more - marching in Baghdad chanting "death to America." Not "Death to Jafari" or "death to democracy" but "death to America." There were similar protests in Mosul and other parts of Iraq. These factors are evidence of a popular uprising. And they are entirely separate from the people following Zarqawi and the like, beheading civilians, etc. These same shiites were also chanting "no to terrorism", according to riverbend. To lump these people together as "insurgents" is both erroneous and insulting.

Anyway, I am not necessarily advocating changing the article name back -- I think this point is already adequately made in the introduction. But I think it's unfair to say that a new vote is in bad faith, since some of us were not here for the first vote. It's in the nature of the way wikipedia works that people will drift in and out of an article -- I don't think we can pretend that a vote taken at one time will be the same for eternity. As I said though I am fine the way things are for now, but the problem is those people who would remove any evidence of "resistance" and explain it by saying "this article is about insurgents, not about nonviolent resistance" or whatever else. --csloat 18:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Which is of course the problem csloat, because an insurgency is violent by definition. ?Christiaan 18:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
csloat - "encompasses" - that assumes that they are in fact part of a single entity. "only fight against the occupation" - or say they do, anyway. there is not much reason to believe that, since attacks against iraqis are far, far more common. "do not seek to create chaos" - if their goal was to get the US out, and they had majority support, the fastest way would be to peacefully elect a perfectly legitimate government which would then peacefully ask us to leave - and we will have to leave. logically, their goal is something else, namely: in the short term - provoke overreaction from the government/US which will bring more of the population on their side, against the government/US; in the long term - seize power in as large an area as they can hold and then implement the rest of their agenda (return of baath/iran-like theocracy/al-qaeda sanctuary/etc). al-sadr and his supporters are terrorists [46] [47] [48], so for them to shout "no to terrorism" is just too ironic. zarqawi and sadr may be rivals, but they are very much birds of a feather. ObsidianOrder 19:01, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The question is not whether attacks on Iraqis are more common -- first, the existence of attacks on US forces and an ideology against US occupation constitutes a resistance. The fact that you think there's not much reason to believe them is pure POV. Second, attacks on Iraqi security forces are considered by many insurgents to be acts of resistance to occupation. Many people do not accept the legitimacy of the government, perhaps with good reason (an election in which people didn't even know the names of the candidates, the Sunni boycott, etc.), perhaps not. Your comments belie ignorance of the region -- "return of baath", "iran-like theocracy", and "al qaeda sanctuary" are three very different goals and outcomes -- and each of them, by the way, have been erupting on a small scale all over the country as a result of the US occupation. Iraq was never a sanctuary for al Qaeda in any way until now. But that fact is beside the point -- you do not "logically" extrapolate someone's goals when they make those goals explicit -- whether you believe them or not, an encyclopedia should be clear about their self identification. Certainly, you can add evidence for why you don't believe them, but to impose your reading over what is actually said and done is ridiculous. As for Sadr and Zarqawi being "birds of a feather," that's pretty odd, since given the chance I'm pretty sure either one of them would be too happy to behead the other. Al-Sadr has supported what you call "terrorism", yes, but he is also leading a large popular movement against US occupation (and, thankfully, he has also shown signs that he would like to see this movement incorporated into the emergent political system rather than at odds with it). But again the fact that you collapse these movements is pretty clear evidence of ignorance on the matter. --csloat 19:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS - here's some reading material on the Iraqi election that might help clarify why many Iraqis do not believe the new government has credibility and legitimacy. --csloat 19:17, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

foreign fighters revert war

Christiaan - this is totally counterproductive. We have a version that reasonably well addresses everybody's concerns except yours. Instead of suggesting a compromise, you just pop in every once in a while and revert to your version. You've been doing that for more than a week now. I suggest you propose some kind of compromise solution, or at least re-state your objections. The actual use of the term has been quite well documented on this page, whereas the objections you provided links to do not show evidence of the claimed alternate use. Even so, the objections are duly noted in the article. I'm willing to talk about it, are you? ObsidianOrder 01:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since when did you talk for "everybody"? I've seen no rational argument to remove my edit. I've only seen silly arguments such as that Jamail doesn't met Silverback's prerequisite of being a prostitute of propaganda. I found it quite amusing (and cynical) that edits were made to try and sweep the whole thing under the carpet once I introduced Jamail's quote. Of course I'm more than happy that we use the term, you actually need to read my edit, I don't remove it. I have no problem as long as we put it in the correct context; this is an international encyclopaedia and we are not here to tow the U.S. corporate and government line. And that brings me to your fantastic statement that Jamail's quote doesn't constitute evidence. I know Silverback is easily duped by his own rhetoric but I expect a little more from you. Jamail may not be one of your prostitutes of propaganda but he is of course notable, being the only unembeddded jounalist in Iraq for a long time, and readers are quite capable of making their own judgements about his comments. ?Christiaan 07:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you seriously think that the only objection to your edit is questions about Dahr Jamail's credibility, you may wish to reconsult the edit history and this talk page and reevaluate your statement. --Bletch 14:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Christiaan - sorry I didn't reply earlier, I was away. In short, my argument is that the term is very commonly used to mean "jihadis", but is never used to mean "US troops" except by people who specifically point out that US troops could fit within the literal meaning of the term. You brought up quite a few sources, Jamail, Escobar, Zakaria and Fisk, but notably not even one of them says "Iraqis refer to US troops as "foreign fighters"" or words to that effect. Specifically: "Most Iraqis I speak with view .. the occupiers as ..." (Jamail), "I can tell you there are.." (Fisk), "... they are the real ..." (Zakaria) and "The real ... are ..." (Escobar). Each of those is an expression of the author's opinions, or in the case of Jamail, his reported impression of other people's opinions (but not usage of the phrase, you will note). I hope this clears up my position. By the way all of these are properly footnoted in the version you don't like. ObsidianOrder 11:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
You're wrong on all accounts. I only cited one source, that of Dahr Jamail. And your argument that Jamail doesn't specifically quote someone is a straw man. There is no Wikipedia policy that prohibits quoting the impressions of people like Dahr Jamail. ?Christiaan 14:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
I didn't say he never quoted anyone, I said he never made the claim that such a use existed. Your version says "primarily by the Western media", but if you take a look at what I quoted in Talk:Iraqi_insurgency#foreign_fighters you'll see it's not just "Western media", it is damn near everyone; moreover there is no reason to make the disclaimer since there is no other common use. As for how Iraqis refer to them, here's a few quotes: "foreigners", "outsiders" and "terrorists" [49]. ObsidianOrder 19:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
You're still trying to argue your straw man. I've dispensed with that already. Again there is no policy that prohibits quoting impressions of people like Jamail. Thanks for your propaganda link, I must admit to particularly liking the intro however, which explains that the fighters were welcomed into Fallujah on the basis that they might help keep American forces out of the town. Boy they just love you guys over there don't they.
Then there's "We didn't want the occupation and we didn't want the terrorists, and now we have both ... I didn't think the Arabs would be so vicious ..." Yeah right, the only person who would write something like that is some dumb ass American trying to stitch you up. Thanks "Knight Ridder special correspondent". ?Christiaan 21:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
There is no policy prohibiting quoting people like Jamail. However, there is a principle about keeping things relevant. The question of why foreign fighters are called that is at best, a curiousity of language (like the fact that the term 'anti-Semitism' would literally include anti-Arab prejudice). At worst, it is an irrelevancy that should be removed from an article that already exceeds preferred article size. You really have not any serious attempt to justify why this issue (whether based on journalism by Jamail or commandments from god) deserves to be treated as anything more than a peripherality. You keep on arguing that Jamail is credible, as if that is the only objection to your edits. If you seriously believe that, then you need to open your eyes a bit. --Bletch 00:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia and it behooves us to take care with the words we use and how we use them. It is hardly an irrelevancy; the most important aspect of the invasion of Iraq for the fascists is propaganda and language. "Foreign fighters" is a western propaganda term that frames the whole argument, making out that neighbouring Muslim fighters are foreign while a bunch of invading yanks are not. Jamail's quote goes a long way to warning readers of this propaganda term by pointing to the Iraqi POV. ?Christiaan 09:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Nothing in any proposed version of this article makes any claim that "the yanks" are not foreign... that what you would call a strawman argument. In case you didn't notice, the info pointing out that "terminological oddity" is still in there. However, it is still a peripherality. May I also remind you that this article is called "Iraqi Insurgency" - its primary focus is the insurgents/resistance/whatever-you-wanna-call-em, not media perceptions thereof. --Bletch 12:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
You, Bletch, are the king of straw man arguments; I didn't say the article claims yanks are not foreign, I said the term used as it is is a term of propaganda that implies as much. Jamail's quote is important because it refers specifically to Iraqi opinion, and, I realise pointing out propaganda isn't that important to Americans such as yourself, but for those of us who aren't interested in trying to make the sun shine out of every American orifice such matters are of extreme importance. ?Christiaan 12:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
In case I did not make myself clear, I should remind you that I've supported a version of this article that did not remove a single item of information that you wish to point out. Every thing you are saying seems fixated on pointing out why the information in question is worthy of inclusion. Frankly if you havn't figured it out, I agree. After all, Wikipedia is not paper. What I have not seen is a coherent argument (or an even an argument at all) that the naming issue/pointing out propaganda/whatever is more pertinent to that section than the subject of the section itself. --Bletch 00:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Christiaan - oh, this is really rich: "the most important aspect of the invasion of Iraq for the [US] fascists is propaganda and language"? Really? Complaining about the terms used (by well-nigh everyone) while throwing such tired epiteths around yourself is quite delightfully ironic, wouldn't you say? Ah, and the standard of political insults sure has gone down in the past twenty years, I remember when I would have been the "running dog of the crypto-fascist imperialist cowboys" instead of such a pedestrian insult... ObsidianOrder 01:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Change name?

I personally believe that the article title "Iraqi Insurgency" is a misnomer for a number of reasons, the main one being that insurgency is defined by an on-line dictionary [50] as:

  1. The quality or circumstance of being rebellious.
  2. An instance of rebellion; an insurgence.

and

Main Entry: in·sur·gen·cy Pronunciation: in-'s&r-j&n-sE Function: noun Inflected Form: plural -cies

the quality or state of being insurgent; specifically : a condition of revolt against a recognized government that does not reach the proportions of an organized revolutionary government and is not recognized as belligerency


which somewhat implies that the resistance groups in Iraq were fighting against an established authority, as opposed to fighting an invading army. "Iraqi resistance" or something along those lines would better suit the article, as it is essentially about the events during the beginning of the invasion and initial occupation as opposed to the current insurgency which IS being fought against an established power, eg

"Various Iraqi insurgent groups are fighting to overthrow the new Iraqi government."

while an example of the former would be:

"The Iraqi resistance fought bravely against the invading coalition, in many violent and non-violent ways."

Just my two cents.--FarQPwnsJoo 05:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi resistance was the old name, which was changed (after extensive discussion, see Talk:Iraqi insurgency/Archive discussion of move) to insurgency. You have a good point that the degree to which the government is established makes a difference in how good a label insurgency is; however, I would argue that "resistance" was never a very good label, even when the Iraqi government only existed in the form of the IGC, because the "resistance" target was never primarily the US/coalition troops. The primary target of the insurgents has been the fledgling Iraqi government (and also any Iraqis that they think pose a threat to their influence) since shortly after the invasion, and the US troops are targets only secondarily as they are necessary to provide security for the government, etc. There have always been many more attacks on Iraqis than US troops (close to ten to one). I don't think you can separate the "resistance" from the "insurgency" either in time (before/after elections, etc) or by organization: the people involved, their goals and targets did not change with the election, and most of them attack both types of targets. I hope that helps explain why we are using the current name. There are people who strongly disagree, of course. ObsidianOrder 12:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Actually the main target was US and Coalition forces until after the government began to be established; and then - and even now - US troops are still a main target of the resistance/insurgency. I would argue that there are both operating -- there is a legitimate resistance, and there is also an insurgency made up primarily of former Baathists (and some foreign fighters). Their interests are not the same - I think the former Baathists are exploiting legitimate opposition to the US occupation to further their own goals. And of course there is a Shiite resistance independent of these Sunni groups -- they certainly don't fit into the "insurgency" model easily, in spite of what is argued on this page. Where do you get this "ten to one" figure? I think it's BS -- I have read US military commanders claiming some 60 attacks on US forces a day (this was a few months ago -- shortly after the election IIRC). That means you're claiming there are over 600 attacks on Iraqis a day? As for whether this article should be changed in name, I would probably prefer to see it broken into two articles, with resistance being one, but that idea was not a popular one when I floated it before. --csloat 22:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
In March 2005, 240 Iraqi civilians and 200 Iraqi military/police/government were killed by insurgents (a partial count from [51], this and many of the other counts below probably exclude a number of assasinations and other small-scale attacks). Compare to 36 US troops killed in the same month, a 12:1 ratio. Another report gives a number of 100 Iraqis killed by insurgents in the last five days of 2005 [52], compare that to 72 US troops in the same month, a ratio of 8:1. Yet another report says that between April 28 and now, insurgents killed 561 Iraqis and 49 US troops [53], a 11:1 ratio. In any case the ratio has been pretty steadily at or above 10:1 for the past year. The number you cite for attacks is not "against US troops", but insurgent attacks period (against anyone). If there are 60 attacks per day, but an average of around one US fatality per day, what does that suggest to you? (assume for the purposes of discussion 0.5-1 fatality per attack). It may be true that US troops are hard to kill but also you have to take into account that a lot of them are killed in offensive operations that they initiate. Iraqis are very much the primary target of attacks initiated by the insurgents. Since when has this been the case? Well, we can go and look, but it's been that way for a long time, two years, at least. ObsidianOrder 01:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
You're comparing the number killed, not the number of attacks, which is disingenuous, not just because Iraqis are likely easier to kill, but also because they outnumber Coalition forces. Beyond that, you are also combing attacks on government forces and on civilians -- for many of the insurgents, government forces are more aligned with the occupation (and are considered occupation forces) and are seen as on the opposite side of the civilians in Iraq. You may not like it, but that perception is shared by a large number of Iraqis, certainly a majority of Sunnis according to recent polls. This is not a black-and-white issue and I think the entry should take this complexity into account (though I'm not sure I have a reasonable answer as to how to do that). But pretending the insurgency is some kind of outside force acting against Iraqis primarily is so one-sided as to be sheer propaganda. csloat 02:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I separated civilians and government when available, but the data usually doesn't exist. Also, "government" includes many people who are civilians by any definition. "a large number of Iraqis, certainly a majority of Sunnis" - how large a number? what the Sunnis think is just not that important - they are about as common in Iraq as Southern Baptists in the US (~15%), some of them may be pissed off at not running the show any more, but that's just tough luck. In any case, it should be obvious that if the insurgency confined itself to attacks against "occupation forces", their effect will be nil, politically and militarily. While there is a significant number of attacks aimed at coalition forces, the effect of those attacks is minimal, the insurgency is defined by the things which affect ordinary Iraqis. If it wasn't for the mass-casualty bombings aimed at Shia specifically, and the sabotage that disrupts basic services, most people would simply ignore the insurgency and get on with life. ObsidianOrder 10:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
"there is a legitimate resistance, and there is also an insurgency" - they are not separate or separable. Even if you take the view that any attacks against coalition troops are legitimate resistance (which I do not - they would have to have legitimate political goals beyond the mere expulsion of foreign troops, and they certainly don't), there is zero evidence for the existence of any group that solely attacks coalition troops (and no, mere unsupported claims by such a group do not count). "their interests are not the same" - obviously, but they work together anyway. "the former Baathists are exploiting legitimate opposition" - or perhaps they are exploited by the foreign-supported Islamists? It doesn't matter, until they decide that they shouldn't work together any more. Certainly there are signs of tension [54], but they are still functionally a single entity. Sadr's case was more of a rebelion against the established religious authorities than the government, seeing how his operations centered in Najaf and Karbala and he occupied the Imam Ali mosque (against hostile locals). That's still an insurgency, just a different flavor ;) ObsidianOrder 01:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't think there is any more "legitimate political goal" than the "mere expulsion of foreign troops" that is necessary in this context. "Resistance" does not mean that they promise to set up a government that Bush will be happy about after they're done fighting. Yes there are groups that only attack coalition troops, as well as groups that avoid civilians even though they target Iraqis seen as working with the coalition. We've been through this before. There are even Iraqi insurgent training manuals that specifically advise against targeting civilians. And the groups are not clearly "working together", although sometimes their interests coincide (certainly they agree on trying to force the US out). Listen to this for a little perspective on the nature and shape of the Sunni insurgency. But beyond that, there is a clearly identifiable pro-resistance sentiment among Iraqis that is tapped into by some of these groups (and again, I think the Sunni Baathists exploit that). The point is there are a lot of people in Iraq who feel the US occupation is illegitimate (and, paradoxically, is strengthening the insurgency by giving them a common enemy and making it harder to isolate them from the mainstream Iraqi population).
As for as-Sadr, I think you have that one quite wrong; his number one issue - and the one that brought him out of hiding most recently - is opposition to the US occupation. In any case, it's hardly an insurgency since it so clearly seeks integration into the political process. csloat 02:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
The troops being there has everything to do with what government comes after. Obviously that is the object of fighting to expell the troops, and whether such fighting is legitimate (or whether the troops' presence is legitimate) depends entirely on whether the intended government of each is legitimate. "training manuals" - this is interesting, source? "pro-resistance sentiment among Iraqis" - you mean among Sunnis? I think the support for any violent opposition to the political process at this point is essentially nil outside Sunnis (and Sadr's gangsters). The Shia won the election (and now have power for the first time ever, more or less), why on earth would they attack their own elected leaders? "seeks integration" - yes, that appears to be the case. ObsidianOrder 10:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Here's the training manual. The question of whether an intended government is legitimate is an interesting academic question for speculation, not a reliable way of distinguishing "resistance" from "insurgency." As for pro-resistance sentiment, yes it is much higher among Sunnis, but it does exist among Shiites (besides, Sunnis are a substantial minority here, not just a few naysayers and terrorists!). csloat 15:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Split page

As a compromise, I suggest we split the page into two: Iraqi resistance (resistance against invasion) and Iraqi insurgency (insurgence against new govt).--FarQPwnsJoo 23:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree but when I tried to do this the attempt was shut down. Read the rest of the discussion on this page if you want to go there; I would support such a split, or some other way of recognizing that there is legitimate resistance among Iraqis against American occupation, and that there is overwhelming popular support for kicking the US out. --csloat 18:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As an aside, I once proposed that this article be refocused on the "Sunni Triangle Insurgency", and suggested that the Al-Sadr stuff get its own article and the non-violent stuff moved to Politics of Iraq for the following reasons:
  1. This article is already oversized
  2. Most of what this article states pertains to the Sunnis, and Al-Sadr's revolts were very different (less foreign fighters, primarily direct revolts etc). In many ways the only thing that they had in common is that they were directed against the US.
  3. What consititutes "non-violent resistance"? Taken literally, it would encompass everyone that does not toe the US line, including Sistani and the United Iraqi Alliance (which is clearly not the US's first choice by far).
This article has been pretty divisive, but people seemed to agree that this was a bad proposal. Admittedly, one major problem is that people following the English language media for better or for worse think of the insurgency/resistance/whatever as an umbrella term to encompass all of these factions, and it might not be Wikipedia's place to redefine the term. --Bletch 13:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Foreign Fighters

In response to the posting of "A New York Post article from June 1, 2005 states that research indicates only 9% of so-called insurgent fighters are Iraqi-born [55]", user:Commander Sloat: rv false claim from bad source -- it says suicide bombers, not insurgents, and it's a NY Post poll with no methodology. Most estimates are the other way around - perhaps 9% foreign fighters at most. However, it is not a poll from the NY Post, but instead research discussed in the article conducted by a research organization, the SITE Group. ~ Dpr 10:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough but it does not say that only 9% of "so-called" insurgent fighters are Iraqi; what it says is that 9% of the suicide bombers dispatched by Zarqawi were Iraqi. Zarqawi's suicide bombers are a small part of the overall insurgency, which is mostly Iraqi Sunni. Juan Cole estimates that of the overall insurgents roughly 5-10% at most are foreign-born. This "study" was cited here in such a way as to make it seem as if it were the opposite, that 90% of the total insurgency is foreign born, which is patently absurd. If you want to include the quote then use it accurately -- to make the (obvious) point that most of Zarqawi's men - or at least, most of the ones actually blowing themselves up - are foreign-born jihadists (like Zarqawi himself). csloat 18:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous Butchery

An anonymous editor made substantial changes to the article with very little explanation and no discussion on the discussion page. I reverted some of these but I am wondering if we should just go ahead and revert the whole thing back to the last reasonable version. Some of the changes seemed ok but others erased important information. I don't have time to go over every change with a fine tooth comb; I ask for others to input about whether we should do that or just revert the whole thing. I was particularly disturbed by the slashing of the "foreign fighters" section, eliminating important information. Significant rewrites are ok but each of the major changes should be justified, at least with a brief summary.--csloat 19:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is plenty of room for debate on this article, but I completely disagree with your classification of my changes as "butchery." The changes I made were in total compliance with the following objectives that have been established for this article:

   * Reduce article size; currently 45 kB
   * General cleanup of text
   * Get rid of some superfluous links
   * Update article with newer info

I was attempting to meet those objectives. There is a great deal of redundant and pointless information, and the writing is often rather clumsy. The introduction right now certainly strikes me as so.

By the way, I was the one who originally wrote the article and I'm the author of the "History of the Iraqi Insurgency" page. I haven't contributed for a while, and I was disheartened by the depths to which this article has fallen over the past several months.

Perhaps we can discuss my changes in this venue, rather than simply undoing them. My efforts in contributing to wikipedia are beginning to feel more and more futile.

First, it would help to sign your work so your butchery isn't anonymous ;) I'm fine with seeing changes as long as they are justified clearly so they can be discussed if necessary. You made a host of dramatic changes with no indication of why you thought they were useful changes. Many of them I thought removed valuable information. The intro may be clumsy but your changes removed all sign that the insurgency is seen by some as a resistance movement and that many (esp. in Iraq) use the term "resistance" rather than "insurgency." Your changes to the foreign fighters section eliminated important information about the number of foreign fighters and about the controversial nature of the term "foreign fighters" (which is what many Iraqis call the American troops there). You also removed the documentation cited and replaced it with unsupported assertions (e.g. the 5-10% figure, which is possibly accurate, but had no source cited). You eliminated important chunks of the peaceful resistance section. etc. -- these are major changes and should be justified here so they can be disputed if necessary.--csloat 04:26, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
PS it would help to discuss why you think this article has "fallen" to "depths" -- what problems existed that you tried to change? I understand the desire to shorten it but that should be done without just deleting accurate information -- make sub-articles if necessary (e.g. foreign fighters in Iraq or some such). I have seen this article improve in various ways over the past few months so it's odd to see that you think it has fallen to depths. Most of the major changes that have taken place have done so after discussion, or at least with clear justifications in the edit summaries. Your approach was far too aggressive and heavy-handed -- lots of massive editing with no explanation or discussion at all. That is why it struck me as "butchery."--csloat 04:30, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

insurgent propaganda photos

Lawet4khy recently added several photos taken from what seems to be insurgent propaganda materials [56] [57] [58]. I am uneasy with using those, because they are of almost completely unknown provenance, and it is not at all clear whether they show what they claim to show (in terms of what is going on, but also time, place, etc). Thoughts? ObsidianOrder 30 June 2005 04:19 (UTC)

p.s. no copyright info either ObsidianOrder 30 June 2005 04:23 (UTC)
Lawet4hky should indicate where these photos come from. I don't agree that they "seem to be insurgent propaganda" any more than any other such photos are; they are not especially diffferent than anything I see in AP or other sources; though perhaps poorly shot.--csloat 30 June 2005 04:40 (UTC)

number of fighters - estimates

The article says "At various points U.S forces provided estimates on the number of fighters in specific regions." and then gives some numbers. Do we have cites for these? Also, are there more - Najaf/Sadr City/Mosul? ObsidianOrder 1 July 2005 06:22 (UTC)