Talk:Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–present

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–present article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

--Kumioko 21:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–present is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
May 14, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
To-do list for Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–present: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

    Archives

    Contents

    [edit] Title options

    I am listing a few options for the title here, and invite everyone to add to it as you see fit (each option includes related variations). Maybe we can find whatever is least objectionable to the most people. Maurreen 06:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    1. Iraq, 2003-2005
    2. Occupation of Iraq
    3. Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005
    4. Post-Hussein transition
    5. Splitting the article in two, before and after the official, formal handover
    6. Splitting the article in two but with overlapping time frames
    7. U.S.-led coalition presence in Iraq, 2003-2005
    8. Coalition presence in Iraq
    9. Occupation and first government of Iraq
    10. Occupation and transitional government of Iraq
    11. Post-invasion Iraq

    I'm going to rearrange things just a little to make the discussion more orderly. I hope nobody minds and that you see my intent. If no, I won't object if you change it back. Maurreen 16:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    I've added another alternative to your list. After "Splitting the article in two, before and after the official, formal handover", I added a variant: "Splitting the article in two but with overlapping time frames". JamesMLane 04:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Comments on options

    I'd like to suggest that we just give short comments on the options, to see where we might have the most overlap. Maurreen 06:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Iraq, 2003-2005

    • Vague or euphamistic. Maurreen 06:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) But it's nice and short, so my overall opinion is so-so. Maurreen 17:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • ... but at least has the merit that nobody will contest the title ! :) Rama 09:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • This article is more like History of Iraq, 2003-2005; but calling it that will necessitate major expansion with info about 2003 Invasion of Iraq (not necessarily a bad thing, but a major effort).--Pharos 18:24, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Too vague. It doesn't really reflect the military occupation which is a major part of the article. --zenazn 01:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Occupation of Iraq

    • POV. Maurreen 06:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps a little bit too direct like this; might perhaps be saved by something like "Occupation and first government" Rama 09:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • "Occupation and X" fairly ambiguous dispute-avoidance title I've considered myself, but perhaps a little too clever, and it would still be POV to state in the article that the occupation is definitely continuing.--Pharos 18:24, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I prefer the title Occupation over the others. I am afraid that the use of less explicit terms serve mainly to mask the truth. The wikipedia has article on military occupation and belligerent occupation. Is there any question that Iraq was an occupied country from April 2003 to June 28, 2004? Well, what about following?
        • Are US forces in Iraq immune to legal action in Iraqi courts? Yes. Are US forces stationed in Germany as part of NATO held immuse to legal action in German courts? No. Why? Because Iraq is still occupied, and Germany isn't.
        • Are Iraqis still living under Ambassador Bremer's decrees? Ambassador Bremer ruled by decree, and the decrees he issued were shockingly wide-ranging, including setting the intellectual property rules for Iraq, and fixing the Iraqis with a 15% flat tax. Basically he set in place in Iraq the kinds of rules neo-conservatives would like to see in place in the USA. The terms under which Ambassador Bremer handed over some limited authority to the interim regime of Iyad Allawi precluded future Iraqi regimes from rescinding any of Ambassador Bremer's decrees. Until Iraqis can replace Ambassador Bremer's decrees with their own fundamental laws, I think we should regard Iraq as an occupied country.
        • In May of 2003 the UN handed over the trusteeship of the "oil for food" funds to the C.P.A. This 20 billion dollars had been earned through the sale of Iraq's oil reserves, it belonged to the Iraqi people. In early 2004 the schedule for terminating the authority of the CPA was accelerated. And so was the CPA's allocation of this 20 billion dollars. By June of 2004 Ambassador Bremer had spent of committed all but 900 million of those funds, mainly to large US corporations, for reconstruction work. The terms by which limited authority was handed over to the Iyad Allawi regime prohibited future Iraqi regimes from rescinding these contracts. The US firms have not made any serious effort to perform much of this absolutely essential work, such as repairing the drinking water and sewage systems. The Iraqis desperately need to recover these funds, and make their own choices as to who should perform the work. Until an Iraqi regime feels free to rescind these ocntracts I think we should regard Iraq as an occupied country.
    Geo Swan 16:11, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
    • "Occupation" can be POV if there's a border dispute. I wouldn't refer to German presence in Alsace before World War I as an occupation, because the area was claimed as part of Germany. That doesn't apply to Iraq. The country was being governed by indisputably foreign military forces. That's an occupation. There might be some dispute about when the occupation ends -- at some point, Bush will claim that the troops who invaded Iraq are no longer occupiers, but are there as honored guests of the Iraqi government. We can deal with that by describing all incidents of the occupation, including the winding down, and having a separate article (with overlapping time frames) for the establishment of the first post-Saddam government. JamesMLane 04:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    hello sorry if im writing in wrong place, but i'd like to know more about may 1, 2003 sumon in London. I know that there were 12 countries, but what countries? I know that they expressed their support for the U.S. (war in Iraq), but i need more info. can you help me?

    • If, as I guess, its only about the current occupation of Iraq, not about any of the previous ones, nor any future ones, so it needs more specification than "Occupation of Iraq".
    • Lacks dates or context, and could create confusion in the future. --zenazn 01:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005

    • Clear and neutral. Maurreen 06:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps slightly too wordly for my taste; describing the present siutation only as being what came after the invasion is perhaps not ideal. However, it should be noted that this is probably one of the best solutions possible Rama 09:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It describes the current situation with reference to a previous one, as though the current situation has no words to describe it. I see it not as a neutral term, but as an avoidance one. Also, the dates mean the name will have to be changed again. SlimVirgin 10:40, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Date issue applied equally to previous title Occupation of Iraq, 2003-2005, which was changed a couple of times (it's too wordy, the dates are not absolutely necessary (could put disambig for WWI invasion etc.); hopefully the date will not have to be changed more than once again.--Pharos 18:24, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Occupation of Iraq would have avoided any need for change until coalition forces leave. SlimVirgin 18:47, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Besides the POV of "occupation" as applying to the whole period, can't you see "occupation" has exactly the same naming issues as "post-invasion"? There was a post-WWI occupation of Iraq as well.--Pharos 19:12, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Post-Hussein transition

    • Euphamistic. Maurreen 06:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) If the title is changed, this option is growing on me. Although it would be better as "Post-Saddam," it is one of the better options at balancing brevity and clarity. Maurreen 06:24, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I see a little bit similarly to "Post-invasion Iraq", but also I'm not native so I might lose nuances. It doesn't seem to rise a extreme enthusiasm anyway :p Rama 09:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Not keen. SlimVirgin 10:40, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Unclear, perhaps a better title in five years looking back; as a specific matter, "Hussein" (in accord with Arabic naming practices) is not a surname, actually his father's name; Post-Saddam or Post Saddam Hussein better.--Pharos 18:24, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    could we make it "Post-Saddam Hussein transition", then ? I know that this will make it a little bit longer, but calling the former president of Iraq "Saddam" instead of "Saddam Hussein" is so typical of the present US government that I'd feel uncomfortably like parotting them (If you look at the discours of Bush I during the first Gulf War, he said "Saddam Hussein", for instance...). It's not even a question of whether "Saddam" is derogatory, but rather like the argument that it'd be better to keep some distance from typical wording of the era (see LTI and that sort of things). Rama 11:13, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Splitting the article in two, before and after the official, formal handover

    • Makes sense to me, although we'd still need to decide what to call the second period. Maurreen 06:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure wether this would not atomise the article... there is a wiki policiy somewhere about not splitting articles, but I don't know whether this is a case. I think that Raul is a specialist of such issue, perhaps we might want to ask for his advise ?
    • No, because it suggests the formal handover was significant, which is POV. I don't think it was of any significance, because it changed nothing on the ground. SlimVirgin 10:40, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • As above, perhaps looking back in five years we can best see a clear transition point.--Pharos 18:24, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Splitting the article in two but with overlapping time frames

    • A variant of the above. One article would cover the role in post-invasion Iraq of the occupying troops, what they did, the changes in their numbers, etc., including, presumably, an eventual departure. The other article, perhaps something like "Government of Iraq after Saddam Hussein", would cover the development of Iraqi authority. It would recount the formation of the governing council, the formal handover, the 2005 elections, etc., without endorsing a POV about the significance of these events. The division would be by subject, leaving no need to try to pick a date on which the "occupation" suddenly ended and "democratic Iraq" (or at least "Iraqi-ruled Iraq") began. JamesMLane 04:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • What would be the titles? This seems cumbersome. Maurreen 07:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Interesting idea, but wouldn't it make maintenance of the two articles difficult ? Rama 07:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • This is my favorite of the suggested. One could focus on the foreign military presence in Iraq (and attacks on them), while the other would mainly focus on the new government and recontruction. An overlapping time frame would provide more freedom to divide the two by subject rather than time, which I like better. Bayerischermann 05:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] U.S.-led coalition presence in Iraq, 2003-2005

    • Wordy at best. Maurreen 06:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Sounds like a Republican electoral advertisement to me Rama 09:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't like the reference to the U.S. and the dates mean it will have to be changed at the end of this year, even if the situation is the same. SlimVirgin 10:40, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • This article is an overview of the whole country in this period, not just foreign military presence.--Pharos 18:24, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Maurreen, thanks for making these suggestions. How about:

    Yes, thank you Maurren ! Rama 13:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    Yes thanks. This approach is considerably more constructive.--Pharos 19:39, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    You're welcome! Maurreen 17:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The title doesn't address the new Iraqi government. Bayerischermann 05:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Coalition presence in Iraq

    • It's factual; it makes no comment regarding the coalition's legal status in Iraq, as "occupation" does; it doesn't focus on American presence and therefore doesn't have an anti-American ring to it; and the lack of dates makes it flexible. SlimVirgin 10:40, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • My main objection is that the title doesn't make clear that the article does not cover the invasion. Maurreen 17:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Ditto Maureen, plus there is more than coalition presence going on in the country. "Period of coalition presence" somewhat better, but not much.--Pharos 18:24, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Occupation and first government of Iraq

    • "First" by itself won't work; makes it sound like Iraq is a newly constituted entity. Maurreen 18:03, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Occupation and transitional government of Iraq

    • Wordy, could be unclear concerning other occupations. Maurreen 18:03, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Post-invasion Iraq

    • Could be any invasion, any time. Maurreen 18:03, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Post-invasion occupation of Iraq

    [edit] Summary by person

    When I started the section on title options, I was unsure whether it's better to structure the comments by dividing them according to the title options or dividing by according to the views of different individuals. I am still unsure.

    But just for clarification, so far my view is this:

    • I prefer "post-invasion" or splitting the article.
    • I oppose "occupation" for the overall title.
    • I will accept any of the other options given so far. Maurreen 17:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    I keeping hearing about NPOV. Why not call it Liberarion of Iraq, which is what the Kurds do.Tannim 15:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Geneva and Hague

    Rama, regarding a point you made above about the Geneva and Hague conventions, here's an article showing the kind of thing that worries me, and why I feel we need to make it clear that there is an occupation going on [1] SlimVirgin 10:40, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

    There is no need to worry, the treatment of these women cannot change until this summer, one year after the end of the occupation, per the IHL, "In all cases, the law of occupation applies until one year after the general close of military operations, and even beyond that date, basic rules continue to apply if the occupying power exercises the functions of government in the territory (see Article 6 (3) of the Fourth Geneva Convention).". So these women continue to be protected by the Geneva convention. Imagine what would have happened if the US had been intent upon conquest, these women might be under US civilian law by now and without international protection.--Silverback 14:03, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, I see your point; but see, the matter here is not that these women are not granted the status of prisoner of war; it's that they are treated illegally.
    Perhaps the term "protected un the Geneva convention" is a little bit misleading in the sense that it tends to induce the feeling that people have no protection if the Geneva conventions are not applied. Actually, the Geneva convention essentially say that you have a right, as a soldier, to kill enemies, and that you cannot be indicted for murder under civil laws (for killing someone in regular duty).
    Now, people who are not protected by the Geneva conventions cannot be treated arbitrarly either. They must be arrested for defined reasons, they must be treated humanly, have reasonable access to their families, access to legal representation, and a fair trial within a reasonable time (the Human Rights convention can be invoked for these basic principles, if I am not mistaken). Here we very obviously have grave breaches of civil laws. But the Geneva convention hardly has anything to do with this -- I very much doubt that these women were arrested weapons in hand, have they ? So even with the hypothesis that this happened under a formal occupation, the Geneva convention doesn't apply, and the incident in yet innacceptable.
    This being said, I absolutely and fully agree that these incidents are extremely worrying and must be properly addressed. Rama 13:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    The Geneva Convention (IV) of 1949 and the Hague Convention (IV) of 1907 are not the same thing. The applicable law for a definition of occupation is Hague, article 42. Read this UK parliament paper [2] starting page 19 - the territory need only be under the control of foreign forces, and not necessarily all of the territory, for it to count as an occupation in law. Also here [3]. It is an anti-war POV but it's a good factual and legal analysis.

    To become familiar with the applicable international laws, see here:

    • Geneva Conventions [4]
    • Hague Regulations [5]

    SlimVirgin 17:43, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

    This talk page is about twice the suggested maximum. Does anyone have any thoughts on splitting it or archiving part? Maurreen 18:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    I've archived part of it. I don't think the suggested maximum counts anymore, Maurreen. It was to do with some older browsers, notably IE, not being able to handle long pages, as I understand it. I think anyone with an up-to-date browser can handle longer pages now. SlimVirgin 18:29, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Some unclear edits

    A few queries:

    1) I would have edited this sentence, but I couldn't see exactly what the author was saying:

    "The UN and individual nations recognized the interim government re-establishing diplomatic relations and the security was stable enough to conduct elections."
    This set of facts which were immediately following the quote regarding a military presence continuing once an occupation has ended, are facts which show that the conditions were met, both for international recognition and security.--Silverback 17:02, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    (2) Same with this:

    "In November, American and Iraqi forces invaded and broke the al Qaeda occupation of Fallujah, capturing or killing many insurgents, although most leaders fled the city abandoning an openly marked al Qaeda headquarters before the invasion."
    The al Qaeda occupation of Fallujah was inconsistent with the generalization that the US or coalition were occupying Iraq.--Silverback 17:02, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    (a) Does the author have a source for Fallujah having been occupied by al-Qaeda? And (b) I'm not sure what "an openly marked al-Qaeda headquarters before the invasion" means.

    It means that there was a sign up outside the building the insurgents were coordinated from that was translated as "al Qaeda Headquarters".--Silverback 17:02, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    (3) Why was this quote deleted? "Under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), occupation is the "factual control over a territory or a population." It is true, referenced, and relevant. SlimVirgin 01:31, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

    I deleted the quote you mention in (3) because it repeated this: "According to International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the exertion of any form of control over the population of a territory by a foreign military force is considered an occupation." That is more concise, and leaves it up to the reader to decide if that definition applies to Iraq or not, and therefore is more NPOV.
    I also edited out the "Al-Qaeda occupation" bit because it suggested that every insurgent in Fallujah was a member of Al-Qaeda and it wasn't referenced. I made this edit before your comment, maybe you need to refresh the page? GuloGuloGulo 03:33, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

    Thanks Gulo. I've been having problems loading all day, so I probably did look at an old version. I've done a copy edit down to UN resolutions but I'm tired so I'm going to stop in case I start editing in mistakes, and will continue tomorrow. I restored the quote from the IHL research group because it's better to have a quote with an issue like that. It's not a question of NPOV/POV, because the situation does apply to Iraq, as a matter of law, as the long quote makes clear, and as all the govts have acknowledged: this brings with it certain obligations to the civilian population. It's important to grasp this because a lot rests on it. For example, the very high death count obtained by the Lancet was based on the Hague convention obligations e.g. the obligation to maintain good water supplies and so on, and the Lancet therefore counted deaths due to these preventable causes as deaths due to the occupation, which many observers objected to.

    The prisoner-abuse convictions need updating as there has been a British court martial; I'll try to find time tomorrow to look up the details; and there was the British plane that was downed, allegedly by insurgents, which should probably be mentioned too. Hopefully Wikipedia will be back to normal speed tomorrow. SlimVirgin 04:36, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

    Also to update: Fullah section. SlimVirgin 04:17, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Archiving

    I have a question about the archives. There's one post in archive 1; 2 and 3 have the dates all mixed up; and at a glance (though I haven't yet gone through the history to check), I'd say there were posts missing. Does anyone know what happened? SlimVirgin 23:25, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

    I've restored the chronological archive. SlimVirgin 01:54, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Occupation issues

    I found this excellent post from Gulo in the archives, which I'm reproducing below, because it's still relevant, though I don't know whether Gulo supported or opposed the name change. SlimVirgin 23:25, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Occupation defined by International Humanitarian Law

    There is an occupation when:

    1. There is an international armed conflict
    2. A foreign military force has made an incursion on enemy territory
    3. This force is exerting any form of control over the population of that territory.

    When does occupation end?

    Occupation ends whenever one of the conditions of occupation is no longer met.

    1. The international armed conflict has ended.

    An agreement has been signed between the parties at conflict bringing to an end the armed conflict. In general, such agreement will involve the withdrawal of the occupying forces. There may be situations, however, 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.

    2. Foreign military forces have withdrawn from enemy territory or are no longer exerting control over the population of that territory.

    In case of an on-going conflict, the withdrawal of the forces also brings an end of the applicability of the law of occupation. It implies, however, that the enemy power has regained control over its population and territory. The mere withdrawal of troops from certain conquered places does not end or suspend the application of IHL rules if it leaves a vacuum of authority. The control of the territory and the legal duties involved remain in effect until the front lines have stabilized. Evidently, in the course of a military campaign where front lines can move back and forth many times and responsibility over the territory and population is unclear, the implementation of such rules can become impractical. However, in the case of the collapse of enemy forces, as in Iraq, the law of occupation applies to territories and populations entering into contact with invading forces, and remains applicable regardless of further tactical deployment of troops. In other words, there is no vacuum of authority or responsibility once troops have moved into a given territory. Obligations for the maintenance of law and order as well as all other obligations pertaining to occupying powers are applicable to the coalition forces as soon as they drive Iraqi forces out of civilian areas.

    In both cases:

    - The hand-over of administrative functions to civil servants does not relieve the occupying power of its obligation;
    - The set-up of government structures by opposition groups with the continuing military presence of coalition forces does not fulfil the conditions for the end of the occupation. If changes to the Constitution are required, it can only be amended under its own provisions and procedures or, in exceptional cases, under applicable international law and procedures. Agreements concluded by the U.S. or the U.K. with local authorities of the occupied territory or changes introduced by coalition forces to Iraqi institutions or to the government of Iraq cannot deprive protected persons from the protection offered by IHL (see Article 47 of Fourth Geneva Convention);
    - In all cases, the law of occupation applies until one year after the general close of military operations, and even beyond that date, basic rules continue to apply if the occupying power exercises the functions of government in the territory (see Article 6 (3) of the Fourth Geneva Convention). In addition, Protocol I contemplates the extension of the full application of occupation law until the termination of occupation. [6]

    GuloGuloGulo 20:07, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

    What is "Protocol I"? Philip Baird Shearer 01:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Philip, see Protocol I. SlimVirgin 01:49, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Unclear sentence

    Hi Silverback, I see you inserted a sentence again that I believe was removed before, or something like it. It really isn't clear what it means, so would you mind re-writing it? It says:

    "In accordance with these standards,the UN and individual nations recognized the interim government re-establishing diplomatic relations and the security was stable enough to conduct elections."

    (a) In accordance with which standards? The preceding quote is not a "standard"; and the UN didn't recognize the interim govt in accordance with IHL definition of occupation; these are separate issues; (b) I understand "the UN . . . recognized the interim govt, but what does "recognized the interim govt re-establishing diplomatic relations mean?"; (c) "the security" (what does that mean exactly?), (d) the security was stable enough to conduct relations - I can guess what this means, but not as part of this sentence.

    Also, the preceding paragraph seems to confirm that there IS still an occupation, so I wonder whether you're reading it wrong? Or perhaps I am. Best, SlimVirgin 02:47, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

    The preceding quote is a statement that IHL recognizes that military forces can remain and the occupation be over, note the phrase "former occupier". The criteria stated have been met. Several nations have opened consulates in Bagdad, the UN recognized the government and process that has been set up, and the relative security has been achieved, as demonstrated by the ability to hold "elections" (not "relations").--Silverback 03:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Here is the 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]æ[7] (pdf) (my emphasis)

    It seems to me they are saying it can only be called post-occupation if there is a viable, stable, and peaceful situation, as there was in postwar Germany and Japan. What makes you say the criteria have been met? Iraq is very far from being viable, stable, and peaceful. SlimVirgin 04:04, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

    Most of Iraq is viable and stable, consider the regions outside the Sunni triangle, and even within the triangle they were able to conduct elections. If you have watched any of the feature stories that attempt to put the current situation in perspective, you would know that Germany was unstable for years after WWII and could not have had an election this soon. The perception we have of their stability is due more to the distance of time than to the reality.--Silverback 06:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Silverback, you've just reverted. Please don't do that. The sentence is arguably false, and in any event, is not good English. If you want to retain it, please discuss here first, and then rewrite it. Here is the sentence: "In accordance with these standards,the UN and individual nations recognized the interim government re-establishing diplomatic relations and the security was stable enough to conduct elections." SlimVirgin 04:13, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

    Can you state what was false about it or ungrammatical about it? Off hand, I can see that a comma is needed after "government". --Silverback 06:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    I think you're trying to do original research here, Silverback. The article you pulled that quote from also says: "In all cases, the law of occupation applies until one year after the general close of military operations, and even beyond that date, basic rules continue to apply if the occupying power exercises the functions of government in the territory (see Article 6 (3) of the Fourth Geneva Convention)." It's an article arguing a certain legal position, so you have to be extremely careful about plucking certain quotes out of context. The overall piece, and indeed even the part you have quoted from, makes it clear that the occupation continues in international law. I don't know what international law would regard as the date of the closure of military operations. Our article simply needs to make clear that, according to the coalition the occupation is over, but according to this or that law, it is not. You're trying to make all sources fit your thesis, when you should be trying to present all sources in an NPOV, factual way.

    Regarding the grammar, it's just not a good sentence, for the reasons I explained above. What is "the security", for example? And in accordance with which "standards." You haven't quoted any "standards," and what does the word mean in this context anyway? Do you mean law? If so, you have to say which law. etc SlimVirgin 06:50, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

    What is your point with the additional quote? I mentioned the 1 year time time frame myself earlier. No one is claiming the law of occupation does not apply, the year isn't up yet, what is being questioned is whether there is currently an occupation of Iraq. Citing facts is not original research. I am not even questioning that the current situation is arguably an occupation, I am only putting forward the cite and the facts that suggest it is also arguably not. It is ambiguous, legally, substantively and geographically.--Silverback 07:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Okay, then you've lost me. The article indicates that the coalition has said it's not an occupation, and that the UN appears to have recognized this. It also indicates that international law says otherwise. Fine. Agreed. But I'm wondering what your new sentence adds, and what it means. Could you rewrite it at least so it's clearer? SlimVirgin 07:04, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

    The international law does not unequivically "say otherwise", what I am pointing out that the very law being cited allows for conditions of military presence by a "former occupier", that are similar to the situation on the ground and diplomatically in Iraq now. The reason my statement seems unclear, is because I just state the facts and not the conclusion. The conclusion may be considered POV or original research, just as the conclusion that "international law says otherwise" would be. I will examine the language in the "pro" part and perhaps change my text to say something as strong, achieving NPOV via balance. But that won't happen tonight because I am nearly done.--Silverback 10:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    "Tens of thousands of private security personnel supplemented the military forces." Prior to this sentence were mentioned foreign forces; is this by contrast meant to refer to native Iraqi personnel? If so, for clarity, it should say something such as "native Iraqi private security...". If not, it should say what nationality they represent, or if they are a mix of foreign forces, at least it should say "foreign". By the way, if they're foreign, it sounds like a euphemism for mercenaries -- I have no idea what the wikipedia policy on euphemisms is, but I don't see them much, so I'm guessing it is more common to speak plainly and avoid the euphemisms?

    They are not mercenaries. "Mercenary" is "1. One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling. 2. A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.". Regarding (1), I doubt they would switch sides if offered more money, hence they do not work merely for the money. Regarding (2), they are not soldiers since they operate under purely defensive Rules of Engagement. They cannot initiate an attack, but they can defend if attacked. Additionally, they are not recognized belligerents, and the legal rules that apply to them are the same as for civilians. "Contractors" would be an euphemism, but "private security" is accurate and neutral. ObsidianOrder 21:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    The "rules of engagement" bit sounds like some sort of lawyering bit; you needn't justify the euphemism to me, I'm only here to offer corrections. The fix I suggest above is really independent of how you use euphemisms; in fact, I didn't even go so far as to suggest an actual fix to remove the euphemism, only a fix for the mystery of whether the people are by contrast to the preceding, actual natives, or whether they are foreign.. foreign whatever, guys hired to carry guns around and be considered legally as non-mercenaries, whatever, put it however you like :)

    [edit] resistance -> insurgency

    Just a heads up, I have changed the article to consistently use "insurgent" and "insurgency" (or in some cases "guerilla", if that is more appropriate). This is a fairly significant edit that may make some people unhappy. Per the vote to move Iraqi resistance to Iraqi insurgency, insurgency is the preferred term in most cases. The pros and cons of each term were extensively discussed there. ObsidianOrder 03:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] New title Bush occupation of Iraq, 2003-2005

    Page moved to new title "Bush occupation of Iraq, 2003-2005" analogous with "Nazi occupation of Norway". Wikipedia needs to treat all countries in the same way. If you disagree with titles like "Nazi occupation", "Zionist occupation", "Republican occupation"/"Bush occupation", please voice your opinion. Courage 20:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

    I coinsider this as vandalism, especially considering that you didn't bother to ask anyone about it first. I undid the move. Please don't do this again. If you can pass a vote on Wikipedia:Requested moves with a significant majority, then you may move a well-known (and controversial) page. I for one will strongly oppose such a move, because the historical situations you refer to are in no way similar. ObsidianOrder 22:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
    Courage's omve is very likely to fall under the terms of WP:POINT. Rama 12:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

    Doesn't this also violate the NPOV rule?--Kross June 30, 2005 06:22 (UTC)

    [edit] How did you find these sources?

    I highly dispute your sources stating that U.S. soldiers have fired on ambulances which are supposedly backed by "eyewitness" accounts. These sources frequently exaggerate U.S. and civilian casualties and show no neutrality on the war. I suspect source number 43 is a joke. It claims that 27 American soldiers have been kidnapped but that of course no major news organizations have reported it. The website hears this from I quote "name best not to supply without permission". Also, this is what the website urges it's readers to do:

    What to Do

    This is an appeal to the anti-war movement, to the peace movement, eco-action movement, animal rights movement, anti-fascists, everybody active, everybody who can respond, can call a demo, can organise a protest, an office occupation, an embassy storming, a road blockade, mass civil disobedience, industrial shut-down, work-place occupation, solidarity work stoppage, blockade the US Embassy, Fairford Military Base action campaign – what’s taking off at Fairford? Are B52s being deployed? Shannon Peace Camp protestors – are there new movements at Shannon? We need to address this, we need to resist this. We become the solidarity resistance in Iraq by taking action in our neighbourhoods and in our cities. Print up a leaflet. Paint up a banner. Take to the streets. Only a small group can make a change. Show people in Iraq that we are standing by them. 700 more British troops have been flown in to quell the uprising in the South. No Pasaran. Take to the embassies, the bases, the US interests, the streets.

    The website then lists the addresses of U.S. embassies and air bases in the U.K. But the most important similarity of all these websites is that none of them ever claim to have seen an ambulance being shot at by U.S. troops. They hear this through random Iraqis they meet on the street. There is a picture of a shot up ambulance but absolutely no proof of who shot at it. Thus, these sources are not eyewitnesses. These claims are immeasurably hurtful to the United States and should be backed with large amounts of physical evidence and eyewitness accounts. It should be rembered that extraordinary claims require extraordinay proof. This particular sentence should be removed immediately or backed up by actual evidence. IndieJones 01:01, 2 July 2005 (UTC)

    An other Proponent: <<There are better evidence_methods>>. Don't implement Links as Proofs, please. There exists for example an interview with a "GI" who confirms the killing of former Iraki-civilians in large amounts by US-platoons. Don't bother about worthless interviews as that. Instead take the coward G.W. Bush who prolonges the deadline for the Irak_constitution. Are such prolongations possible ? The integral unity of Irak is favoritism for ExxonTexaco and all the other US.-oil-robbers. They are too late now.

    [edit] Add years to dates

    Does anyone else think that years should be added to the dates? For example in the Armed opposition section, it isn't always clear whether events take place in 2004, 2005, etc. 17:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

    When I updated the "Some coalition members leave Iraq" section, I had a hard time doing it because the years were not there. Believe it or not, some of the dates actually refered it events in 2004 in the future tense. So, I added the proper years for each date in that section. Hopefully the same will be done for the rest of the article. Bayerischermann 18:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Non-informative article

    This and other articles on the Iraq war seem more like an attempt at a "monument" to satisfy both sides of issue - pro-war, anti-war - rather than an informative Encyclopaedia article. Also, the confrontation between the sides is obvious in almost every sentence. I seriously doubt if anyone unfamiliar with issue, after reading the article, will leave without getting seriously confused or frustrated. I don't think this is right for an Encyclopaedia.

    [edit] Reference re-added

    A reference was removed without explanation. It has been re-added, as it was used to add content to the article on July 28, 2005. Per Wikipedia policy, a reference must be provided when information is "gleaned from an external souce." As that is the case here, to remove the reference would put the article in copyright violation. Uriah923 17:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Value of ON content and quality of reference

    The content added from the ON reference remains in this article, but the reference has been removed. This action is disputed and a conversation is ongoing here. Uriah923 06:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Missing vital piece of info

    Or it is hidden so well that I couldn't find it in 10 minutes of reading this article. I am reffering to Iraqis attititude and opinions towards the war and reconstruction efforts. Do they support it or not? Were there any surveys conducted? Sources, please. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–2006  ? s/2005/2006/g ?

    i see there's a worry about the length of the article, and cutting it off at 2005 would be a lazy solution to this, but sure it would make more epistemological sense to change the name to have 2006 in the title and find other ways of splitting off sections into specialised articles. Boud 00:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


    I agree, we need to update the name of this article to include 2006. With the way things are going, we'll need to do the same thing in 2007, so cutting it off doesn't make much sense.

    Czolgolz 16:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] link.

    Please stop deleting the link to the "arguments against an early withdrawl" or somethign like that. It smacks of POV pushing, regardless of whether that's the original intent. It's a perfectly valid viewpoint, and consistently reverting others edits to keep it off the page is not good form. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

    It's a valid viewpoint, but the subject of this article is not "American political opinion," or "U. S. speculation regarding the possible future course of events in Iraq." The link is one blogger's opinion, and it itself does not cite sources. It does not go deeper than our article goes, or add detail to area where our article is sketchy. Quite the contrary, it is a brief and opinionated summary of material that is already treated better and in more depth in this article. Therefore, it adds nothing useful to the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

    I deleted the blog (you got the other one) link, 1 link to a personal page, 2 404 errors, an extremist website, all as per WP:CITE. Currently the "mission" link takes you to a "server down" website, though that may be temporary, and the CSIS link redirects to the main site, not the actual pdf. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

    Uhm, actually the original reason I deleted that link was simply that links to that particular weblog were spammed across a number of pages, in what clearly seemed to be an attempt at Search engine optimization. Just out of curiosity, would you mind pointing out the part of WP:CITE that says we aren't allowed to link blogs? AlistairMcMillan 01:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

    WP:CITE, under "What is a reliable source", actually I think its right above or below it somewhere. I'll copy the relevant part in one second. As for the spamming, well I don't know much about that. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 02:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


    Doh, not WP:CITE, WP:RS is what I meant. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 02:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


    "Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources. That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website."- WP:RS ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 02:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Documents recovered from the former Iraqi government begin to be releaesed to the public

    http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm

    [edit] Operation Iraqi Freedom

    Shouldn't this page be called by its proper name," Operation Iraqi Freedom"?

    • No. That's not NPOV, but instead a very American slant on history. --zenazn 01:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Iraq War Poll

    There is a poll going on at the Iraq War article that is related to this article. You can add your vote here: [8] -- Mr. Tibbs 23:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] New Islamic repulic declared in Iraq

    I don't know if or where this would go, but according to the Washington Post, al-Qaeda in Iraq and other related groups have declared a new republic in parts of Iraq. zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] big, huge articles

    i hate them. hard to read; off-topic. in short, unencyclopedic. Please divide and expand. -PPWWSGR

    [edit] Break up this article?

    Okay, the recent (December 10) renaming of this article from "2003-2006" to "2003-present" seems to have brought to a head the major problem with this article, which is that it's too open-ended and just too big. At what point does the "post-invasion" period of Iraqi history end? When the last U.S. troops pull out? That could be decades from now, and at the very least several more years. Or is it never, since of course Iraq from now on will always be "post-invasion"? Then again, even if the "post-invasion" period by everyone's agreement ended tomorrow, the article is already too large.

    Which is why I suggest breaking up this article chronologically, and further offer a breakup schema: turn it into two articles, "Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–2005, and "Post-invasion Iraq, 2006–present". Why split it there? I can think of a few reasons:

    • The Iraqi legislative election, December 2005 offers a nice breakup milestone - the first time Iraqis had gone to the polls to elect leaders.
    • The nature of developments in Iraq changed around then - going from political issues like transfers of power, constitutional decisions, etc. to simply dealing with insurgency attacks and the like (the big exception, I think, being the inauguration of Nouri al-Maliki in May 2006).
    • I think moving all the 2006+ material to a new article will leave this one a good size.

    So, this is really two questions: do people think the article should be broken up? And if so, how should it be done? Yaron K. 05:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

    I don't see any reason to break up this article. I don't know why people object to long articles. The "32K limit" was a technical limitation that applied to a) a few obsolete browsers b) before the advent of section editing in MediaWiki. Those browsers were obsolete even in 2002 and they are almost irrelevant today. In any case, all that matters is that no individual section of an article exceed 32K. There's no law that says you need to read the entire article from beginning to end, particularly when there is a table of contents and sections.
    The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contains articles that are up to about a megabyte in size.
    This article could use an introductory section that summarizes the entire topic in four or five paragraphs or a screenful or so, followed by recapitulation in detail.
    The article was originally intended to cover "the occupation." The title got changed because of neutrality issues, since officially there is currently no occupation, just some U. S. excuse me "coalition" troops providing assistance requested by the now "fully" sovereign government of Iraq. In any case, it should cover the period during which large numbers of U. S. and British troops were in Iraq, affecting events there.
    The article is complete when the coalition military presence is over.
    It shouldn't take long. After all, Rumsfeld said in 2003, "It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months;" Cheney said "I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months." Just this week, Bush said "The work ahead will require more sacrifice and the continued patience of the American people." If the American people can be patient in the face of 2,974, oops, make that 2979 deaths, we can be patient in the face of 102 kilobytes. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    Rumsfeld and Cheney were obviously talking about the operation to defeat the Iraqi army and depose Saddam Hussein, which in fact took six days. Not that this is in any way relevant. U.S. and coalition forces are most likely going to stay in significant numbers for at least two more years, and probably longer than that. And that proscription against long articles isn't strictly a technical issue; if you read Wikipedia:Article_size it specifically mentions "readability issues", which it says become a serious issue after 50KB; this article is now over 100KB. I agree with the guidelines; both reading and editing become a chore when articles get as long as this one. So, does anyone have any thoughts on the issue? Yaron K. 03:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    I've given mine. It's an integral topic, it should be kept together, there is no reason to break it up. I see no readability problems except the absence of "summary style" (i.e. we need a lead section that is complete, succinct summary of everything to follow). There is no advantage to needing to click back and forth between two or three pieces of a topic versus having them together. Articles should be broken up when it is clear that one article is discussing related but clearly separable topics. That's not the case here.
    This will become clear when people start to make specific proposals on how to break it up. There isn't any way that is anything but a completely arbitrary dividing line, like calendar years. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    I don't think a 32K limit makes much sense as a limit--the real limit is when an article is headache to look at and navigate (which this one is). This article is also split up by years, which is an easy but rather arbitrary cutoff point. I lack the expertise with Iraqi current events to do this myself, but this should be split up into logical progressions of events, then dates, not the other way around. --zenazn 01:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Participation (international forces)

    It says 21 nations have forces in Iraq, and goes on to list 22, so something needs to change; this includes Bosnia and Herzegovina as a nation, which I'm fairly sure is defunct, so is it just Bosnia? or both? that would make 23 nations. I also think this number shnould include Fiji - is there a specific reason it doesnt? 88.109.49.215 03:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] New subsection

    Does anyone else think that the US detention of the staff of the Iranian consulate in Irbil is worth a section? To me the attack on the consulate is pretty heavy stuff, the Iranians may not be accredited diplomats (ie they may not have diplomatic immunity) but they are nonetheless representatives of their country. This seems to be an important escalation. Check out [9] 216.191.239.82 18:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Iraqi public opinion

    Someone put this stat: "When asked directly, 82–87% of the Iraqi populace is opposed to US occupation and want US troops to leave. 47% of Iraqis support attacking US troops" on the criticisms of the Iraq War page. I didn't think it belonged, and wanted to move it to a more appropriate place. I thought there might be a page on Iraqi public opinion, but I couldn't find one. I also don't see any specific discussion of Iraqi public opinion in this article. Is there a place where this information is contained that I am missing? Is a new page warranted? Any comments are welcome. --Mackabean 23:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Infobox Military Conflict

    Why don't we put an Infobox Military Conflict here? Kermanshahi 08:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Removed references to insurgents being linked to international terrorist organizations

    In accordance with Wikipedia policies I removed this section since it has no references:

    More insurgents, some evidently connected with international terrorist groups, and with conduits to neighboring Iran and Syria[citation needed], stepped up their activities. The two most turbulent centers were the area around Fallujah and the poor Shia sections of cities from Baghdad to Basra in the south.

    I changed it to this:

    More insurgents stepped up their activities. The two most turbulent centers were the area around Fallujah and the poor Shia sections of cities from Baghdad to Basra in the south.

    [edit] 2007 missing

    As there is no 2007 information in this article, I'm moving it to Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2006. When the 2007 information in included from, e.g., Iraq War, please move it back. ←BenB4 05:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Anbar Awakening?

    This article could use an update.

    [edit] Assessment

    This article is a strong B-class article. I would suggest submitting it for a peer review and then to an A-class review at WP:MILHIST. After passing through those two forums, it should stand a much better chance at passing FAC. Cla68 07:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Let's have a long title

    The re-titling debate didn't seem to finish, I hope no-one minds me trying to breathe life into it again here.

    FWIW I don't think there's a problem with having a long title - it's a natural consequence of trying to carve up all the world's knowledge into article-sized pieces. As someone else suggested, "Mission accomplished" and the swearing-in of the first elected officials in 2006 provide natural boundary points. — ciphergoth 15:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] To add to article

    This seems important enough to at least mention briefly in the article. From Democracy Now!, June 5, 2008:[10]

    “ Revealed: Secret Plan to Keep Iraq Under US Control

    The Independent of London is reporting a secret deal is being negotiated in Baghdad that would perpetuate the US military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the presidential election in November. Patrick Cockburn reports the deal would allow the US to keep fifty military bases and give legal immunity for US troops and contractors. American negotiators are also demanding the right to carry out arrests, control Iraq’s airspace and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government. Critics in Iraq say the plan will destabilize Iraq’s position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country. The Independent reports President Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called “strategic alliance,” without modifications, by the end of next month.

    		 ”

    Badagnani (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

    Original story, with more details, here. Badagnani (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)