Talk:Occupation of Iraq (2003–2011)/Archive 1

We can not link to NYTimes, as they require registration. Taw 20:19 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Sure we can. --The Cunctator

The NYT is very clearly a biased source on the subject. If you must give links, try a source that isn't openly advocating one side of this issue (like Reuters, for example). --A Person

All sources are very clearly biased. If you think that there should be other links, then you should contribute them. --The Cunctator

On a philosphical level you're right, but the statement 'All sources' obscures the fact that some might be more closely associated with the protagonists than others.2toise 14:11, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't care now about biases of NYT, but it's impossible to read these articles without registration (well, everyone on /. knows certain tricks, but ...), so people unwilling to register (and experience would suggest that's the majority) are unable to read it. Unless NYT is the only source that exists, I would seriously suggest linking to some other paper. Taw 17:40 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Welllll...you can just put in any old fake info to "register". It's more of an annoyance than anything else. Of course the other problem with NYT links is that they usually stop working after a couple of months, then you have to pay to access the archive. If someone just has to cite the NYT, perhaps they should just cite the paper version, which is much more generally available. Tualha 01:02, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Is this title accurate? As the article notes, the UN Security Council authorized a joint occupation by the US and the UK, not a sole US occupation. There are also other countries involved in the occupation, notably Denmark. Delirium 03:24 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It's a 99% (at least) accurate title. British troop numbers have been going down, the presence of other country's forces is minimal, the U.S. military is dealing with all of the combat situations, the U.S. government is in charge of the civilian administration of the country, etc. --The Cunctator

I don't think your assessment of the UK's role is accurate. The UK is in charge of both security and civilian administration of Southern Iraq, notably the important city of Basra. It is currently in the process of setting up a municipal government there, which sounds a lot like "UK occupation of Iraq" to me. Delirium 06:07 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree, this title is improper. I propose moving this to Occupation of Iraq post 2003 invasion or 2003 occupation of Iraq or something like that. MB 16:52 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Okay. There are currently about 146,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and about 12,000 British and other allied soldiers. If you include troops in the Gulf, the U.S. number doubles. And in terms of money, the U.S. is spending about $3 billion a month on the occupation. I couldn't find U.K. numbers immediately, but I'd say it's safe that the number is far lower. And if we look at "rebuilding" contracts worth hundreds of millions to tens of billions of dollars being awarded, they're being overwhelmingly awarded by the U.S. to U.S. companies. In other words, the U.S. involvement is around ten to twenty times that of the rest of the "coalition".

And while U.K. forces are going down, U.S. forces are expected to go up (at least in the short term). It is true that the Pentagon is stating they expect up to 30,000 more coalition troops are expected to come in from various countries. They will still be under U.S. command, which, if the optimistic estimates of the DoD are correct, will by the end of the year mean that there will only be 4-10 times as many U.S. troops (depending on whether you count Gulf forces). But outside analysts doubt that the U.S. will be able to draw down its forces even if international troops are added.

In summary: no matter how you slice it, it is more that 90% correct to call this the "U.S. occupation of Iraq". "U.S.-led occupation of Iraq" would put more weight on other countries, which may be more accurate, but then might also be more deceptive, as it implies that the U.S. is merely in charge, not utterly dominant. "2003 occupation of Iraq" is even more deceptive in that it entirely leaves out the U.S. role. The U.S. is calling the shots.

But hey, if you didn't believe in the existence of the Soviet bloc--that Eastern Germany, etc. just happened to turn to Communism and welcome Soviet troops because they were part of a natural, mutual alliance, then I suppose the above reasoning would be similarly meaningless.

--The Cunctator

So which is better, to imply that the "U.S. is merely in charge, not utterly dominant" or to imply that the US is the only contry involved. I say the latter is much worse (which is the current situation). The whole rest of your arguement is irrelevent, the fact is, the title should be changed. United States-led occupation of Iraq, and 2003 occupation of Iraq would both be perfectly acceptable. Regarding the latter, why is it nessary to show the structure of the occupation in the title? What I'm saying is, 2003 occupation of Iraq as a title does not imply that the US has no role, or that the US is not calling the shots. Lets compair the current title with the 2 other titles:

1. The current title totally leaves out non-US involvement. However, people can probably figure out what it means.

2. U.S.-led occupation of Iraq is better than the current one b/c it doesn't imply no non-US involvement. However, it isn't really nessesary to point out who leads the occupation in the title (although it isn't nessearily bad).

3. 2003 occupation of Iraq is better than the current title b/c it doesn't imply no non-US involvement. However, it leaves out pointing out any coutry specific involvement (which could be considered bad by some, but good by others).

I think that covers the problem throughly enough. Now, I would be happy with either of the 2 proposed alternate titles, however, I think that it would be best decided by someone not from the US. Since I am a citizen of the US, I will leave the moving for someone else. MB 20:30 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Also, I think it would be acceptable to bring this to a vote if need be. MB 20:38 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I tend to agree with TC - the U.S. is basically doing this on its own, and certainly setting all the terms for what happens in Iraq. We should call a spade a spade. Just because they're tacking on other token participants doesn't mean that this is not a wholly American invasion, in concept, implementation and execution. For this reason I tend to like the current title. Graft 22:54 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There is another article that discusses the "invasion". It's titled "2003 invasion of Iraq." I don't see US invasion of Iraq (even though that is mostly correct. The reason for this, is it isn't correct, just mostly. If you want a mostly correct encyclopedia, that's your perogative. I on the other hand, would like an encyclopedia with titles that are the best representative of thier content. Sure, we are effectively running Iraq, but the truth of the matter is this, "On May 22, 2003, the UN Security Council voted 14-0 to give the United States and Britain the power to govern Iraq and use its oil resources to rebuild the country." It is the pompas attitudes of Americans, that the world revolves around them, that cause many to dis-like the US. This occupation is not being carried out solely by the US, and the title should reflect this fact (i.e. U.S.-led occupation of Iraq). Otherwise, 2003 occupation of Iraq would be more acceptable than the current title, and it has the added bonus of naming consistency with the similarly named and related article 2003 invasion of Iraq. I will say nothing more on the subject. I feel that I have debated it to death. MB 00:20 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Delirium and MB. This should be 2003 occupation of Iraq. - Efghij

I'll concede, anyway, although I think that the Brits are only American gravy, props so that the U.S. can pretend they're not managing this alone. I guess either way the title is POV.. 2003 occupation of Iraq is the most acceptable alternative although it suffers from the flaw of likely becoming dated - this probably won't end by 2004. Is occupation of Iraq too ambiguous? I guess one might confuse it with british colonization... So, either way, 2003 occupation or just occupation of iraq if someone wants to move it. Graft 05:15 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

2003 occupation of Iraq is fine with me, though the date concern is a potential issue. Perhaps US-led occupation of Iraq (or U.S.-led occupation of Iraq, if you prefer periods)? I'm quite willing to concede it's obviously US-led (and I think stating that is NPOV); I was just objecting to it being called a sole US occupation of Iraq (because, regardless of the reasons for doing so, the UK has committed itself pretty heavily). -Delirium 05:21 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I too agree that "US-led" is a bit America-centric, and deceptive, in the sense that it perpetuates the myth that the entire war was some sort of completely unilaterial American thing. However I also agree with the concerns that "2003 occupation" might get dated quickly. If only this war had a better name.... maybe somthing like "Post Saddam Iraq occupation" or something... user:J.J.

There had to be an offical Pentagon name for the invansion. I have heard the media use the term "Gulf War 2" But I don't know if that is officially used. Maybe someone could find the real name. Then again, the common name is most important, so maybe Gulf War 2 is best? In any case, I will move it to 2003 occupation of Iraq, unless someone wants it to be put to a vote, and then we can move it again if a better name comes about in the future. MB 15:34 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, the official name was Operation Iraqi Freedom. I don't think many Wikipedians will find that NPOV. The Pentagon's primary name for the first Gulf War was Operation Desert Storm. Calling this Gulf War II could be problematic, since it's actually the third Gulf War in the last 25 years. -- Minesweeper 19:52 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have moved U.S. occupation of Iraq timeline too. MB 15:41 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree that this new name is more appropriate. There is news that thousands of non-U.S. and non-U.K. troops may soon be headed to Iraq. (See [1], [2], [3]) However, if this occupation drags on into 2004 and beyond, the naming will become an issue again. I agree with J.J. that something like "Post-Saddam Hussein occupation of Iraq" would be most accurate and NPOV, but it is probably too verbose. -- Minesweeper 19:52 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

How about just "Post Saddam Iraq." I mean, in some sense the term "occupation" is a fairly POV choice, and besides, as some have noted the occupation seems quite half-assed anyway. If trends continue it is unlikely to be as historic as say, the Occupations of Japan and Germany.

Years from now, I think the period will be thought of as "Post Saddam Iraq" in the sense that the current climate is largely being viewed through the lens of who is NOT there (Saddam) as opposed to who IS there (Americans et al).

It need not be as grandiose as Japan or Germany - we can certainly talk about the "Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon", which was comparable in half-assedness and smaller in scale. And, at any rate, it would be disingenuous to say it is NOT an occupation, since it obviously is. American troops are in Iraq, policing the streets. American civilians are running the Iraqi government. That's an occupation, if ever there was one. Graft 00:30 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Fair enough, but this article seems to be more about the general conditions of post-Saddam Iraq rather than sorely the US Occupation. An article about the US Occupation would be more focused on the nature of the Occupying forces as Iraq's political authority, rather than the events that occured while that authority was in power. As well, most of these events are occuring more as a result of Saddam's departure than America's arrival. So, I rather than creating yet ANOTHER page on the Iraq war, I say re-naming this page "Post Saddam Iraq" or something along those lines would both help resolve the issues raised above, as well as create a page that could be used as a NPOV source for info on both the Occupation government and the post Saddam anarchy, which I predict this page is on the road to becoming, anyway. user:J.J.

Do you really think the occupation is going to end this year? How are you going to rename the article once it's 2004? U.S.-led occupation of Iraq is a better compromise. --The Cunctator

Regarding Post-Saddam Iraq, let's wait to see how things develop before putting the nail in Saddam's coffin yet. I'm not entirely certain how that bit is playing out. He's clearly still important.... Graft 17:54 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Is this the first "U.S.-led occupation of Iraq?" If not, we need to come up with another name, b/c this one is still flawed. MB 18:53 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes. US troops did enter Iraq in 1991, but they only spent a few days there before a cease-fire was signed and they pulled back. - Efghij

---

This really is not NPOV the way I've re-written it. Does anyone have anything good to say about what the U.S. occupation? What positive steps have they taken to establishing a new government? What regarding reconstruction, which is totally absent right now? Baghdad is apparently bereft of power in 40+ degree heat. (See what I mean? I only have bad things to say!) Also, the famed hunt for WMDs surely deserves mention? Graft 15:47 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If it was NPOV, it would basically say the the US bit off more than they could chew. For instance, there has been critisism that the US did not protect the Iraqi National treasures, but it should also be mentioned that the US said it protected what it could. MB 15:52 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

But, as far as the assessment that reasonable progress has not been made on any front (establishing a new government, rebuilding the country, restoring law and order, discovery of WMDs), for whatever reason, and the U.S. has abandoned most of its initial promise except the one to stick around, which seems to be continually increasing in tenure... I think this is a particular POV (mine), but I'm damned if I can see how someone can hold another one. Graft 16:05 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Indeed, it is a good POV, but at the same time bad, b/c it is not neutral. So, any POV info should be removed. Maybe I can help out on this, I haven't actually read the article :). MB 16:48 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If it looks like shit, tastes like shit, smells like shit... maybe it IS shit? :-) Eh.. And the point I tried to make was that I don't think you should sacrifice accuracy in the name of diplomacy, many times the most NPOV version is the most critical one.

This is a terrible title. Its as bad as "liberation" would be or "Coalition"...yadda-戴&#30505sv 20:44, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)

---

Those of you focusing efforts on this article should take a look at this news item [4] and incorporate it into this article. Kingturtle 07:25, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I want to say a few things. One, we can and should link to the new york times or to mainstream papers. Do we fail to do it for the Blair scandal? They are not neccessarily the only paper worth reading--and they have made journalistic gaffes which I do not appreciate. Nevertheless, Internet custom does not justify a failure to link to the most popular newspaper in the United States because they require registration.

Second of all, it is acceptable to talk about the types of critisms that were proffered and how they were addressed by the Bush administration.

occupation or continued war?

U.S. aircraft are attacking enemy forces in Iraq. The war is not over. I suggest this article be renamed to reflect this....such as 2003 invasion of Iraq, phase two. Kingturtle 22:52, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The reason it is an occupation rather than a continued war is that the enemy is different. True Saddams supporters may have a hand in it, but the threat is from Islamic terrorists, not Saddamists. It is a different conflict :ChrisG 02:25, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The threat is from anyone upset enough with the foreign invasion to do something about it. Not just Islamic terrorists. Kingturtle 04:06, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It is easy to claim that all opponents are "terrorists", outsiders etc. After all - weren't the US supposed to be welcomed with open arms according to the official POV? I don't think we can tell who is uprising - my guess is that it is a disperate bunch. Secretlondon 15:00, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

Rights abuses

Does anyone think it would be inappropriate to add a section on human rights abuses by the occupying governments? I've seen allegations of families being held hostage to flush out alleged terrorists, and of prisoners being held without registration (ie, notification to anyone that they are prisoners - they've simply disappeared) - both violations of the Geneva Conventions.

I freely admit that I have a POV here - I'm pissed off that "the land of the free" is doing such things, and nominally in my name too, since it's nominally a democracy. Tualha 14:50, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The British media is claiming that the Israeli government is working with US on this issue. This could explain some of the human rights voilations and utterly counter-productive stuff going on at the moment. Secretlondon 15:00, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)