imported>Peter Jackson |
|
| (47 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{subpages}} | | {{subpages}} |
|
| |
|
| ==Material from 9-11 Attack article== | | ==Created archive 1 so focus can be on new work== |
| ''[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=9-11_Attack&diff=100139615&oldid=100139228 Richard Jensen deleted all this] from the [[9-11 Attacks]] article on 26th July 2007, so I'm archiving it here in case any comes in useful (needs work):''
| | While this is obviously a work in progress, I have created several subarticles and intend to do more, moving out some of the details. For that matter, I still have a WMD article in my sandbox. |
|
| |
|
| Bush went on to identify an "Axis of Evil" — Iraq, Iran and North Korea, citing the existence of their regimes as a threat to long-term global peace, which could not be assured with their capacity and incentive to make weapons of mass destruction. While Iran and North Korea have so far escaped serious intervention, Iraq was quickly identified as a clear and present threat to the rest of the world. However, the United Kingdom was the only country whose government supplied unwavering political and military support to the USA in its plans to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein; many other countries publically supported action, but stopped short of backing an invasion.
| | One of the questions, which applies to Afghanistan as well, is if and when the main "War" article should end and an article on continuing security assistance continue. After all, we aren't still writing about WWII occupation of Germany and Japan, although there are still large numbers of US troops there. Perhaps one metric might be the establishment of an elected government '''and''' the execution of a [[Status of Forces Agreement]]. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 14:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
| |
| The U.S. and U.K governments concocted a number of controversial claims that were later found to be false and deliberately fabricated; however, they did attempt to secure a United Nations resolution permitting military action against Iraq. The authority to invade a country and topple a regime being in violation of international law, the 'Coalition of the Willing' were unable to secure broad support for the attack. America and its new coalition partners demanded that Saddam Hussein resign; when he refused they invaded Iraq and ousted him in March 2003.
| |
|
| |
| The Coalition's invasion and occupation of Iraq, outside international law, led to other potential targets to develop alternative strategies of more constructive engagement with the rest of the world. Pakistan, which had been involved in illegal nuclear weapons proliferation and was the only country to officially recognise the Taliban, became a close ally in the war against al-Qaeda. Libya renounced its own program of building weapons of mass destruction and was welcomed back into the community of nations and the oil market; the regime of Colonel Gaddafi was left untouched, despite its consistent support for terrorism over the years and long record of human rights abuses.
| |
|
| |
| America's willingness to act without the consent of the international community has been seena s deeply troubling for some sections of the global community, especially those whose background has much in common with the Middle East, such as many Muslims. Donald Rumsfeld's characterisation of "Old Europe" - Western European countries such as France and Germany, which opposed the invasion - and "New Europe" - America's former Communist allies in Eastern Europe - also raised hackles.
| |
|
| |
|
| :Do not misunderstand my position; I consider Bush the worst President in U.S. history and this invasion to be unnecessary and certainly in vague legal terms. Nevertheless, there's editorializing here. "outside international law" or "deeply troubling" need sourcing; they are subjective judgment.
| | == all these need to be merged this main article, and the whole thing needs cleaning up == |
| | All these need to be merged this main article, and then this article needs to be cleaned up. [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 09:16, 24 February 2024 (CST) |
| | * [[Iraq War, origins of invasion]] |
| | * [[Iraq War, theater operational planning]] |
| | * {[[Iraq War, major combat phase]] |
| | * [[Iraq War, insurgency]] |
| | * [[Iraq War, Surge]] |
|
| |
|
| :Incidentally, three, not one, nations recognized the Taliban. LOL...sometimes I even agree with Richard.[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 09:29, 21 June 2008 (CDT) | | :I agree there should be only a single article incorporating all themes, but I recommend that the current version is scrapped and rewritten from scratch. [[User:John Leach|John]] ([[User talk:John Leach|talk]]) 07:59, 14 March 2024 (CDT) |
|
| |
|
| == Needs work ==
| | ::Agreed. I added this to my list of oil spills. [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 08:28, 14 March 2024 (CDT) |
| This article badly needs work. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 08:15, 18 September 2007 (CDT)
| |
| :Couldn't agree more. I have started some work on this, but this is one big, hot potato. Keeping this NPOV will be nearly impossible, but let's try. | |
| :I have rewritten the intro and added a more substantial piece on the weapons inspections in the 1990s. I also deleted some more text about the letter to Clinton by the neoconservatives as it seemed redundant (it doesn't seem as important as to warrant that much text in the article). I'll include the deleted text here:
| |
| <blockquote>
| |
| The Project for a New American Century believed an invasion of [[Iraq]] to be necessary in September [[2000]], long before their supposed complicity in the [[9-11 Attack]]; ''While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.''<ref>http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf A report from the Project for a New American Century in relation to rebuilding America and invading Iraq</ref>
| |
| </blockquote>
| |
| :This article still needs a lot of work, including a lot of fact checking and sourcing. Can't do it alone. [[User:Michel van der Hoek|Michel van der Hoek]] 23:07, 7 May 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::I can do a bit of double checking for you if you'd like, but I've given up trying to make a neutral article on this (The original monstrosity was mine by the way :-) [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 18:07, 8 May 2008 (CDT)
| |
| :::Thanks for the offer of help. Neutrality is almost impossible here, but if we're careful, we should be able to write something decent. The article at Wikipedia is essentially not that bad, but is riddled with bad style, tendentious statements, and ill-supported claims. We could take our cue from that article's structure and instead build it up from scratch. I would propose that we steer clear of making statements solely supported by some spare articles in some major media outlet (Time, CNN, NYT, Newsweek, etc.), or, worse still, some crank website (whether left- or right-leaning). I would say that serious scholarly work should have primacy in determining reliability of statements, which can be backed up by linking to primary sources, which, in turn, can be gleaned from the bibliographical material in the scholarly studies. (If you do this, you can also test whether the source is well-researched.) See my comment below, too. [[User:Michel van der Hoek|Michel van der Hoek]] 15:19, 9 May 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Suggestions ==
| |
| | |
| It is said that the correct way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time. I can't speak from personal experience, as I think elephants are nice people and I'd hate to eat one.
| |
| | |
| In this case, to mix metaphors, the Iraq War, in its present form, feels like an elephant in the living room, with an unseen but heard herd nearby. When I speak of the "herd", "Iraq war" is ambiguous. In fairly recent history, there was the Iran-Iraq War, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Perhaps you might back up to a "modern military history of Iraq", break out major wars, and then some discussion of alliances. The embargoes and no-fly enforcement are significant, and perhaps something about Kurdish guerilla warfare and autonomy.
| |
| | |
| To deal with the single elephant, there probably needs to be a separate PNAC article, a "straightforward" 9/11-related article dealing with the Afghanistan campaign, some analysis of why the Bush Administration pushed Central Command to deal with Iraq, and invasion planning (Operation POLO STEP). There was some pre-invasion maneuvering and pressure, ranging from attempting to get permission for the 4th Infantry Division to attack from Turkey, the ultimatum to Saddam to get out, and initial air strikes ("shock and awe") in contrast with the extended air campaign in 1991.
| |
| | |
| The conventional ground campaign is worthy of one or more articles. It's worth making the point that such a combat was what the US and UK militaries were designed to conduct. In WWII, there was a very clear distinction between combat and occupation forces, which have different training and missions. I wouldn't rule out a grand strategic analysis, perhaps drawing from Thomas Barnett, as to whether the US should have assumed his "Leviathan" role, and then turned over the "System administrator" role to a multinational force.
| |
| | |
| It's not inaccurate to say that the war, in terms of an action between nation-states, was relatively short. The occupation and resistance is quite a different problem.
| |
| | |
| In other words, try to deal with smaller pieces, preferably with an article or even talk page comments about a system of articles. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 21:48, 8 May 2008 (CDT)
| |
| ::I was hoping to write (with help from others!) a shorter encyclopedia article with the main facts here, in the style of a classical encyclopedia, and have link-throughs to more detailed articles about the different aspects/sections. [[User:Michel van der Hoek|Michel van der Hoek]] 15:05, 9 May 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Proposed name change ==
| |
| | |
| I propose moving this title to [[2003 invasion of Iraq]], for several reasons.
| |
| | |
| First, this is ambiguous. At the very least, it needs to be disambiguated from [[1990 invasion of Kuwait]], [[Iran-Iraq war]], and a neutral name for ''just'' the 1991 ejection of Iraqis from Kuwait, perhaps under the UN resolutions. Now, there can perfectly well be short articles such as [[Operation Desert Shield]], [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], or [[Mother of all Battles]] (well, a battle, not a war) that then point to the main, neutrally named article about the war.
| |
| | |
| [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 09:26, 21 June 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| As if this had never discussed elsewhere and CZ were deciding the issue for the first time...! I would ask (in general): does this war or operation have some ''most common'' name? Or is it referred to by many different names, and we can confidently say that none has any claim to being more common or legitimate than the others? It seems to me this is something that could be empirically investigated to great effect.
| |
| | |
| I agree with the spirit behind "2003 invasion of Iraq": we should not presume to give names to things that do not have names yet. But I am not convinced in this case.
| |
| | |
| I have an independent reason against "2003 invasion of Iraq": the war is more than the 2003 invasion. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 22:04, 21 June 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::In the general case, Larry, I am perfectly open to other names. First, a question: is your concern with both the justification for invading (i.e., before the war) and, perhaps, distinguishing occupation and resistance from war? Are these things that might all fit under a hypothetical "history of Iraq", organized with dates, so there could be sub-articles variously on the activities surrounding and including the 1991 and 2003 wars and the period between them? Perhaps this article would also point to the Iran-Iraq War.
| |
| | |
| ::It's rather like that which the very proper docent in the Museum of the Confederacy, in Richmond, called the activities between 1861 and 1865, "the late unpleasantness between the states". Neither "War of Yankee Aggression" nor "War to Free the Slaves" are quite accurate, yet both are used, and with either, it's never clear if the prewar politics and Reconstruction are being considered.
| |
| | |
| ::When I suggest "2003 invasion of Iraq", I'm doing it from the perspective of eating an elephant: one bite at a time. It is possible to write meaningfully about the conventional military operations without directly addressing the justification (and things from misunderstanding to fabrications) to war, the realistic lack of compliance with UN resolutions by Saddam, the internal politics of postwar Iraq, and regional issues.
| |
| | |
| ::At a minimum, however, I do urge renaming to avoid ambiguity over 2003, 1990, and 1980 [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 08:24, 22 June 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :::I have no objection to renaming in principle, but I'd rather not jump the gun here. From my own experience the term "Iraq War" or "War in Iraq" seem the most common names currently in use for the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq by US and Coalition forces. For that reason I have some hesitation about suddenly moving this page away from this name. The 1991 invasion of Kuwait and Iraq is, at least in the US, universally referred to as the "Gulf War." The term "First Gulf War" seems to be sometimes used by people who use the term "Second Gulf War" to refer to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and occasionally by other people when comparing or contrasting the two military conflicts involving Iraq. The 1980 conflict involving Iran and Iraq--again in my experience--is more commonly referred to as the "Iran-Iraq War." So, at present I do not see any real ambiguity here. Until and unless real strong arguments are presented to convince us that there is such ambiguity, I propose we leave things as they are. A disambiguation statement can be placed at the top of the page if this is deemed necessary.
| |
| | |
| :::Also, while I laud Howard's warning that this is a huge topic and should be divided into small portions, I do think there ought to be one main article on the Iraq War. Summarized sections of the main developments ought to be included in this article. Specialized sub-topics can be pulled away from it into separate articles. [[User:Michel van der Hoek|Michel van der Hoek]] 10:32, 26 June 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Participants ==
| |
| | |
| The wording I've just changed implied that a lot of countries sent forces to take part in the invasion, which is untrue. I've given the 4 listed in 1 book. Wikipedia mentions 1 or 2 others, being inconsistent with itself. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 17:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :I don't object to the rewording, although I think you will find, in military literature, that there were small liaison and technical groups from a number of nations that thought they ''might'' get involved. See http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/swasia_orbat-dev.htm.
| |
| | |
| :Also, while they may not have crossed into Iraq, units from the Gulf Cooperation Council, Canada, and possibly Ukraine deployed into Kuwait, which freed U.S. forces, previously defending Kuwait, for the invasion. I would not call that totally neutral toward Iraq. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/swasia_orbat-dev.htm For the record, I would ''personally'' call the whole idea of the invasion something ''word or phrase deleted that would likely be inconsistent with the CZ family-friendliness policy.''
| |
| | |
| :Is there something notable about Wikipedia being inconsistent with itself? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 17:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::My wording mentions many other countries supporting in various ways. Somewhere in the article, if not in the lead, that should be detailed. Kuwait & Turkey allowed their territory to be usd to launch the invasion, Oman (?) allowed its to be used for a base to plan the operation, other countries did the sorts of things you mention, others supplied intelligence, others gave verbal support ...
| |
| | |
| ::I simply mentioned Wikipedia to point out there seems to be disagreement with the listing in that book I mentioned (which I can't identify), & then had to give details of what WP said (last I looked). [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 11:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::Well, speaking as a Military Workgroup Editor (merely as identification), I left Wikipedia because I didn't want to play the games. Actually, there were some very good and collegial people in the Military History Project there, but there were too many times where a consensus, worked out over months with experts managing to reach agreement with some activists of all sides, would be destroyed overnight by a single anonymous editor. In other words, I don't see what Wikipedia does or doesn't do as terribly relevant unless sources are identified.
| |
| | |
| :::May I ask, with no patronizing intended, at what level you want to discuss it? Right now, I am speaking operationally, not the decision to invade. The orders of battle and formation are relevant to who either attacked, or made the attacks physically possible. I am puzzled by your mention of Turkey; the U.S. 4th Infantry Division sailed around on ships for several weeks waiting for Turkish permission to open a northern front. It is possible to get quite specific about this if you like. As far as Oman, it's actually more useful to think of the GCC; CENTCOM headquarters was in Qatar. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 12:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::Perhaps I should have been more precise. Turkey allowed its airspace to be used for air strikes, which I'd think of as part of the war, though in a literal sense I suppose you might not count them as part of the invasion. The HQ bit was my uncertain memory. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 16:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::On the question of actual participation in the invasion, I don't think liaison would qualify. Technical teams it would depend what they were doing. If they fixed broken machines or told people how to use them I'd be inclined to count that as participation. If they were merely observers, probably not. I had a quick look at your link, but it's a large thing with no obvious location for the relevant information. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 16:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::::Part of the problem in discussing modern wars is that the classical models were bipolar, mostly dealing with people directly trying to kill each other, or providing direct support. While I'm not at all convinced the missiles being proposed for Poland defend against a real threat, the ranges and flight paths of the radars, interceptors, and potential offensive missiles simply do not give plausible engagement geometries between Russsia and Poland.
| |
| | |
| :::::One of the very big U.S. concerns during the Islamic Revolution in Iran was losing some intelligence sensors that, as long as they were ground-based, had to be where they were -- unless they either went into space, or, in a more topsy-turvy reality, put a new set of sensors on the Soviet-Chinese border because while the U.S. didn't trust the Chinese, the two agreed they needed the data on Soviet missiles.
| |
| | |
| :::::It's often not the actual killing mechanism that is the real danger, as with [[high-value asset]], [[C3I-ISR]], or [[special reconnaissance]]. A country might allow no more than a communications relay or a radar station, but be more deadly than if it sent a division of tanks. Let's agree on the point to make before arguing in general [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 18:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::::You're getting technical. (That's your job of course.) It's clearly possible to classify countries according to whether they had personnel within the Iraqi border. And it should be possible to say whether they were actually taking part in military operations or merely observing. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 18:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::Again, I'm trying to understand what it is you want to be done. There have been significant attacks on Iraq, before 2003, when not one member of the U.S. or U.K. military were within hundreds of miles of the border of Iraq. That, however, was not true of BGM-109 Tomahawk and AGM-86 ALCM missiles that were delivering hundreds of tons of explosives to Iraqi destinations. Yes, that's technical. I'm certainly not going to start rewriting when I don't see the problem to be solved. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 18:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::::I simply thought it misleading to say that a lot of countries took part in the invasion without clarification. How about something along the following lines?
| |
| | |
| :::::"The invasion force comprised combat units from US, UK, Australia & Poland [any others?], together with small technical teams from a number of other countries [or list if only a few]. They were supported from outside Iraq by many other countries in various ways [or give more detail if you think appropriate]."
| |
| | |
| :::::[[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 11:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Another point ==
| |
| | |
| I'm not entirely happy with this wording:
| |
| | |
| "This war is to be distinguished from the [[Gulf War]] of 1991, following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The Gulf War had United Nations authorization."
| |
| | |
| The legal justification offered for the invasion was that Iraq had been found guilty (Resolution 1441) of violating the terms of the ceasefire, & therefore that the coalition were entitled to resume the original war. A substantial minority of international lawyers support this. Personally, I think international law doesn't really exist, they (governments, the UN, the International Court) just make it up as they go along to suit themselves. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 11:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :What are you actually proposing? Yes, there is a difference among lawyers. I've personally been trying for neutrality, not just in this article but among several related ones. Help on alternative wording is very welcome. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 12:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::I'm not actually proposing anything definite yet. Maybe I'll think of something later. Meanwhile, I thought I'd point this out so maybe someone else might think of something. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 16:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::I don't understand the area in which you want someone to think of something. In particular, if you have the opinion that international law is made up as countries go along, why should someone bother to start rewriting for an undefined goal? I'm not being sarcastic; but you've now said you are unhappy in several areas and I have absolutely no idea what would make you happy. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 18:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::I think that it's a simple issue. The wording of the excerpt above is perfectly fine, and there is no other way to write it better. Usually in a scholarly work, this kind of analysis and comparison is normal and necessary. If you, however, are biased or strongly opinionated about the subject in general, then you definitely would not like the wording. This should apply to your dissatisfaction regarding [[Guantanamo detention camp]] as well. ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 18:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC))
| |
