Wikipedia

Talk:Occupation of Iraq (2003–2011)/Archive 4

< Talk:Occupation of Iraq (2003–2011)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Post-invasion Iraq?

Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2004 as title and scope work for me. Do you envision a new article for Iraq after the election? I forgot to mention it earlier, but part of my concern is also the article length. It's now at 45 kb, and 32 kb is the recommended maximum. Maurreen 04:54, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I would definitely see a new 'big article' following successful elections, which would mark a substantially different period in Iraqi history. I wouldn't worry too much about the exact length, I don't know many people using 10-year-old browser software, but for stylistic reasons at least we should try not to make it substantially longer.--Pharos 05:28, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rama, what is your disagreement with Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2004 as a new title? Maurreen 17:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Post-Hussein Transition

What about this ? It has the merit of not relying on words like "occupation" (so we'll be less subject to technicalities), and emphasises the transitional nature of the regimes (the US occupation administration and the Allawi administraion) which precedes the hopeful come to power of a real elected government. Rama 09:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that would be too much of an understatement, as if the topic was similar to the changes after any given leader. Maurreen 09:39, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What is so special about the changes after Saddam Hussein ? It is a period a instability and foreign occupation (if not technically, at least if facts), but this is not so uncommon in History, is it ? (I say that just to get the point : I am not in love with this title or anything ;) ) Rama 09:54, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For one thing, "Post-Hussein Transition" gives no indication of the instability and foreign occupation. It gives no indication of anything but a change in leadership. The transition is not comparable to the post-President Clinton transition in the United States, for just one example. Maurreen 17:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deletion of the section of the introduction

Sorry if I have missed the deadline to give my opinion on this, but I do not think that removing the number of victims of the introduction is a good idea at all. One of the most important components of a war if after all the number of victims and the xtension of the detructions it causes. If you take a look at articles about other wars, like WWI or WWII, you can see that the number of victims is featured in the introduction. I think that the article is weakened by this removal, and that the section should be put again. Any comments ? Rama 16:48, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If we're going to keep it, how about we at least put it in its own section? Maurreen 17:16, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would suggest developping the subject in its own section, while keeping at least a general toll in, say, the last paragraph of the introduction. I think that the victim count is an important information which needs to be featured early in the article, and I find that not having at least a short mention in the intro does not feel very natural for a war or disaster-related article. It could be shorter than what we used to have, but needs to be there. Rama 09:45, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The information deleted does not directly and specifically relate to the occupation and needlessly duplicates information available in related articles, and requires maintenance to keep up to date, unless there is agreement that the occupation ended, and someone is willing to do the work to find out what the appropriate figures were when it did.--Silverback 11:06, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rama, this article is about the occupation, not the war. Including casualty figures from the occupation is fine. Casualty figures from before the occupation is a different matter, for a different article. The information that I deleted emphasized the war too much, in my view. Maurreen 17:49, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Overview

I think the first three paragraphs of the overview should be deleted. They are about the war, not the occupation. Maurreen 07:23, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Objection to name change

I find the name change somewhat Orwellian. Anyone typing in Occupation of Iraq is now redirected to this page, as though there was no occupation. In addition, the occupation is ongoing: just because the occupying forces decide to call it something else does not mean that others must follow suit. The coalition forces have not left, and the situation is arguably deteriorating, not improving. But that aside, even if all editors agree that the occupation is over, then a new article should be created to describe the post-occupation period, and it should not be called "post invasion," because the invasion is not over. To simply redirect is trying to rewrite history, in my view. Am I the only user who thinks this? SlimVirgin 09:11, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Please read our discussion of this above. We considered separating the period pre-June 28 and post-June 28 but as there were not great changes on the ground we decided to keep them together. As to the occupation being ongoing except in the eyes of the occupiers, it is recognized as over by the UN and the Arab League, Iran etc, but many consider it de facto continuing, which is clearly noted in the article and another reason we decided not to split the history up.--Pharos 09:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Pharos, I did read the discussion, and it's precisely because there were no changes on the ground that I can't see the rationale for changing the name. When you say the occupation is recognized to be over by the UN, Arab League, Iran etc, could you post some sources for that here? SlimVirgin 09:33, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Hi Slim, here's the relevant UN resolution, which we discussed under the heading "Occupation?".

UN Resolution 1546, adopted June 8, 2004

The Security Council,

Welcoming the beginning of a new phase in Iraq’s transition to a democratically elected government, and looking forward to the end of the occupation and the assumption of full responsibility and authority by a fully sovereign and independent Interim Government of Iraq by 30 June 2004,

This version may be easier to read, the italics I put in the above quote were in the original.--Pharos 09:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The UN resolution doesn't acknowledge that the occupation is over, as all the news coverage of it made clear. It "looks forward" to the end of it. Even the Wikipedia article whose name you have changed says that the UN resolution stopped short of saying that the occupation is over. The Arab League statement simply refers back to the UN resolution. Do you have sources for the others that you named: Iran etc? SlimVirgin 10:29, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Please read what the documents say:
    • UN: "looking forward to the end of the occupation and the assumption of full responsibility and authority by a fully sovereign and independent Interim Government of Iraq by 30 June 2004"
      • The UN recognized the occupation as ending on June 30, but they passed it in advance of the actual event.
    • Arab League: "To welcome Security Council resolution 1546 (2004) of 8 June 2004, including the declaration of the end of the state of occupation and the transfer of sovereignty to the Interim Government of Iraq"
      • The Arab League is recognizing the UN's declaration that the occupation has ended.

--Pharos 10:44, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pharos, the UN resolution says "looking forward to" it happening by June 30. It does not say that it did happen by that date -- and it didn't. The American govt used the term "limited sovereignity." Here is an article about it [1] and there are many more. You only need to see what happened when an Iraqi justice minister announced he was releasing Rihab Taha to realize that the occupation has not ended, either de facto or de jure. SlimVirgin 12:44, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

The resolution still gives a precise date for the end of the occupation; it seems that the key point is the insauration of an Iraqi government, rather than the presence for foreign troops; in this point of view, it is acceptable to say that the occupation technically ended. Taking this into account, I would have similar objections to using "occupation" than I have for "regime" refering to Saddam Hussein's government. It would seem that the occupation has indeed ended de jure -- I won't comment the de facto part, though I might motice that there is lots of comments about this "occupation" matter, while very few is said about the implications of the illegality of the invasion ("crime against peace", which qualifies for "crime against Humanity" under the Nuremberg principles, I'm afraid... if anyone wants to draft a comment about this, I'd be interested). Rama 13:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's surely not the job of Wikipedia editors to adopt purely American definitions of terms. In Nov 2003, the U.S. gave the UN a date for the end of the occupation and the return of full sovereignty to an Iraqi interim government. Then came the April 2004 uprising. In June, Allawi wrote to the UN "requesting" that the multi-national force stay in Iraq. So now the Americans are there with the "permission" of the Iraqi govt, which America installed, and which America overrules whenever it wants to. Because of the Allawi letter, the UN went ahead with its resolution of "looking forward' to June 30. It is as weasel-worded as it could be. There are around 138,000 American troops there. What are they doing if not occupying the country? And Bush has referred to the "limited sovereignty" of the Iraqi govt. As for the de jure/de facto distinction, the legality of the war and occupation is very much in doubt, so to say that the occupation has ended de jure, when it may never have started de jure, is to take on board Bush-adminstration vocabulary. A discussion of these issues belongs in the article, but to go ahead and change the name is . . . creepy. SlimVirgin 15:05, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

I see and understand your point, and I also wish there could be a synonym for "occupation" :p On the other hand, avoiding the exact term might avoid frictions centered around the mere word, and allow to concentrate more on the content of the article (that's why diplomacy is mainly the art of using "weasel words" while retaining the meaning while not looking like it :p ). Well, these were my two pence, just musing... Cheers ! Rama 15:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If we agree that legally the occupation is over, then maybe the best word for "de facto occupation" would be colony. At any rate, the article name is unsatisfactory. I suggest History of Iraq, 2003-2005, or even Iraq, 2003-2005. There's no particular need to specify "post-invasion" in the title, is there? Rd232 21:30, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • The logic behind the name is that the article describes the period immediately following the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, conventionally starting May 1, 2003, where the other article leaves off. This article does not describe the events of the invasion from Kuwait in the early part of 2003, except as background.--Pharos 16:58, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Pharos. Maurreen 05:08, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I would object to the change, as it characterizes the actual occupation (May 2003 to June 2004) as "post-occupation" which is incorrect. This is what I suggest the naming conventions be:

  • March 2003 to May 2003: "US invasion of Iraq" (or "US-led coalition invasion of Iraq?")
  • May 2003 to June 2004: "US occupation of Iraq"
  • June 2004 - Present: "US military presence in Iraq" and/or "US political presence in Iraq"

You may need to split this article into military presence and occupation. Also I think it should be made clear how these distinctions were made in the opening paragraphs, as in, for an article about US military presence in Iraq, "the US occupation of Iraq ended with the creation of a new interim Iraqi government..." and then describe the military presence of the US, the rest about Iraqi government and politics should go on Iraqi political history page or something to that effect. — Ben 21:24, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't see how "post-invasion" == "post-occupation", it most certainly does not. The name "post-invasion" is meant to include both formal occupation and post-formal occupation. I tried to cover this all in the intro, do you have specific disagreements with how this is presented in the article? I do think it is useful to retain this overview article on this important period, with more details in some other articles.--Pharos 21:51, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid that "US military presence in Iraq" or "US political presence in Iraq" would extremely difficult to do: it would be very difficult, and probably not extremely interesting, to make an article specifically on the US presence, without talking about the politica and historical porcesses at work here, and about the the other nations which have a presence, wouldn't it ? Rama 22:00, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The term "US-led coalition presence in Iraq" might be better (or another name for the group of countries involved). I do think that both the military involvement and the political involvement would have enough information to divide it into two separate articles. Barring that, I'd agree to just a "presence" article. --Ben 23:49, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The term "post-invasion" implies there was invasion, then post-invasion, and nothing in between i.e. no occupation, which would be odd enough if the occupation had ended, but it has not, notwithstanding the Ministry of Truth's attempts to change the meaning of words. Don't get me wrong here: I'm not coming from some strong anti-war POV where I criticize everything the U.S. does. Far from it. But I do genuinely feel that we do Wikipedia no favors by allowing certain governments to control our vocabulary when their description of events is so far removed from commonsense. How do good newspapers refer to this period in Iraq, does anyone know? SlimVirgin 22:17, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Here's one [2]. It's the Guardian, which is left of center, but it's Max Hastings, former Telegraph journalist and editor-in-chief, I believe, and he is rightwing. He says the U.S. military is worried about having to sustain the "occupation" with insufficient troops. SlimVirgin 22:23, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Slim, I don't understand what you mean. There was the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, with tanks and troops rolling from Kuwait to Baghdad etc., and then a post-invasion period after Saddam's armies were defeated and government ministries taken over etc. The post-invasion begins, by dictionary definition, after this. This is not to say that there is a post-war, or a post-conflict situation at all, far from it, but only to say that the invasion from Kuwait is over. The formal occupation period and the current period both follow the invasion; I don't see how there can be any dispute about that. Also, I really don't see how it credits any version of NPOV to explicitly declare in the title that the occupation is ongoing, despite the opinion of all the members of the United Nations Security Council. Isn't it fair to say there are opinions on both sides? By all means discuss the position that the occupation is ongoing in the text, right alongside the opinion that the occupation has ended, but these opinions should not be set in the title, which should be neutral in respect of this issue, hence post-invasion, a temporal defintion which does not imply anything about occupation or non-occupation in the present period.--Pharos 23:00, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pharos, I'm not going to push the point, because I'm outnumbered, so I'll make a graceful retreat. If the name had been post-invasion Iraq from the start of the post-invasion period (but when was that?), it wouldn't have bothered me. It was the name change I objected to, because Occupation of Iraq is still factually correct, notwithstanding whatever linguistic high jinx the Security Council agreed to, which was the triumph of hope over reality. If the elections are successful, then post-invasion Iraq, or even Democratic Iraq, will be fine, but if they aren't, you may find yourself having to change it back again, so I just feel it was a little hasty. But I'll shut up about it. SlimVirgin 01:34, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

I still think most of the names need to be changed (to something like my example) to retain NPOV. No one has commented on my idea yet either.--Ben 23:49, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Presence"

Ben said the article "characterizes the actual occupation (May 2003 to June 2004) as 'post-occupation'". I don't see that.

He suggested:

  • March 2003 to May 2003: "US invasion of Iraq" (or "US-led coalition invasion of Iraq?")
  • May 2003 to June 2004: "US occupation of Iraq"
  • June 2004 - Present: "US military presence in Iraq" and/or "US political presence in Iraq"

We had discussed splitting the article at June 2004, but there was no consensus. I don't see any value in narrowing anything to "presence". Whatever period is covered by the article, the politics, government and military and related aspects have no reason to be separated. Maurreen 11:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Near as I can tell from the history, the neutrality tag at top of the article was added by User:Ed Poor on October 18, many edits ago. Is the neutrality of the text of the article still greatly disputed?--Pharos 02:31, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • It's been seven days, I'm removing it.--Pharos 07:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


International Humanitarian Law

Presuming GuloGuloGulo's link at IHL Research Initiative Report fairly represents International Humanitarian Law, the current situation would not be considered an occupation because of the widespread international recognition of the Iraqi Interim Government. I would say that the primary argument for the continuance of the occupation is practical and moral, not legal.--Pharos 18:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In a more recent report released by the same organization, IHL Research, the issue of occupation in Iraq is covered even more comprehensively. From the conclusion:
"Iraq is clearly not a case of an occupation coming to an end when an occupying power withdraws from a territory, or is driven out of it. From 28 June 2004 the formal occupation of the whole of Iraq has ended, but the factual situation has not changed completely overnight. Features of post 28 June Iraq, noted in the foregoing analysis, and implicitly or explicitly reflected in Security Council resolution 1546, are likely to include the following:
  • There is a continued presence of foreign forces in the form of the multinational force, possibly with the addition of some new contingents.
  • There are ongoing hostilities and threats to order, of sufficient gravity as to make it implausible to suggest that the situation of armed conflict is definitively over.
  • The situation does not conform exactly to recognized definitions of either international or civil war, or of military occupation.
  • The laws of war, otherwise called international humanitarian law, are held to be applicable to the actions of armed forces in Iraq.
  • The Interim Government, while exercising a wide range of governmental decision-making powers, is constrained in key respects by its essentially caretaker character, the formal restrictions as regards ‘taking any decisions affecting Iraq’s destiny’, the limitations on its treaty-making powers, and its weaknesses in certain areas when compared to the position of external powers in Iraq.
None of this means that the end of the occupation is a sham. What it does mean is that important aspects of the factual situation will not change overnight. Nor will key aspects of the legal framework, at least as regards the application of the laws of war. In short, 28 June 2004 marks an important stage on the road to full resumption of Iraqi sovereignty, not arrival at that destination...
...the wording of Security Council resolution 1546... indicates that, regardless of how the situation is characterized, international humanitarian law will apply to it. There are no let-out clauses to the effect that normal rules cannot apply in the new kind of war – i.e. against terrorists. Hence, if Iraqi or coalition armed forces are used against insurgents, and if they take prisoners, they will be continue to be bound by the terms of the Geneva Conventions, including the provisions that relate to such matters as the holding of detainees. [3]
So we're really just talking about the semantics of the word 'occupation'; even if not considered as such, the same IHL rules exist. -GuloGuloGulo 03:32, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

We had discussed splitting the article at June 2004, but there was no consensus. I don't see any value in narrowing anything to "presence". Whatever period is covered by the article, the politics, government and military and related aspects have no reason to be separated. Maurreen 11:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that splitting the political, social, military,... aspects of the problem would probably have little interest and lots of drawbacks. Overally, this is very unlikely to contribute to a good understanding of the situation. Rama 11:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The occupation of Iraq is not over

I see this discussion is continuing so I'll join in again if I'm not the only person. Pharos, the link you gave above says:

IHL follows a very practical approach in defining military occupation. Under IHL, this term refers to factual control over a territory or a population. It does not require any form of declaration or intent of the invading forces. The motives for the presence of foreign military forces on the territory, be they liberation, self-defence, or enforcing pre-emptive doctrine, are irrelevant.

I agree with this definition. It is factual and NPOV. The distinction made above between de facto and de jure is POV because you're favoring one definition of de jure, whereas a factual definition simply looks to see (a) whether foreign troops are stationed in a country (yes, in this case); and whether the govt of that country has control over them (no, in this case). How many editors agreed that this page should be renamed, as a matter of interest? SlimVirgin 02:53, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • I won't complain if it changes, but I wouldn't like it to go back and forth Rama 02:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it should be changed back, and that it's not a good idea to go back and forth. When most coalition troops have left Iraq, then a new page can be started called post-occupation or democratic Iraq, or whatever is then appropriate. But this page is about, and should remain about, the occupation of Iraq. SlimVirgin 03:03, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
The title question was up for three weeks and there were no objections. I don't think it should be changed without consensus, which I don't see now. SlimVirgin, you said earlier, "If the elections are successful, then post-invasion Iraq, or even Democratic Iraq, will be fine." How do you define a successful election? Maurreen 07:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Also, I believe the article itself doesn't need to state one way or another when the occupation is or isn't. The article can describe conditions and attribute opinions. Maurreen 07:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I would define a successful election, and the end of the occupation, being when a government is installed that has full sovereignity and the right to ask the coalition to leave. When you say it was up for three weeks, did anyone post an RfC or where was it up, and how many editors made the decision to change the name? SlimVirgin 07:59, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Pharos just reverted my copy edit, with the words "see Talk", but there's nothing here. Please don't revert again Pharos. There are statements in there with no sources, like "conventionally" said to have ended, which is meaningless. SlimVirgin 08:02, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Slim, please forgive my delay in response; I like to think things over. I reverted back Slim's changes for a couple of reasons. I think the post-May 1, 2003 thing is important because it sets a definition on the article. Of course, this is rather arbitrary, and just based on Bush's speech, but it is a widely accepted beginning point and the article should hald have a precise definition if possible. There can be no question that according to the UN, Iraq is fully sovereign and the occupation has ended; I don't know where you're trying to go on this. As to de facto I think it is useful because it distinguishes from the de jure opinion in UN resolutions and the transitional constitution that the government of Iraq is fully sovereign, which is an important distinction. I don't see how de facto implies the moral legitimacy of the coalition presence, in fact it says they have more power than according to official statements. As to the site referenced, it was put in as a reference in the article by GuloGuloGulo. That article says that an occupation ends with widespread international recognition of a legitimate national government, in more recent statements (in above comments), they have used more ambiguous language, reflecting de facto issues in the country. But whatever one group's conclusions, it cannot be NPOV to declare in the title that the UN and most of the nations of the world are either absolutely wrong or lying (though they may well be). As to the constituional authority to make new laws, I will read over the transitional constitution soon to discover the exact facts. You may revert back on this without my objection for now, as long as you put something on the election somewhere else in the intro. Three (or perhaps four) editors agreed to the change, there were not irreconcilable differences--Pharos 08:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pharos, can you name the editors who agreed to the name change, because I've looked through the discussion and I can't see three or four. Sorry if I'm missing them. Please don't use the word "conventionally" to refer to a speech by George Bush. I mean no disrespect here, but this article can't be allowed to have an American POV. That doesn't mean it can have an anti-American one either, so don't misunderstand me here. As I explained above, I'm not coming at this from a hardline anti-war or anti-American position, which I know exists a lot in the Wikipedia. But I feel this article goes too far in the other direction. From now on, could you be very detailed with regard to your references; please back up all your claims, unless they're the sort of thing you're fairly sure no one will challenge. Don't use de jure/de facto - say who says occupation, and who says not, because the de facto/de jure distinction is basically the same as "some say x, some say y." If everyone sticks to citing sources, there should be little dispute. However, I do feel the name-change discussion should continue. There seem to be two for post-invasion, and two for occupation at the moment. Hopefully others will chime in. SlimVirgin 08:15, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Well Rama basically agreed to the name change after I pointed out the UN declaration, suggesting Post-Hussein transition as an alternative, but we should let Rama speak on this matter. I do not think that Silverback actively participated in that discussion, but it appears that Silverback was following it, and did not object to the change.--Pharos 08:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • As to May 1, it is the date that many of all political stripes mark as the unofficial start of the occupation, quite often by opponents of the invasion as a mendacious and sadly ironic "declaration of victory and peace" in light of the continuance and intensification of fighting afterwards. Most Bush supporters prefer not to mention May 1 at all, and it has almost only been brought up by Bush opponents in political debate. I note that the main text (in a section I did not write) begins its chronology with May 1, as do most accounts I've read. I just think it's useful to have a clear definition of the perod of time being described.--Pharos 08:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • As to law-making authority, according to the transitional constitution, which I just checked, laws can be changed by the Iraqi Transitional Government, which which will be formed after the election results are sorted out. Allawi's current government does not have any powers now that it did not have before the election, but the succeeding government will.--Pharos 08:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Well, for this UN resolution thing, I'd actually be glad to review this resolution. For what I read in the article ("the UN Security Council voted 14-0 to "welcome" the creation of the Iraqi Governing Council. Resolution 1500 stopped short of formally recognizing the governing council as Iraq's legitimate governing body but called it an "important step" towards creating a sovereign government"), it is still ambiguous for me whether the Security Council is "welcoming" in the sense of "having seen with joy", or in the sense of "looking forward to". Typically diplomatic formulation there, I imagine... I'm afraid that coming "short of formally recognizing the governing council" would tent to make me favour the latter.
But in any case, if we assume that the occupation has "officially ended", we can hardly say there were significant removal of troops. In this sense, we see such a disparity between the de facto and de jure that it would make the law meaningless. Hiding behind technicalities has not been the mark of admirable people in history; please don't be offended by the strength of the examples, they are just what comes up to my mind immediately, but think of the way Germany invaded Poland in 1939 over some "reaction to an attack against German troops", which led to the breaking of the war on the part of France and England; yet any serious book nowdays will say that Germany started the mess. On a still regrettable level, yet less dramatic, I would say that the way this in fact insignificant "event" was trumpeted by the Bush administration is very much reminding of the "end of major combat": something which looks very nice to say on television -- and that's about it.

Now perhaps I've added more confusion, so I'll summarise my idea of the whole deal:

  • I don't really like fussing about the title of the article, I feel that the content is more important.
  • I probably would feel more comfortable with "occupation" of Iraq, but I can understand that other do not
  • Though it doesn't make me extatic, the current title seems acceptable to me.
  • The best likely thing to do is probably to find a middle term which will look acceptable to everybody. Ideally even newcomers should be able to come here and not be tempted to changed the title ! :) (yeah, probably very optimistic, but we can close to this ideal)
  • The only things I would really stand up against would be things like "2003 heroic liberation of Iraq overcome with joy by the noble troops of the Great Coalition of the Willing youdlela hi youdlela hoo and kick ass of the bad baaaad dictator we never really liked anyway and we don't like France neither or Europe or the United Nations for that matters, God Bless". But I am confident that we're sensible enough not to select something silly. And by the way, I don't think it is a bad thing to discuss such titles, it gives food for though (which naturally leads me to ...)
  • I'm not emotionally attached to my suggestion of "Post-Hussein Transition", it was mostly to feed the discussion :p I suppose this would be a typical formulation for a French newspaper (say, Le Monde) which would like to appear neutral on the issue; that od course doesn't mean that it is suitable in English.
And that's about it. And Democracy still is the ultimate authority -- if everybody seems to agree that it is important to mention the genetic links between George Bush and Darth Vader/Robin Hood, I'll probably won't be so much happy about it but I'll accept it.
Sorry for the lengthly rant and cheers ! Rama 09:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As there's confusion regarding who agreed to the name change, perhaps we should have an informal vote. SlimVirgin 09:18, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Who wants "Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005"?
  • Who wants "Occupation of Iraq"? SlimVirgin 09:18, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
"want" would not decide anything since it is not an encyclopedic term, we are not supposed to decide issues based on what we "want", but on higher considerations. Perhaps any vote should wait pending the discussion on the 2003 invasion of Iraq page, on whether "invasion" has negative, POV connotations, perhaps even worse than "regime".--Silverback 09:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd say "Occupation of Iraq, 2003-2005" (but "Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005" is acceptable for me) Rama 09:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Rama, I agree with your suggestion: "Occupation of Iraq, 2003-2005." SlimVirgin 10:15, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • I cannot see how "Occupation of Iraq" can be NPOV, as I also cannot understand the NPOV in SlimVirgin's recent changes asserting that Iraq is definitely occupied according to international humanitarian law. The UN and most nations of the world unambiguously recognize the full sovereignty of the Iraqi government, and eight million ordinary Iraqis just risked their lives to participate in that government (or rather its successor). They would not do this for a puppet institution.--Pharos 09:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Pharos, it's a definition given by an authoritative legal source, and it's an important definition because it determine whether the rules of war and occupation apply. The current Iraqi govt does not have full sovereignity. It is not allowed to make law. It is not allowed to tell the coalition to leave. It is not allowed to decide which prisoners of war are released.
    • Pharos, can you provide the links to the recognition of the Iraq Interim Governing Council as a legitimate government ? That would be an argument of a nature to solve the matter. For now, I haven't yet seen references to such a formal recognition (which doesn't mean it doens't exists, I'd just like to see it); the recent elections will make the next government legitimate; for now, the Iraq Interim Governing Council is a "provisional government of Iraq established by the US-led multinational coalition" (I'm not the one who mentionned the term "puppet institution"). Cheers ! Rama 10:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Pardon my text placement, I was actually speaking to SlimVirgin. It is difficult to do this stuff with multiple users editing at once. As to the UN resolution, I recall a similar conversation with you about this, which is now at the very top of this page. Included there are links and quotes from the document. Actually the Iraqi Governing Council was never recognized by the UN, only the Iraqi Interim Government, in resolution 1546.--Pharos 10:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The UN has recognized it as legitimate, Rama; the point is that it does not have full sovereignity. This reminds me of Kuwait in 1990. Saddam Hussein said it was not an invasion and not an occupation when of course it was both. Similarly, the coalition forces cannot in this case be allowed to define what the word "occupation" means. There is a recognized definition of that term in international law, which is now in the intro. It is a definition in an article written by a neutral body. We should try to use neutral commentators wherever possible as sources in a case like this, in my view. SlimVirgin 10:15, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

How much of the territory and population does this IHL definition apply to? Certainly not the Kurdish area, and much of the Shiite areas. Occupation type conditions only apply to bathist and al Qaeda hot spots within the Sunni triangle, and major actions are done in consultation with the Iraqi government. One of the key criticisms of the post liberation period is that not enough forces were deployed for an occupation.--Silverback 08:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's international law, Silverback - the Geneva Convention, the Hague Regulations, and so on. The law applies in every area where there has been an incursion by foreign troops who retain control - whether they "consult" with a govt or not. If the foreign power is in control, then the rules of occupation and war apply. Pharos, do you regard France as having been occupied by Germany while it was being governed by the Vichy government? That is called Occupied France by historians, even though Germany said it was not an occupying power, because France had its own government. This is why it's so important to apply international, legal definitions of "occupation," and not the definitions of the occupying powers. SlimVirgin 10:42, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
Also, I wonder wether the "occupation" word is not taken in a excessively negative connotation (probably because "the Occupation" usually evoques the Nazi occupation of Europe, at least in some languages...); we've been citing example of the Second World War, but there have been other occupations, think of the occupation of Germany by Allied Forces; it was recognised as an occupation, and noone felt particularly unconfortable with the notion (including the Germans themselves).
Silverback has a point when he says that "One of the key criticisms of the post liberation period is that not enough forces were deployed for an occupation"; certainly the appreciation of the wisdom of the invasion was not uniform, but given the invasion, I think that everybody expected the Coallition to occupy the country -- it makes little doubt that there would be a full-scale civil war, augmented by tribal banditism, if it was not for the occupying forces. Rama 15:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin asked whether question of the title change was brought up at WP:RFC before it was made. No, it was not.

Under "Article content disputes," that page explicitly says, "Please only list links to talk pages where two or more participants cannot reach consensus and are thus stalling progress on the article."

Thus, there was no need to list the question at RFC. Maurreen 15:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a bit legalistic, Maurreen. This isn't like Oxford comma, where there are no issues at stake. This is about an issue affecting millions of people. When you go a Google search for Occupation of Iraq [4], this Wikipedia page comes second and third, and we don't even call it an occupation. Two editors shouldn't have made a decision like that without broader consultation. SlimVirgin 16:16, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I think this would be easier to handle if we address one big issue at a time. SlimVirgin, do you have a preference on what should be the first issue? Maurreen 15:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The issue for me is the name. I did a very quick Google search, and here are some news organizations calling it an occupation.
  • [5] India Daily Times, India, Feb 1
  • [6] Guardian, UK, Feb 1
  • [7] Associated Press in the Boston Globe, U.S., Feb 1
  • [8]] Boston Globe editorial, U.S., Feb 1
  • [9] Asian Times, Hong Kong, Feb 1
  • [10] Daily Times, Pakistan, Feb 1
  • [11] The Nation, U.S., Feb 1
  • [12] Pretoria News, South Africa, Feb 1
  • [13] Sydney Morning Herald, Australia, Jan 29
  • [14] Z-Net, U.S., Jan 21

In addition, here is a Guardian article from 2002 [15], describing plans for a long-term occupation, plans that are now coming to fruition. If this election is successful, a constitution will be drawn up by August, then a second election will take place in December. Jack Straw has just announced that the coalition is likely to seek an extension from the UN, so the end of the occupation isn't even in sight. Maurreen, can you tell me please: do you consider VIchy France to have been occupied by Germany even though it had its own government? If yes, what do you see as the difference in this case? SlimVirgin 16:16, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

The difference, if nothing else, is that I am not dealing with an article on Vichy France. I am dealing with this article.
Slim, is there any way we might find middle ground? Maurreen 16:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maurreen, please answer the question, because I want to try to see where you're coming from on this. Tell me why you see this as different from Vichy France. The fact that the German occupation was a bad one, and the American occupation is, according to many, a good one, doesn't alter whether or not they are occupations. There's a discussion going on at Invasion of Iraq (as I understand it; I've only glanced in) regarding whether the word invasion is POV. It isn't, of course, because it's a factual term, whether it's a good invasion or a bad one. It's the same here with the word occupation. SlimVirgin 16:35, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I know less about France than I do about this. Where I'm coming from has nothing to do with France or the goodness or badness of anything, or my opinion of anything but what constitutes NPOV. Where I'm coming from is the fact that whether the occupation continues is in dispute. Because it is in dispute, it is not for Wikipedia to decide the question either way. Maurreen 06:45, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • [16], Washington Post, June 2004, the non-occupying power gives itself legal immunity. SlimVirgin 16:54, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Article 42 of the Hague Convention (IV) Regulations:
"SECTION III: MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER THE TERRITORY OF THE HOSTILE STATE
"Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised." [17]
In other words, the de facto IS the de jure. SlimVirgin 17:12, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Article by Mary Ellen O'Connell, professor of law at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, and an associate of OSU Mershon Center for the Study of International Security and Public Policy, describing the legal position in Jurist:
"Pending a handover to the UN - or if the US and UK refuse to hand over the administration - the US and UK will remain the belligerent occupiers of Iraq. As such, their conduct is governed principally by the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Regulations." [18] SlimVirgin 17:17, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Slim, there has been a handover of the administration recognized by the UN, along with full sovereignty. This article (and most of those you've cited) was from before that handover. But still, noone disputes that some still consider it an occupation. But the UN and most nations of the world hold that the occupation has ended, and fully recognize the Iraqi government. Noone but the Axis powers ever recognized Vichy France. I'm not saying there is not an occupation, but that there is a dispute, and the title should not be biased in any way.--Pharos 17:37, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Most of those I cited are from before the handover? Please look more carefully. I don't dispute that the world recognizes the Iraqi govt, but it doesn't have full sovereignty. I agree that the title should not be biased, but you've made it biased in favor of the American government whereas, if you had left it alone, it would still reflect the international legal position and the factual situation. That is what I object to. If you can think of a compromise title, I'd be willing to consider that, but it has to be a title that reflects the facts, and not a coalition POV word, and I can't think of a more accurate word than "occupation." Can you show me a source that says "most nations of the world hold that the occupation has ended"? I've given you legal and journalistic sources, so I feel it's time you offered some sources too. SlimVirgin 17:56, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • "Occupation" is clearly a POV word when definitely applied to a situation that many dispute as such. All of your sources have been opinions from various independent parties. What they prove is that many hold this disputed opinion. Show me a source that proves that occupation is not disputed by the UN Security Council and the Arab League. "Post-invasion" is not POV; is this a pro-Bush source? Or this? I could have deliberately chosen a term supporting some political position, but quite frankly I thought it would best to be as fair, neutral and descriptive as possible, which is why I never supported "Post-Occupation" or Rama's "Post-Hussein Transition", which implies a transition to positive, legitimate government in the title. Also the dispute on RfC is not whether the occupation is over. It is whether this should be stated definitely in the title.--Pharos 18:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your second source calls it an occupation if you read the article and not just the headline. I don't feel you're being reasonable calling your sources factual, but mine mere opinion. The dispute here is whether the occupation is over. You say it is, and that's why you changed the title. I say it is not over and that's why I feel you should not have changed the title. What you should not do is rewrite someone else's RfC unless they have written it in a biased way, and I have not done that. Anyway, RfCs don't often attract a lot of comment so I wouldn't worry about it. How do you suggest we proceed? SlimVirgin 19:05, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Those were not sources about real facts at all, they only demonstrated that "post-invasion" is not a Bush code word or something. The factual sources are the resolutions from the UN and Arab League etc. and conflicting opinions from media sources etc., which demonstrate that there is opinion on both sides, but do not prove (for the NPOV purposes of Wikipedia) things one way or the other. I do not say that the article should state that the occupation is over (as you represented my position on RfC). I do say that there are different points of view, and it is POV to select one as Wikipedia's "official policy".
A suggestion might be to forget the title for a few days and wait to see whether anyone responds to the RfC, and in the meantime work on improving the article. Would you agree to that? SlimVirgin 19:27, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • I am very much supportive of improving the article, but I cannot reasonably accept edits that the situation is definitely an occupation, or definitely an occupation according to international humanitarian law, or that the UN Security Council did not officially recognize full sovereignty. Will you agree to go back on such sweeping and controversial edits at least until there is some sort of helpful comment or arbitration?--Pharos 19:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Hague regulations above make it clear that Iraq is not occupied, since it is not under the authority of an occupying army, and never was as a whole. Kurds retained authority in their area. While Bremer was there the rest of Iraq was under civilian authority, and the military authority only lasted between Bremer's leaving and the turn over to the interim government that was recoginized by the UN. However, it can be argued that the Saddam regime was an occupation of Iraq, since his rule was by means of a hostile army, although for the past several years it did not encompass the Kurds, so it was also from that point on, not an occupation of Iraq, just the non-kurdish portions. I think the situation is finally clear.--Silverback 20:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think we're confusing two issues here: one is the reason for the name of the article, and the other is the content of the article. Probably separating the two questions will ease solving the matter. For instance, we have seen here that putting "occupation" in the title will probably arise reguar questionning, which alone pretty much disqualifies this solution; now perhaps we might find a third title which would be acceptable for everybody (the "Post-Saddam Hussein transition" or something in this vein, perhaps).
Now, the question about the content of the article, perhaps a paragraph about this question of "occupation", could be discussed. I'll have to be frank there and confess that I find the discussion a little bit overrated. Obviously people who get shot at in Iraq don't care very much about whether we Westerners call this an "occupation" or not; I fear that the article might eventually discuss this terminology issue in a disproportionate way, comparing to actual facts. It'd look like we are more worried about our little Westerner conscience than about the fate of the people there.
Also, I really (and honestly) wonder why there is such a resistance against the mere apperance of the word "occupation" in the article. There is nothing specifically atrocious about occupying a country, after all, in itself. For some reason, the Bush administration has made the word a taboo, but this doesn't change the fact that Iraq is saturated by foreign troops which out-power the local troops by far.
So I suggest that we begin by sorting out the issue of the title, and perhaps draft a consensus paragraph for the content when we're done with it -- I'm a little bit worried that we'd have to do this every two months or so when newcommers drop by and don't want to read kilometres of talk page :/ Rama 20:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rama, I very much agree that actual content is much more important than words. I don't know about other editors, but I never opposed talking about "occupation" in the article, but only opposed saying it is definitely still an occupation after June 28. Certainly it would be very wrong to not talk about occupation in this article. As to something like "Post-Saddam Hussein transition", it's more or less fairly acceptable to me, if a little ambiguous. Some might say it implies a transition to something (to what?); myself, I never saw what was non-neutral about "post-invasion". But if SlimVirgin supports this idea, I'd go along with it.--Pharos 21:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh all right, I might have understood the objections a little bit too strongly, sorry (I sometimes deplore the difficulties inherant in this discussion medium; I am quite certain that we'd be much more efficient, could we discuss sitting in club chairs and sipping porto :) ). Well, we basically have here an article in two parts: one is before the 28th or 30 June, where it seems that mostly everyone agrees that the term "occupation applies", and another, thereafter, for which there is a strong resistance to using "occupation". I don't think that splitin the article in two parts would help to clarify the issue, but perhaps we might want to consider title like "Occupation and Post-invasion Iraq", or something like this (All right, this particular title is very bad, the idea is in the "and") ? Rama 22:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The issue of whether it's an occupation does matter to the people of Iraq, Rama, because if it's regarded as an occupation in law, the Geneva Convention and Hague Convention apply, which gives the people of Iraq certain protections. So this is quite an important legal point. Whether they actually have those protections, I don't know, but they're supposed to have them. I agree with what you wrote above about occupation. It is simply a fact; whether it's a good or bad thing depends on other factors. SlimVirgin 21:55, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, you've got a point there, of course, but there is a nuance I'd like to point out: the Geneva convention applies to people who themselves adhere to the laws of warfare. We have here quite a few fellows whose warring customs differ from the good old "sportish" war in a significant way. These people are supposed to be trialed as ordinary criminals. Naturally, it will always be difficult to distinguish between the criminals and the legitimate resistance groups -- it is of course easy for the occupying power to assimilate all the resistants as criminals, which, in practice, relativises the efficiency of Prisoner of War status. Now what is extremely troubling is that some of the people arrested end up not being offered a trial at all, a thing which normally should not happen. This being said, I appreciate your point, and I hope this will be a part of the revelant paragraph. Cheers ! Rama 22:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

American v. British forces

This section is POV, and it seems to say the opposite of what I recall the research showed. "The smaller British forces has a higher proportion of active duty professionals" [19]. How does the reference show that?

Also, this para is stuck in that section without seeming to go anywhere: "On September 7, 2004, the British Royal Institute of International Affairs issued a report [20] saying that if current conditions continue unabated in Iraq, the most likely outcome will be a major civil war that could destabilize the entire Middle East." [21] [22] SlimVirgin 18:17, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

the "The smaller British forces has a higher proportion of active duty professionals" might point to a page whose content has changed over the time; or perhaps I had actually read all that stuff at the time and it was clear in my mind; anyway, I agree that it's far from evident according to the link.
I am sorry but I really have trouble to understand your second remark. It is undoubtly my faulty English which has reached its limits there I'm afraid... could you reformulise ?
Silverback made a reference to a consensus version from which I have deviated; can we take this as a backup solution ? In any case, the consensus solution was of course what I intended to put -- I wouldn't have spent one week discussing this matter on the talk page otherwise, of course. Cheers ! Rama 20:43, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think I remember talking to you about this before, and the British forces had a very slightly higher percentage of non-professional troops in Iraq. Also, the current court-martial in the UK doesn't suggest that British troops handle things much differently. They've been taking photographs of prisoners simulating sex, except it doesn't look like simulation. The bad stuff happens regardless of nationality or training, it seems. SlimVirgin 22:07, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

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)

Iraq, 2003-2005

  • Vague or euphamistic. Maurreen 06:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • ... but at least has the merit that nobody will contest the title ! :) Rama 09:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Post-Hussein transition

  • Euphamistic. Maurreen 06:31, 2 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)

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)

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)

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 [23] 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)

Maurreen, thanks for making these suggestions. How about:

Yes, thank you Maurren ! Rama 13:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupation_of_Iraq_(2003–2011)/Archive_4&oldid=1049884175"