Wikipedia

Talk:US-led intervention in Iraq (2014–2021)/Archive 2

< Talk:US-led intervention in Iraq (2014–2021)
Latest comment: 4 years ago by DocumentError in topic Name change, scope defining, and reality.
Archive 1Archive 2

Where does "1,000 ISIL fighters killed" come from?

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Colleague lightanddark on 9 November added: "1,000 [ISIS] fighters killed", referring to Business Insider 10 Sep that does NOT give that information! Why does he do that? It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to cheat or mislead readers, I think. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Its unsourced original research by LightandDark2000. I tried explaining to him that he can not insert numbers he alone comes up with and that he should at least provide the sources. He stopped doing it for a time but than started up again recently. I told him that it can be removed at any time because its unsourced. EkoGraf (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, EkoGraf. I've also notified Mr Light and Dark on 10 November of this problem, and invited him to give his motivation and opinion, here in this discussion section. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I did not add that information; I'm afraid that you're addressing the wrong user. I simply copied and pasted data that I found on the main intervention article into this one. Now, as for who actually introduced that information, I haven't really looked into it yet (but neither do I have the time to conduct such a thorough search), so I have no idea who actually added this. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Please, in the future, do not put figures that are not in the cited source. EkoGraf (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Problems with "watchlist" and "history"

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

How does the "watchlist work"? I've been "watching" this page since my edits on Oct. 16, 2014. I received 3 notices of changes on that date and 2 since (on November 10 and 11). I now see that there have been close to 150 since then; I've been notified of only 5.

How does "history" work? Edits I made on Oct. 16 are not listed here, even when I display the changes back to Oct. 15. They are, however, listed on my "User contributions" {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DavidMCEddy}. It was there on November 17, because I mentioned it in an email to a friend on that day, and I checked to make sure I had the correct citation before sending that email.

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello David - I can't answer yours questions specifically as I don't regularly edit this article; however, for information on how the watchlist works pls see: Help:Watching pages. IRT your contributions I assume other editors may have altered the text you added at some point as part of the ongoing development of the article. If you want to review the version of the article after you made your last change that can be accessed in the article history. I have extracted the link to your last edit here [1] if this is what you are after. Anotherclown (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Starting date

Latest comment: 10 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

EkoGraf on 10 and 11 November twice changed the starting date of ‘2014 American-led intervention in Iraq’ (in infobox) from 16 June to 8 August, giving as argument: air-strikes having started on 8 August.

The first draft of the article(29Sept) clearly defined ‘intervention’ as: “airstrikes”, which indeed and undisputedly started on 8 August. Also in that first draft, the editor (Acetotyce) (surprisingly, uncomprehensibly and unmotivatedly) noted in his Infobox: “Date: 16 June – present”: clearly inconsistent (and wrong), I think.

Very soon, editors then started to add information, notably in section ‘Beginning of the U.S.-led campaign’(see version 30Sept,18:21), suggesting that also “a… humanitarian… mission”, and military support for (Kurdish) Peshmerga (in region Mosul), belonged to the “intervention” meant by the article’s title—however neglected to bring the lead section into accordance with that implicite opinion of theirs: the lead section kept suggesting that “intervention” meant solely: airstrikes.

Clearly, from that early moment onwards, the article was therefore inconsistent, and stayed that inconsistent way until 8 November. I then organised the since long chaotic and inconsistent article, following and openly expressing my idea—which you may refute, if you want, but has not been refuted since 8 November—that, if since 1½ months many editors implicitly express as their opinion that such ‘humanitarian mission’ and military aid for Kurds and for Iraqi government are also part of the “U.S.-led intervention” meant in the article’s title, and no one contradicts that implicit, but clear, opinion of theirs, we’d better assume now that there is large consensus that those types of intervention (humanitarian aid, and military support for Kurds/Iraqi) are indeed part of the “intervention” meant in the article’s title.

The article clearly shows and proves today that the humanitarian aid started one day earlier: 7 August. The article also shows that the military support for Iraqi Kurds started again a bit earlier: on or before 5 August. Following these facts and reasoning, it seems to me only logical and consistent to place the beginning date now also in the Infobox on 5 August 2014. If someone wishes to refute or deny or contradict this here reasoning and opinion of mine: be my guest, but please realise that a Wikipedia article must first of all be consistent, and that therefore, if you for whatever reason want to defend and present another starting date in the article (in infobox), you’ll have to make sure that the lead section, and the whole article, are again corresponding with that, different, opinion of yours. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Editors can have their opinions, but unless they have sources that explicitly say the aid, support and air-strikes are all part of one big intervention its all original research on their part. Common interpretation per sources is that the intervention started on 8 August. This article is about the military intervention that started on 8 August and was created as such when the air-strikes started. Its parent article on the trans-Syrian/Iraqi intervention against ISIS is also primarily about the air-strikes. The military support/aid to the Iraqi government had already been in place long before the air-strikes started (years before). P.S. Corriebertus, I tried figuring out what Acetotyce ment with 16 June and the only one thing I could find is that on that date the US reinforced its already present embassy security in Baghdad. Hardly an intervention. EkoGraf (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Two points: 1 - while a plurality of text regards airstrikes, this article is about the fight against ISIS writ large. It might be worth spinning off an article about the air campaign alone, but this article also covers the ground war.
2 - June 16th marks the American decision to fight ISIS, and the moment when American troops are deployed to do such. August only marks the decision to carry out that policy with new weapons. Those troops (and air assets deployed in June) were explicitly not limited to the Embassy, were authorized and equipped to use force, and began to engage ISIS for the first time, albeit through Iraqi proxies. That is the definable shift in American policy and action.
Very importantly, the Pentagon [2] and major news organizations [3] start the clock on American intervention in Iraq at June 16th. Juno (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Those two sources (which is actually the same one story) talk about the US military evaluating the state of the Iraqi military and conducting reconnaissance flights before the air-strikes started. Not seeing in what way they are intervening or fighting ISIS when they were literally just observing them during those two months and not getting directly involved in the conflict. And the sources make no mention of them using Iraqi proxies to engage ISIS. And reminding again, this article is about the direct American-led intervention which started with air-strikes and was created at that time (not before) and for that purpose. What I could agree on is 5 August, established and edited in by Corriebertus, since he has found sufficient sources confirming that US advisory troops (direct involvement) were in place on that date. EkoGraf (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that it is nearly definitive that when you ask the Pentagon "Hey, how much does this war cost" they respond "Since June 16th, we have spent this much money". Or, as Reuters says: "U.S. military operations against Islamic State in Iraq ... since they began in mid-June". Adm Kirby is quoted as saying: "As our op (operational) tempo and as our activities have intensified, so, too, has the cost" when asked about costs incurred since July. In Adm Kirby's eye (and those of the US Government) July and August were the same operation, the tempo just changed.
It was in June that America sends men and material directed, not at Embassy security, but toward the destruction of ISIS, a marked shift in policy. Juno (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
It was in June that America sends men and material directed...toward the destruction of ISIS Not what your source says. Your source clearly says that between June and August the US military was simply evaluating the state of the Iraqi Army and conducted reconnaissance flights (which is on what they "spent this much money" during that specific period). EkoGraf (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Juno(13Nov) suggests: “this art. is about fight ISIS writ large”. The debate, in this discussion but also in the article since the very first draft, seems indeed: what this article “is about”… As I said 12Nov: it had appeared inconsistent from the very start(29Sept) —and inconsistent is the worst any encyclopedia can be!
My edits up to 12Nov made it at least (fairly) consistent-- resulting in starting date 5Aug. My edit of 14Nov,20:01 changed the article but once again it was (fairly) consistent, and that time led to starting date 29 June. Edits EkoGraf 15Nov once again changed the article, but once again the result is (fairly) consistent and leads to starting date 5 August.
Juno’s opinion (‘…is about fight ISIS writ large’) is wishful thinking and vague. Juno shows two sources, DefenseNews and Reuters. None of them says that “intervention” started 16 June. Reuters says that 16 June US ‘became involved in operations against ISIL’ but does NOT corroborate that vague assertion: WHAT EXACTLY did US then DO on 16 June, Reuters?? DefenseNews says that 16June US started to “assess..”, and I feel a sort of gap between the notions of ‘intervention’ and ‘assessment’. If you wish, you could define/describe any assessment, or one specific assessment, as ‘intervention’—but in this specific, war-related, case, I’m not (yet) in favour to entitle “assessing the state of [Iraq’s] Army” as ‘intervention’.
Eko’s opinion(14Nov,14:13) (‘...is about direct intervention started with air-strikes..’) is also wishful thinking, AND is in contradiction with the content of the article since its very beginning and up to today! The present situation, edited (consistently) by EkoGraf himself, tells the interv to have its start on 5Aug(weapons to peshmerga). If ANYONE wants to change the present situation(‘intervention started 5Aug’), he must come up with a consistent story. Personally, I still feel (see my version of early 15 Nov) that the US dropping soldiers in June in Iraq who more or less take over parts of that country can very well qualify as ‘intervention’. Corriebertus (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

US soldiers did not take over parts of the country. They reinforced the already present security details of the embassy in Baghdad and the consulate in Erbil, sent soldiers to the airport to keep it secure in case of an evacuation of US citizens from the country and increased the number of already present US military trainers that had been working in Iraq even before the ISIS surge as part of a program dating back for years. EkoGraf (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
So they did take over the airport? And forgive me if I am mistaken, I don't think that there were any military advisers before June 16th. Juno (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
They did not take over the airport, they secured it along the Iraqi military in case they needed to evacuate all American personnel from the country (not intervention against ISIS) and yes military advisers have been in Iraq ever since the US military's withdrawal back in 2010. EkoGraf (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm just relying on google but I couldn't find anything about any America options (training included) in 2012 or 2013. Do you have any details about units deployed or about what they were up to? Juno (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

At the end of the day: when you ask the US government when this war started, they say June 16th. I can dig you up more RSs that also list June 16th. Is there anyone that says that this war (not just airstrikes, that this war) started in September? Juno (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It is June 16 per RS and per the Pentagon which said the Operation Inherent Resolve Metal is for service after June 15'Bold text' any other date os origional research, and this article has never been only about airstrikes. Another source - the DoD says "Service members overseas serving in support of Operation Inherent Resolve are eligible for the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. The award is retroactive to June 15, when President Barack Obama ordered U.S. forces to the region in response to offensives by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in Iraq."

Legacypac (talk) 07:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

IS Helicopter

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article that supposedly proves that IS has a helicopter is actually an article that strongly doubts that IS has a helicopter. It seems to disprove the idea more than anything. --92.232.49.38 (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Section 10.1: ‘Domestic criticism U.S.’

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

We need to tackle section 10.1: ‘Domestic criticism U.S.’. That text is now exacly a full screen, 850 words; without any recognizable internal organization; such a section is unsurveyable for almost every visitor. I’ve given it a few glances and notice several problems:

  • We should cut it back to core business: real, concrete (not vague) criticism on the policies towards bombing/intervention etc. in Iraq. Criticizing decisions of a month or a year ago (I see that a lot) is off-topic then, because that makes the section unlimited, endless.
  • Also we must cut out as much as possible interpretations from news sources/channels (I see a lot of them) and from Wiki editors (I see a lot of that too). The Wiki reader wants to read here exact quotes of politicians etc, no other ‘crap’.
  • That being done, the remaining information needs some type of structuring, organizing. I haven’t got a definite idea for that yet. We can perhaps organize it chronologically, or according to standpoint/opinion, or perhaps according to aspects of the issue. Have you guys good ideas on this? It doesn’t necessarily have to be me who does this job, you may do it yourself if you feel like it and have good ideas for it. --Corriebertus (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
This section is where I've dumped US domestic stuff inserted in other ISIL articles that did not fit there. Agree it needs cleanup. Legacypac (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Inthefastlane threw out the domestic criticisms in U.K. and Canada, here and in the next edit. Seems to me not a good idea. I've asked him, why. --Corriebertus (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The reason why I moved the UK and Canada criticism section is that nothing in the Wikipedia text and the articles to which the text is cited contains either a criticism or, more generally, an explicitly discussion of America's intervention in Iraq. Despite the controversy of its misnomered title, the 2014 American-led intervention is a documentation of America's contribution to its fight against ISIS in Iraq, ergo making the criticisms irrelevant. It would be more relevant to put the sections here but that is a different Wikipedia article than the one for which this talk page is concerned. Inthefastlane (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
There is also a short Operation Inherent Resolve article where all the US domestic stuff can go. This is an article about the joint effort. Legacypac (talk) 11:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully Inthefastlane the article is called "American-led intervention" not "American intervention" Canada, UK and other countries are all part of the effort. If you don't like the title make a Requested Move. but until that happens, why would we not deal with domestic criticism of the various contributors? Legacypac (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Two reasons: 1) The title is called 'American-led' intervention, neither 'American intervention' nor simply 'intervention' so at the very least there has to be some discussion of the American operation in Iraq. As the articles are solely focused the authorization of Canadian and British military participation in Iraq, they are irrelevant to the topic of this article. 2) There are other articles (here, here, and here) for which the sections that you want to include would be more relevant. Inthefastlane (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Where does "1,000 ISIL fighters killed" come from?

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Colleague lightanddark on 9 November added: "1,000 [ISIS] fighters killed", referring to Business Insider 10 Sep that does NOT give that information! Why does he do that? It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to cheat or mislead readers, I think. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Its unsourced original research by LightandDark2000. I tried explaining to him that he can not insert numbers he alone comes up with and that he should at least provide the sources. He stopped doing it for a time but than started up again recently. I told him that it can be removed at any time because its unsourced. EkoGraf (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, EkoGraf. I've also notified Mr Light and Dark on 10 November of this problem, and invited him to give his motivation and opinion, here in this discussion section. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I did not add that information; I'm afraid that you're addressing the wrong user. I simply copied and pasted data that I found on the main intervention article into this one. Now, as for who actually introduced that information, I haven't really looked into it yet (but neither do I have the time to conduct such a thorough search), so I have no idea who actually added this. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Please, in the future, do not put figures that are not in the cited source. EkoGraf (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Problems with "watchlist" and "history"

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

How does the "watchlist work"? I've been "watching" this page since my edits on Oct. 16, 2014. I received 3 notices of changes on that date and 2 since (on November 10 and 11). I now see that there have been close to 150 since then; I've been notified of only 5.

How does "history" work? Edits I made on Oct. 16 are not listed here, even when I display the changes back to Oct. 15. They are, however, listed on my "User contributions" {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DavidMCEddy}. It was there on November 17, because I mentioned it in an email to a friend on that day, and I checked to make sure I had the correct citation before sending that email.

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello David - I can't answer yours questions specifically as I don't regularly edit this article; however, for information on how the watchlist works pls see: Help:Watching pages. IRT your contributions I assume other editors may have altered the text you added at some point as part of the ongoing development of the article. If you want to review the version of the article after you made your last change that can be accessed in the article history. I have extracted the link to your last edit here [4] if this is what you are after. Anotherclown (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Starting date

Latest comment: 10 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

EkoGraf on 10 and 11 November twice changed the starting date of ‘2014 American-led intervention in Iraq’ (in infobox) from 16 June to 8 August, giving as argument: air-strikes having started on 8 August.

The first draft of the article(29Sept) clearly defined ‘intervention’ as: “airstrikes”, which indeed and undisputedly started on 8 August. Also in that first draft, the editor (Acetotyce) (surprisingly, uncomprehensibly and unmotivatedly) noted in his Infobox: “Date: 16 June – present”: clearly inconsistent (and wrong), I think.

Very soon, editors then started to add information, notably in section ‘Beginning of the U.S.-led campaign’(see version 30Sept,18:21), suggesting that also “a… humanitarian… mission”, and military support for (Kurdish) Peshmerga (in region Mosul), belonged to the “intervention” meant by the article’s title—however neglected to bring the lead section into accordance with that implicite opinion of theirs: the lead section kept suggesting that “intervention” meant solely: airstrikes.

Clearly, from that early moment onwards, the article was therefore inconsistent, and stayed that inconsistent way until 8 November. I then organised the since long chaotic and inconsistent article, following and openly expressing my idea—which you may refute, if you want, but has not been refuted since 8 November—that, if since 1½ months many editors implicitly express as their opinion that such ‘humanitarian mission’ and military aid for Kurds and for Iraqi government are also part of the “U.S.-led intervention” meant in the article’s title, and no one contradicts that implicit, but clear, opinion of theirs, we’d better assume now that there is large consensus that those types of intervention (humanitarian aid, and military support for Kurds/Iraqi) are indeed part of the “intervention” meant in the article’s title.

The article clearly shows and proves today that the humanitarian aid started one day earlier: 7 August. The article also shows that the military support for Iraqi Kurds started again a bit earlier: on or before 5 August. Following these facts and reasoning, it seems to me only logical and consistent to place the beginning date now also in the Infobox on 5 August 2014. If someone wishes to refute or deny or contradict this here reasoning and opinion of mine: be my guest, but please realise that a Wikipedia article must first of all be consistent, and that therefore, if you for whatever reason want to defend and present another starting date in the article (in infobox), you’ll have to make sure that the lead section, and the whole article, are again corresponding with that, different, opinion of yours. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Editors can have their opinions, but unless they have sources that explicitly say the aid, support and air-strikes are all part of one big intervention its all original research on their part. Common interpretation per sources is that the intervention started on 8 August. This article is about the military intervention that started on 8 August and was created as such when the air-strikes started. Its parent article on the trans-Syrian/Iraqi intervention against ISIS is also primarily about the air-strikes. The military support/aid to the Iraqi government had already been in place long before the air-strikes started (years before). P.S. Corriebertus, I tried figuring out what Acetotyce ment with 16 June and the only one thing I could find is that on that date the US reinforced its already present embassy security in Baghdad. Hardly an intervention. EkoGraf (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Two points: 1 - while a plurality of text regards airstrikes, this article is about the fight against ISIS writ large. It might be worth spinning off an article about the air campaign alone, but this article also covers the ground war.
2 - June 16th marks the American decision to fight ISIS, and the moment when American troops are deployed to do such. August only marks the decision to carry out that policy with new weapons. Those troops (and air assets deployed in June) were explicitly not limited to the Embassy, were authorized and equipped to use force, and began to engage ISIS for the first time, albeit through Iraqi proxies. That is the definable shift in American policy and action.
Very importantly, the Pentagon [5] and major news organizations [6] start the clock on American intervention in Iraq at June 16th. Juno (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Those two sources (which is actually the same one story) talk about the US military evaluating the state of the Iraqi military and conducting reconnaissance flights before the air-strikes started. Not seeing in what way they are intervening or fighting ISIS when they were literally just observing them during those two months and not getting directly involved in the conflict. And the sources make no mention of them using Iraqi proxies to engage ISIS. And reminding again, this article is about the direct American-led intervention which started with air-strikes and was created at that time (not before) and for that purpose. What I could agree on is 5 August, established and edited in by Corriebertus, since he has found sufficient sources confirming that US advisory troops (direct involvement) were in place on that date. EkoGraf (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that it is nearly definitive that when you ask the Pentagon "Hey, how much does this war cost" they respond "Since June 16th, we have spent this much money". Or, as Reuters says: "U.S. military operations against Islamic State in Iraq ... since they began in mid-June". Adm Kirby is quoted as saying: "As our op (operational) tempo and as our activities have intensified, so, too, has the cost" when asked about costs incurred since July. In Adm Kirby's eye (and those of the US Government) July and August were the same operation, the tempo just changed.
It was in June that America sends men and material directed, not at Embassy security, but toward the destruction of ISIS, a marked shift in policy. Juno (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
It was in June that America sends men and material directed...toward the destruction of ISIS Not what your source says. Your source clearly says that between June and August the US military was simply evaluating the state of the Iraqi Army and conducted reconnaissance flights (which is on what they "spent this much money" during that specific period). EkoGraf (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Juno(13Nov) suggests: “this art. is about fight ISIS writ large”. The debate, in this discussion but also in the article since the very first draft, seems indeed: what this article “is about”… As I said 12Nov: it had appeared inconsistent from the very start(29Sept) —and inconsistent is the worst any encyclopedia can be!
My edits up to 12Nov made it at least (fairly) consistent-- resulting in starting date 5Aug. My edit of 14Nov,20:01 changed the article but once again it was (fairly) consistent, and that time led to starting date 29 June. Edits EkoGraf 15Nov once again changed the article, but once again the result is (fairly) consistent and leads to starting date 5 August.
Juno’s opinion (‘…is about fight ISIS writ large’) is wishful thinking and vague. Juno shows two sources, DefenseNews and Reuters. None of them says that “intervention” started 16 June. Reuters says that 16 June US ‘became involved in operations against ISIL’ but does NOT corroborate that vague assertion: WHAT EXACTLY did US then DO on 16 June, Reuters?? DefenseNews says that 16June US started to “assess..”, and I feel a sort of gap between the notions of ‘intervention’ and ‘assessment’. If you wish, you could define/describe any assessment, or one specific assessment, as ‘intervention’—but in this specific, war-related, case, I’m not (yet) in favour to entitle “assessing the state of [Iraq’s] Army” as ‘intervention’.
Eko’s opinion(14Nov,14:13) (‘...is about direct intervention started with air-strikes..’) is also wishful thinking, AND is in contradiction with the content of the article since its very beginning and up to today! The present situation, edited (consistently) by EkoGraf himself, tells the interv to have its start on 5Aug(weapons to peshmerga). If ANYONE wants to change the present situation(‘intervention started 5Aug’), he must come up with a consistent story. Personally, I still feel (see my version of early 15 Nov) that the US dropping soldiers in June in Iraq who more or less take over parts of that country can very well qualify as ‘intervention’. Corriebertus (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

US soldiers did not take over parts of the country. They reinforced the already present security details of the embassy in Baghdad and the consulate in Erbil, sent soldiers to the airport to keep it secure in case of an evacuation of US citizens from the country and increased the number of already present US military trainers that had been working in Iraq even before the ISIS surge as part of a program dating back for years. EkoGraf (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
So they did take over the airport? And forgive me if I am mistaken, I don't think that there were any military advisers before June 16th. Juno (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
They did not take over the airport, they secured it along the Iraqi military in case they needed to evacuate all American personnel from the country (not intervention against ISIS) and yes military advisers have been in Iraq ever since the US military's withdrawal back in 2010. EkoGraf (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm just relying on google but I couldn't find anything about any America options (training included) in 2012 or 2013. Do you have any details about units deployed or about what they were up to? Juno (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

At the end of the day: when you ask the US government when this war started, they say June 16th. I can dig you up more RSs that also list June 16th. Is there anyone that says that this war (not just airstrikes, that this war) started in September? Juno (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It is June 16 per RS and per the Pentagon which said the Operation Inherent Resolve Metal is for service after June 15'Bold text' any other date os origional research, and this article has never been only about airstrikes. Another source - the DoD says "Service members overseas serving in support of Operation Inherent Resolve are eligible for the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. The award is retroactive to June 15, when President Barack Obama ordered U.S. forces to the region in response to offensives by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in Iraq."

Legacypac (talk) 07:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

IS Helicopter

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article that supposedly proves that IS has a helicopter is actually an article that strongly doubts that IS has a helicopter. It seems to disprove the idea more than anything. --92.232.49.38 (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Section 10.1: ‘Domestic criticism U.S.’

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

We need to tackle section 10.1: ‘Domestic criticism U.S.’. That text is now exacly a full screen, 850 words; without any recognizable internal organization; such a section is unsurveyable for almost every visitor. I’ve given it a few glances and notice several problems:

  • We should cut it back to core business: real, concrete (not vague) criticism on the policies towards bombing/intervention etc. in Iraq. Criticizing decisions of a month or a year ago (I see that a lot) is off-topic then, because that makes the section unlimited, endless.
  • Also we must cut out as much as possible interpretations from news sources/channels (I see a lot of them) and from Wiki editors (I see a lot of that too). The Wiki reader wants to read here exact quotes of politicians etc, no other ‘crap’.
  • That being done, the remaining information needs some type of structuring, organizing. I haven’t got a definite idea for that yet. We can perhaps organize it chronologically, or according to standpoint/opinion, or perhaps according to aspects of the issue. Have you guys good ideas on this? It doesn’t necessarily have to be me who does this job, you may do it yourself if you feel like it and have good ideas for it. --Corriebertus (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
This section is where I've dumped US domestic stuff inserted in other ISIL articles that did not fit there. Agree it needs cleanup. Legacypac (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Inthefastlane threw out the domestic criticisms in U.K. and Canada, here and in the next edit. Seems to me not a good idea. I've asked him, why. --Corriebertus (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The reason why I moved the UK and Canada criticism section is that nothing in the Wikipedia text and the articles to which the text is cited contains either a criticism or, more generally, an explicitly discussion of America's intervention in Iraq. Despite the controversy of its misnomered title, the 2014 American-led intervention is a documentation of America's contribution to its fight against ISIS in Iraq, ergo making the criticisms irrelevant. It would be more relevant to put the sections here but that is a different Wikipedia article than the one for which this talk page is concerned. Inthefastlane (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
There is also a short Operation Inherent Resolve article where all the US domestic stuff can go. This is an article about the joint effort. Legacypac (talk) 11:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully Inthefastlane the article is called "American-led intervention" not "American intervention" Canada, UK and other countries are all part of the effort. If you don't like the title make a Requested Move. but until that happens, why would we not deal with domestic criticism of the various contributors? Legacypac (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Two reasons: 1) The title is called 'American-led' intervention, neither 'American intervention' nor simply 'intervention' so at the very least there has to be some discussion of the American operation in Iraq. As the articles are solely focused the authorization of Canadian and British military participation in Iraq, they are irrelevant to the topic of this article. 2) There are other articles (here, here, and here) for which the sections that you want to include would be more relevant. Inthefastlane (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Article started that duplicates this one and the sister Syria article topics - just a new name

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
it was deleted Legacypac (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I found this new article via a link in the ISIL article. 2014 U.S. and allies versus Islamic State hostilities and conflicts Legacypac (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Not moved Legacypac (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:American-led intervention in Syria which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger proposal

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I propose that 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq, American-led intervention in Syria, and Operation Inherent Resolve be merged into a new page called American-led intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. I think America is seeing Iraq and Syria as part of one operation. This can be seen with the operation title given to it and the fact they set up a new HQ that deals with both states under one command. (See:Combined Joint Task Force - Operation Inherent Resolve). I think this reflects the reality of US led operations and would be more informative for the reader. I also think you can drop "2014" as it is not needed and some events predate 2014. You also don't need "military" as there will be other types of intervention. Casprings (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, this type of merger was proposed when the separate interventions started and it was rejected, I think that the they should stay separate, the two different country operations are different and require different specific articles. - SantiLak (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I just think if it is how the Americans see the operation, that should be reflected. If they see Iraq and Syria as part of the same operation, we shouldn't correct them. Just reflect it. If the article is to long, one can always create a sub article.Casprings (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
There are significant differences between the situation in Iraq and Syria. Iraq is in the Counter-ISIL Coalition while Syria is not. Arab countries are bombing in Syria but not in Iraq (Morocco excepted now) while the western countries are reluctant to touch Syria. Lots of countries with trainers on ground in Iraq, not in Syria. We do link them, just below the title with For the closely related operations in Syria, see American-led intervention in Syria. Legacypac (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Oppose - We've already been through this. The new article would be way too long to navigate, and there would be the problem of sorting through the mess of all the redirects/links that we would have to fix. Then, the other problem, and probably the biggest, is that the article would become too general too fast. In addition, these are mainly military interventions, other types of interventions are only secondary and don't merit this kind of attention. Then you have the points that the other users have put forth above. This "merger" you're proposing would never really work out, not in any real sense of the term, and things are already fine the way they are, so I believe that it is best to keep the article separated as they currently are. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • While I agree that there are too many distinct and sub-standard articles around, there indeed are markable differences between the situation in Iraq and Syria, including aspects of international law, the involvement of coalition members and many more aspects. So these two articles should stay separate even if the US considers it as two parts of a single operation. --PanchoS (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Correcting the disarraying edit of 24 Nov., 16:49

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Due to an unmotivated edit on 24 November 2014, the previously existing logical organization of the first, chronological part of the article was destroyed. This resulted in presenting the authorizing of American airstrikes (old section § 3.1), and subsequent warfare, as if they were part of ‘(sending) weapons to Kurds and humanitarian aid to civilians’ (§ 3), which I considered confusing, unmotivated, and incorrect. Therefore, I’ve restored the logical idea of the chronological first part of the article as it existed earlier, making it now even more explicitly recognizable as such, in one main section 2, titled ‘Chronology’.
This seemed a good occasion to also make some other (minor) corrections and extensions to the article:

  • Old subsection 3.2 was titled ‘Sinjar massacre’ and presented events in the period 7–14 August. That was not correct. The Sinjar massacre took place between 1 and 5 August. If the Sinjar massacre is relevant for the article—and I tend to believe it is—it should be presented at the correct chronological place in our chronological (sub)sections. Therefore, I’ve added the missing mentioning of that massacre in (newly numbered) subsection 2.2 (‘Weapons to Kurds, humanitarian aid…’) which covered and still covers period 1–7 August.
    • Ofcourse, those pictured events in old §3.2 are also important, but what they display mainly are military operations around Sinjar, which may, for example, be indicated as a ‘Sinjar battle’ (as I did in new §2.4).
    • Re-reading old reference sources 128 and 129, I corrected their summaries (now as new ref numbers 134 and 133, in newly numbered and titled §2.4 ‘Sinjar battle’). (Stating (also) that (by 13 August) ‘U.S. airstrikes … had broken the… siege… allowing thousands…’ would seem exaggerated, pretentious, ambiguous, misleading, now we know (see section December 2014) that the Sinjar siege by ISIL more or less lasted until December.)
    • ‘U.S. and U.K. … attacking ISIL positions’, 7–13 August, was incorrect: only U.S. (and Iraq) were conducting airstrikes.
    • ‘9 August, U.S. forces again…’: some corrections, from the given sources.
  • Chronological section ‘US surveillance…’ (old §2, new §2.1), relating on chronological period June–5 August 2014:
    • mentioned a fact about Feb 2015, which was chronologically out of order there, therefore I’ve removed it to section §7 ‘Extending U.S. presence on Iraqi ground’ which seemed to already cover related facts.
    • If, as Wikipedia apparently wishes to contend, the “intervention” started on 15 June 2014, earlier events naturally should not be placed in its chronological main section, but in section ‘Background’. Therefore, I’ve removed the summaries of old ref sources 108 and 109 from chronological section 2(‘US surveillance…’) to section ‘Background’ (new refs 105 and 106).
  • (Sub)section ‘Weapons to Kurds, and humanitarian…’:
    “On 7 August (etc.)”: after re-reading the given sources, I’ve rewritten that paragraph clearer, correcter, more relevant.
  • In subsection ‘Mosul Dam’ (retitled now ‘Reconquest Mosul Dam’):
    • The suggested ‘summary’ of (old) ref 130 was simply not in that source! I’ve removed it.
    • Old refs 133 and 134 have now been better summarized (now as new ref 137 and 140), leaving out the mistakes.
  • Old chronological section ‘February 2015’ presented the entrance of Jordan in this war rather lengthy, partly reiterating what was also said in section ‘Airstrikes’. In contrast, the entrances of France, Britain etc. in this war were not at all mentioned in the chronological section. Therefore, I’ve now added short mentionings of all countries’ entrances in this war in the chronological section, and shortened the mentioning of Jordan’s entry, referring to further details on the Jordanian entry in section ‘Airstrikes’.
  • Subsection ‘January 2015’: old ref 104 (new ref 103) now better summarized.
  • ‘Infobox military conflict’:
    • ‘Belligerents… Coalition forces’ was not correct. “Coalition” requires parties to be united (against another party), but we have no information saying those countries are united on anything—all we know is that they all happen to be attacking ISIL or intervening in any other way.
    • ‘… United States (leader)’ was not correct: we have no information saying the U.S. is actually leading, in the sense of directing, those other countries, as this epithet at this place would suggest.
    • CJTF-OIR is only a code name linked to the US military contribution in this intervention (and not that of any other countries); there’s no reason to place it separately above that list of contributing countries.
      But I don’t even see any relevance at all of mentioning CJTF-OIR in this infobox, considering it is not a political organ. If you believe we need that code name in that infobox, then first tell us why, and secondly join that CJTF-OIR just only to the reference to ‘United States’.
  • Lead section:
    • ‘1,300 airstrikes (by December 2014)’: I don’t see the relevance at all. Anyway, it’s not ”… coalition forces…”, because, as I said above, there’s no coalition, there’s just ten countries bombarding.
    • Old ref 105 better summarized (now new ref number 104).
    • Changed ‘Iraqi Kurdistan peshmerga forces’ into ‘Iraqi Kurdish peshmerga forces’ because that is what our article writes in section ‘Military aid to the Kurds’.
    • Changed ‘clashes…coalition troops…’ into clashes…U.S. and Canadian troops…’ because that is what those sources tell (and, as I said above, there is no ‘coalition’, there is ten countries bombarding ISIL). --Corriebertus (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Revision section 'Sinjar battle' (9–13 August 2014) retitled now 'U.S./Iraqi air campaign on Northern Iraq'

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

New information from ref sources collected in article Sinjar massacre compelled to a more differentiated picture of the (partial) evacuation/rescuing of those Yazidis stranded in the Sinjar Mountains, which is now fully presented in article 'Sinjar massacre', and therefore now only in summarized form indicated in this article, referring to all further details in 'Sinjar massacre'.
This article—titled ‘(U.S.-led) intervention’—therefore now concentrates on that ‘intervention’, and in this section on the U.S./Iraqi airstrikes in period 9–13 August 2014. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Not ‘coalition’, not ‘CJTF – OIR’ for countries other than U.S..

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Three times already before today (8March,13:37 ; 27March,13:24 ; 28April,11:34) have I motivatedly changed ‘coalition forces’ into ‘intervening countries’ in the Infobox and removed ‘CJTF – OIR’ from its dominant position above that list, because (see for example my motivation, given 8 March in this Talk-section, in its paragraph ‘Infobox’) we have no independent source stating that such ‘coalition’ exists, nor that CJTF – OIR would be formally commanding military operations of countries other than the U.S..

But LightandDark2000 seems to be wanting to keep re-inserting those two (propagandistic) mistakes: 17March10:49 without any explication or argument whatsoever; 19April08:08 with the uncorroborated remark that “All of the following nations are part of the US-led Coalition…”; 3May23:34 by vaguely commanding me to “Read the sources provided in the linked article”. Which ‘linked article’, which sources, beg your pardon? You can command your dog if you want, that’s your business, but don’t command your Wikipedia colleagues. --Corriebertus (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The article is Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve. As per the sources there, everything I added was referenced in the sources. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Updating the Casualties Section

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

They're only current as of February 23rd. Does anyone know how many ISIS/ISIL fighters have been killed since August 2014? I pray to God that it's a lot, like at least 15,000.BS Evader (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on American-led intervention in Iraq (2014–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

France infobox

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The infobox for this article says that France has suffer 130 deaths with 1 executed. I don't believe France has suffered that many casualties. My guess is someone is putting the casualties from the Paris attacks last November in this article which they shouldn't be. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on American-led intervention in Iraq (2014–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on American-led intervention in Iraq (2014–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on American-led intervention in Iraq (2014–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Umbrella article created

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

After numerous discussions and consensus to create one, an umbrella article for the entire Iraq conflict (2003–present) has finally been created. However, it needs a great deal of work and I am seeking help in expanding it. Charles Essie (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on American-led intervention in Iraq (2014–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Intervention is not over.

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Not a single official announcement from any foreign agency, government, or military spokesperson that the intervention is over. Someone please correct.

American Led Operations have even said that they are only going into a new phase. https://twitter.com/CJTFOIR/status/939449701073645568

At what point can we say that intervention is over? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree that it is still ongoing plus the article says 2014–present so it is very inconsistent right now

ISIL casualty count

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This number of 72,000 just seems very inaccurate compared to in Syria, despite more airstrikes being conducted in Syria than in Iraq. Any suggestions? Ianp18 (talk) 05:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Name change, scope defining, and reality.

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I know some of this or similar has been discussed before in the talk archive. I think it is time to resolve to take this into where we see it in 3+ years.
I note the Iranian article with a similar title. The term "intervention" has negative connotations and is apt for the Iranians as they are not there on any official invitation, unlike the international assistance provided to Iraq at their Government's request and would therefore suggests a broader article to detail all of the Iranian intervention and interference and support of religiously aligned militia across the whole of the middle east, by phase rather than individual state or time-line (effectively following and detailing their policies) that can then link to more detailed articles.
And by inference and reference to above, rename this article to ??? that is where I am a bit unsure, maybe something along the lines of "USA deployment to Iraq (2014)" or "USA-Iraq cooperation against ISIL"/"Iraq-USA cooperation against ISIL" or some other that better defines it without the negative connotations (I have ruled out "Middle east gone to poosville MK-MCII").
Input from all especially DocumentError is welcome and appreciated, so ideas comment queries all welcome.121.99.108.78 (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I have no opinion one way or the other, however. DocumentError (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:US-led_intervention_in_Iraq_(2014–2021)/Archive_2&oldid=1184754611"