This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Iraq War troop surge of 2007 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-01-05. The result of the discussion was keep. |
I strongly believe that the current name of this article, "Iraq troop surge of 2007" is not at all appropriate for the purpose it serves. Iraq has a long history and has been involved in more wars than just the Iraq War. There have been all kinds of troops in Iraq and fighting against Iraqi troops. To name this article Iraq troop surge of 2007 is wrong and strongly politically incorrect.
The current war in Iraq involving US troops is referred to by Wikipedia as the Iraq War. Therefore, I propose that the name of this article be change to "Iraq War troop surge of 2007." This would keep the emphasis on the fact that the surge is in regards to the event (Iraq War), not the geographic location (Iraq).
If there are no objections to this proposal in a few days I will go ahead and alter the name. Tomertomer 03:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The AFD on this article has asked whether the title "New Way Forward" is WP:POV in favor of Republican interests. Comments? We could move the page to another name, but what would that name be? It seems to me that the President has reinforced and the press has adopted "New Way Forward" as the working title of this strategic initiative. If there is another (sourced, citeable) name to refer to it, I fully support a page move, but be careful of WP:NOR. Two last points, ... (1) I don't see that in itself it is particularly Republican/optimistic name. (2) Who gets to name it? It seems to me that if it is Bush's plan, then he gets to be " the Decider" of its name. Comments? MPS 20:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I just watched Bush's speech, and he laid out a series of numbers that could be added and sourced in this article ( [1], for example). I hope this article gets somewhere...I would hate to have spared a dying article. P TO 02:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Given that Bush didn't actuially use the words in his speech (but Tony Snow [2] agreed on Jan 8 that their announced strategy is called "The Way Forward") should we continued to call this article "The New Way Forward"??? Some of the press is still using "New Way Forward". I think there's also the option of calling it US strategy change in Iraq, announced January 2007 or something. MPS 16:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
While I agree that there is no inherent problem in using the name given to the program (e.g. Great Society), I would support a move to something along the lines of "Iraq Surge of 2007." It seems like the media and politicians have used the word "surge" to refer to the planned changes much more than the title of the speech. Savidan 03:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
MPS 00:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The title should be changed to Iraq troop surge of 2007. All of the media is referring to this as a "troop surge" and to even find this page I had to go out to Google and site search "20,000 troops" on site:Wiki after every combo of "Iraq" and "surge" in Wikipedia's own search box got me nowhere. While its true Pelosi when asked the question about the surge answered it calling it an escalation, she did not correct the Reporter and insist that it be called an escalation but knew what he was talking about and responded to the question about the surge.
Even Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) spoke as if the terms were interchangable saying "I think it would be best for the country if we got to vote on that surge or escalation." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070107/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq
I think the reason this is getting so little traffic is because no one can find it under its current name.
Also this title does not need to include the word "plan" because some surged-in troops are already there - http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/article2175830.ece
As there seemed to be a pre-existing move to place "surge" in the title, and as it followed the wiki-standard (listed above), I changed the title. I also went through and updated all the links on other pages that were linking to the old version and updated all the double redirects that were linking to very old versions.-- Wowaconia 17:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Anyone want to help with the article on Jack Keane? There has been some talk about this individual, see Talk:Jack Keane (U.S. soldier). This individual was one of the key proponents of the "surge" idea. -- 70.51.232.12 20:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the part in red should be dropped altogether-
There should be a mention of the Iraq Study Group Report objection to adding More Troops for Iraq. In the report it mentions that
“ | Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation. | ” |
Wikidudeman (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
“ | More Troops for Iraq
Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation. A senior American general told us that adding U.S. troops might temporarily help limit violence in a highly localized area. However, past experience indicates that the violence would simply rekindle as soon as U.S. forces are moved to another area. As another American general told us, if the Iraqi government does not make political progress, “all the troops in the world will not provide security.” Meanwhile, America’s military capacity is stretched thin: we do not have the troops or equipment to make a substantial, sustained increase in our troop presence. Increased deployments to Iraq would also necessarily hamper our ability to provide adequate resources for our efforts in Afghanistan or respond to crises around the world. |
” |
That's is from page 30 of the study group report. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
In early November of 2006, there were 152,000 US troops in Iraq. After the "surge" is completed, there will be...153,500. [6] Thus, the article shouldn't present the "surge" as a substantial increase just because Bush talks like it is in his speeches. EDIT: Here's a non-blog source: [7] 71.203.209.0 05:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
After all the debate over the title of this article, I find it mildly ironic that it opens with "The Iraq War troop surge of 2007 is a phrase commonly used to describe U.S. President George W. Bush's strategy change..." I actually have never heard this phrase used in this exact formulation. I don't know, maybe I'm alone on that... 65.95.3.129 16:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The title also fails to make it clear that we're talking about American troops. Zocky | picture popups 07:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Baghdad diary: Relative lull -- HanzoHattori 09:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I think article USA kill or capture strategy in Iraq should be merged here, as it is a small part of the Iraq War troop surge of 2007. It seems almost if the USA kill or capture strategy in Iraq is a POV fork, no reason for it to be separate. Perhaps a subpage that dwells on the strategies and tactics of the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 might warrant moving the content there, but a single page for a single tactic makes no sense.-- Cerejota 12:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be something about how this "surge" or "escalation" or whatever term you prefer isn't really a change in strategy at all, but instead a part of a continuing pattern throughout the Iraq occupation to increase troop levels by a couple dozen thousand every so often? It is a fact that seems to be overlooked by mainstream media quite a bit. The least that could be done for the article's sake is post it as an opposing "viewpoint", even though it isn't an opinion. Fifty7 04:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The last sentence of George Lakoff's comments should be deleted. The opinion of a Professor of Linguistics as to the meaning of a word is fine (although hardly politically unbiased in this example)- but his opinion as to the prospective success or failure of military operations is outside his field of expertise and carries no weight whatsoever. If you want a tea-leaves opinion pro- or anti-, quote a professional soldier or military analyst. Solicitr 16:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Rather than only mention political points scored on the surge, wouldn't it be worth mentioning the actual outcome for Iraq? It should not be too difficult to mention the Iraqi and US death tolls, for example, or the 500+ deaths in the worst car bombing attack since the war began. Sad mouse 18:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Confusing. If there have been no published results of the surge, then at least THAT fact should be put in the article. I came here to see what ever happened with the old "troop surge." But the article doesn't even mention what has or hasn't happened. Someone who knows should put it in the article. If there have been no results, then that should be in the article. Tragic romance 06:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
LuckyMitch, Regarding the category title. I think the issue is that "The Surge" is a limited part of what should be a much broader STRATEGY. Now, it might be better to have a "US Policy and Strategy in Post-Invasion Iraq", which could keep The Surge, ( and it's effects in the "Big Picture" ) in better context. Yes, I think another article describing this limited operation's context in the broader strategy is the way to go. Mikelieman ( talk) 01:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I like the idea of renaming the section "US Policy and Strategy in Post-Invasion Iraq". That way it will give the reader further insight about what the overall objective of the surge is. I think that we should combine our information to keep things neutral for the reader; my information on its success in bring down violence, and your information on its failure to reach its benchmarks. Do you agree?-- Lucky Mitch ( talk) 01:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The article should lead with: How many troops were "surged", from/to where, when and what were they doing?
Some people are saying that there has been no surge in Al Anbar Province (supposedly, US troops were pulled out of Al Anbar and sent to Baghdad). The political debate is interesting, but the article should lead with the actual facts. (who, what, where and when, etc) -- Calan 13:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I found this, but it's not very athoritative:
Wikipedia could do the debate a good service, right now, if someone could verify that there has been a surge in Al Anbar or not. -- Calan 13:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
= Summary?
I just read through the Iraq war article (discussion page is locked there), the Iraq War 2007 time line, and this article. There really is no discussion of the results of the troop surge in Iraq, or of what the current strategy actually is. Maybe a nice summary of that could be written into this article. Also, as another suggestion: This page (and all of the pages on the Iraq war), is way too long. It is really an article about the politics of the troop surge, which doesn't seem to me to be an important enough subject to warrant more than a few paragraphs. I would suggest very aggressive editing for length here (for example, is the section entitled 'December 14 comments' adding anything to the article?), but of course this is up to the regular editors. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
74.79.161.1 (
talk)
16:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 21:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This article isn't about the surge at all - it's entirely about the planning and debate prior to the surge. I propose it be renamed to 2007 Iraq War troop surge buildup or somesuch. Totnesmartin 15:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
You know, I'm a HUGE fan of Wikipedia, but this is without a doubt one of the worst articles I've ever seen. Don't get me wrong, it looks well-written and has lots of good citations and all that stuff, but I didn't find the information I came here for. It's like this article deliberatly rambles on about the buildup of the surge to avoid answering the questions I came here for. Like for example, what are the results of the surge? What about the dramatic improvement in conditions over there that we hear about on the news all the time? I came here to fact check those claims, but I don't see anything about it. If I didn't know any better, I'd say that this article just goes on and talks about buildup stuff that could have been summarized in a few paragraphs at the begining so it can avoid answering those questions.
The very least that you could do is put in something about the ACTUAL SURGE ITSELF and how it was implemented. Or at least put up some box at the top that tells people that this article "may or may not be biased" or something along those lines (I've seen those boxes. I know you have them, Wikipedians). I wouldn't really call it biased, but it certainly leaves a lot of good information out. So if it is "biased" it's biased in what it DOESN'T say rather than what it does.
The tiny section at the bottom "Results of the Iraq War troop surge of 2007" isn't adequate, either. I know there's more to it than that. This article makes no mention of the dramatic decrease in violence that I hear about all over the place. Is that just a myth? I suppose it could be, that's why I came here, becuase Wikipedia has always been a good source for unbiased information in the past. I'm not entirely sure if I can continue to place so much trust in it anymore after this.
Surely others have noticed this too. I'm not the only person who thinks that this article needs drastic improvement, right?. Shouldn't you Wikipedians be more responsible with important articles like this one?
Just some thoughts. I'll wait to see if this makes an impact or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.164.62 ( talk) 07:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I dunno if I'd go that far, but it does seem biased. Maybe Wikipedia should only cover general knowledge things instead of things that go this specific? Nah, that's a bad idea. In my experience, controversial articles that have a large and prominent controversy about their neutrality around them are articles that become less controversial, like the George Bush article, which appears pretty unbiased to me. Maybe if someone made a big deal out of the neutrality of this article, it could be helped. So I'm officially making a big deal out of it, but who will listen to me? Is there somewhere on wikipedia where I can go and voice my opinion of this article so others can try to fix it?
I really wish I could help, but I'm afraid I would make this article worse if I started messing with it. Can someone PLEASE help this article? 63.245.164.62 ( talk) 08:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I added a section on the timeline for the surge, not simply the political pre-cursors. I included troop deployments, troop levels, and comments by numerous political and military leaders on the progress. There maybe some repeated information in the article that will have to be edited. In an attempt to maintain NPOV, I have included analysis from both left and right websites, as well as prominent comments from both Dems and Reps.
I also expanded the section on the effects of the surge to include more up-to-date information, as well as several graphics that depict main points of progress. Angncon ( talk) 13:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Very nice. Now if it's biased at all, it's biased the other way! It could still use some improvement, but this looks better than I had hoped it would. Thanks a lot! 63.245.164.62 ( talk) 03:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
What's "the other way"? I specifically didn't want to float this or any article in either direction. Personally, I despise those on both ends of the political spectrum. They are severe minorities that only appears as a majority because of the elevation of their voices. My user site shows my affiliation with political parties: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Angncon Angncon ( talk) 11:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, keep in mind that that was sort of tongue in cheek. I wasn't serious, but if it was biased (and it's probably not), then it'd be biased the other way (meaning that it's pro surge-is-working). Of course, that's probably just because the surge IS working, as far as I can tell. 63.245.164.62 ( talk) 17:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This article fails to emphasise the fact that the creation of at least one of the Awakening Councils predates the US troop surge. Any neo-conservative who thinks that things will be just fine if the Sunnis switch sides again is deluding himself/herself. Fornanzo ( talk) 23:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)fornanzo
Is there really street-level talk that the surge is working? The whole idea was less than realistic to begin with; AFAIK the surge is not even supposed to work, but rather to delay criticism and redirect public attention in the USA. Luis Dantas ( talk) 11:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This article should be updated, it's July 2008, by someone with direct knowledge of the situation in Iraq. I must say, it is gratifying to see people who cling to orthodoxy begin to look more silly when proven wrong. As far as I know the situation could go south again, but politically it appears to have passed a tipping point. It seems that Iraq is viewed by some as "Vietnam War II" and thus cannot succeed. And thus we have prominent politicians belittling the accomplishment of 15/18 benchmarks by the Iraqis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.87.1.114 ( talk) 09:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The BBC today features an interview in which Petraeus says there is NO victory in sight in Iraq:
2008-09-11
No victory in Iraq, says Petraeus
The outgoing commander of US troops in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, has said that he will never declare victory there.
In a BBC interview, Gen Petraeus said that recent security gains were "not irreversible" and that the US still faced a "long struggle".
....
[Petraeus] said he did not know that he would ever use the word "victory": "This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade... it's not war with a simple slogan."
-- NonZionist ( talk) 23:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- General Petraeus stated in September, 2008 that significant risks remain in Iraq and that a declaration of victory would be inappropriate.[12]
- Bob Woodward in his new book cites other contributing factors: the decision by the Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr to rein in his Mahdi army militias; the so-called Anbar Awakening, in which Sunni fighters allied themselves with US forces to fight against al-Qaida, and an assassination campaign against extremist leaders.
- -- Mark Tran, "Bush quick to claim victory for slow withdrawal", The Guardian, 2008-09-09
I'm not satisfied with the introduction. It still reads like a public relations piece for fans of Petraeus and proponents of military escalation.
Independent observers tell us that the reduction in violence was due to many factors, with proponents of the surge stealing the credit. The introduction does not even mention these critics. Instead, it refers to "the results of the surge", thus taking for granted what is in dispute.
The introduction also uses terminology that is less than neutral. It speaks about "the War in Iraq" and "failure", ignoring the fact that Iraq was invaded. Would we write about the Soviet "Liberation" of Czechoslovakia in 1968 as the "war in Czechoslovakia" -- thus shifting the blame for the war away from the invader and onto the victim? Would it be proper to call a return to the Soviet orbit "success"?
The last paragraph currently reads:
As time progresses, the results of the surge are becoming more evident. Some consider the surge to have saved the War in Iraq from failure. It has been successful in improving security and reducing the level of violence.[7] Questions remain regarding whether political reconciliation has progressed adequately to stabilize the country as U.S. forces draw down.[8][9]General Petraeus stated in September 2008 that significant risks remain in Iraq and that a declaration of victory would be inappropriate.[10] Petreaus told NPR News in March 2008 that the surge had created a "degree of hope" in the Iraqi population while describing the situation as "tenuous" and "reversible."[11]
I propose that the last paragraph be replaced with the following:
Petraeus told NPR News in March 2008 that the surge had created a "degree of hope" in the Iraqi population, though he described the situation as "tenuous" and "reversible." [1]
Proponents of the "Surge" operation take the credit for the improvement in security and the diminished violence in Iraq. [2] Independent observers attribute the diminished violence to many factors. Bob Woodward in his new book, The War Within: A Secret White House History (2006-2008) cites: the decision by the Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr to rein in his Mahdi army militias; the so-called Anbar Awakening, in which Sunni fighters allied themselves with US forces to fight against al-Qaida, and an assassination campaign against extremist leaders. [3]. Middle East historian Juan Cole cites the role of ethnic cleansing -- there are fewer people left to kill. [4]
Critics of the "Surge" operation point to unmet political benchmarks. [5] [6] In a 2008-09-11 interview given to the BBC, General Petraeus warned that recent security gains were "not irreversible" and that the US still faced a "long struggle": "This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade... it's not war with a simple slogan.". [7]
Proponents of the "Surge" operation were proclaiming "victory" as early as 2003-05-01 [8] and insist that the occupation should continue till "victory" is achieved. [9].
This version has several advantages.
Thus it moves us beyond mere public relations and a step closer to NPOV. -- NonZionist ( talk) 16:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
References
Image:US Casualties.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 02:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:ISF Casualties.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 22:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
On the Jan 13th episode of Meet the Press, Senator Clinton expressed why she thought there was a significant reduction in violence in Iraq. She stated,
"I believe in large measure because the Iraqi government, they watch us, they listen to us. I know very well that they follow everything that I say. And my commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009 is a big factor."
I know this was not nearly all she said, but this is the part shows her arguement of why the troop surge is not the reason for the reduction in violence. Would adding this be POV? I mean, to me it kinda is, because I think that it is so far off of what I have witnessed that it makes her look kinda silly, (if not conceited). But, then again, others could see it as valid. Any thoughts from the (real) civilian world? Angncon ( talk) 20:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed the external link that opines on the ethnic heritages of the surge's supporters. 24.32.208.58 ( talk) 01:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
As a reader, the mixture of quotes, encylopedia-style prose, and timelines in the article makes it sort of difficult to read. The article is also incomplete on a lot of things.
For example:
Murtha clarified what he meant soon afterward. He stated that: "The fact remains that the war in Iraq cannot be won militarily, and that we must begin an orderly redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as practicable" and that the Iraqi government has "failed to capitalize on the political and diplomatic steps that the surge was designed to provide."
Having the content of the article in timeline form leads to this kind of problem. 24.32.208.58 ( talk) 02:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
1)The benchmarks paragraph should be in the "Poltics and economy" subsection. It could probably be trimmed to The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported on September 2, 2007 that the Iraqi government had only met three of the eighteen benchmarks created by the US Congress in June 2006, a success rate of only 16.67%. As noted within this report, these benchmarks originate from criteria established dating back to June 2006. Context could be added from the Petreaus report article: On September 14, a White House survey reported "satisfactory" progress on 9 of the 18 benchmarks.[16] Lionel Beehner of the nonpartisan Council of Foreign Relations has called the benchmarks "vague because the metrics to measure them are imprecise."[17] The New York Times stated on May 13 that "Nobody in Washington seems to agree on what progress actually means — or how, precisely, it might be measured."[18] General David Petraeus has stated that his troop level recommendations to Congress are not dependent on the Iraqi government's ability to meet the benchmarks.[19]
2) The actual contents of Petraeus' report needs to be expanded. See what the report's article itself says: Petraeus concluded that "the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met". He cited what he called recent consistent declines in security incidents. He partially attributed those declines to recent blows dealt against Al-Qaeda during the surge. He added that "we have also disrupted Shia militia extremists, capturing the head and numerous other leaders of the Iranian-supported Special Groups, along with a senior Lebanese Hezbollah operative supporting Iran's activities in Iraq." He argued that Coalition and Iraqi operations had drastically reduced ethno-sectarian violence in the country, though he stated that the gains were not entirely even. As such, he recommended a gradual drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq, with a goal of reaching pre-surge troop levels by July 2008. Troop reductions would continue past this point as the situation warrants. Despite allegations that Petraeus' report would be written by the White House[4], Petraeus insisted that he had written this testimony himself, without it having "been cleared by, nor shared with, anyone in the Pentagon, the White House, or Congress."[5]
3) The response to the report should be mentioned. This could be added: The report generated partisan reactions. Some members of the House Foreign Affairs and Armed Services Committees regarded the testimony as a publicity stunt; Representative Ike Skelton stated that “Iraqi leaders have made no progress".[1] Democratic Representative Robert Wexler of Florida accused Petraeus of "cherry-picking statistics" and "massaging information".[1] Republican Presidential candidate Duncan Hunter called the report "a candid, independent assessment given with integrity".[10] Republican Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona stated that "I commend General Petraeus for his honest and forthright assessment of the situation in Iraq."[11] Anti-war liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org published a full-page ad in The New York Times on September 10, 2007 accusing Petraeus of "cooking the books for the White House". The ad also labeled him "General Betray Us".[23] On September 20, the Senate passed an amendment by Republican John Cornyn of Texas condemning the ad. All 49 Republican Senators and 22 Democratic Senators voted in support.[24][25]
Three other reports on the current situation in Iraq-- a General Accounting Office study, a National Intelligence Estimate, and an independent commission assessment by retired general James L. Jones-- were published for Congress around the same time as Petraeus' report. USA Today compared the four reports' findings.[33] The New York Times also did so.[34] In December 2007, The Washington Post's "Fact Checker" stated that "While some of Petraeus's statistics are open to challenge, his claims about a general reduction in violence have been borne out over subsequent months. It now looks as if Petraeus was broadly right on this issue at least".[35]
4) Ambassador Crocker's Testimony made at the same time as Petreaus' should be mentioned in the "politics" section. See what the report's article itself says: Though Crocker acknowledged slow political progress in many areas, and a lack of progress on many important pieces of legislation, he argued that, "a secure, stable democratic Iraq at peace with its neighbors is attainable." Though a national framework has fallen short of being implemented legislatively in key issues such as oil distribution, he observed that "even in the absence of legislation there is practical action as the central government shares oil revenues through budget allocations on an equitable basis with Iraq's provinces." He pointed out that provincial gains have been more pronounced, explaining that "there is abundant evidence that the security gains have opened the door for meaningful politics."[6]
24.32.208.58 ( talk) 05:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm new to this, so I apologize if I'm going about this wrong.
The paragraph 'USA Today stated on February 17, 2008 that US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker "may be hard-pressed to argue that Iraqis have met political benchmarks Congress sought" and contrasted the poltical progress with the recent military progress.[92]' is all messed up.
For starters, the footnote referenced is [92], which is a report by the Brookings Institute, not a USA Today article.
The correct footnote is [86], which refers to http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-17-Iraqcongress_N.htm
I'd also contend that the quote chosen ("may be hard-pressed to argue that Iraqis have met political benchmarks Congress sought") is a gross mischaracterization of the general thrust of the cited article. For starters, the complete sentence is 'Crocker may be hard-pressed to argue that Iraqis have met political benchmarks Congress sought, but in recent days the Iraqi parliament passed a budget, a provincial governance law and an amnesty law that Adnan al-Dulaimi, a Sunni lawmaker, called "the greatest achievement possible for the Iraqi people."'
Another USA Today article ( http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-02-13-iraq-laws_N.htm) characterizes the passing of the three laws as: 'Iraq's parliament took its biggest step yet toward reconciling the country's rival factions Wednesday, passing three benchmark pieces of legislation that had been demanded by Washington.' and is titled 'In surprise deal, Iraqi parliament passes three laws long-sought by U.S.'
Bottom line is that the passing of these three pieces of benchmark legislation is a BIG deal, and it's not even mentioned in the results.
Itsasecret1983 ( talk) 18:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The "Effect on elections" section has POV issues where selectively positive and negative narrow reinforcements have been introduced for different candidates. In order to remove the POV issues, we need quite a bit more expansive detail and analysis in this area... but, is that truly the purpose of Wikipedia?
Does this section even truly belong here? Based on Wiki guidelines, I vote for removal of this section. Even if we dig up more facts, polls, etc. that show the surge isn't truly hurting the Democrats (which I CAN do, BTW)... is it really the role of Wikipedia to harbor this pure conjecture and Wiki-analysis either way? No. Cowicide ( talk) 14:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Its now mid August 2008. The surge is a success by many measurements. It does not appear that the surge itself is a major campaign issue. Also - dont know if it is a big issue until after the election and voter poll will indicate the dominate issues. Vote for deletion of this entire section. Smorrow66 ( talk) 04:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I was going to add the following link [12] to the article, but I wasn't sure it should be put here. Since the surge is lasting well into 2008, should the name be changed?-- Hourick ( talk) 23:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there any chance of getting some up to date figures and graphs. The figures currently on the article are only up to Dec 2007. 92.11.163.52 ( talk) 17:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I've made a substantial change to the structure of the article. I've added a background section in which everything before the January 10 announcement is now located, with a view to creating a new article "Politics of the Iraq War troop surge of 2007" or something similar. The next section is the January 10 speech and related subsections. I'm not sure whether the 2007 State of the Union speech is actually relevant here. It's only a speech [ "plugging" the surge. The only thing I get out of that particular quote is that 4000 Marines had their tours extended in Al Anbar, which we can include in an "Implementation of the surge" section after the January 10 speech section. Lawrencema ( talk) 14:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to be critical, but this entire article is a mess. Awful lot of technical details about units, etc. Also - great deal of data that seems to support a negative result of the surge, with casualty figures, etc followed by a single sentence saying that violence is down. Overall this article is just too long. Again apologies - not ripping on your work, but this thing looks like add-on after add-on. I suggest redoing it and reducing by 2/3 rds in length. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smorrow66 ( talk • contribs) 04:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The new information to the lead is very useful, however it should probably be summarised and moved to the body of the article. I'm not a huge fan of lists in the introduction but I'm not sure what the MoS says so maybe it's ok. Also, it says "Petraeus gave the following reasons for the improvements in Iraq" but does not mention what these improvements were (at least in the lead). Lawrencema ( talk) 03:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The section needs to be drastically expanded, and it needs more sources. I want to make it clear that I am A-OK with citing left-wing activists and left-wing media. I just want balance in wording (Vehemently biased wording like "Reports from the ground dispute that the US troop surge has had a significant effect on security in Iraq" is not good, stuff like "Some anaylsts such as Council on Foreign Relations fellow Steven Simon argue that the methods used in the surge are unsustainable and have actually decreased the likehood of a stable Iraq in the long term" is fine) as well as balance in the amount of content (We can't give critics of the surge 3 or more paragraphs and proponents just 1 paragraph). The Squicks ( talk) 22:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Let's settle this here instead of through an edit war. Here is the text that I added:
Some reports dispute that the US troop surge has had a significant effect on security in Iraq. While life in Baghdad has improved in 2007-08, according to this view, the main reason is that the battle for Baghdad in 2006-07 between the Shia and the Sunni populations was won by the Shia, who as of September 2008 control three-quarters of the capital. These demographic changes appear permanent; Sunni families who try to get their houses back face assassination. Thus, the war against the American occupation by the Sunni community, the 20 per cent of Iraqis who were in control under Saddam Hussein, has largely ended. In this view, the Sunni have been largely defeated, not so much by the US army as by the Shia-led Iraqi government and the Shia militias's ethnic cleansing of the Sunni population. [1] The view that Shiite success in the ethnic cleansing of the Sunni population is largely resposible for the reduction of conflict finds support in a UCLA study released in September 2008. According to the study, violence has declined in Baghdad "because of intercommunal violence that reached a climax as the surge was beginning," said lead author John Agnew, a UCLA professor of geography and authority on ethnic conflict. "By the launch of the surge, many of the targets of conflict had either been killed or fled the country, and they turned off the lights when they left." The UCLA study thus concludes that ethnic cleansing by rival Shiites may have been largely responsible for the decrease in violence for which the U.S. military has claimed credit that the reduction in violence resulted from ethnic cleansing by the Shia-led Iraqi government and the Shia militias against Iraqi Sunnis. [2]
Squicks, please state your reasons for deletions. 1. When a news article appears in a major UK newspaper I think it's inappropriate to refer in the text of our article to the journalist as "antiwar activist Smith." He is writing an article as a journalist and such a description portrays his report as an idealogical soap box piece. A major newspaper is a RS per WP rules and is presumed to vet any facts in the article that may be in dispute and/or to hire reliable and honest journalists who are trained to check their facts. Imagine if every entry in WP began with a sentence like that ("Joe Smith, who has previously publicly supported federal rescues of major financial sector firms, reports that Sec of Treasury Paulson said...") If the reader is interested in the identity of the journalist or whether s/he has publicly stated views on a given related topic, the reader can read the linked source and google the journalist. 2. I had added headings to these views (view that ethnic cleansing..., view that US intel, etc.) to make it easier for the reader to read. If you would like to add additional headings for additional views, go ahead, but don't remove the guideposts I have set for the reader. 3. You did not bother attempting to explain your other deletions so I cannot respond to those. -- NYCJosh ( talk) 00:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
References
The article's headings use both. We should stick to one, but I'm not sure which. Any thoughts? Lawrencema ( talk) 00:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Typically this intro (the part above the table of contents) should be 4 paragraphs and rather general, with few specific statistics. I would suggest moving the lead-in section into a "overview" and then cutting down the lead in. I'm wrestling with the subprime stuff or I'd do it myself. Farcaster ( talk) 06:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Please talk about the $300 per month each member of the "Sons of Iraq" are being paid in order to fight the insurgency as well as not attack American troops. This may in fact play a larger role in the reduction of violence than the troop surge itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.150.246 ( talk) 04:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this section be axed, now that Obama has been elected? It's sort of irrelevant now that the election is over, unless you're going to say something along the lines of "the surge was also an issue in the 2008 presidential election..." and in that case, the wording definitely needs to be redone. Parsecboy ( talk) 14:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Where are the entries of the new surges in Afghanistan and even in Iraq ? -- 93.82.6.111 ( talk) 08:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
re: "January 18, Xinhua News Agency reported that "whitehouse hopefuls" Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Barack Obama, D-Ill., Chris Dodd, D- Conn., Joe Biden, D-Del, and Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, all voiced their discontent Wednesday with the course of events in Iraq" isn't there are more relevant news source than the official mouthpiece for the Chinese government, do you wonder if this might be politically biased?? If this is the only reference available for this information it should be deleted ! Danleywolfe ( talk) 12:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Iraq War troop surge of 2007. 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.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Iraq War troop surge of 2007. 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 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Iraq War troop surge of 2007. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Iraq War troop surge of 2007. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Iraq War troop surge of 2007. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Surge (video game) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 07:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect New way forward. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 8#New way forward until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. JBL ( talk) 20:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
This section read more like promotion of AEI than being informational. Further improvement would be welcomed. Activist ( talk) 20:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Iraq War troop surge of 2007 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-01-05. The result of the discussion was keep. |
I strongly believe that the current name of this article, "Iraq troop surge of 2007" is not at all appropriate for the purpose it serves. Iraq has a long history and has been involved in more wars than just the Iraq War. There have been all kinds of troops in Iraq and fighting against Iraqi troops. To name this article Iraq troop surge of 2007 is wrong and strongly politically incorrect.
The current war in Iraq involving US troops is referred to by Wikipedia as the Iraq War. Therefore, I propose that the name of this article be change to "Iraq War troop surge of 2007." This would keep the emphasis on the fact that the surge is in regards to the event (Iraq War), not the geographic location (Iraq).
If there are no objections to this proposal in a few days I will go ahead and alter the name. Tomertomer 03:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The AFD on this article has asked whether the title "New Way Forward" is WP:POV in favor of Republican interests. Comments? We could move the page to another name, but what would that name be? It seems to me that the President has reinforced and the press has adopted "New Way Forward" as the working title of this strategic initiative. If there is another (sourced, citeable) name to refer to it, I fully support a page move, but be careful of WP:NOR. Two last points, ... (1) I don't see that in itself it is particularly Republican/optimistic name. (2) Who gets to name it? It seems to me that if it is Bush's plan, then he gets to be " the Decider" of its name. Comments? MPS 20:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I just watched Bush's speech, and he laid out a series of numbers that could be added and sourced in this article ( [1], for example). I hope this article gets somewhere...I would hate to have spared a dying article. P TO 02:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Given that Bush didn't actuially use the words in his speech (but Tony Snow [2] agreed on Jan 8 that their announced strategy is called "The Way Forward") should we continued to call this article "The New Way Forward"??? Some of the press is still using "New Way Forward". I think there's also the option of calling it US strategy change in Iraq, announced January 2007 or something. MPS 16:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
While I agree that there is no inherent problem in using the name given to the program (e.g. Great Society), I would support a move to something along the lines of "Iraq Surge of 2007." It seems like the media and politicians have used the word "surge" to refer to the planned changes much more than the title of the speech. Savidan 03:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
MPS 00:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The title should be changed to Iraq troop surge of 2007. All of the media is referring to this as a "troop surge" and to even find this page I had to go out to Google and site search "20,000 troops" on site:Wiki after every combo of "Iraq" and "surge" in Wikipedia's own search box got me nowhere. While its true Pelosi when asked the question about the surge answered it calling it an escalation, she did not correct the Reporter and insist that it be called an escalation but knew what he was talking about and responded to the question about the surge.
Even Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) spoke as if the terms were interchangable saying "I think it would be best for the country if we got to vote on that surge or escalation." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070107/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq
I think the reason this is getting so little traffic is because no one can find it under its current name.
Also this title does not need to include the word "plan" because some surged-in troops are already there - http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/article2175830.ece
As there seemed to be a pre-existing move to place "surge" in the title, and as it followed the wiki-standard (listed above), I changed the title. I also went through and updated all the links on other pages that were linking to the old version and updated all the double redirects that were linking to very old versions.-- Wowaconia 17:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Anyone want to help with the article on Jack Keane? There has been some talk about this individual, see Talk:Jack Keane (U.S. soldier). This individual was one of the key proponents of the "surge" idea. -- 70.51.232.12 20:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the part in red should be dropped altogether-
There should be a mention of the Iraq Study Group Report objection to adding More Troops for Iraq. In the report it mentions that
“ | Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation. | ” |
Wikidudeman (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
“ | More Troops for Iraq
Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation. A senior American general told us that adding U.S. troops might temporarily help limit violence in a highly localized area. However, past experience indicates that the violence would simply rekindle as soon as U.S. forces are moved to another area. As another American general told us, if the Iraqi government does not make political progress, “all the troops in the world will not provide security.” Meanwhile, America’s military capacity is stretched thin: we do not have the troops or equipment to make a substantial, sustained increase in our troop presence. Increased deployments to Iraq would also necessarily hamper our ability to provide adequate resources for our efforts in Afghanistan or respond to crises around the world. |
” |
That's is from page 30 of the study group report. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
In early November of 2006, there were 152,000 US troops in Iraq. After the "surge" is completed, there will be...153,500. [6] Thus, the article shouldn't present the "surge" as a substantial increase just because Bush talks like it is in his speeches. EDIT: Here's a non-blog source: [7] 71.203.209.0 05:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
After all the debate over the title of this article, I find it mildly ironic that it opens with "The Iraq War troop surge of 2007 is a phrase commonly used to describe U.S. President George W. Bush's strategy change..." I actually have never heard this phrase used in this exact formulation. I don't know, maybe I'm alone on that... 65.95.3.129 16:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The title also fails to make it clear that we're talking about American troops. Zocky | picture popups 07:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Baghdad diary: Relative lull -- HanzoHattori 09:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I think article USA kill or capture strategy in Iraq should be merged here, as it is a small part of the Iraq War troop surge of 2007. It seems almost if the USA kill or capture strategy in Iraq is a POV fork, no reason for it to be separate. Perhaps a subpage that dwells on the strategies and tactics of the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 might warrant moving the content there, but a single page for a single tactic makes no sense.-- Cerejota 12:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be something about how this "surge" or "escalation" or whatever term you prefer isn't really a change in strategy at all, but instead a part of a continuing pattern throughout the Iraq occupation to increase troop levels by a couple dozen thousand every so often? It is a fact that seems to be overlooked by mainstream media quite a bit. The least that could be done for the article's sake is post it as an opposing "viewpoint", even though it isn't an opinion. Fifty7 04:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The last sentence of George Lakoff's comments should be deleted. The opinion of a Professor of Linguistics as to the meaning of a word is fine (although hardly politically unbiased in this example)- but his opinion as to the prospective success or failure of military operations is outside his field of expertise and carries no weight whatsoever. If you want a tea-leaves opinion pro- or anti-, quote a professional soldier or military analyst. Solicitr 16:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Rather than only mention political points scored on the surge, wouldn't it be worth mentioning the actual outcome for Iraq? It should not be too difficult to mention the Iraqi and US death tolls, for example, or the 500+ deaths in the worst car bombing attack since the war began. Sad mouse 18:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Confusing. If there have been no published results of the surge, then at least THAT fact should be put in the article. I came here to see what ever happened with the old "troop surge." But the article doesn't even mention what has or hasn't happened. Someone who knows should put it in the article. If there have been no results, then that should be in the article. Tragic romance 06:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
LuckyMitch, Regarding the category title. I think the issue is that "The Surge" is a limited part of what should be a much broader STRATEGY. Now, it might be better to have a "US Policy and Strategy in Post-Invasion Iraq", which could keep The Surge, ( and it's effects in the "Big Picture" ) in better context. Yes, I think another article describing this limited operation's context in the broader strategy is the way to go. Mikelieman ( talk) 01:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I like the idea of renaming the section "US Policy and Strategy in Post-Invasion Iraq". That way it will give the reader further insight about what the overall objective of the surge is. I think that we should combine our information to keep things neutral for the reader; my information on its success in bring down violence, and your information on its failure to reach its benchmarks. Do you agree?-- Lucky Mitch ( talk) 01:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The article should lead with: How many troops were "surged", from/to where, when and what were they doing?
Some people are saying that there has been no surge in Al Anbar Province (supposedly, US troops were pulled out of Al Anbar and sent to Baghdad). The political debate is interesting, but the article should lead with the actual facts. (who, what, where and when, etc) -- Calan 13:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I found this, but it's not very athoritative:
Wikipedia could do the debate a good service, right now, if someone could verify that there has been a surge in Al Anbar or not. -- Calan 13:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
= Summary?
I just read through the Iraq war article (discussion page is locked there), the Iraq War 2007 time line, and this article. There really is no discussion of the results of the troop surge in Iraq, or of what the current strategy actually is. Maybe a nice summary of that could be written into this article. Also, as another suggestion: This page (and all of the pages on the Iraq war), is way too long. It is really an article about the politics of the troop surge, which doesn't seem to me to be an important enough subject to warrant more than a few paragraphs. I would suggest very aggressive editing for length here (for example, is the section entitled 'December 14 comments' adding anything to the article?), but of course this is up to the regular editors. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
74.79.161.1 (
talk)
16:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 21:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This article isn't about the surge at all - it's entirely about the planning and debate prior to the surge. I propose it be renamed to 2007 Iraq War troop surge buildup or somesuch. Totnesmartin 15:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
You know, I'm a HUGE fan of Wikipedia, but this is without a doubt one of the worst articles I've ever seen. Don't get me wrong, it looks well-written and has lots of good citations and all that stuff, but I didn't find the information I came here for. It's like this article deliberatly rambles on about the buildup of the surge to avoid answering the questions I came here for. Like for example, what are the results of the surge? What about the dramatic improvement in conditions over there that we hear about on the news all the time? I came here to fact check those claims, but I don't see anything about it. If I didn't know any better, I'd say that this article just goes on and talks about buildup stuff that could have been summarized in a few paragraphs at the begining so it can avoid answering those questions.
The very least that you could do is put in something about the ACTUAL SURGE ITSELF and how it was implemented. Or at least put up some box at the top that tells people that this article "may or may not be biased" or something along those lines (I've seen those boxes. I know you have them, Wikipedians). I wouldn't really call it biased, but it certainly leaves a lot of good information out. So if it is "biased" it's biased in what it DOESN'T say rather than what it does.
The tiny section at the bottom "Results of the Iraq War troop surge of 2007" isn't adequate, either. I know there's more to it than that. This article makes no mention of the dramatic decrease in violence that I hear about all over the place. Is that just a myth? I suppose it could be, that's why I came here, becuase Wikipedia has always been a good source for unbiased information in the past. I'm not entirely sure if I can continue to place so much trust in it anymore after this.
Surely others have noticed this too. I'm not the only person who thinks that this article needs drastic improvement, right?. Shouldn't you Wikipedians be more responsible with important articles like this one?
Just some thoughts. I'll wait to see if this makes an impact or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.164.62 ( talk) 07:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I dunno if I'd go that far, but it does seem biased. Maybe Wikipedia should only cover general knowledge things instead of things that go this specific? Nah, that's a bad idea. In my experience, controversial articles that have a large and prominent controversy about their neutrality around them are articles that become less controversial, like the George Bush article, which appears pretty unbiased to me. Maybe if someone made a big deal out of the neutrality of this article, it could be helped. So I'm officially making a big deal out of it, but who will listen to me? Is there somewhere on wikipedia where I can go and voice my opinion of this article so others can try to fix it?
I really wish I could help, but I'm afraid I would make this article worse if I started messing with it. Can someone PLEASE help this article? 63.245.164.62 ( talk) 08:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I added a section on the timeline for the surge, not simply the political pre-cursors. I included troop deployments, troop levels, and comments by numerous political and military leaders on the progress. There maybe some repeated information in the article that will have to be edited. In an attempt to maintain NPOV, I have included analysis from both left and right websites, as well as prominent comments from both Dems and Reps.
I also expanded the section on the effects of the surge to include more up-to-date information, as well as several graphics that depict main points of progress. Angncon ( talk) 13:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Very nice. Now if it's biased at all, it's biased the other way! It could still use some improvement, but this looks better than I had hoped it would. Thanks a lot! 63.245.164.62 ( talk) 03:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
What's "the other way"? I specifically didn't want to float this or any article in either direction. Personally, I despise those on both ends of the political spectrum. They are severe minorities that only appears as a majority because of the elevation of their voices. My user site shows my affiliation with political parties: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Angncon Angncon ( talk) 11:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, keep in mind that that was sort of tongue in cheek. I wasn't serious, but if it was biased (and it's probably not), then it'd be biased the other way (meaning that it's pro surge-is-working). Of course, that's probably just because the surge IS working, as far as I can tell. 63.245.164.62 ( talk) 17:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This article fails to emphasise the fact that the creation of at least one of the Awakening Councils predates the US troop surge. Any neo-conservative who thinks that things will be just fine if the Sunnis switch sides again is deluding himself/herself. Fornanzo ( talk) 23:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)fornanzo
Is there really street-level talk that the surge is working? The whole idea was less than realistic to begin with; AFAIK the surge is not even supposed to work, but rather to delay criticism and redirect public attention in the USA. Luis Dantas ( talk) 11:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This article should be updated, it's July 2008, by someone with direct knowledge of the situation in Iraq. I must say, it is gratifying to see people who cling to orthodoxy begin to look more silly when proven wrong. As far as I know the situation could go south again, but politically it appears to have passed a tipping point. It seems that Iraq is viewed by some as "Vietnam War II" and thus cannot succeed. And thus we have prominent politicians belittling the accomplishment of 15/18 benchmarks by the Iraqis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.87.1.114 ( talk) 09:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The BBC today features an interview in which Petraeus says there is NO victory in sight in Iraq:
2008-09-11
No victory in Iraq, says Petraeus
The outgoing commander of US troops in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, has said that he will never declare victory there.
In a BBC interview, Gen Petraeus said that recent security gains were "not irreversible" and that the US still faced a "long struggle".
....
[Petraeus] said he did not know that he would ever use the word "victory": "This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade... it's not war with a simple slogan."
-- NonZionist ( talk) 23:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- General Petraeus stated in September, 2008 that significant risks remain in Iraq and that a declaration of victory would be inappropriate.[12]
- Bob Woodward in his new book cites other contributing factors: the decision by the Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr to rein in his Mahdi army militias; the so-called Anbar Awakening, in which Sunni fighters allied themselves with US forces to fight against al-Qaida, and an assassination campaign against extremist leaders.
- -- Mark Tran, "Bush quick to claim victory for slow withdrawal", The Guardian, 2008-09-09
I'm not satisfied with the introduction. It still reads like a public relations piece for fans of Petraeus and proponents of military escalation.
Independent observers tell us that the reduction in violence was due to many factors, with proponents of the surge stealing the credit. The introduction does not even mention these critics. Instead, it refers to "the results of the surge", thus taking for granted what is in dispute.
The introduction also uses terminology that is less than neutral. It speaks about "the War in Iraq" and "failure", ignoring the fact that Iraq was invaded. Would we write about the Soviet "Liberation" of Czechoslovakia in 1968 as the "war in Czechoslovakia" -- thus shifting the blame for the war away from the invader and onto the victim? Would it be proper to call a return to the Soviet orbit "success"?
The last paragraph currently reads:
As time progresses, the results of the surge are becoming more evident. Some consider the surge to have saved the War in Iraq from failure. It has been successful in improving security and reducing the level of violence.[7] Questions remain regarding whether political reconciliation has progressed adequately to stabilize the country as U.S. forces draw down.[8][9]General Petraeus stated in September 2008 that significant risks remain in Iraq and that a declaration of victory would be inappropriate.[10] Petreaus told NPR News in March 2008 that the surge had created a "degree of hope" in the Iraqi population while describing the situation as "tenuous" and "reversible."[11]
I propose that the last paragraph be replaced with the following:
Petraeus told NPR News in March 2008 that the surge had created a "degree of hope" in the Iraqi population, though he described the situation as "tenuous" and "reversible." [1]
Proponents of the "Surge" operation take the credit for the improvement in security and the diminished violence in Iraq. [2] Independent observers attribute the diminished violence to many factors. Bob Woodward in his new book, The War Within: A Secret White House History (2006-2008) cites: the decision by the Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr to rein in his Mahdi army militias; the so-called Anbar Awakening, in which Sunni fighters allied themselves with US forces to fight against al-Qaida, and an assassination campaign against extremist leaders. [3]. Middle East historian Juan Cole cites the role of ethnic cleansing -- there are fewer people left to kill. [4]
Critics of the "Surge" operation point to unmet political benchmarks. [5] [6] In a 2008-09-11 interview given to the BBC, General Petraeus warned that recent security gains were "not irreversible" and that the US still faced a "long struggle": "This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade... it's not war with a simple slogan.". [7]
Proponents of the "Surge" operation were proclaiming "victory" as early as 2003-05-01 [8] and insist that the occupation should continue till "victory" is achieved. [9].
This version has several advantages.
Thus it moves us beyond mere public relations and a step closer to NPOV. -- NonZionist ( talk) 16:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
References
Image:US Casualties.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 02:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:ISF Casualties.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 22:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
On the Jan 13th episode of Meet the Press, Senator Clinton expressed why she thought there was a significant reduction in violence in Iraq. She stated,
"I believe in large measure because the Iraqi government, they watch us, they listen to us. I know very well that they follow everything that I say. And my commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009 is a big factor."
I know this was not nearly all she said, but this is the part shows her arguement of why the troop surge is not the reason for the reduction in violence. Would adding this be POV? I mean, to me it kinda is, because I think that it is so far off of what I have witnessed that it makes her look kinda silly, (if not conceited). But, then again, others could see it as valid. Any thoughts from the (real) civilian world? Angncon ( talk) 20:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed the external link that opines on the ethnic heritages of the surge's supporters. 24.32.208.58 ( talk) 01:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
As a reader, the mixture of quotes, encylopedia-style prose, and timelines in the article makes it sort of difficult to read. The article is also incomplete on a lot of things.
For example:
Murtha clarified what he meant soon afterward. He stated that: "The fact remains that the war in Iraq cannot be won militarily, and that we must begin an orderly redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as practicable" and that the Iraqi government has "failed to capitalize on the political and diplomatic steps that the surge was designed to provide."
Having the content of the article in timeline form leads to this kind of problem. 24.32.208.58 ( talk) 02:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
1)The benchmarks paragraph should be in the "Poltics and economy" subsection. It could probably be trimmed to The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported on September 2, 2007 that the Iraqi government had only met three of the eighteen benchmarks created by the US Congress in June 2006, a success rate of only 16.67%. As noted within this report, these benchmarks originate from criteria established dating back to June 2006. Context could be added from the Petreaus report article: On September 14, a White House survey reported "satisfactory" progress on 9 of the 18 benchmarks.[16] Lionel Beehner of the nonpartisan Council of Foreign Relations has called the benchmarks "vague because the metrics to measure them are imprecise."[17] The New York Times stated on May 13 that "Nobody in Washington seems to agree on what progress actually means — or how, precisely, it might be measured."[18] General David Petraeus has stated that his troop level recommendations to Congress are not dependent on the Iraqi government's ability to meet the benchmarks.[19]
2) The actual contents of Petraeus' report needs to be expanded. See what the report's article itself says: Petraeus concluded that "the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met". He cited what he called recent consistent declines in security incidents. He partially attributed those declines to recent blows dealt against Al-Qaeda during the surge. He added that "we have also disrupted Shia militia extremists, capturing the head and numerous other leaders of the Iranian-supported Special Groups, along with a senior Lebanese Hezbollah operative supporting Iran's activities in Iraq." He argued that Coalition and Iraqi operations had drastically reduced ethno-sectarian violence in the country, though he stated that the gains were not entirely even. As such, he recommended a gradual drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq, with a goal of reaching pre-surge troop levels by July 2008. Troop reductions would continue past this point as the situation warrants. Despite allegations that Petraeus' report would be written by the White House[4], Petraeus insisted that he had written this testimony himself, without it having "been cleared by, nor shared with, anyone in the Pentagon, the White House, or Congress."[5]
3) The response to the report should be mentioned. This could be added: The report generated partisan reactions. Some members of the House Foreign Affairs and Armed Services Committees regarded the testimony as a publicity stunt; Representative Ike Skelton stated that “Iraqi leaders have made no progress".[1] Democratic Representative Robert Wexler of Florida accused Petraeus of "cherry-picking statistics" and "massaging information".[1] Republican Presidential candidate Duncan Hunter called the report "a candid, independent assessment given with integrity".[10] Republican Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona stated that "I commend General Petraeus for his honest and forthright assessment of the situation in Iraq."[11] Anti-war liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org published a full-page ad in The New York Times on September 10, 2007 accusing Petraeus of "cooking the books for the White House". The ad also labeled him "General Betray Us".[23] On September 20, the Senate passed an amendment by Republican John Cornyn of Texas condemning the ad. All 49 Republican Senators and 22 Democratic Senators voted in support.[24][25]
Three other reports on the current situation in Iraq-- a General Accounting Office study, a National Intelligence Estimate, and an independent commission assessment by retired general James L. Jones-- were published for Congress around the same time as Petraeus' report. USA Today compared the four reports' findings.[33] The New York Times also did so.[34] In December 2007, The Washington Post's "Fact Checker" stated that "While some of Petraeus's statistics are open to challenge, his claims about a general reduction in violence have been borne out over subsequent months. It now looks as if Petraeus was broadly right on this issue at least".[35]
4) Ambassador Crocker's Testimony made at the same time as Petreaus' should be mentioned in the "politics" section. See what the report's article itself says: Though Crocker acknowledged slow political progress in many areas, and a lack of progress on many important pieces of legislation, he argued that, "a secure, stable democratic Iraq at peace with its neighbors is attainable." Though a national framework has fallen short of being implemented legislatively in key issues such as oil distribution, he observed that "even in the absence of legislation there is practical action as the central government shares oil revenues through budget allocations on an equitable basis with Iraq's provinces." He pointed out that provincial gains have been more pronounced, explaining that "there is abundant evidence that the security gains have opened the door for meaningful politics."[6]
24.32.208.58 ( talk) 05:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm new to this, so I apologize if I'm going about this wrong.
The paragraph 'USA Today stated on February 17, 2008 that US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker "may be hard-pressed to argue that Iraqis have met political benchmarks Congress sought" and contrasted the poltical progress with the recent military progress.[92]' is all messed up.
For starters, the footnote referenced is [92], which is a report by the Brookings Institute, not a USA Today article.
The correct footnote is [86], which refers to http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-17-Iraqcongress_N.htm
I'd also contend that the quote chosen ("may be hard-pressed to argue that Iraqis have met political benchmarks Congress sought") is a gross mischaracterization of the general thrust of the cited article. For starters, the complete sentence is 'Crocker may be hard-pressed to argue that Iraqis have met political benchmarks Congress sought, but in recent days the Iraqi parliament passed a budget, a provincial governance law and an amnesty law that Adnan al-Dulaimi, a Sunni lawmaker, called "the greatest achievement possible for the Iraqi people."'
Another USA Today article ( http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-02-13-iraq-laws_N.htm) characterizes the passing of the three laws as: 'Iraq's parliament took its biggest step yet toward reconciling the country's rival factions Wednesday, passing three benchmark pieces of legislation that had been demanded by Washington.' and is titled 'In surprise deal, Iraqi parliament passes three laws long-sought by U.S.'
Bottom line is that the passing of these three pieces of benchmark legislation is a BIG deal, and it's not even mentioned in the results.
Itsasecret1983 ( talk) 18:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The "Effect on elections" section has POV issues where selectively positive and negative narrow reinforcements have been introduced for different candidates. In order to remove the POV issues, we need quite a bit more expansive detail and analysis in this area... but, is that truly the purpose of Wikipedia?
Does this section even truly belong here? Based on Wiki guidelines, I vote for removal of this section. Even if we dig up more facts, polls, etc. that show the surge isn't truly hurting the Democrats (which I CAN do, BTW)... is it really the role of Wikipedia to harbor this pure conjecture and Wiki-analysis either way? No. Cowicide ( talk) 14:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Its now mid August 2008. The surge is a success by many measurements. It does not appear that the surge itself is a major campaign issue. Also - dont know if it is a big issue until after the election and voter poll will indicate the dominate issues. Vote for deletion of this entire section. Smorrow66 ( talk) 04:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I was going to add the following link [12] to the article, but I wasn't sure it should be put here. Since the surge is lasting well into 2008, should the name be changed?-- Hourick ( talk) 23:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there any chance of getting some up to date figures and graphs. The figures currently on the article are only up to Dec 2007. 92.11.163.52 ( talk) 17:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I've made a substantial change to the structure of the article. I've added a background section in which everything before the January 10 announcement is now located, with a view to creating a new article "Politics of the Iraq War troop surge of 2007" or something similar. The next section is the January 10 speech and related subsections. I'm not sure whether the 2007 State of the Union speech is actually relevant here. It's only a speech [ "plugging" the surge. The only thing I get out of that particular quote is that 4000 Marines had their tours extended in Al Anbar, which we can include in an "Implementation of the surge" section after the January 10 speech section. Lawrencema ( talk) 14:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to be critical, but this entire article is a mess. Awful lot of technical details about units, etc. Also - great deal of data that seems to support a negative result of the surge, with casualty figures, etc followed by a single sentence saying that violence is down. Overall this article is just too long. Again apologies - not ripping on your work, but this thing looks like add-on after add-on. I suggest redoing it and reducing by 2/3 rds in length. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smorrow66 ( talk • contribs) 04:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The new information to the lead is very useful, however it should probably be summarised and moved to the body of the article. I'm not a huge fan of lists in the introduction but I'm not sure what the MoS says so maybe it's ok. Also, it says "Petraeus gave the following reasons for the improvements in Iraq" but does not mention what these improvements were (at least in the lead). Lawrencema ( talk) 03:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The section needs to be drastically expanded, and it needs more sources. I want to make it clear that I am A-OK with citing left-wing activists and left-wing media. I just want balance in wording (Vehemently biased wording like "Reports from the ground dispute that the US troop surge has had a significant effect on security in Iraq" is not good, stuff like "Some anaylsts such as Council on Foreign Relations fellow Steven Simon argue that the methods used in the surge are unsustainable and have actually decreased the likehood of a stable Iraq in the long term" is fine) as well as balance in the amount of content (We can't give critics of the surge 3 or more paragraphs and proponents just 1 paragraph). The Squicks ( talk) 22:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Let's settle this here instead of through an edit war. Here is the text that I added:
Some reports dispute that the US troop surge has had a significant effect on security in Iraq. While life in Baghdad has improved in 2007-08, according to this view, the main reason is that the battle for Baghdad in 2006-07 between the Shia and the Sunni populations was won by the Shia, who as of September 2008 control three-quarters of the capital. These demographic changes appear permanent; Sunni families who try to get their houses back face assassination. Thus, the war against the American occupation by the Sunni community, the 20 per cent of Iraqis who were in control under Saddam Hussein, has largely ended. In this view, the Sunni have been largely defeated, not so much by the US army as by the Shia-led Iraqi government and the Shia militias's ethnic cleansing of the Sunni population. [1] The view that Shiite success in the ethnic cleansing of the Sunni population is largely resposible for the reduction of conflict finds support in a UCLA study released in September 2008. According to the study, violence has declined in Baghdad "because of intercommunal violence that reached a climax as the surge was beginning," said lead author John Agnew, a UCLA professor of geography and authority on ethnic conflict. "By the launch of the surge, many of the targets of conflict had either been killed or fled the country, and they turned off the lights when they left." The UCLA study thus concludes that ethnic cleansing by rival Shiites may have been largely responsible for the decrease in violence for which the U.S. military has claimed credit that the reduction in violence resulted from ethnic cleansing by the Shia-led Iraqi government and the Shia militias against Iraqi Sunnis. [2]
Squicks, please state your reasons for deletions. 1. When a news article appears in a major UK newspaper I think it's inappropriate to refer in the text of our article to the journalist as "antiwar activist Smith." He is writing an article as a journalist and such a description portrays his report as an idealogical soap box piece. A major newspaper is a RS per WP rules and is presumed to vet any facts in the article that may be in dispute and/or to hire reliable and honest journalists who are trained to check their facts. Imagine if every entry in WP began with a sentence like that ("Joe Smith, who has previously publicly supported federal rescues of major financial sector firms, reports that Sec of Treasury Paulson said...") If the reader is interested in the identity of the journalist or whether s/he has publicly stated views on a given related topic, the reader can read the linked source and google the journalist. 2. I had added headings to these views (view that ethnic cleansing..., view that US intel, etc.) to make it easier for the reader to read. If you would like to add additional headings for additional views, go ahead, but don't remove the guideposts I have set for the reader. 3. You did not bother attempting to explain your other deletions so I cannot respond to those. -- NYCJosh ( talk) 00:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
References
The article's headings use both. We should stick to one, but I'm not sure which. Any thoughts? Lawrencema ( talk) 00:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Typically this intro (the part above the table of contents) should be 4 paragraphs and rather general, with few specific statistics. I would suggest moving the lead-in section into a "overview" and then cutting down the lead in. I'm wrestling with the subprime stuff or I'd do it myself. Farcaster ( talk) 06:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Please talk about the $300 per month each member of the "Sons of Iraq" are being paid in order to fight the insurgency as well as not attack American troops. This may in fact play a larger role in the reduction of violence than the troop surge itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.150.246 ( talk) 04:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this section be axed, now that Obama has been elected? It's sort of irrelevant now that the election is over, unless you're going to say something along the lines of "the surge was also an issue in the 2008 presidential election..." and in that case, the wording definitely needs to be redone. Parsecboy ( talk) 14:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Where are the entries of the new surges in Afghanistan and even in Iraq ? -- 93.82.6.111 ( talk) 08:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
re: "January 18, Xinhua News Agency reported that "whitehouse hopefuls" Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Barack Obama, D-Ill., Chris Dodd, D- Conn., Joe Biden, D-Del, and Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, all voiced their discontent Wednesday with the course of events in Iraq" isn't there are more relevant news source than the official mouthpiece for the Chinese government, do you wonder if this might be politically biased?? If this is the only reference available for this information it should be deleted ! Danleywolfe ( talk) 12:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Iraq War troop surge of 2007. 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.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Iraq War troop surge of 2007. 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 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Iraq War troop surge of 2007. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Iraq War troop surge of 2007. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Iraq War troop surge of 2007. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Surge (video game) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 07:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect New way forward. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 8#New way forward until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. JBL ( talk) 20:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
This section read more like promotion of AEI than being informational. Further improvement would be welcomed. Activist ( talk) 20:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)