Template:Vital article

	Iraq War was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 1, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed February 14, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
	A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 1, 2010.
Current status: Former good article nominee

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Military history: Middle East / North America / United States / Post-Cold War C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Post-Cold War task force Iraq C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Kurdistan C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Kurdistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KurdistanWikipedia:WikiProject KurdistanTemplate:WikiProject KurdistanKurdistan articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Arab world C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Countering systemic bias: Global perspective This article is supported by the Countering systemic bias WikiProject, which provides a central location to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.Countering systemic biasWikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic biasTemplate:WikiProject Countering systemic biasCountering systemic bias articles This article is supported by Global perspective task force. Template:WP1.0 Terrorism C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Military history / History C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as High-importance). Bush family C‑class High‑importance Iraq War is within the scope of WikiProject Bush family, a project dedicated to creating and improving content related to the Bush family. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bush familyWikipedia:WikiProject Bush familyTemplate:WikiProject Bush familyBush family articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Why is Iran the winner of the war in the article but not in the information box? Parham wiki (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it depends on the context and the phrase being used. The US army study is implying that Iran may be the only country to have gained more than it had lost. It is saying Iran may have benefited from the war. It does not seem clear to simply have the info box say "Result: Iran victory" above all the other summaries of major consequences in the Iraq war. Earl Moss (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Iraq War was a notable event to happen during Tony Blair's premiership, so this page should be added to it 79.66.89.36 (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Going by standards for other Wikipedia articles on wars, the US unambiguously won with Iraq. The invasion phase lasted a month, followed by a full occupation. Saddam was tried and then hung. Iraq is a toothless nominal democracy. Western companies have access to Iraqi oil fields. Turkey wants to build a pipeline over Iraq. Galehautt (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Coalition victory* Galehautt (talk) 04:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because it ended up creating multiple civil wars in a country that is still very unstable where the only actual strategic victory was given to Iran (something inherently against US foreign policy interests) which means that the entire comprehensive war as a whole cannot be defined by winners and losers? There are specific segments with separate articles that are objective military victories such as the 2003 invasion which is already listed as a coalition victory. The entire war even just from 2003-2011 really does not fit the criteria for a victory in a binary sense, especially with direct implications to the present. Rather, it warrants an explanation of the multitude of geopolitical changes that occurred, and do not fit snugly into the binary of what would be considered a victory. Especially when the goal posts and situation had changed so many times in the course of the conflict. 68.237.63.185 (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not more unstable than other countries in the region nowadays. One could even say it's more stable now than many (see: Syria, Yemen) Galehautt (talk) 09:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to define the Iraq war as occurring only in 2003, the U.S. won -- defeating a hapless Iraqi military and occupying the country. However, the article as now written defines the Iraq war as from 2003-2011 and the U.S. most certainly did not win that war. Military victories are worthless if they do not achieve or contribute to the achievement of political and/or territorial objectives of the war. The objective of the neo-cons leading George W. into the war was to create an Iraq that would be an asset to the U.S. in the Middle East or at least compliant to U.S. wishes. That wasn't achieved. Smallchief (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The civil war/sectarian warfare lasted from 2006 to 2008. The US left in 2011. Galehautt (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a victory by any standard in the end aside from the 2003 overthrow of the Hussein regime. This is overall far more of a strategic defeat for the US and has led to an ongoing conflict to this day. There's no winner here when considering the entirety of the comprehensive conflict even just between 2003-2011, which ended with the FIRST withdraw of US troops, implying that their initial foray into Iraq was a failure requiring multiple reinterventions.

That point on current stability relative to other countries doesn't matter as it was never an aim of the war in the first place: see the article on the 2003 invasion of Iraq war which was and is listed as an objective victory against Saddam's forces. You are overlooking a tremendous amount of nuance in the conflict. One could argue this was a strategic failure given the current geopolitical landscape. A simple results section listing the objective events is far more adequate than declaring the entire war (that is currently still ongoing in a capacity) as a coalition victory. They achieved victory against Saddam militarily, sure, then came the civil war and then the conflict became about nation building, as well as maintaining Iraq which has had dubious results in the ensuing years to the present.

That's why the 2003 invasion article lists it as a coalition victory. But overall in the conflict you can't keep changing the goal posts but look towards the end results which definitely point in the direction of a strategic failure for the coalition forces. The Shiite majority gained power and is now associated with Iran, an American adversary which gained strategic geopolitical victory for Iran in that they now have a cohesive geopolitical land bridge from Iran to Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon. This is definitely not a victory for the United States. Also I could go on and continue regarding your arguments made earlier about Turkey, especially as a Kurdish autonomous area with a military is a strategic disaster for them, but I'm not sure you care about the nuances of the political situation when you are simply considering this a victory because Saddam was toppled, despite the fact that America spent many years afterwards fighting the very enemies of Saddam after creating a geopolitical vacuum that allowed Iranian backed insurgents against the American forces to gain power to this day. Was Iran part of the coalition? Do you realize that Iran was part of the Axis of evil named by Bush himself that also included Iraq? Is that a victory? Jokersace (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a strategic defeat for the US? The region is pacified. Galehautt (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it was a victory is determined by what reliable sources say, not our own interpretations. While the U.S. defeated Saddam Hussein, it was never able to gain control of the country, eventually surrendering it to the very people they were fighting. TFD (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The region is not "pacified" nor is that even a strategic goal. This issue was settled in 2014 by referring to a multitude of think tank sources. 68.237.63.185 (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not agreeing with a war is not the saem as supporting one of the combatants, this needs reverting. Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added Russia because of sources who said that Russia is providing military and intelligence support to Iraq. Apparently, some people misunderstood and added those countries! Parham wiki (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems to be the case. Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While on page about Ukraine war there are no foreign countries listed as supporters of Ukraine despite giving inteligence and satelite data, not even counting armament supplies. So much about neutrality, Wikipedia is source of NATO propaganda. 178.220.34.35 (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 178.220.34.35, there is no reason to make this a mess. The main belligerents should remain as they once were before this change. RamHez (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was it really necessary to remove all the results and make it instead much harder to read 85.104.52.245 (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the long-standing "Results" section of the infobox for now, as I agree that removing it made the article less functional. Per Parham wiki's edit summary, the rationale for removing it is "Since there was no winner in the war, I created a new section called Results to explain the results in detail. ... I did this because of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE." This reasoning seems questionable to me, as there are many Wikipedia articles on wars with indecisive outcomes, such as the Iran–Iraq War, that nevertheless feature an infobox listing high-level "Results" of the conflict; I do not believe that MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE precludes us from mentioning such information here in summarized form. Furthermore, the prose "Results" section added by Parham wiki was not an adequate substitution or replacement for the lost content.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Sorry; You are right. Parham wiki (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The (currently incomplete) page is over at Draft:Outline of the Iraq War for anyone interested in contributing to this. XTheBedrockX (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

During the time American and British forces began hostilities against Saddam Hussein this was referred to as the second incarnation of the conflict that began in 1991 in removing Iraq forces from Kuwait. The conflict cannot be understood without reference to that war and it is historically illiterate to ignore the common description during the time it was going on. The first time I ever read it referred to as the "First Iraq War" to distinguish it from the conflict from 2013-2017 was in this article—nowhere else.

I’m not sure if this is ignorance or another example of Wokepedia bias in somehow severing the conflict from the more unambiguously successful First Gulf War, but either way it should be changed to reflect historical reality. In fact, I’ve heard it referred to as the Third Gulf War, the first being the Iran-Iraq War, but that’s likely either academic or of regional importance and cannot speak to. Saying "First" is plain wrong though. Sychonic (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

who should we put for the victor? Ali36800p (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who do RS say won? Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

who is RS? Ali36800p (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wp:rs, reliable sources. Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oh i don't know then Ali36800p (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ali36800p, please revert your changes to the results and stop adding them across various pages. It's disruptive and you're not providing RS. The insurgents didn't overwhelm and defeat the coalition. The Iraqi government didn't "manage to reclaim all land occupied by US and Coalition forces in Iraq". They were not fighting eachother and were allies. 2.100.177.204 (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i never said that the Iraqi government fought US and coalition forces, i'm saying after the US left in 2011, the iraqi government reclaimed all of its land back Ali36800p (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What has that to do with a war that had ended? Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it was the result Ali36800p (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It came after the war was over, if not find an RS that says it was the result. Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An RS would also be required for the claim that the "Iraqi insurgents overwhelm and defeat US and Coalition forces in Iraq". It's simply not true and cannot remain. You also initially added that it was the insurgents and not the government who had reclaimed all occupied land which are opposite results. 2.100.177.204 (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i do have plenty of RS's to support the fact that the insurgents did defeat the US and coalition forces: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iraqi-ambush-americans-made-mockery-mission-accomplished-2023-03-16/

https://www.quora.com/How-did-untrained-weak-Iraqi-insurgents-hold-their-own-against-their-U-S-for-8-years-despite-being-massively-outnumbered-and-outpaced

https://www.jstor.org/stable/20031708?typeAccessWorkflow=login

https://www.csis.org/analysis/americas-failed-strategy-middle-east-losing-iraq-and-gulf

i also have RS's to support the fact that the new iraqi government did reclaim iraq after US and coalition forces left:

https://www.britannica.com/place/Iraq/U-S-withdrawal-and-the-rise-of-the-Islamic-State-in-Iraq-and-the-Levant-ISIL

https://www.cfr.org/timeline/iraq-war

https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-iraq/

https://www.usip.org/iraq-timeline-2003-war

https://www.justsecurity.org/81556/still-at-war-the-united-states-in-iraq/

https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/mappingmilitants/profiles/islamic-state Ali36800p (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

but then again, i never said that the Iraqi government fought US and coalition forces, i'm saying after the US left in 2011, the iraqi government reclaimed all of its land back Ali36800p (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oh would you look at that, another RS to support the fact that the insurgents did defeat the US and coalition forces: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/iraq/2005-09-01/how-win-iraq Ali36800p (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and another one: https://archive.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/resistindex.htm

look i could give you as many as you want to be honest Ali36800p (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

still hungry for more RS's?

https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/world/struggle-for-iraq-insurgents-anti-us-outrage-unites-growing-iraqi-resistance.html

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-jul-06-fg-counterinsurgency6-story.html Ali36800p (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you posted comes close to supporting the wording that the insurgents "overwhelmed and defeated" the coalition. That's a very strong claim and would have to imply that the insurgents had a total victory against the coalition between 2003 to 2011. The insurgency phase was Inconclusive with no winners. Some of your sources are from 2004. 2.100.177.204 (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some even later. Many seem to only talk about them holding their own, or one battle. Per wp:v the source must say (in its words) that " insurgents overwhelmed us forces" or "the US lost to the insurgents". Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oh, you want more sources?? buckle up... Ali36800p (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No I want you to quote one source that says (in its words) the insurgents overwhelmed the US. Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]