Jump to content

Talk:Operation Imposing Law

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This just began

[edit]

I have removed a bunch of things that were claimed to be under this operation, but actually occured before it began. The operation was announced today, the 14th, by Nouri al-Maliki, under the codename "Imposing Law." There hasnt been any fighting yet, so I dont think we can be any more specific then saying it pits the coalition/Iraqis vs the Insurgency. Maybe it wont be against Al Qaeda, maybe it will. But lets wait until fighting occurs with Al Qaeda, and when it does, thats when you put it there. Same with the Mahdi army. While pretty likely, its still using a crystal ball to get into specifics. Likewise, there are no casualties yet, as there has not been fighting yet. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rape case

[edit]

I suppose the rape case, and the political controversy around it, deserves to be mentioned here. Maybe I'll write something about it later if no one else is eager to do it instead. [1] [2] --Merat 12:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC

Minor correction

[edit]

The "February Developments" contained a minor spelling error, citing "Katusha" rockets instead of "Katyusha" rockets. This has been fixed.

Looking at the following paragraph: On April 18, five massive car bombs, including two suicide bombers, exploded in mostly Shiite neighborhoods of Baghdad killing 198 people and wounding 251 others. The deadliest was in the mainly Shiite Sadriyah neighborhood in an attack on a market, which had already been hit by car bombs in previous attacks, where 140 people were killed and 148 were wounded. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ordered the arrest of the Iraqi army colonel who was in charge of security in the area around the Sadriyah market. On the national level the Associated Press reported nearly 240 confirmed civilian fatalities making it the deadliest day since The Associated Press began recording daily nationwide deaths in May 2005.[8]The U.S. DoD comments on the events of the day were only: "It was a very bad day in Iraq."[9]

I looked up reference 8 & 9 and did not find the comment, "It was a very bad day in Iraq." After doing some googling, I find that the only mention that I find of this quote is some blogs.

The actual qoute, "It's been a very bad day in Iraq, obviously, with the number of casualties that have taken place. ... But we've always said that there are going to be good days and bad days ahead. With respect to casualties, this had been a very bad day," according to DoD Spokesman, Bryan Whitman.

Joint Security Station, a major omission

[edit]

I was surprised to see that this article had not mentioned anything about Joint Security Stations. It seems that the day by day play by play that currently dominates the article is more concerned about the bombings that continue to take place rather than the efforts of coalition forces to establish security. It is as if the author(s) are trying to debunk any assertion of progress. That said, I do understand the relevance of these events; I just want them to be put in context of the military operations that are taking place. Please consider the Coalition "we are trying to secure Baghdad" POV as well as much as you are considering the "BSP will never work" POV. Peace, MPS 05:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary "quotation marks"

[edit]

Why is there quotation marks around Law and Order? I have looked at other Iraqi operations, like Operation Sinbad and none of these have any quotation marks around the code name of the operation. Are we mocking the operation for its seemingly lack of success? Isn't that a violation of NPOV? We should remove the quotation marks, they are unnecessary.Tourskin 23:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will just remove them then. Any one got a problem with it, voice it.68.6.234.23 05:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you could say I don't "have a problem" with that solution. MPS 16:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same as the surge?

[edit]

Right now, the Bush administration is claiming that (relative) peace in Al Anbar is proof that the surge is working. Others are saying there has been the opposite of a surge in Al Anbar. Which is the case?

There is no mention of Al Anbar in this article. Is that because there has not been a surge in Al Anbar, or is it because this Baghdad operation is a separate part of the surge? --Calan 13:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isnt the surge in general, its the specific things happening in Baghdad. I dont know if there is an article yet for the portion occuring in Al Anbar. ~Rangeley (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blackwater

[edit]

Does that have anything to do with this operation? ~Rangeley (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, IMO. They just guard things or something, not conduct attacks, sweeps etc (not counting the incident) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that story isn't part of the story of Operation Law and Order and it was very poorly referenced in any case so I deleted it. Interested readers can find the story with good references at the Wikipedia article Blackwater Baghdad shootings.—Blanchette (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insurgency vs. Resistance

[edit]

Sources with a pro-war POV call the war effort a "Counterinsurgency," implying that indigenous locals and their authentic local leaders are revolting against a legitimate Iraqi Government.

Sources with a pro-Iraqi sovereignty and pro-Iraqi freedom POV use the term "Resistance" to characterize this as a fight to throw off foreign military occupation. 76.25.56.91 19:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)B Scott[reply]

Just a few points-

Sources with a pro-democracy and pro-Iraqi freedom POV call the war effort a "Counterinsurgency,"[1] describing the Coalition's actions to prevent foreign actors[2] and those locals they have intimidated[3] from overthrowing a legitimate Iraqi Government[4].

Sources with a pro-Islamist[5] and anti-Iraqi freedom[6] POV use the term "Resistance" to characterize this as a fight to throw off "foreign military occupation"[7]. Pipe1234 04:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf
  2. ^ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8293410/
  3. ^ http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/baqubah-update-05-july-2007.htm
  4. ^ http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/13/iraq.main/index.html
  5. ^ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1782088.ece
  6. ^ http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041219/news_1n19insurge.html
  7. ^ http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jIpbHLbgLIZDulxkM8Tilf8le5FwD8RV5I280
well put Law/Disorder 19:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Imposing Law

[edit]

They still call it Operation Imposing Law[3] --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

casualties way down

[edit]

someone (not me, i'm too lazy) should point out in the article that deaths - of u.s. soldiers, iraqi civilians, etc. are WAY down... http://icasualties.org/oif/

U.S. Deaths By Month/Year: 

    Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec (through 12/23/07)

2007 ___83___81___81___104___126___101___78____84___65___38___37___16

mercenarie

[edit]

the link that said four mercenaries were killed never mention the word mercenaries. And the word Mercenaries is only mention once and that in the info box —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.16.129 (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has Fardh Al-Qanoon ended?

[edit]

Has this operation actually finished? The Baghdad military press briefings still describe Tahseen al-Sheikhly as the "Civilian spokesman for Operation Fardh Al-Qanoon" (See April 30, 2008 MNF-I link for an example). I'd like to see a citation that the operation has finished. If it hasn't, then this article should reflect the joint Iraqi-US assault into Sadr city which began in April as well as operations in Western Baghdad. Lawrencema (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image Image:Capt.sge.ohh05.120407150602.photo02.photo.default-512x278.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs brought up-to-date

[edit]

The last entry for this page is November 2007 and a great deal has happened and changed in Baghdad since then, so I suggest this article needs brought up-to-date. Spirit2112 (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Fardh al-Qanoon actually officially ended several months ago and operations are now being conducted under a different banner. This article should be changed to reflect that. 66.66.154.162 (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can call what is now ongoing as minor post-operations but the main part of the operation is over. Has been over since November of last year.(Top Gun)
Totally disagree. According to both MNF-I and the GoI, the operations in Sadr City were part of Operation Fardh al Qanoon (Imposing the Law). Where's a citation that the op ended in November.Lawrencema (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification and better division of Facts

[edit]

The last part of the article is a bit weird to me. For one thing, the entire paragraph is uncited. For another, it seems to cover information that either goes beyond the scope of the operation or fails to sum up the article appropriately. If you want to talk about the fact that a number of generals was killed, put it under a "Legacy of" section or something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.57.40.231 (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Operation Imposing Law. 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).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Operation Imposing Law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Imposing_Law&oldid=1252606566"