Talk:Iraqi security forces

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces (general topics):
	National militaries task force
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
	Middle Eastern military history task force

	Iraqi security forces is part of the WikiProject Iraq, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Iraq on the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Pictures should only be included in an article if they are relevant and add a certain amont of information. In this case, since it is obvious that ISF has assumed more and more battlespace over the past year old pictures do not add any information. Also, the pictures are available under the 'history'tab. Joakimekstrom 28 September 2006

The pictures are completely relevant to the article. They do add information in that they offer a comparison to the ISF's battlespace in the past and can help give an idea to the reader of how rapid the progress is.--Fox Mccloud 18:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, the progress is rapid. However, I really do think that the progress information is available in the article itself. I understand the 'educational' value in comparing pictures but more and more pictures cannot be added every month or so. Though, the date of the first ISF battle space assumption could be added into the article and thereby explaining that the ISF did control 0 % of the geographic area as of 2005-XX-XX and 65 % as of 2006-09-XX... Joakimekstrom 29 September 2006

Yeah, you can say "Iraqi forces controled __% of Iraq in 2005 _-_ but that doesn't tell where the Iraqis are controling most of the nation, where they are strongest, where they are weak, etc. A picture is worth a thousand words.--Fox Mccloud 16:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The article does not comply with NPOV standards. Several assertions regarding the ISF have been disputed, including numbers of troops trained, number of troops able to operate independently and loyalty of the ISF to the Iraqi government. For example, a recent secret classified memo from U.S. National Security Advisor, Stephen Hadley, noted that Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki "is frustrated over his limited ability to command Iraqi forces against terrorists and insurgents." I suggest another section (e.g., "Skepticism") be added to the article noting these issues. Christiandemocrat 17:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is facts-based. The article uses first-hand sources. There are no opinions or debates described in the article. I have never heard of conflicting views on i.e. the number of trained and equipped members of the Iraqi Security Forces. A discussion on PM Maliki's emotions would be very speculative and also irrelevant. However, if you do have verifyable information from reliable sources that you want to add to the article, please go ahead! I have removed the tag. If you maintain that the article is biased, please be very specific. Joakimekstrom 20 December 2006

It's the "facts" that are disputed. If you've never heard of conflicting views, then I suggest you need to look harder. The reliability of the DoD reports thath have contributed to the Iraq Weekly Reports has been questioned. For example, a Nov 27, 2006 Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/26/AR2006112600980.html) notes the following...

Yesterday's criticisms were expanded upon in the latest study by Anthony H. Cordesman, who holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. A Pentagon official in the Reagan administration and a specialist in Middle East intelligence and military matters, Cordesman just returned from Iraq, where he received briefings from military and civilian officials.

One of Cordesman's central issues is that public statements by the Defense Department "severely distorted the true nature of Iraqi force development in ways that grossly exaggerate Iraqi readiness and capability to assume security tasks and replace U.S. forces." He also writes that "U.S. official reporting is so misleading that there is no way to determine just how serious the problem is and what resources will be required."

Cordesman says the Pentagon's Aug. 31 status report, which was sent to Congress, lists 312,400 men "trained and equipped" among the Iraqi army and national and regular police. But it adds that "no one knows how many . . . are actually still in service." At the same time, he writes, "all unclassified reporting on unit effectiveness has been cancelled."

Criticizing statements about how many Iraqi army units are "in the lead," Cordesman notes that the Iraqi army "lacks armor, heavy firepower, tactical mobility and an Iraqi Air Force capable of providing combat support" -- the same points McCaffrey made yesterday.

The Iraq Study Group Report also notes doubts about the loyalty of Iraq Security Forces. It states that "[s]ignificant questions remain about the ethnic composition and loyalties of some Iraqi units - specifically, whether they will carry out missions on behalf of national goals instead of a sectarian agenda." It also notes that "elements of the [Iraqi] Army have refused to carry out missions."

A search of Congressional testimony and reports, as have been mentioned in various news articles from time to time, should turn up many other examples of doubts regarding Iraq force training, readiness and loyalty. This is not a trivial task, but is important to producing a quality article.

Maliki's frustration may be an emotion, but the reason for his frustration, i.e., his limited control of the ISF, is stated as a matter of fact. This fact is undisputed. Your assertion that it is "highly speculative" is simply not supported by the memo.

In consideration of the above, a NPOV tag is warranted as an alert the reader. Until these issues can be sufficiently researched and presented in a quality manner in the article, the tag should remain. Christiandemocrat 17:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article is not NPOV. References to the terrorism of the Saddam regime's police force as compared to the noble purpose of the new one is a polarization of the two and ignores the non-terrorist attributes of the former and evidence of corruption or ineffiency in the latter. It needs to be elaborated to include all information, and not just that that puts the new police force in a good light. Berens 23:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I merged Military of Iraq with this page (ISI) by adding a history section adding photos and redireting Military of Iraq to (ISI). Cocoaguy 従って 14:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

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)