Talk:Report to Congress on the Situation in Iraq

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.

Military history: Middle East / North America / United States

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Iraq Start‑class Low‑importance

	Iraq portal 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
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

This is like spruced up PR copy from the White House Communications Department. Where's the neutrality?

Where is it not neutral? TBSchemer 23:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your statements on the talk page by using four tildes (the ~). Revolutionaryluddite 01:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

Ideally, the article should include criticism of the report-- from reliable sources, of course, not moveon.org-- as well as details about the White House's and Congressional Republican's plans in wake of it. Revolutionaryluddite 01:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the section. Revolutionaryluddite 05:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Five images seems like way too many for an article of this size. Revolutionaryluddite 05:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has three now. Revolutionaryluddite 17:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

Kirill Lokshin has stated that:

The article seems very heavy on the political aspects of the report, particularly the response to it, but light on the substance. A large portion of the article should be devoted to summarizing the content of the report itself; as it is, there's only hints of this material in the testimony sections. I'd suggest reorganizing the article along these lines:

Lead
Background
Content of report
Congressional testimony
Responses

Kirill 02:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

\Revolutionaryluddite 05:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

JKBrooks85 has stated that:

I'd second Kirill's suggestion to break down the report into its component parts. Right now, the responses section is really heavy in comparison to the rest of the article. There's not much about the report itself when set against the amount of space devoted to responses. The graphs are a nice touch, but it isn't made clear whether those have been taken from the report or if they're simply used as illustration in regards to what the report is covering. That can be remedied by a quick fix to the captions. The rest of the article is a bigger task, and it'd probably be best to sit down with the text of the report and go through it section by section, filling in citations where needed. JKBrooks85 20:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

\Revolutionaryluddite 19:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

Petraeus' report made three central claims, as referred to by the three visual aids. First, the number of attacks on coalition forces has decreased. Second, the number of Iraqi civilians murdered by terrorists has decreased. Third, the number of secretarian attacks in Baghdad has decreased. I'm not sure how to best summarize this in the article. Revolutionaryluddite 02:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moveon.org ad controversy has some good references about the data disputes around the three points. Also, The Washington Post recently ran an article saying "The evidence of a drop in violence in Iraq is becoming hard to dispute." Revolutionaryluddite 05:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blog Criticism of the report[edit]

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi posted on her official blog The Gavel an "Iraq Reporting Fact Check" on Spetember 10. [1] I don't think this should be referenced in the article. It's a blog statement that isn't notable enough to be commented on in the media.

The blog also distorts the record. It counters Petreaus' statement "As a bottom line up front, the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met." with "But by all accounts, including that of General Petraeus, the Iraqi government’s political progress is stalled." This is a classic bait and switch. Pelosi goes on to take Petraeus' words in a previous letter out of context.

The blog counters "Coalition and Iraqi operations have helped reduce ethno-sectarian violence" with "Violence - particularly sectarian violence - is a constant and pervasive threat in Iraq"-- another classic bait and switch. She quotes a MSNBC story saying "the death toll from sectarian attacks around the country is running nearly double the pace from a year ago" without noting that the story also reports "This year’s U.S. troop buildup has succeeded in bringing violence in Baghdad down from peak levels" and "Baghdad has gone from representing 76 percent of all civilian and police war-related deaths in Iraq in January to 52 percent in July, bringing it back to the same spot it was roughly a year ago." The story concludes that US forces have made "some military headway, but extremist factions are far from broken." It notes that "The U.S. military did not get all the additional American forces into Iraq until June 15", which Pelosi and the Democrats completely ignore.

I could go on and on with this, but my point is that Pelosi's blog is not a reliable, independent third-party source of information. Revolutionaryluddite 20:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third Party Response[edit]

Right now, the article is light in terms of serious factual anaylsis of the report. This article is a good start. Revolutionaryluddite 20:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bunch of statements about the report from the CFR's foreign policy experts. The current quote from Max Boot should replaced with something from this editorial. CFR has also discussed the 'statistics' issue in this backgrounder.

The Moveon.org ad's criticism should be mentioned, as should criticism by the Center for American Progress. The National Security Network has also published criticisms. The New York Times has an excellent article on the impact of the surge on in Baghdad that should also be mentioned. Revolutionaryluddite 05:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even without the CFR backgrounder and the think thank criticisms, the section seems a bit bloated now. Revolutionaryluddite 04:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi Response to the Report[edit]

The article really needs to discuss what the public opinion reaction in Iraq was. Revolutionaryluddite 05:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section looks good now. Revolutionaryluddite 21:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger of Initial Benchmark Assessment Report[edit]

I wrote the above article when the interim report got a bit of press back in July, but I don't think it's notable enough to leave it in its own article (minimal press coverage from a single day). Besides that, it's intimately connected to the final report, so a merge won't be terribly disruptive. I can't find any Clinton or Obama reaction to the final report, so I'll condense that from the first article and merge it here. Any objections?--chaser - t 11:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a good idea. (Although, offically, I'm supposed to have retired- so my opinion doesn't count). Revolutionaryluddite (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Remarks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxXLsWmmkmo Leobold1 (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama Remarks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIUej6VJzII Leobold1 (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this page should also be updated with the Spring 2008 Patreaus/Crocker report. Additionally, some the information from this update should quell some of the voices here for the inclusion of non-neutral, extremely partisan criticisms of the reports. Spirit2112 (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Sentence[edit]

The Report to Congress on the Situation in Iraq (sometimes referred to as the Petraeus Report) was a two-part report released on Sept 10, 2007 by General of the Multinational force in Iraq David H. Petraeus

This should read "General David H. Petraeus, Commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq" Leobold1 (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]