Talk:Iraq War troop surge of 2007

message: 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)
replies: text: Shouldn't "Surge" be capitalized throughout?  It is, after all, a proper noun.  I believe that the term should also be followed by a qualifier to indicate that it is an appellation.  I've used the phrase "the Surge operation".  The phrase "The Surge", by itself, is analogous to "The Liberation" or "The Escalation": It confuses the product with the brandname. -- NonZionist (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Name Change

message: 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)
replies: text: Using names given isnt a problem, its done with most programs, like the Great Society or Great Leap Forward. Using this name is not a problem. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree; I think the name is neutral for the reasons you two have mentioned.Sean Kass 23:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  The name isn't the problem.  I think it was the speculative nature of the topic coupled with its highly political content that got people jittery.  And as for that question, I'm not going to say anything here, we've all read the Articles For Deletion page. Bsiatadshmia 18:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: I just watched Bush's speech, and he laid out a series of numbers that could be added and sourced in this article (, for example). I hope this article gets somewhere...I would hate to have spared a  dying article. PTO 02:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Speech

message: Given that Bush didn't actuially use the words in his speech (but Tony Snow  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)
replies: text: How about moving it to The New Way Forward in Iraq, if it survives the deletion vote? --Uncle Ed 18:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The White House Fact Sheet for the implications of the speech did refer to it as "The New Way Forward in Iraq" so retitling the article to that might make sense. Edison 23:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here's a big question... NPR reported today that Defense Secretary Bob Gates and Peter Pace stood before the Senate Armed Services Committee today.  Yesterday it was these two and Condi. At what point should this article continue to document the sales pitch and congressional critique of the "surge" plan. I mean there is clearly news/history to be recorded, but it's not clear to me whether this should occur at Iraq War or if there should be a fork article. What I am saying related to the name change is maybe The New Way Forward should be page moved to something like "Iraq troop surge plan 2007" google news links ... with this name we can document the debates and whether or not the surge continues to be 21000 or if he Democrats block this. MPS 02:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I read an editorial today that said liberals prefer the term 'escalation' and as a result oppose the word 'surge'. I am going to do a page move to proposed increase in the number of troops in Iraq and I am sure it will change from there but it should not stay as it is. 
MPS 00:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... or we can just stick with The New Way Forward. It involves a troop surge, some might say it involves an escalation, but these are only components. Further, its not a proposed increase... ~Rangeley (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good comment. Two thoughts in reaction: (1) I am sort of confused about the general wiki-apathy with respect to this article. I think I will add some more content but I would hope I don't end up being the sole author. I myself don't particularly care about the title as much as the article content(2) you are right that Bush "committed" the forces rather than "proposed" them, but the "New Way Forward" seems to be an ambiguous description of the policy. How about increase in the number of US troops in Iraq (2007). I am very open to alternatives, but for now I want to spent more mental energy improving the article content. I want to add more comments by critics and supporters of the policy. perhaps a better title will appear obvious after I do this. MPS 01:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: At the very least some date should be added to this title and the sooner the better to avoid mass re-editing of links when all the pages linking to this article need to be changed to the new title (for increased speed and full avoidance of double redirects).--Wowaconia 16:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The name we should stick with is the name that most are referring to this as, "The New Way Forward." Its not a description, its a proper noun, ie a name. I completely oppose your moving of it because we had a whole discussion on the deletion page with people who said we couldnt use the name, but these people were in the minority and the fact is that we can have articles with such names as The New Way Forward. To have the article not deleted, and then go and change the name anyways after discussion yielded results against it is just plain silly. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The proper name for what, the speech or the surge? I support the current article name (Iraq troop surge of 2007) even as I recognize "New Way Forward" and "New Way Forward in Iraq" as legitimate names for the speech. The fact is that ever since Jan 10, the media have not referred to the speech as "The New Way Forward" as prominently as they have talked about the "troop surge" strategy/proposal. The scope of this article is no longer just the speech, but it is the strategy and the political wrangling over what it will be. IMHO, of course. What do you think the scope of the article should be? MPS 02:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name Change???

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Jack Keane (U.S. soldier)]] 

message: :I moved this segment here for discussion off the main page:
I think the part in <SPAN STYLE="color:#DC143C">red</SPAN> should be dropped altogether-
:<SPAN STYLE="color:#DC143C"> The distinction about whether this was a 'proposal' ("proposed troop surge", "iraq proposal") is also notable. During the speech, Bush indicated that he had committed to a troop increase. As a result, there appeared to be little tangible action that congress could do to counteract the "proposal" (for example, stop the deployment or change the strategy). Instead,</SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#00008B">the 110th congress debated witholding military funding and other symbolic measures to oppose Bush's chosen strategy."</SPAN>
::I don't think this information makes any sense unless Bush or his staff actually referred to this policy as a "proposal". Since the Constitution makes him "Commander and Chief" he doesn't need to propose any orders he gives the military to Congress (except declaring War) he just orders it done, Congress has "the power of the purse strings" and can limit or strip funding. Of course if someone can find Bush or his spokespeople using the term "proposal" this could go back in. As he seems intent to preserve and promote the power of his office, I would be surprised to see him use the term "proposal".
:The <SPAN STYLE="color:#00008B">part in Blue</SPAN>, should be expanded into its own segment later in the article, though a brief mention of it could be in the intro. 
::Also, note that "witholding military funding" should not be placed next to the term "symbolic measures" as that would not be symbolic but would be one branch of goverment using all its Constitutional power against another branch and would be deemed a "Constitutional crisis", this stripping of funds during an unpopular war has yet to happen in US history (not even in Vietnam, or the even less popular War of 1812). 
::--Wowaconia 14:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Segment on term "Proposal" 

message: There should be a mention of the Iraq Study Group Report objection to adding More Troops for Iraq. In the report it mentions that Wikidudeman (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, You seem to be reading in "anti" context that may not be there. The word "sustained" says to me that the ISG doesn't think that simply having troops there will alone solve the problem. Per WP:NOR I would hesitate in drawing "anti" conclusions from the fragment you quoted. I encourage you to find other passages in ISG that make that claim, but I would want it to be something more ...uh... compelling? slam dunky? I can't think of the word. MPS 20:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, The report clearly states that additional troops will not help the problem in Iraq. This is what the full text of it says...
 That's is from page 30 of the study group report.Wikidudeman (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Ok... so ISG says that a "sustained" increase( I am reading sustained as meaning "lasting a long duration of time") wouldn't change anything in itself, but a short term surge would quell violence in the short term. I submit to you that the "surge" plan intends to achieve its goals via two concurrent efforts: (1) surge troop presence for a short time to quell the violence and (2) institute counterinsurgency and New Iraqi Army handover plan under the leadership of Petraues (sp?) to achieve the "political progress" currently not possible under the present violent climate. Under this two-pronged plan, (I submit that) proponents of the surge plan intend to comply with ISG since the troop levels will be a temporary increase (until, say November 2007) rather than a sustained increase.  Am I making sense? If I had to summarize my post here, I would say that ISG does claim that a long term increase is not alonse sufficient but the "surge" plan as currently advertised does not statea long term perpetual increase. MPS 23:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's nitpicking. If anything a short term increase in troops would be of less effect than a long term increase in troops. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of Iraq study group report's objection in article? 

message: In early November of 2006, there were 152,000 US troops in Iraq. After the "surge" is completed, there will be...153,500. 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:  71.203.209.0 05:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Surge" is just a restoration of last year's troop levels

message: 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)
replies: text: I've never heard that phrase used to bescribe it. Those I work with on Fort Bragg have taken to calling it just "The Surge", more often than not in a melodramatic manner ;) Parsecboy 18:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't call it "The Surge" because that title doesn't make it clear precisely what "surge" is being referred to. 71.203.209.0 04:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Commonly used phrase?

message: Baghdad diary: Relative lull --HanzoHattori 09:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC Baghdad says it's working (for now at least) 

message: 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)
replies: text: The reports state that the 'kill or capture' policy was agreed summer/fall 2006, which predates the final surge decision by some way. I think they are distinct policies, the 'kill or capture' policy would have remained had the surge decision gone the other way. So I think the articles should be kept separate; just as the Washington Post article doesn't link the policies. Also the surge is a Baghdad and Al Anbar Province policy, but the Iranian policy generally applies elsewhere in mainly Shia areas. Rwendland 12:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Obviously good intent here in consolidating content into one article, but I disagree that this article should be merged to the surge article... the Surge article deals more with the formation of the plan. Where I think a merge or rename would be in order is if there was an article on Iranian involvement in the Iraq War. The kill and capture strategy article curently only deals with how we deal with Iranian actors found in Iran... this could be expanded to document how Iran has or has not been involved in the war and how the US has treated those caught intervening in the Iraq war. MPS 14:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Disagree, the topic is significant enough in the context of Iran-US relations that needs a separate page. I also disagree with renaming. This is an official name. Sina Kardar 20:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[USA kill or capture strategy in Iraq]] merge 

message: 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)
replies: text: Oh, I disagree absolutely- but this is the effect of loosely using the meaningless term 'surge' in this context.  'Surge' is merely a logistical term, referring to a temporary manpower increase.  It says nothing about what one does with those troops- and thus posters like Fifty7 can be led to conclude that the Keane/Petraeus strategy is just more of the same, with additional troops; when it is in fact a new anti-Rumsfeldian operational concept, of which the extra manpower or 'surge' is merely one aspect. Solicitr 15:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Fifty7 couldn't be more in error.  He is simply ignorant of the facts.  There are many sources from which he could educate himself before he spouts forth; at the very least he should read Rick's "The Gamble," a detailed and finely researched book which delves deeply into the characters involved, both military and civilian, and into the steps leading to the Surge, and the effects of the Surge itself.  The Surge was emphatically NOT a simple escalation of manpower, but a signal event in modern military history, and a turning point in the Army strategy towards counterinsurgency.65.81.79.71 (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Ploy 

message: 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)
thread_title: Lakoff Quotation

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree.  It is time to start talking about the results of the surge in Iraq.  Petraeus recently testified to Congress about how things are going with the surge.  Several members of congress have voiced their opinions on the results of the surge.  A results section is needed. Bbrown8370 18:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results of the surge? 

message: FYI, I found this, but it's not very athoritative:
::: There has been NO troop surge in Al Anbar. No surge. Since Al Anbar has NOT seen a troop surge, any "progress" there CANNOT be due to the surge "working". Get it? This needs to be thrown right back at any and all who spout off about the surge working. That line is a LIE.  
::::Absolutely an opinion, and based on my service in Al Anbar, a hugely inaccurate one. Angncon (talk) 08:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll answer this one.  "The sheik who forged the alliance with the Americans, Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, traced the decision to fight al-Qaeda to Sept. 14, 2006, long before the new Bush strategy, but the president's plan dispatched another 4,000 U.S. troops to Anbar to exploit the situation. As security improved, the White House eagerly took credit."  Bbrown8370 05:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the overall strategy in Iraq has ALWAYS been to enable the Iraqis to help themselves.  In early 2004, our unit was one of many that were attempting to organize tribal resistance to the insurgency in Al Anbar.   Enabling indigenous resistance to an insurgency has long been a major tactic in counterinsurgency doctrine for most countries.  Only after a push of several thousand extra troops did some of the tribes finally have the confidence to publicly fight back.  Many tribes in Iraq saw the political fight in America as a sign of our eventual withdrawal, and did not want to side with us as they would be punished by the insurgents once we left.  The decision to surge troops, as opposed to withdrawing, showed the people of Iraq that we were determined to fight the insurgency.  This allowed the fledging 'counter-resistance' organizations to grow quickly.  The improved security in Al Anbar was a combined effort.  The tribes as well as the troops deserve the credit. Angncon (talk) 08:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It might be relevant to both the al-Anbar surge and a future Results section of the article that "The most prominent figure in a U.S.-backed revolt of Sunni sheiks against al-Qaida in Iraq was killed Thursday by a bomb planted near his home in Anbar province, 10 days after he met with President Bush."    It shows that despite the widely reported al-Anbar success, opponents retain the ability to strike at the leaders of the strategy against them. Bbrown8370 18:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Surge or no surge in Al Anbar? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: 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)
thread_title:  name of article 

message: 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."Gen. Petraeus Defines Victory in Iraq. NPR News. Published March 18, 2008. 
Proponents of the "Surge" operation take the credit for the improvement in security and the diminished violence in Iraq.General Petraeus Testimony 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.Tran, Mark, "Bush quick to claim victory for slow withdrawal", The Guardian, 2008-09-09.  Middle East historian Juan Cole cites the role of ethnic cleansing -- there are fewer people left to kill.Cole, Juan, "Forget the Surge -- Violence Is Down in Iraq Because Ethnic Cleansing Was Brutally Effective", AlterNet, 2008-07-29
Critics of the "Surge" operation point to unmet political benchmarks.The End Game in IraqForeign Affairs - The Price of the Surge 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.".BBC News, "No victory in Iraq, says Petraeus", BBC, 2008-09-11 
Proponents of the "Surge" operation were proclaiming "victory" as early as 2003-05-01BBC News, "Bush declares victory in Iraq", 2003-05-02 and insist that the occupation should continue till "victory" is achieved.Mark Tran, "Bush quick to claim victory for slow withdrawal", The Guardian, 2008-09-09.  
 
This version has several advantages.  
* It quotes Petraeus directly, instead of putting words in his mouth
* It spells his name correctly -- not "Petreaus"
* It allows all parties to speak  
** Proponents -- the Weekly Standard
** Establishment -- Foreign Affairs
** Critics -- Woodward, Cole
* It puts the "Surge" operation in a larger context
* It puts the Petraeus statement about victory being unattainable in context
* It uses the proper title in the BBC citation
Thus it moves us beyond mere public relations and a step closer to NPOV. 
-- NonZionist (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What you have done is the exact logical opposite of NPOV. You have eliminated ever single mentioning of one side and completely loaded the beginning with facts from the other side. If this is your idea of NPOV, I'd hate to see what you think POV is! The Squicks (talk) 06:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Every phrase in your writing is dripping with bias. You use the most loaded language possible. You describe people who agree with you, saying that they "cite" or "point to" things. People who disagree with you get labeled with negative language, they "proclaim" or "take credit" for things. And you, again, bring up the "victory" thing even though you're censoring Petraeus' statements that victory is possible from the article. The Squicks (talk) 06:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I took a stab at making this section NPOV. This section now shows that CNN, The New York Times, and Time say that the surge worked. Of course, the majority of reporting and news agencies also say that the surge worked. The article by Steven Simon that NonZionist added explictly states this: the convention wisdom is that the surge worked. The Squicks (talk) 07:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I'll try to make the upper sections with all the lists and everything else more succinct. Petraeus' words are being repeated too much, it's distracting to the reader. The Squicks (talk) 07:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for a more balanced introduction

message: :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)
replies: text: You are correct.  Images of charts or graphs may not be used under fair use as they can be easily replicated.  Therefore I replicated the chart with information provided by the Department of Defense, and is also similar at the same website as the original graphic, http://icasualties.org/oif/. Angncon (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:US Casualties.jpg

message: :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)
replies: text: Got it fixed.  Same as previous.Angncon (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:ISF Casualties.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title:  All Jewish?! 

message: 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)
replies: text: The article mentions: On February 13, 2008, the Iraqi parliament passed three legislative issue that were considered contentious. The three measures were an amnesty law, a law that defines the scope of provincial powers, and the budget for 2008. The amnesty law was one of the benchmarks set by president Bush. The provincial powers law includes a provision for provincial elections, another key benchmark. And the budget should pave the way for the creation of up to 700,000 new jobs for Iraqis. 129.120.185.224 (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please fix "Results of the Iraq War troop surge of 2007" "Iraq's political system and Iraq's economy" 

message: 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)
replies: text: I would also support removal, given that the section is based on predictions rather than encylcopedic facts. The Squicks (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effect on elections - Should be fixed or removed? 

message: I was going to add the following link  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)
replies: text: I believe troop levels are currently lower than in 2007 and are not expected to increase, so I disagree with a name change.  However, analysis of 2008 consquences of the 2007 surge certainly needs to be updated.  All of the data seems to reflect the situation in late 2007.Bdell555 (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, troop levels are still well above "pre-surge" levels, so we could still be considered to be in the midst of a "surge" (although the term loses meaning if it is something that lasts for years).  --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Re "analysis of 2008 consequences of the 2007 surge certainly needs to be updated", see this GAO report. Definitely worth including I think, especially considering the last "surge" brigade has nearly left Iraq (2BCT/3ID). It should be noted that the report seems to refer more to the new strategy "the new way forward", rather than just the increase in troop levels.Lawrencema (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I can live with the name if the surge didn't go into 2007, but the results should definitely be included, in particular that attacks have gone down more than 90% since before the surge.  Seems like the Iraqi Security Forces are now picking up quite a bit of the duties.--Hourick (talk) 01:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The surge did go into 2008 (I assume you meant 2008 instead of 2007). The last surge brigade (2BCT/3ID) left Iraq a few months ago so I would consider the surge to be from January 10, 2007 to the date the last brigade left. Lawrencema (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name change/update? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Try Michael Yon's website. 24.32.204.89 (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

text: How about trying here. These are the quarterly reports that the Pentagon is required to send to Congress, so they should have the most up-to-date charts and figures. I can't say I've read the June 2008 one myself though. Lawrencema (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated figures and graphs 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's a good idea to separate out the political debate (primarily in the U.S.) over the Surge from the strategy's actual conception, planning, execution and results.  Or perhaps I should say, some valiant attempt at separation seems to be in order.  I'm not sure that January 10 2007 is the place to make the cut, exactly, but it's a nice Alexandrian swipe at the problem, I'll give you that.  Just not sure how you'll end up tying all the loose ends of the knot back together again.  Good luck with the semantics, especially.  Did the Surge include, or merely complement, U.S. initiatives of cooperation ("Sunni Awakening", "Sons of Iraq", etc.) with the tribes of Anbar province?  "The Surge worked!" seems, in some simplistic political discourse in the U.S., to be another way of saying, "gee, things have certainly turned around in Iraq, haven't they!", with a kind of nose-thumbing at the skeptics.  On the other side of the divide, it now seems similarly simplistic to say that the Surge didn't really work because its ostensible goal -- political breathing space for creating more Iraqi political unity -- wasn't adequately exploited by Iraqi leaders.  After all, that picture keeps changing, possibly for the better over the long run, but we don't really know yet.  Better to note where RS's opine that certain political unification processes helped make the Surge easier, and where RS's opine that the Surge seems to have helped along some political unification processes.  Even that framing is probably too simple, but it's a start.  Here's where I think Wikipedia can be a useful resource for anyone looking more closely at the details and ambiguities of the actual operations in Iraq, and at how those details are used, abused, or ignored in debate over success and degrees thereof. Yakushima (talk) 09:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearranged sections 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New additions to lead section 

message: 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)
replies: text: IMO, the surge itself is a 'strategy' while any specific on the ground interpretation of it is a 'policy'. The Squicks (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy or strategy? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Lead-in section

message: 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)
thread_title: Effects of US presidential election

message: 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)
thread_title:  Entry of the new Surge 

message: 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)
replies: text: I have very little doubt that the information is true. However, while I am far too apathetic to look into it too deeply myself, there really should be a source cited other than the propaganda arm of a foreign government, friend or foe to the subject being irrelevant, when describing a country's domestic political events. Last I checked, there are tens of thousands of independent news outlets in the US of all shapes and sizes, and certainly one of them must have noticed this happening.97.91.249.83 (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xinhua News Agency 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Iraq War troop surge of 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080511175501/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244584,00.html to http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244584,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070708232547/http://news.scotsman.com:80/latest.cfm?id=25582007 to http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=25582007
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080114225446/http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/22623291 to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22623291/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Iraq War troop surge of 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121022212249/http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20070112/pl_usnw/the_iraq_accountability_project__a_wrap_up_of_this_week_s_senate_oversight_on_iraq to http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20070112/pl_usnw/the_iraq_accountability_project__a_wrap_up_of_this_week_s_senate_oversight_on_iraq
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090110102241/http://www.ndu.edu/ctnsp/Def_Tech/DTP%2032%20Senturion.pdf to http://www.ndu.edu/ctnsp/Def_Tech/DTP%2032%20Senturion.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927203024/http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/1020 to http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/1020
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928152550/http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/cac2/coin/repository/FM_3-24.pdf to http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/cac2/coin/repository/FM_3-24.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=30706
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070201002606/http://demradio.senate.gov/actualities/reed/reed070110.mp3 to http://demradio.senate.gov/actualities/reed/reed070110.mp3
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C244584%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227135710/http://thegate.nationaljournal.com/images/091407_wh_benchmark2.pdf to http://thegate.nationaljournal.com/images/091407_wh_benchmark2.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110617023117/http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=Mjc2MzM5MTA3 to http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=Mjc2MzM5MTA3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071004225311/http://media.csis.org/isf.pdf to http://media.csis.org/isf.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080221024656/http://www.cfr.org/bios/11107/lionel_beehner.html to http://www.cfr.org/bios/11107/lionel_beehner.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090615040856/http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/index.html to http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130122085832/http://www.aei.org/papers/foreign-and-defense-policy/regional/middle-east-and-north-africa/choosing-victory-a-plan-for-success-in-iraq-paper/ to http://www.aei.org/papers/foreign-and-defense-policy/regional/middle-east-and-north-africa/choosing-victory-a-plan-for-success-in-iraq-paper/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090418095621/http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.1446/event_detail.asp to http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.1446/event_detail.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720085942/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hASe7-hLd4uM5glg9_2tFjVoPliA to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hASe7-hLd4uM5glg9_2tFjVoPliA
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080625062302/http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/Master_16_June_08_%20FINAL_SIGNED%20.pdf to http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/Master_16_June_08_%20FINAL_SIGNED%20.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071004225311/http://media.csis.org/isf.pdf to http://media.csis.org/isf.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130122085832/http://www.aei.org/papers/foreign-and-defense-policy/regional/middle-east-and-north-africa/choosing-victory-a-plan-for-success-in-iraq-paper/ to http://www.aei.org/papers/foreign-and-defense-policy/regional/middle-east-and-north-africa/choosing-victory-a-plan-for-success-in-iraq-paper/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "New way forward" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: This section read more like promotion of AEI than being informational. Further improvement would be welcomed. Activist (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section retitling and reduction