Talk:1998 bombing of Iraq

The strikes came at a particularly difficult time for US President Bill Clinton, as he was impeached on December 19. --Personally i think the time was not "difficult" but "convenient", as it shifted the focus of the news media.

This articles kind of light on information; for example, how many strikes were made? What targets were hit? Etc. Would someone be able to expand on this? --Stretch 22:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

re: Additional information being needed, I agree that this is true, but it will probably never be supplied. People in the military generally have good reasons not to open their mouths about past campaigns, and I doubt Iraqi sources with documentation remain, primarily because of the ransacking of government offices allowed during military occupation.Kencomer (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

re: Perceiving the time as being "difficult" for a leader who is being accused of and tried for "high crimes and misdemeanors" requires no sophisticated interpretation. My recollection shows that the media were still pretty attentive in the House at that time. It was almost like they were giving odds. If you call this "convenient", I won't argue with your interpretation--I do not think that the adjective applies, but it isn't clearly beyond question--but I will point out that it is interpretation. In my humble opinion (not as a hobnobgoblin from the lofty reaches of en.w) that fact means that it does not qualify as an objection to NPOV.

Unless a source can be provided for a statement stronger than the "critics of the Clinton administration expressed concern over the timing of Operation Desert Fox" already present in the article (without a source, unlike the stuff from Scott Ritter) I do not see a good reason not to remove the NPOV dispute tag.Kencomer (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Added expansion tag. Forgot to last time. --Stretch 03:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh yes, the article still very much deserves the "Neutrality disputed" tag (and probably will for a very long time). For the most part, it is a one-sided representation of official US views, and with very little substance on what actually happened. The value of those "facts" would be open for debate in any case, but a honest researcher is nevertheless obliged to include claims he doesn't agree with and, when only biased information is available, mention both sides equally.

In Germany there was some live news coverage during the bombing of Baghdad, and I remember many attempts for a peaceful solution throughout the year 1998, including Kofi Annan's highly anticipated visit to Iraq which was continuously blocked by the US. The climate of that whole year was very much like the Democracy Now! shows of February 16-17, 1998 suggest. The alternative media are a good (and almost only) source for Anti-war activism or even criticsm in English language, there must be something to the claim that the official media was beating the war drums obediently. I had a hard time finding any mention of views of the "outside" world or activism against the air strikes, and even then the headlines were designed to show off steadfast solidarity.

Concerning the Clinton-Lewinsky affair - though uncomfortable for Clinton, I agree it was a very good distraction from real policy (like that infamous Presidential Directive 60, authorizing the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iraq. Clinton allegedly changed it after Ramsey Clark "leaked" it in an article in February 1998. So George W. Bush didn't invent the US' "right" for nuclear attacks). Government work is really done by aides and the people in the second row, while any politician's most important role in the media age is that of a public figurehead. On top of that, to make a weak-looking fool out of Clinton surely pushed the hardliner's agenda.

It seems calculated ridicule can be very useful for prolonging war or occupation, as it shifts the public focus from the decision makers to the "people on the ground". 88.217.69.170 (talk) 08:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

It seems our friends in Germany have an admirably firm grasp of US policy matters as well as media transparancy- or lack thereof. It is unfortunately all we have to work with. Batvette (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I removed a substantial portion of text that had been copied from one of the external links with little or no modification. This use of copyrighted text is not acceptable. The article left behind is presumably more incomplete as a result, but in addressing that, contributions must always be written in your own words. --Michael Snow 17:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK guys, are we really supposed to believe that gathering intelligence against Iraq was the actual reason for the expulsion and not the pretext? It would involve circular logic to conclude that this was the case because had Saddam not impeded them, there would be no bombing. 65.185.190.240 00:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Furthermore, having the entire section about the "end of inspections" devoted to Scott Ritter's claims is not NPOV. 65.185.190.240 00:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

re: circular logic... The gathering of non-WMD intelligence would not necessarily have been seen by Saddam as grounds for expulsion because it was preparatory to an invasion. It might have been the "vandalism" of the palaces reported in Le Monde back around that time. Saddam repeatedly claimed that the inspectors were deliberately going beyond the law back around that time. The USA response was that there was nowhere in Iraq they were not permitted to search which, though I can't say one way or another how the treaty was written, I doubt that the people at the table envisioned the equivalent of things like, say, digging up the White House rose garden.

I am not as familiar as you seem to be with Wikipedia's NPOV's particulars, but I see nothing wrong with including the reports of a source with credible access to the information who has gone into print on the issue. I do not think that it is required that a point of view be omitted because there is no rebuttal on the page. In fact, I thought it specifically allowed for that. Frequently, there is no one with credible access to the information that might be able to show that a contested POV is false.Kencomer (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

This "circular thinking" is a classic case of the hen vs. the egg. Nobody has been able to solve that one, so far ;-)

You're not "supposed to believe" anything. Belief is inherently one-sided. 88.217.69.170 (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The "Iraq Confidential" link currently leads to a dead site (advertising the usual junk). New references needed to support Ritter's claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.170.5 (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Title should be renamed as the current is US-POV (WP:Milhist guidelines). See also United States bombing of Libya or NATO campaign against the Army of Republika Srpska --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is this the only reason that the article has an NPOV dispute in it? If so, I hope you'll fix it and then remove the NPOV dispute. I do not believe the article is anywhere near "comprehensive," but what is there seems to be pretty NPOV Kencomer (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Facts

U.S.S.R. sent Teams of Spetsnaz 1978 to 1979 into U.S. Ally Iran to Overthrow U.S. Ally Shah of Iran by creating a Civil War. This was also happening at Afghanistan, except the 5 Million Pro U.S.S.R. Afghans invited the U.S.S.R. into Afghanistan to take care of their problem the 5 Million Pro U.S. Afghans. The U.S.S.R. backed Ayatollah Khomeini and the U.S.S.R. Spetsnaz started Green Revolution. After the Green Revolution Ayatollah Khomeini refused Orders from the U.S.S.R. just like the Pro U.S.S.R. Afghan President did with the U.S.S.R. Spetsnaz storming the Afghan Palace and murdering the Pro U.S.S.R. Afghan President. Ayatollah Khomeini has his Revolutionary Guards Murder All Iranian Military and their Families that were of the Pro U.S. Shah of Iran Military, then starts murdering all Iranians that were suspected of being Collaborators to the Christians, Jews, Unbelievers. This caused Millions of Iranians to flee to U.S. Ally Iraq. U.S. Ally Iraq's Military assisted the Iranian Refugees while Ayatollah Khomeini attempted to stop the Millions of Iranians from getting to U.S. Ally Iraq, even going into U.S. Ally Iraq and taking back Iranians from the U.S. Ally Iraqis Refugee Camps. This then turned into small battles, then larger battles, U.S. Ally President Saddam Hussein then decided to create a DMZ, and the U.S. Ally Iraqis Military go into Iran and forced the Iranian Military away from the Borders, starting the Iran Iraq Wars, as the Longest Conventional War of History.

During the Iran Iraq Wars the Millions of Iranians that fled to U.S. Ally Iraq turned Traitor and fought on the side of U.S.S.R. backed Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran. To the North the Millions of Kurdistanis fought on the side of U.S.S.R. backed Ayatollah Khomeini Iran. After the Iran Iraq Wars were declared over with Paris Peace Talks, the Millions of Iranians at U.S. Ally Iraq, as the Shia of Iraq, continued to Fight against U.S. Ally Iraq, the Millions of Kurdistanis continued to fight against U.S. Ally Iraq, U.S. Ally President Saddam Hussein then Used Chemical Weapons from undetermined sources to finally end the fighting, just as the U.S. had Used Nuclear Weapons to Finally End World War 2.

Demonrat President Clinton's False Assumption, Dictator Saddam Hussein Murdering His Own People (in reference to the Traitor Kurdistanis and the Traitor Shia of Iraq) during the Iran Iraq Wars.

Demonrat President Clinton's False Assumption, Everybody living at U.S. Ally Iraq is an Iraqis. Actual Iraqis Arabs, Arabic, Sunnis. Shia of Iraq, Iranians, Farsi, Shia, Ally of Iran. Kurdistanis Indo Europeans, Slang Farsi, Shia, Ally of Iran.

Demonrat President Clinton's 1993 U.S. Airstrikes and U.S. Cruise Missile Attacks, extremely inaccurate without U.S. Military on the ground doing the Target Identifications, Target Adjustments, and Target Damage Assessments. 1993 half of a U.S. Army Special Forces ODA sent to Baghdad Iraq. Result the 1993 First Obama Bin Laden Attack of the World Trade Center.

Demonrat President Clinton's 1993 U.S. Airstrikes and U.S. Cruise Missile Attacks, extremely inaccurate without U.S. Military on the ground doing the Target Identifications, Target Adjustments, and Target Damage Assessments. 1993 half of a U.S. Army Special Forces ODA sent to Baghdad Iraq. There are no U.S. Ally Iraq Military Targets inside Baghdad Iraq, the Iraqis Military are in a number of rings around Baghdad Iraq, their Air Defenses are also near the Border with U.S. Ally Syria as to where the U.S. Airstrikes were coming from as well as the U.S. Cruise Missile Attacks being launched from U.S. Ally Syrian Sea Ports. U.S. Attacked Civilians at Baghdad Iraq.

U.S. Congress informed Demonrat President Clinton that he is Violating U.S. Senate Law, 1973 War Powers Resolution, U.S. House of Representatives Law, 1973 War Powers Act, in response Demonrat President Clinton gives his 1998 State of the Union Address Demanding that U.S. Congress Declare War Against U.S. Ally Iraq, justification "Weapons of Mass Destruction". U.S. Congress Declared War Against U.S. Ally Iraq as part of the Demonrat Party's Policy of "Regime Change" (later Obama did the same "Regime Change" as the Overthrows of U.S. Allies Established Governments), Goals, "Overthrow President Saddam Hussein, Liberate the Iraqis People, Install A Demonratcy.". Demonrat President Clinton then Ordered 1998 U.S. Military Operation Desert Fox. Half of a U.S. Army Special Forces ODA sent to Baghdad Iraq, there are no U.S. Ally Iraqis Military Forces at Baghdad Iraq, Clinton's belief is that by attacking the Iraqis Civilians that they will Rise Up and Overthrow Dictator Saddam Hussein, the Targets were the Overcrowded Urban Poor Areas of Baghdad Iraq (ironically the Shia of Iraq Overcrowded Areas). Surviving Shia of Iraq declared the U.S. Is the Great Satan, U.S. Declared War Against Muslims. Clinton spun this only showing the center of Baghdad Iraq (few U.S. Cruise Missiles that went off course), while Al Jazeera was broadcasting all the damages, deaths and destruction.

In response Obama Bin Laden Declared Revenge for the Murders of the Innocent Poor of Islam and Declared "the U.S. Is the Great Satan" on Video (VHS) Tape sent to Al Jazeera, the Holy Koran Demands that All Muslims Fight Satan. As the Cause of the Second Obama Bin Laden Attack of the World Trade Center, 9/11 2001.

The Muslim Nation of Iran then Declared to the Arab League of Nations (and OPEC) that the U.S. is The Great Satan. U.S. Ally Arab Nations then got lots of backlash for being U.S. Allies, as just short of Civil War and Muslim Revolution to Overthrow the U.S. Ally Arab Nations Established Governments.

To the North U.S. Army Special Forces, CIA SAD and SOG, linked up with the Millions of Kurdistanis Traitors as Allies of Iran to fight against the Actual Iraqis. To the South the U.S. Army Special Forces, CIA SAD and SOG linked up with the Traitorous Shia of Iraq as Allies of Iran to fight against the Actual Iraqis. Same thing the Muslim Nation of Iran did during the Iran Iraq Wars.

The Millions (30 Million) of Kurdistanis Allied themselves to Obama Bin Laden, Al Quada, Millions of Afghan Taliban, Millions of Holy Warriors of Islam and became Ansar Al Islam. Nakamuradavid (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

The article neglects to mention the US Army Special Forces and US Marine forces directly involved in cooperation with the Kurdish militias during the operation. They invaded from bases in Turkey and held northern Iraq until the bombing campaign was halted. Afterwards, the US forces had to give up all the territory they seized and all American forces had to be withdrawn from their bases in southern Turkey. Kurdish refugees were kicked out of camps in Turkey only to be massacred by Saddam's death squads when they were deported. In response, the US-supported Kurdish militias attacked both the Turks (causing them to distrust the US) and the Iraqi forces to try to create a Kurdish homeland. Anti-Hussein networks rose up against their government and were slaughtered when the US left. The result was that Turkey, formerly a staunch NATO ally, refused to host Allied and Kurdish forces during the Iraq Invasion, forcing the American stategists to use another base of operations and support. It also made Kurdish and Iraqi opposition leaders more reticent, a problem that haunts support efforts in Iraq now. Desert Fox had some short-term benefit, but in the long run it was an irresponsible campaign that shifted the burden of dealing with the Hussein threat to the next administration in office. 134.241.58.252 17:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

This article back in the day had a very good explanition of the ground forces located in Kuwait because me and several others added to it was removed. I do not see why it was removed considering that at the time we had the largest US Army ground force there; 2nd BCT, 3ID ready to defend Kuwait or attack into Iraq. I know that because I was on the ground and we were ready to execute what are commanders wanted us to do. We were promised that our deployment would not interfere with our Christmas plans but thanks to Saddam we were forced to stay in country while the bombing was going on. I think Task Force 4-64 and Task Force 3-15 exploits should be reinstated into this article as some excellent ground forces were there to protect and defend Kuwait or invade Iraq if needed.

SSG Myles Spence Former C co. 4-64 AR Tank Driver Operation Desert Fox —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.182.103.177 (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

Image:Desert fox green.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) 21:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you want some fair use pictures I'll be glad to add to the article some pictures of me and my compadres stuck out in the deserts of Kuwait waiting to see if our leadership would let us cross the border during this Operation. We got a nice pic of a christmas tree on top of a M113. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.182.103.177 (talk) 05:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

FYI, a list of sources on this subject can be found here: [1]. Cla68 (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I did a minimal addition in mentioniong OBL's fatwa which clearly states everything which this section tries to deny. This section has an appropriate title at least. It tries to establish as fact any possible attempt by Osama Bin Laden to take action against the US in retaliation for oppression and deaths against Iraqis by the US and UN as ridiculous, when Osama Bin Lsden himself declares as one of his three main grievances in that 1996 proclaimation. I gave a link. STOP LYING. Batvette (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Given the fact that Iraq's failure to comply with UN resolutions is disputed and the fact that we now know that Iraq abandonded all its WMD programs around 1994-1995, I changed the lead to say "Iraq's alleged failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions". 216.239.234.196 (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

This would be relevant if #1, the requirements of the resolutions allowed Iraq to secretly dispose of its WMD, not furnish documentation of it, and yet retain ambiguity over their status to allude a threat to neighbors, or #2, that we really "now know" that to be the only factual probabilty. Duelfer's report JUDGES that yet allows that he may have also had them and moved them. Batvette (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The criticism part of the article is overly long when compared to the rest. However, the problem is not with the excessive criticism, but the actual attack. Where did the Americans attack, exactly? Iraqi military response in the area? Reading the article, it gives no indication of these things. 99.144.241.215 (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

We need someone with knowledge of the campaign to expand the article. Is there any way to list it? Dynablaster (talk) 04:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bombing of Iraq (1998). 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.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12304324&method=full&siteid=50143
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/rss/Jaballah.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060414134739/http://www.cnn.com:80/WORLD/meast/9812/16/iraq.strike.03/ to http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/16/iraq.strike.03/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060508051034/http://www8.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/iraq/ to http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/iraq/

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why isn't the name of this article Operation Desert Fox per WP:COMMONNAME? there was a small note on that above, from 14 years ago. Anyone care to revisit? Hydromania (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the list of nations that were listed as supporting Iraq during the 1998 bombing of Iraq. The cited Russian news article discusses possible general weapons violations of the listed countries and the possible training of Iraqi military officers on S-300 anti-air equipment in Belarus in the year 2000. The article does not mention anything about the listed countries supporting Iraq during the three day bombing. ElderZamzam (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've taken "Queen Elizabeth II" off from the "list of commanders". It's pretty much absurd to suggest and more importantly not at all in the style I've seen on Wikipedia, 146.199.131.82 (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply