Talk:Battle of Khafji/Archive 1

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 15 May 2004 and 23 August 2008.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

---

Opening Comments

Saudi & Qatari whos fighted on the ground & freed the US Marin's troops & al-khafji city supported by American air strikes & Marin's artillery , Read Washingtonpost Friday, February 1, 1991

I was shocked about what the american guys wrote in this article they changed the history & did'nt mention to Qatar & Saudi troops from the article how they freed the khafji city US marin's troops User:Qatarson

---

The first few paragraphs have some very POV words, e.g. "juggernaut", "gross confusion" or "valiantly". References to "Lawrence of Arabia" are just as unfortunate. Those sort of formulas should be removed in my view. If no one comes forth in a while, I'll do it myself. --Ebralph 12:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

---

I don't see the reason to remove the 1991 category - it is after all. But I don't see the reason in removing the other categories. --Ebralph 12:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Isn't there any more about the importance of this article, as well as the fact that the main Iraqi forces didn't get into the fight, but were pinned down north of the border by air strikes? This battle was badly understood by US Central Command at the time. The page should reflect this better. Darkmind1970 10:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Cover up?

Is there any evidence of that at all, and if so, is it any good? This sounds biased to be. Also, why focus of 11 Marines who got killed by blue on blue, when the Iraqi army lost over a thousand killed or captured? Does the press really expect friendly fire incidents to be completely preventable? It used to be much worse. Hundreds were killed in WWII in Normandy due to errant carpet bombing runs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.125.49.252 (talk • contribs) March 9, 2006

I question a cover up on this as well. Navy History February, 1991 says February 3, 1991 "DOD announces that evidence concludes that a U.S. aircraft accidently hit a Light Armored Vehicle killing 7 Marines during the January 29 battle at Khafji." (PD-USGov-Military-Navy). It notes the other 4 deaths, but due to confusion noted in this article, it seems like they didn't realize it was fratricide at that time. Doesn't seem to be much of a cover up to me. I've requested a citation for the cover up remark and will remove the sentence if none appears. --Dual Freq 23:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Iraqi casualties

I dont think that the iraqi army have 2000 casualties in this battle its impossible because just 1 battailon entred in khafji and an iraqi battailon have 400 men. They cant kill 2000 person in just 3 days of battle.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.70.252.32 (talk • contribs) September 9, 2006 (UTC)

James Titus's paper The Battle of Khafji: An Overview and Preliminary Analysis disagrees with you. It states 2,000 dead and 300 vehicles destroyed out of 2 Iraqi divisions (~20,000 men). Air power is a force multiplier, "they" should have known better than to attack without air superiority. In the Dieppe Raid almost 1,000 Canadians were killed out of only 6,000 total allied troops involved in the invasion. 10% Iraqi dead in 3 days of the Battle of Khafji is a lower percentage than whats listed in that article. I suppose you don't believe "they" (the Germans) could kill that many there either. Dual Freq 01:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but an iraqi divison during the gulf war have 8000 men because the rest is placed in reserve. During this battle, the coalition have never destroyed 2 iraqi division because during the ground offensive they fight the second armorded divsion in the kuwait international airport and in the al-jaber air base. Sorry, but you cant trust in a one opinion of a just one analyst. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.70.252.32 (talk • contribs) September 10, 2006 (UTC)

Well, you got me there, 2,000 dead out of 16,000, not 20,000. My mistake. I'm still waiting for an alternative source, at least the current list of 2,000 has a source. Even if it was only 1 division that's still 2,000 out of 8,000. Considering the air superiority factor the attack would almost have been suicide. Attacking without artillery or air support against a defending force that has both, will result in heavy losses. You may not believe it, but that doesn't make it not true. Dual Freq 18:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Only 3 iraqi brigade were engage in the battle to a total of 6000 men (2000 men in a brigade). The top Saudi commander, Gen. Khalid Bin Sultan, as saying the Iraqis suffered 200 dead and the pda say that iraqi suffered 200 dead. As well, many other analyst is agree with this and your casualties are just an estimate. For me, i think 200 casualties are high but its the real number.

Source :

http://www.comw.org/pda/0310rm8ap2.html#3.%20Iraqi%20military%20personnel%20killed%20during%20the

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/fogofwar/archive/post013191_2.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Comeau (talk • contribs) September 10, 2006 (UTC)

They are not "My" casualty numbers. I did not put them in the article, I'm simply trying to find out why an anonymous user wants to delete the current numbers without reference, and originally without comment. The WA Post article you cite is from the day after the battle. I'm not sure how accurate it will be considering one of the major gripes in this article is lack of media coverage in the immediate aftermath of the battle. Titus's paper looks very well researched and has many citations. I would trust it more than a press article from January 31, 1991, during the battle. Replace the number with an alternate, properly cited, casualty figure. An anon user simply deleting a number with no comment looks more like vandalism than editing. Dual Freq 22:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but i placed the second web to to support my opinion, so i have the reference why you dont change the casualties? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.70.252.32 (talk • contribs) September 10, 2006 (UTC)

I'm sufficiently convinced by Titus's paper and have no interest in researching it further. I have no intention of changing it, but I wouldn't object to someone putting an alternative, that is referenced. Possibly something like, various reports on casualties, ranging from 200 to over 2000. (with a citation referring to the low and the high numbers.) Also, I suppose it depends on what is counted as the battle of Khafji, the 2,000 number is accounting for forces enroute to the site in Kuwait, and forces in Khafji proper. Maybe your 200 number is only in the Khafji vicinity. Dual Freq 23:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You do what do you wont and you dont accept the other opinion, i think that you forget that wikipedia is neutral and not pro american.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.70.252.32 (talk • contribs) September 10, 2006 (UTC)

I've spent some time in Canada, not Montreal, but I've been to Calgary. Friendly people up there, I'd love to go back. I don't know what else you're looking for, I suppose you think the Battle of Khafji never even happened. American propaganda I suppose. I never said no change period. I told you I just wanted to prevent an anon user from simply deleting a number with no comment. It looked more like vandalism than editing. I also said I was open to a compromise as shown above. Who is neutral here and who just wants to delete a number they don't like? I don't know what kind of answer you are looking for. What more do you want? Dual Freq 01:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont no why you talking about Canada, and some people in Calgary are racist against french. The battle of Ras Al-Khafji have realy exist. I just say that, 2000 is to high if you wont you can wirte 200-2000 casualties this is neutral. If its neutral you can accept the other opinion and i dont find an other analyst who have wrote 2000 casualties so you based your opinion in just 1 analyst and 1 its not enough.

I found Calgary to be very culturally diverse, many people of different races, lots of people of Asian heritage there as well, very diverse. Everything was bilingual, English and French on every sign. Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario was pretty nice too. The Canadian side of the Niagara falls was nice too. Maybe someday I'll get to Montreal, but no plans right now. I've been to France though, friendly people there too. I don't speak French, but the folks in Nice, Villefranche-sur-Mer and Saint-Tropez didn't seem to mind. Lots of fun. Been to Dubai, too. I was surprised that everyone spoke English there. Very nice city, friendly people, low crime, very inexpensive gold products, I wish I could go back there, too. Dual Freq 02:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I was aware the Iraqis committed three divisions into the battle. I imagine that the casualty count must include the horrific losses that the Iraqis took when they were hit by coalition airpower as well. Darkmind1970 13:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Republican Guard

The republican guard was never deployed in this battle its just an element of the 3 corps and its not the real number of casualties for Iraq.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.82.226.40 (talk • contribs) 05:54, January 7, 2007 (UTC)

but it was used as the offical army force , isn't it ? Ammar 11:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources conflict

User Dual Freq has reverted my latest addition to restore the (2000+ deaths of iraqi forces and 400 POW) , while 4 other diffrente sources say (32 deaths and 463 POW of iraqi forces). i have some points to disscuss:

• I have been to the town , i don't think that VERY small town can handle that number of troops or dead people. maybe Dual Freq's reference talks about several other battles together.

• That reference does not talk about the commanders of the battle while the other sources talk about 2 saudi commanders General Sultan Al-Mutairi from army and Captain Hassan Othman from naval marine.

and Dual Freq has reverted that without a clear reason.

• the reference does not talk about the stregth of the forces , and only talk about dead people. while other sources talk about 600 iraqis and iraqi 45 tanks and the american air support.

• such Removal of content may be considered vandalism.

Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 09:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Battle of Khafji" does not refer to a battle that occurred only in the town of of Khafji, it refers to all the casualties and forces employed to take and re-capture Khafji. The Titus source states 2,000 dead out of two Iraqi divisions (16,000) and it is much more reliable than "everything2.com". --Dual Freq 12:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That doesnt give you the right to remove all the other informations. 4 unrelible sources are Common knowledgeAmmar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 12:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

At least pick a source that users of an english encyclopedia can read. They both look like blogs or forums. --12:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources don't need to be in english , thats why there is Wikipedia:Translation . Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 13:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said, they are still blogs / forums. --Dual Freq 13:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You just said At least. are you trying to "Americanize" the event ?? Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 16:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is another source :([1]) , i don't think the washington post newspaper is a blog website. Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 16:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

(remove indent)As I said, your sources appear to be non-english blogs / forums, this seems to be the english version of wikipedia, so sources should be english. There is no need to cite a non-english web forum or any forum for that matter. The WA Post article was discussed above, it was dated February 1, 1991 when details of the engagement were not still not clear. The Titus paper is a post war analysis based on information determined after the battle, not media speculation as events occurred. As for commanders, I recommend using the same ones used in the other Gulf War battles. Coalition Vs. Iraq would be Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. vs Hussein similar to the 73 Easting article since he was commander of the Coalition Forces in the Gulf War of 1991. The recapture of the city was a coalition operation with major ground forces being Joint Forces Command east under Saudi Command and many air elements from various commands and US Marine Forces, Central Command. That's not opinion, it is facts from the Titus paper mentioned before. --Dual Freq 17:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

i agree that general schwarzkopf was the commander of the allies , but we are not talking about the gulf war in general. Schwarzkopf did not even support the idea of regain the town in early hours. plus , the Washington Post source is ENGLISH and its talking about the same things i said. believe me , 2000 death is extremly fake information . and Do not try to americanize the event with that Titusomething book (which is made by an amatuer writer as it seems to me) Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 00:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This 1996 source by James Titus Associate Director for Research and Education Airpower Research Institute is the source referencing the casualty numbers. I trust it before some non-english blog / forum you linked above. This battle was not just the fight to retake the town. It was a coalition battle involving more than just the Saudis and under the overall command of Schwarzkopf. If you want tactical commanders, then find a reliable source that people reading an english encyclopedia can verify. Again, the WA Post article was discussed above, it was dated February 1, 1991 when details of the engagement were not still not clear and may or may not include figures for the entire battle. Why would I want to "Americanize" a battle for a town with little strategic value that took TWO attempts to retake by ground forces in spite of overwhelming air superiority and artillery support? Feel free to indent to eternity, but there is no point typing 7 colons. --Dual Freq 01:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Okaies , english source for tactical commanders , Sultan Al-Mutairi :([2]) ,Commander of east-command-joint-forces. give me more time to find an english source for Hassan Othman , and the iraqi commanders even. Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 12:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The iraqi commander was Salah Abud Mahmud :([3]). Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 12:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Ensured that the article is within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Khafji Lead

Hey, I undid your edit of the lead of the article Battle of Khafji, because I felt it was a bit radical and didn't really improve it (it just reworded it). I'd be happy to discuss further copyedits on the talk page, but such dramatic changes like those I don't feel actually improve the article (there was nothing wrong with the existing lead, except perhaps minor copyedit requirements). Thanks. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There are two things I was trying to accomplish with this edit:

1) Reduce the wordiness of the intro in accordance with WP:Lead (e.g., changing

"The battle serves as an example of the capabilities of strategic air superiority and air power in halting and defeating a major ground operation..." to

"The battle showed how strategic air superiority and air power could defeat a major ground operation..."

2) Fix a sentence that began with not one, but two lengthy dependent clauses, included an undefined pronoun and did not identify Saddam as the leader of Iraq ("Believing that he could win the war by drawing Coalition troops into a ground engagement, where the Iraqi Army would inflict a large amount of casualties, Saddam Hussein..."). PRRfan (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I made some changes in accordance to your suggestions, but I don't see how the lead is "too wordy". The article is 39kB long, and so should have a lead of three to four paragraphs (which it does). The only thing that WP:Lead mentions is to avoid specialized words, which this lead doesn't contain. I appreciate your efforts, and would like further help in developing the prose of the article, but I'd like to avoid complete re-writes and instead do it to a similar fashion we're doing it now. As the major provider of facts and sources, it's easier for me to write if the article is in my style of writing (which is not grammatically incorrect, and therefore should be fine). And, I changed that sentence with the two dependent clauses, but I don't see how a dependent clause is bad if it's not the sentence itself (the sentence, as a whole, has a verb, subject and expresses a complete thought). JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of grammar, it's just a matter of clarity. Readers who arrived at "he" had no way of knowing who "he" is until 27 words into the sentence. Moreover, it's good (if, in these circumstances, practically unnecessary) to identify the Iraqi leader as such. PRRfan (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Question: this sentence ("Serving as an example of the capabilities of air power in halting and defeating a major ground operation, the battle was a major test of Saudi and Qatari capabilities.") suggests that the battle was a major test of Saudi and Qatari airpower, which I don't believe was the case. If I've got that right, it would be clearer to write: "The battle showed how air power could halt and defeat a major ground operation. It was also a major test of Saudi and Qatari capabilities." How's that sound? PRRfan (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Changed a bit. JonCatalán^(Talk) 05:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the point of presenting dates in the [[yyyy-mm-dd]] format is not to wikilink them. Rather, it allows the date to be presented in the user's specified format.PRRfan (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)