Talk:Bombing of Iraq (December 1998)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bombing of Iraq (December 1998) article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)
Bombing of Iraq (December 1998) is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

An event mentioned in this article is a December 16 selected anniversary

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)

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)

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)

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


Contents

[edit] Removal

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)

[edit] Scott Ritter's POV

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] title renaming

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)

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)

[edit] Desert Fox Ground War neglected

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)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Desert fox green.jpg

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)