User talk:Erxnmedia/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] US support issues

I'm going to copy a slightly edited section of comments I made to Imad Marie, who seems very fair in his outlook, about the way I'd like to see the US part of Iran-Iraq handled.


[edit] Introduction to notes to Imad Marie

Heading: I want to keep the Iran-Iraq war section very tight, to avoid POV expansion there, and move country-specific discussion to articles without the I-I war size limits. Imad Marie had done some editing of the foreign support text in the main I-I war section,and moved the Rumsfeld picture there. It think this gives unneeded POV.

I'm afraid I prefer the earlier version, for several reasons. You may have noticed that very shortly after putting in a brief introduction to the U.S. section, another editor immediately put in more criticism of the U.S., and I reverted it. The criticism of individual countries belongs in individual country sections, with due regard that certain events involved multiple countries.

I removed the Nathan Hurd material, as it is only a chronology, under an organization that no longer updates it, and was concerned with sanctions related to the 2003 war, not the Iran-Iraq war. It is certainly not a reliable or notable source to justify the assertion that the Iran-US "Tanker War" was undertaken, by the US, only to support Iraq.

There are over thirty countries involved, so there has to be a reasonably compact heading. Starting the section on generic support to Iraq with a picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam does not seem NPOV to me; it suggests that the US was the most important puppetmaster. It might even be appropriate to arrange the wikilinks in a compact table:

Country Support to Iraq Support to Iran
France link to support to Iraq link to support to Iran
United States link to support to Iraq link to support to Iran
Singapore link to support to Iraq link to support to Iran
Soviet Union link to support to Iraq link to support to Iran

and so forth

By having separate articles, each country's actions -- or activities concealed from that nation's government -- can be discussed in detail. I believe this can be much more NPOV, because if there is more than a minimal link in the main article, some editors will keep expanding it to blame as much as possible on the US.

I will try to do Singapore next, as a good example of a non-obvious amount of support by a smaller country. Singapore is also relevant as a major supplier of chemical weapons precursors, and as the place where Italian firms moved their land and naval mine manufacturing after Italy imposed export controls.

The US draft in my userspace is difficult. I really want to try to keep the Tanker War separate from the very significant and complex financial and industrial transactions. Indeed, the BNL scandal, involving the US subsidiary of the largest bank in Italy, owned by the state of Italy, may have provided USD $5 billion in funding to Iraq, a good deal of which was spent in countries other than Italy and the US. By bringing in the Tanker War, it's too easy to obscure the commercial and governmental transactions.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

While I'm working on it now, do look the draft I'm saving frequently of Singapore support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Much detective work will be required to tell if Singapore was merely an intermediate shipping step here, possibly for chemicals originating in India or Germany. There are some side references in other countries suggesting, variously, that the chemical exporter in Singapore may have been owned interests in Dubai, possibly by Iraqi agents. Dubai itself is an apparent transshipment point for proscribed shipments.

It is that kind of background, with seemingly small places such as Dubai and Singapore, that a great deal of extremely critical material made its way to Iraq. In my younger years, I was a biochemist and had some technical experience with chemical and biological weapons -- that gives me an idea of the significance of what might seem a small shipment, especially of the hard-to-explain chemicals in Chemical Weapons Convention schedules 1 and 2. I would note, both for chemical and biological warfare, some of the custom manufacturing equipment, or materials for it, are the hardest to get. There are steps in nerve gas manufacture when the reaction has to be carried out in silver, platinum, or specialized Teflon (difficult to make) vessels. The hard part in biological warfare isn't getting the cultures, but getting the specialized fermenters, refrigerated centrifuges, lyophilizers (freeze-driers), and refrigerated grinding mills. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Before I write anything substantive, be warned I am just starting my first cup of coffee, and a very affectionate cat (Mr. Clark, meet Imad Marie. Imad Marie, meet Mr. Clark). He helped so much that he caused the first draft of this comment to be lost).
In doing research on the multiple nations involved in the Iraqi procurement network, much of which was secret, I don't think many editors are aware of the extent of Iraqi dealing and getting around export controls. What may have been one of the greatest benefits to Iraq is their use of the U.S. branch of an Italian (state)-owened bank, as well as getting some very questionable loan guarantees from an agricultural export guarantee program. This managed to make at least USD $5 billion available to Iraq, which was spent in countries all over the world.
Products and manufacturing things that actually got to the battlefield are relatively low from the U.S.; there were a lot of high-technology things that probably went to their nuclear and missile development programs, but not overt weapons, chemical warfare materials, etc. Much of the more sensitive things, for example, came from Germany, and I will be writing up comments from the trial of certain Germans, in which the court, which had independent investigatory power, observed that the German government export control organization was not really looking at what went to Germany.
There are officials of other countries, at the level of Rumsfeld, that met with Iraqi officials. In other cases, the top officials of Soviet, French, and other countries met, in Iraq, with senior officials of the military manufacturing system. In other words, there were people at the level of Donald Rumsfeld that met with Iraqis, yet the only picture shown is of an American meeting with Saddam. There is more criticism of the U.S. than any other nation, but I have to say, so far, that the Soviet Union and France, and possibly Italy (including front companies), were as complicit.
One of the haunting images of the war was the Iranian volunteers running into the minefields to clear them, sacrificing their own lives. No one seems to ask where those mines came from, and the answer appears to be Italy in the earlier part of the war, and then, when the Italian government clamped down on export controls, the companies involved moved the manufacturing to Singapore, with the Swiss company, Oerlikon, providing the explosives.
Equipment for manufacturing rocket and artillery components came from Germany and Britain. I can go on, and I'm definitely still collecing information. Without any question, the majority of actual weapons came from the Soviet Union and France, not the U.S.
Yet the only image is of Donald Rumsfeld, and, especially if one regards the Tanker War as a US-Iran war that happened at the same time as the Iran-Iraq war but was only loosely linked to it in US policy, I have to question why the article seems to imply that the US was Iraq's chief supplier, and even the puppetmaster controlling Saddam. No one controlled Saddam except Saddam, and eventually a hangman's rope.
For NPOV, I believe there should be details in sub-articles, and yes, I believe there will need to be 30 or more to cover all the support to Iraq and Iran. This material can be well sourced, but I don't think some of the most pro-Iranian editors are aware of it. It's too easy, ideologically as well as logistically, to blame the US. Yes, there were things the US did to Iran, before the war, that were stupid. Yes, there were things that Iran did, which if they had competent intelligence people and the leadership listened to them, were guaranteed to cause a strong US response aimed directly at Iran, without Iraqi involvement.
By all means have pictures of officials shaking hands with senior Iraqi officials in the appropriate country articles. To have only Rumsfeld's picture in the main article comes across to me as a POV that the whole war was a US plot.
The whole matter of support to Iran and Iraq is very complex and cannot easily be simplified other than saying that a lot of countries provided weapons, materials, and yes, even training to the two major belligerents. I'd like to see the article become much less anti-American POV, unless the US was directly responsible for something -- as in the Tanker War, where Iran was hardly innocent.
There is a book by Leonard Slater, titled The Pledge, which is about the secret procurement network used by Zionists, especially just after WWII, to get military supplies for the coming 1948 Israeli war of independence. I strongly suspect some Iraqi procurement officers read it very carefully. At the same time, I urge editors in the Iran-Iraq articles to look at the way the Sri Lanka Reconciliation project on Wikipedia manages to work out POV disputes.
These are some of the reasons I don't think the Rumsfeld-Hussein picture belongs at the start of the foreign support section of the main article. It oversimplifies in the interest of an ideological blame-the-US attitude. The US tilt wouldn't have had much effect, for example, if billions of dollars of weapons hadn't come from the Soviet Union, France, and Italy (including work done in Singapore). Germany and Britain were major suppliers of critical manufacturing tools, and a number of countries provided materials for WMD work, of which only the chemical part was used in this war.
I'm willing to put quite a bit of work into the country-specific sub-articles, if they contribute to understanding the complexity of what, if you consider suppliers, has aspects of a world war. If, in spite of any facts brought to the discussion, the significant anti-American tone continues, I'll simply stop participating in something that is historically inaccurate. I am absolutely willing to blame America for things it actually did. If I may share something that guides me as an American citizen, written by a U.S. senator who was an immigrant to the U.S., Carl Schurz (this is a more complete version of what he said than the Wikipedia article:

The Senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, "I confidently trust that the American people will prove themselves … too wise not to detect the false pride or the dangerous ambitions or the selfish schemes which so often hide themselves under that deceptive cry of mock patriotism: ‘Our country, right or wrong!’ They will not fail to recognize that our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism: ‘Our country—when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right."

Sincerely, Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Howard,
I couldn't agree with you more, you are taking a very thorough and scholarly approach.
In terms of the phrase "pro-Iranian" regarding the other editors, I did have some interaction with CreazySuit which was enlightening. In looking at this I am not trying to be personal or ad hominem, rather I am asking the "cui bono" question regarding the editing choices made by some people (putting Rumsfeld as poster boy and ignoring the iceberg underneath comprised of Soviets, Italians, Swiss, Singapore etc.). "Pro-Iran" could mean a variety of things, e.g.
  • Pro-Pahlavi
  • Pro-Mossadegh
  • Pro-Tudeh
  • Pro-Ahmadinehad
  • Pro-Khatami
etc. There is also the tabloid simplification of Sunni vs Shiite. CreazySuit said his interests were Shiite and Iran articles. I naively assumed this meant he was Shiite, then he identified as Kurdish Sunni. Within Sunni there are many denominations. CreazySuit is Hanafi and Xe Cahzytr Ryz Salafi. CreazySuit is "neither a fan of the Pahlavi regime nor the Islamic Republic" who would like to see "democratic secular republic envisioned by Mossadegh" obtained by evolution from within: "gradually democratize the current system whose constitution could be eventually amended and reformed to conform with democratic values". In summary (and this is the best and most interesting thing CreazySuit has had to say):
don't just assume that anyone with an Iranian point of view is automatically a Persian and a Shiite, amazingly none of the Iranians you've had disagreements with on Iran-Iraq war are Persian. Babakexorramdin is an ethnic Georgian, I am an ethnic Kurd, and Pejman47 an ethnic Azeri
(In addition Imad Marie is Jordanian and Khoikhoi is possibly Iranian, Kurdish or Assyrian.)
So when selling an approach to dissecting the contributors/material participants/stakeholders/supports of the Iran-Iraq War, it is necessary not only to be logical but to ask "cui bono" when people are making certain editing choices. I still don't know how it benefits CreazySuit to sell the idea of US as being anti-Iranian and pro-Saddam. I think it is much more interesting and enlightening to see how the entirety of the international Military-industrial complex comes into play in this war, which is what your articles will achieve.
Thanks,
Erxnmedia (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No simple answers

cui bono is a very good approach. I'd be the last to say that the US hasn't done things that are either idiotic, evil, or both, but it's easy to do without having some knowledge of what is more than domestic politics, but also domestic ideology (e.g., PNAC/neocon, and the incomplete lobby with the "hard-Zionist" groups like AIPAC, as opposed to groups like the Israeli Policy Forum, versus the Rapturists).

In my argument that the Tanker War was not a subsidiary theater of the Iran-Iraq War, but rather a Iran-US war that happened at the same time, to call it a subsidiary ignores around two centuries of US policy on freedom of navigation (well, as long as you're on the right side). The US isn't unique; think of the Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Turkish Straits and the passage of warships through the Bosporus.

There's an article on Politics of Iran, but I think you are describing a more meta-issue, something like Ideologies of and Futures for Iran.

Some subsidiary issues, again needing some specialized knowledge, are in the military area. Assume there were 600 DIA officers in Iraq. Now, look at the size of the intelligence staffs in Vietnam. If you actually look at the tables of organization of US military intelligence units, both in a US-only and coalition structure, 600 doesn't go that far. It isn't remotely enough to have, as some have suggested, American advisors in tactical units.

There seems an undercurrent that somehow, the US was Saddam's puppetmaster. The only working strings anyone ever put on Saddam was a thick one around his neck. While there was a great deal of control by Saddam, he managed to have a scarily competent worldwide procurement network. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help in dealing with speedy delete proposal

I have a problem at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet support for Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Apparently, this was triggered by a bot that detected a copyvio of something I hadn't finished paraphrasing -- unfortunately, I took the text out of userspace too soon.

Now, the bot is happy, but several people seem convinced the subject can't be covered fairly. For those unfamiliar with the overall design of these articles, see User:Hcberkowitz#Iran and Iraq. You can see various drafts from that section; apparently, I have to be in better shape before moving to mainspace.

I'd like to get some precedent established that these sub-articles are intended to reduce rants currently on Iran-Iraq War, not to increase them. As you know, a similar sub-article technique helped reduce the sound and fury on the Central Intelligence Agency main page.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Howard,
I put a keep vote in.
Thanks,
Erxnmedia (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I didn't log in this weekend because I'm still trying to finish the last few chapters of Ghost Wars. The end of the Clinton presidency was marked by dithering: We were being taken for a ride by ISI, hoping against hope that the Taliban would be nice, and not supporting Massoud because he was a huge opium manufacturer. We knew OBL was at Tarnak Farms, but could not be arsed to drop a bomb on the place for any reason. The CT people at CIA were hugely frustrated, but were also something of a minority voice within CIA: Too much alarmism with not yet enough big incidents to justify the yelling; even the USS Cole bombing didn't alter priorities. Clinton's priorities had terrorism 4th or 5th on the priority list. Bush's incoming team had the same list. I'm not going to bother to type all that in to Wikipedia. I still have a big stack of books to read including the Chad histories (which don't really have that many CIA items). My approach to Wikipedia entries is to wait until I see a really motivating nugget that is the grain of something provocative. However I think I'm reaching provocative item overload so I'm getting a little jaded.

[edit] Folantin's and my talk page

FYI, he and I are exchanging some interesting ideas you might want to monitor.

Just from an editing standpoint, it's not too hard to merge the Soviet articles. Singapore is actually more of a writing challenge, since they appeared to support anyone who had money.

The U.S., and possibly a couple of other major powers (including some not yet written, such as China, but also Britain and perhaps West Germany) simply present a size concern on merging.

He, and a couple of other people, not involved in Iran-Iraq but with whom I've exchanged emails, are all appalled by the infobox issue. Folantin said he'd get rid of all userboxes, because they often create POV battles even on something as seemingly straightforward as classical music.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Howard,
I've been following it, and have added my 2 cents here (scroll down to see my comments): Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Soviet support for Iran during the Iran-Iraq war
Also I added links to your two articles to his article as The Soviet Union and the Iran-Iraq War#See also.
Thirdly, to complete the suite, following comment towards bottom of Soviet support for Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, articles are needed for support to Iran/Iraq for China, North Korea, Pakistan, Israel, Argentina, Brazil, West Germany, East Germany, and Taiwan.
Thanks,
Erxnmedia (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I moved your table to the main article talk page, since there's active discussion, broader than the speedy deletion proposal, about the best way to handle things. That table may not represent the final approach. I also deleted what was either a copy-and-paste error or a possible placeholder toward Iran.
More countries, in any case, are likely to be involved.
Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
No, those weren't copy-and-paste errors. They said "See Soviet Iran" because at the tail end of Soviet Iran you mention those countries providing technical assistance, and there weren't separate articles available for those countries in main space.
Thanks,
Erxnmedia (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I really wish you had asked me before you did that, and perhaps we could have come up with more accurate wording. If I had felt that table was ready for mainspace, I would have put it there.
It was my mistake to put the Soviet support to Iran in mainspace, and I'm trying to mitigate the consequences. I ask only that there be coordinated efforts to build on it. While I agree any mainspace article is fair game for editing, and there's no hard and fast rule about a second party putting userspace or talk page material into main articles, I suggest that it's well to check, because the author(s) of the material might be attempting to get it to what they consider mainspace quality. This isn't inclusionism; it's deciding something for the authors.
If you are feeling a sense of irony, you might be amused by something that recently arrived on my user talk page.
Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)