Talk:Opposition to the Iraq War

Egregious POV pushing 1

Here are several examples of extreme POV pushing by user Trackerwiki:

Although the campaign with its unprecedentedly low casualty rates is considered the model of modern counterinsurgency...

Low casualty rates? Patently absurd. And considered a model of modern counterinsurgency by whom exactly? No source is provided. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

When this first came up some time ago I also thought it ridiculous in light of the fashionable media consensus. But ever since I was trounced on the numbers in a recent debate I've been unable to easily dismiss this analysis. The media apparently have not conveyed to us the full picture. Dunnigan's site is one of the more accessible. (url=http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20090531.aspx) Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

[I]nternational organizations like the U.N. have hailed the Coalition for liberating the Iraqi people from a totalitarian regime which "preyed on the Iraqi people and committed shocking, systematic and criminal violations of human rights".

The UN did not hail "the coalition" for liberating Iraq. The source does not support this statement. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3776765.stm)(http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/08/un.iraq/index.html) As the UNSC enthusiastically welcomed the removal of Saddam government and its abuses as well as approved the resolution reestablishing existing Coalition arrangements under the new MNF mandate, and as the holdout Permanents were expressing solidarity and standing with the Coalition leaders - as the favorable outcomes being lauded were contingent on the Coalition's actions then it seemed reasonable to assume that this entity was also being lauded for effecting these. No more and no less. I'm amenable to a change in wording, perhaps "welcomed" or "supported"?--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The BBC source quotes the office of the UN Human Rights commissioner welcoming the removal of Saddam's government, but also says that the coalition forces have committed human rights violations. Mentioning just one half gives a different impression. The CNN article is solely about the UN deciding what should be done in Iraq a year after the invasion - it doesn't contain any judgement either way of the initial invasion, as far as I can see. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"Supported" then?--Trackerwiki (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that whether we use the word 'hail', 'welcome' or 'support' it would give a distinctly one-sided view of what the source is saying about human rights violations. Olaf Davis (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will add that this particular Coalition aim by extension is welcome and even commendable on its meritable outcome, but explicitly only on this merit, and that the other aims are subject to different conclusions (particularly if the outcomes are not fully achieved or different from that desired.)--Trackerwiki (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagreement within the anti-war movement as to whether the cause of armed insurgents within Iraq is worth supporting did lessen considerably as the anti-Western values and brutal and criminal methods of the insurgents became too pronounced over time to ignore.

"Anti-Western values" is a lazy generalisation; also unsupported. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the most accurate description would be "consanguinous tribal culture of values". Might fall afoul of the PC police, though, and even if anthropologically acceptable it's too long a term. Perhaps "anti-modern" values?--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

We should aim to use phrases which reliable sources use. The sentence in question is in the lede and uncited (which is fine) - the bit it seems to be summarising is the last paragraph of the "Support for Iraqi resistance and insurgency" section. This in turn is cited to this BBC article. That article doesn't say anything about disagreement within the anti-war movement, or explicitly refer to anti-Western, anti-modern or tribal values. It just says that Amnesty condemned the insurgents, which gives us no information about the anti-war movement in general. Let me know if I've missed another section of the article, though. Olaf Davis

(talk) 21:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, the breakdown of support for the insurgency's aims and methods began once the consensus media story became one of the UN trying to modernize Iraq against the efforts of the insurgents to resist this unprecedented revolution in pan-Arabic affairs. Should have posted these links alongside as a record of the observed shaping of public responses against terrorist outrages, highlighting atrocities in contrast against political or security milestones.(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3528905.stm, (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/feb/02/20050202-123527-1015r/?page=2), (http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=16686)--Trackerwiki (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

But none of these sources is really about the insurgents' methods putting an end to the debate about supporting them in the anti-war movement. The BBC one is about the Middle-Eastern press, and the other two are mainly about the elections. I don't see that any of them really support the quoted passage from the lede, or the bit which it's summarising in the main article. Olaf Davis (talk) 07:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I see. The problem is that outside of opinion pieces and general surveys it is hard to locate articles which showcase a fall-off in oppositionist sympathy for the insurgency on the basis of its criminal behaviors and anti-modern aims. What we see instead is a historical fall-off in relevant article counts, a general lack of attention and deepening silence on this issue (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/15/business/media/15apee.html?ei=5090&en=4a4f32424faa6ab5&ex=1281758400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print), (http://articles.latimes.com/2005/nov/23/opinion/oe-boot23) - (Like McAllister-Linn, Boot's expertise is on small wars like the Phil-American war, its history is extremely enlightening for it exhibits many parallels in rationales, contingency, strategy, methods, public opposition, and outcomes). Domestic focus aside, the fall-off in coverage is likely due to lack of audience (in particular oppositionist audiences) and thus media interest in the nature of the fight in terms of identifying for against one side or the other. The default partisan takeaway was that given the legitimacy conferred by the U.N. mandate and Iraq's democratic electoral politics, and given how unpalatable the insurgency's aims and methods turned out to be in comparison to those of the Coalition forces, the opposition lost interest in finding ways to lend ideological cover to Iraq's insurgency as a means of politically countering the Coalition message in general, U.S. aims in particular, and specifically the credibility of the administration.--Trackerwiki (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The closest on the transformative shifts in attitudes on the ground are found in articles which directly illustrate, on the ground, how so many insurgents have managed to alienate the majority of Iraqis with their indiscrimnate and predatory behavior to civilians (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_18_59/ai_n27386002/pg_2/?tag=content;col1).--Trackerwiki (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

From there it's possible to extrapolate that anyone who subscribes to Western norms of human rights and civility would have sympathy with the plight of Iraqis suffering in the hands of the more brutal insurgents. My POV is this should be the case, since to offer otherwise would slippery lead to the usual inaccurate partisan suspicion, that many in opposition are far too motivated by reflexive ideology to reserve some sympathy for the plight of preyed-on Iraqi civilians, to the point of ignoring instead of sharing their abhorrence for the insurgency's criminal behaviors. Such suspicions serve no purpose and will likely be unfair in most cases.--Trackerwiki (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Found some attribution on the souring of naysayer sentiments towards the isurgents' methods and aims although it's nowhere near in-depth.(http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010592) "...Here in the United States, the vast moral chasm that so clearly separates the combatants in Iraq is too rarely discussed. Disillusion with the entire effort has obscured and in some cases mutated the truth that small numbers of evil men tilt entire populations..." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3812411.stm)Evolving tactics of Islamic militants. Sites like Dunnigan have more in-depth analyses on the phenomenon from surveys drawn by independent media and the military.--Trackerwiki (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the dearth of stories on a souring of the professional anti-US/anti-war orgs on the methods and aims of Iraqi insurgents, I've come to conclusion that this argument should point to the world publics' general rejection of the Iraq insurgency instead. The existing articles on disagreements in the hardcore regarding unacceptable recidivism in the Iraq insurgency stand on their own for now.--Trackerwiki (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Egregious POV pushing 2

Iraq's government and its Palestinian allies were the grouping most vocally opposed to the invasion, as there was little chance the Sunni-minority regime would be able to withstand the military might of the US and its coalitional allies.

France, Germany, Russia (etc.) opposed the invasion. Palestinians too. Who says the latter were "the grouping most vocally opposed to the invasion"? Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

They were the most vocal early on, which is why it was moved under "Early opposition". Once the intent and the capacity of the Coalition became clearer, more movements joined in for many reasons, to lend their voices in opposition. Interestingly, the tone gradually changed to one of a dilute "anti-US/anti-Globalization" agenda from the earlier focused "contra-Western/contra-UNSC" agenda pursued by the main body of opposition vested in Iraq and its allies.--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? From my memory I'd say opponents in Western countries were far more vocal, but of course we can't cite my memory! Olaf Davis (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

From my POV, pre-war opposition from Saddam's Iraq is most usefully viewed in the deep context of a historical continuum starting from the 1998 airstrikes supporting UNSCOM inspections through 9/11, which Presidents Clinton and Bush acknowledge changed all geopolitical paradigms. In contrast, most anti-US campaigns focused mainly on the theme of U.N. sanctions killing Iraqi innocents (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/17/gulf.war/), until the President's landmark 2001 speech before the U.N. emboldened the professional anti-US movements and associated foreign sponsors on the prospect of countering the coming wave of U.S. actions. Thus (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/02/17/arraf.debrief/index.html), (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/16/iraq.aziz/) --Trackerwiki (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Prior to the war, the major intelligence agencies all failed to realize that Iraq's forces did not have operational WMDs

What is the source for this statement? The leaders of France, Russia and Germany all said they had no proof of WMD. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The post-war [ISG] survey outcome discredited the pre-war WMD threat consensus of all major intelligence agencies

There was no consensus. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Attribution - (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3442313.stm) "...Britain's intelligence service, the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), still maintain that most of the information that went into the Iraq dossier of September 2002 was correct at the time, including the claim that Saddam had actual WMD... ...It should be noted that this was a view shared by many countries at the time, including some of those that opposed the war such as France and Germany, a fact that was pointed out this week by David Kay himself... ...But "we probably all got it wrong," he said..."--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is a transcript from the BBC's premiere current affairs program Panorama, "A Failure of Intelligence", which first quotes Vladimir Putin ("Russia has no trustworthy data to support claims that Iraq possesses either nuclear or any other weapons of mass destruction") and Tony Blair's reply (Well there may be different perspectives on how sure we can be about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction but there's one certain way to find out") [1] A second BBC program also documents how both France and Germany disagreed with the Intelligence assessment of Britain and the United States. [2] Given these primary and secondary sources, it is simply wrong to claim there was a consensus. Dynablaster (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Point taken about Russia SVD not being in the pre-war consensus. Kay and the others were referring to a consensus among involved allied spy agencies and my post should have been clearer on this. The Germans were quite worried about blowback, especially given their historical baggage (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/03/25/020325fa_FACT1?currentPage=all)...“It is our estimate that Iraq will have an atomic bomb in three years,” he said.... --Trackerwiki (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately for U.K. PM Blair [...] this was only discovered after post-war investigation confirmed the massive intelligence failure.

This is POV pushing. Pure and simple. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If it is, it's not my 'egregious POV pushing': (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3778987.stm) "Weapons of mass destruction do not exist in Iraq and it is "delusional" to think they will be found, says former chief US weapons inspector David Kay. Mr Kay told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that British and American leaders should simply apologise and admit that they were wrong..."--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's unfair in particular to former U.K. PM Blair, whose briefings were from U.K. spy agencies, which like their international peers all strive to maintain intelligence sources independent of the Americans. AFAIK the MI6 still asserts that they have independent verification of the Niger materials case which stands on its own merits, apart from the flawed reporting from Italy and the misguided attempts of Wilson. US President Bush OTOH had little more than Wilson at that point publicly, to his misfortune. The British apparently had the deeper Iraqi sources, even though these sources were misled by Saddam's opaque behavior. Thus the causative incredible intelligence failure and the resultant unfortunate political illusions.--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

But for geopolitical reasons Saddam could not allow his hostile neighbors, in particular Iraq's long-time enemy Iran, to discover how weak his army was in this respect.

Presumably the point being made is that Saddam tricked the unfortunate Mr Blair into invading Iraq. That is but one (contested) point of view. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The other contested view is that the Iranians, subtle players they are, "managed" Chalabi's INC into manipulating the US into doing the dirty work of getting rid of their bane while shaping Iraq into an arena favoring influence from Tehran. But for that view in the shadows there are even less sources available publicly.--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The Duelfer conclusions support interrogator reports that Saddam Hussein did not want the Iranians to know his army lacked WMD defenses. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duelfer_Report#Duelfer_Report)--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Iran was Iraq's pre-eminent motivator.
• The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judged that events (involving Iran) in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam’s belief in the value of WMD.

Hussein always rejected accusations that the Iraqi government played a part in the 9/11 attack [...] although the presence in Iraq of terrorist groups and the contrary assertions of prominent foreign leaders like Russia's Putin show otherwise.

Saddam was behind 9/11. What rot! Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

But agreed, are we not? This was obvious well before the invasion. Which is likely why the Coalition pitched it as a move to disarm an imminent threat rather than as a war of retribution against past aggression. The Coalition was aiming to preempt a future threat, not respond to a past attack. Ironically, U.S. investigators believe that Saddam had likely "played it straight" towards the end with regards to Iraqi involvement in 911 and capacities for WMD, for whatever good it did him. OTOH, there still remains unresolved evidence that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein contemplated an association with al-Qaeda in the future: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2979405.stm)--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as to what your position here is, Trackerwiki. You say 'agreed, are we not?' to the idea that he wasn't behind the attacks but the sentence quoted from the article says he was. Which are you arguing for inclusion of? Olaf Davis (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that there is little if any proof that Saddam's regime was involved in the past in 9/11 attack, and the BBC article cites none. What the article does show, is that people in his regime did have meetings with al Qaeda and planned more of the same. Even if Saddam's regime at that point was not colluding with Al Qaeda planners on the latter's 9/11 operation, there was a budding association which in the future could have flowered into the dangerous kind of cooperation between rogue state and terror organization which Dr. Kay gave warning about.--Trackerwiki (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Could have, yes, though we have no evidence that it did. Do you want to suggest another wording for the passage, since (I think) we're agreed that the one quoted above is not supported? Olaf Davis (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, will separate the finding of non-linkage between Saddam and 911 from claims that his regime was harboring terrorists and independently planning to launch attacks on American assets and people worldwide. Known historical event vs. clear future danger. --Trackerwiki (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Saddam's key people believed they could rebuild the Army and re-arm with WMD once sanctions were lifted. ... [T]hus they sought the help of Iraq's former Russian mentors and other foreign leaders who could influence via the UN Oil-for-Food scheme. [...] To this end saddam's agents (sic) and those of friendly states such as Russia sought the services and cooperation of disaffected Westerners to support the professional anti-war opposition.

Are you now trying to smear the anti-war movement? Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily, if you would put good faith in my intentions. I believe the various anti-war groups can each serve a purpose, some useful, some not. But for whom and what, it's not easy to determine in every case. For example, there exists a popular global consensus for a worldwide ban of the use of mines stemming from informed opposition to the tragic historical record of these weapons, yet both South Korea and its U.S. guarantor have understandable reasons for disagreement. So did certain frontline NATO members in the 1950s-1980s, when Europe faced the threat of overwhelming Soviet Bloc invasion.--Trackerwiki (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Not all antiwar bodies of opposition are so clearly viewed with so little dispute on the terms. Iraq is a minefield of misunderstandings. It's a bag of conflicted and disputed frameworks of justification. It would be relatively easy for you grab something out of that bag and ascribe by association a "smear all" to anything I might post on any one particular group which expounds on links it may have with some perjorative of a regime.--Trackerwiki (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

British MP George Galloway in particular [...] was covertly rewarded for his spirited use of legal warfare in opposition against both the U.K. and U.S. over the Iraq War and other issues.

This is disputed. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

By Galloway mostly - but naturally. The broader, deeper context provided shows there is reason to believe his loyalty does not lie mainly with the U.K. and its interests. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1862579.stm)"Bin Laden connected to London dissident"--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

We can't make that inference ourselves, though. Neither this source nor the one you quoted in the article specifically say that he was 'covertly rewarded' so we can't say that either. That's true in general but especially where WP:BLP applies. Olaf Davis (talk) 07:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"illicit payment" is the preferred wording of the bbc in describing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4382820.stm) how beneficiaries indirectly benefited. "conceal payments" is the preferred wording of the The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1069509.ece). "complicit in the concealment" is the wording in the UK parliamentary investigation's record of Conclusions: (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmstnprv/909/90904.htm#note127). Will re-word according to the conclusions reached separately by the U.N., the U.S. Senate, and the U.K. parliament. --Trackerwiki (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This type of opposition to the war manifested itself most visibly in a series of global protests against the Iraq War during February 2003, just before the Iraq invasion starting on March 20, 2003.

"This type of opposition"? Good grief. The anti-war movement was in the pay of Saddam Hussein! Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not all obviously, and Saddam Hussein's agents were not the only ones doing so, but a percentage of such movements are invariably funded and/or directed in the service of foreign interests alien to those of the U.S. and its Coalition allies. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7315752.stm)"US charges man 'on Saddam's pay'" It's in the nature of modern state-state "conflicts other than war", just look at the partisan history of the peaceful Olympics, for example. Not that such denatured movements would constitute the majority of voices, for there was much genuine international opposition to the Coalition's aims and methods. Historically, every major conflict entered into by the U.S. from the civil war onwards was accompanied by broad and diverse domestic and foreign opposition.--Trackerwiki (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The anti-war movements should look out more for themselves. Most movements and even NGOs are too easily co-opted by non-charter interests to serve fully or partly as others' duped proxies. Even the oldest, most famous NGOs are not immune to this corruption, and I speak from personal experience (sorry, no cites for now while the issue's ongoing.). The prominent historical example was when some movements were identified as manipulated into supporting Soviet aims during the 1980s Euro missile controversy, under the influence and even direction of agents maintained by various communist bloc agencies, as revealed by various communist agents Sergei Tretyakov, Stanislav Lunev, and in other sources like the Mitrokhin trove. Active measures--Trackerwiki (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

[R]egimes such as North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela opposed the war because it sets a precedent for the dominant Western powers to target such "pariah" regimes with little recourse to the Westphalian checks of the U.N. (sic)

Do I really need to explain the problem with this sentence? Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, maybe this should be reworded for more accuracy. If you meant it should say (maybe) "Western UNSC Permanents" in place of "Western powers'?--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just looked at the source given for this. It does talk about those countries being worried about dominant Western powers - well, the US - but crucially it says nothing at all about Iraq! We can talk about rewording it once we have a source, but currently we don't seem to have a relevant one. Olaf Davis (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This banding together of the usual suspects is manifestly due to current Western and particularly U.S. policies and behaviors treating them as pariahs(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5205770.stm). Both Syria and Libya retreated from the arena and the later redeemed itself with the West. It's old news for North Korea, Cuba, and Iran and emergently in the case of Venezuela.(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1975588.stm)--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

But still, neither of those sources supports the statement "[R]egimes such as North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela opposed the war because it sets a precedent...". No amount of demonstration that they're 'pariahs', or that they're banded together either by the U.S. or their own actions, will imply that without a source that specifically states it. Olaf Davis (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

More "Egregious POV pushing"

Western marxist-progressives thinkers feared that the successful embrace of liberal-democratic modernization in yet another country would further weaken the millenarian movement in the modern global order.

Progressives fear liberal-democratic modernization? Here is a tip: when attempting to smear people, it would help if you understood your target audience. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a very diverse audience. If the stuff I posted appears as unfair or groundless commentary to any particular POV I'll review it accordingly.--Trackerwiki (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Their overarching need for a viable mythos to challenge the overwhelming narrative of the U.S.-dominated New World Order has led them to oppose most American policy and military actions, even if it means opposing U.S. actions which result in security or economic benefits for their own countries. The U.S. War on Terror, launched as a global initiative to tamp down the capacities of Islamist movements and to eventually demoralize their Caliphatist hardcore, is the current example.

The main marxist (progessive)- socialist strategy was to undermine the faith of Coalitional polities in their respective governances through aggressive use of the Cold-War informational strategies of forum-shaping of public debate and continuous legal hindrances, the idea being to sow doubt and confusion about their governments' standards of honesty, competence, and conduct as the war progresses. This course of affairs naturally suited the interests of irredentist hegemony-seeking state actors such as Russia, whose agents had a hand in initiating anti-Coalition protests worldwide.

It's all true. User Trackerwiki adduces an opinion piece from Ion Mihai Pacepa in the National Review to prove it! The same Ion Pacepa who claims Saddam is hiding WMD in Syria, and who also knows the identity of the person who ordered the assassination of JFK. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Syria has massive chemical WMD capability, and the final ISG report did not rule out the possibility that Iraqi WMDs were secreted there. Former Spy chief Pacepa was the highest-ranking communist intelligence officer to defect to the West and proved very valuable. For this reason alone he is worth listening to on comintern activities as he dealt in these things at the highest levels. Don't know what to believe about the Oliver Stone thingy, though.--Trackerwiki (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

But recent years have seen an erosion in [Cindy] Sheehan's popularity as icon of the antiwar, anti-American (sic) as details of her support for foreign dictators

Oh, I see. Foreign Dictators like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Autocrat may be a more apt description for Chavez instead of dictator. Unlike for the ailing Castro, who as incontestable "Presidente for Life" is literally just that.--Trackerwiki (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The popular President Obama has replaced Sheehan, Wright, [Michael] Moore, and other questionable figures as an apologetic symbol for the many on the left who wish for America's leading role in world affairs to be diminished

Say what?

This tidbit isn't salient, might as well remove it as anything-Obama is prone to be taken as POV anyway.--Trackerwiki (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

[Joseph C.] Wilson's haphazard work and dishonest claims were eventually discredited, the ensuing inquiries ensnared the Bush Administration in the long-run Plamegate scandal

The rest is the same. Egregious POV pushing. Please don't restore this stuff. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd also seen Tracerwiki's additions and found many of them somewhat questionable, though I hadn't done as detailed a review as Dynablaster. Tracerwiki, I too would be interested to see your responses to the points about verifiability above. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I make a request that if the above discussion is going to contain in-line replies, we put signatures at the end of each such reply? Otherwise it's likely to get very confusing who said what (and when). Olaf Davis (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Restored material

Most of the material removed by Dynablaster has now been restored. I don't think the above discussion established a consensus for it. A few examples:

• "Iraq's government and its Palestinian allies were the grouping most vocally opposed to the invasion" - this still has no citation, except to articles published before the U.S. was even talking about the invasion (early 2001).

Reworded to refer to Iraqi elites and allies being the earliest opposed to further, more aggressive UNSC mandate for disarmament (which is what the invasion was initiated on). This better fits with the historical view of opposition in support of continuation of the Iraqi regime as a continuum of events and outcomes along a timeline from 1998 going forward.--Trackerwiki (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I still can't see that the cited source, here, supports the sentecne "Iraq's governing elites and their Palestinian allies were the naturally the earliest and primary group opposed to further UNSC mandates for more aggressive disarmament, in particular a mandate authorizing an immediate invasion and disarmament which would obviously result in the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime." It doesn't mention any such mandate. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is a better cite: ..Iraqi Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmad, who as a general signed the cease-fire declaration with the U.S.-led (1991) coalition, told reporters on the steps of the war memorial on Saturday he wasn't expecting any less hostility from the United States... "What has changed? They are the same ones who fought us and those who are now in power were present during the aggression. For us it is not different," said Ahmad...(http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/06/iraq.hussein/). The regime saw hostile U.S. attitudes and policies towards it as little changed from since the mid-1990s. It and its allies vocally resisted any attempt at greater intervention by the UNSC Permanents towards enforcing UNSC disarmament mandates and toppling the Baathists, that is until terminal intervention in 2003 silenced Hussein's government. --Trackerwiki (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but what about the bit on Palestinians? Olaf Davis (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Anti-American regimes such as North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela opposed the war in part because its successful prosecution sets the precedent for the dominant Western UNSC Permanents to easily target such "pariah" regimes with little recourse to the Westphalian checks of the U.N" - this is cited to a source which says no such thing.

Am still searching for that CFR reference which specifically outlined this claim. Please wait for this, it's the view held by most in the diplomatic community anyway.--112.201.128.54 (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to wait, and to believe that it may well be the dominant view. Let's leave it out until you get the source, though. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've located a summary of the Council on Foreign Relations article I referred to but sad to say it well predates the Iraq War. Its point about the rogue states clustering together is valid but not with Iraq at the nexus. There's little publicly accessible to point to this view outside of books and diplomatic hearsay which I can't cite obviously. Will just have to retire this article for now.--Trackerwiki (talk) 15:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• "The presence in Iraq of terrorist groups and the announcements of prominent foreign leaders like Russia's Putin did point to a clear future threat, for Iraq was indeed harboring terrorists and likely planning independently of al-Qaeda to launch attacks on American assets and personnel worldwide" - the first half of this is cited to an article about a single terrorist being found in Iraq, hardly 'terrorist groups'. The bit about Putin has improved since it was discussed above, but I still think it's taking a very uncritical view from one comment by one of the many people who've expressed an opinion on the question and presenting it as fact.

I posted more cites on post-war findings of the terrorist threat presented by the former regime, which as secondary rationale for war was much better validated on the ground than the primary rationale that Saddam Hussein's regime presented an imminent WMD threat.--112.201.128.54 (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks - that source does much more to support the claim. However, on reading over it again I realise that that paragraph is pretty long, and isn't actually talking about opposition to the war at all. Perhaps most of it would be better suited at Criticism of the Iraq War, Views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq or perhaps somewhere else, with a briefer summary here. What do you think? Olaf Davis (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok will prune the verbiage--Trackerwiki (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• The claims about George Galloway are still not supported by the sources - no source says that he "was illicitly rewarded for his spirited legal opposition to U.S. and U.K. action in Iraq and for supporting the release of Saddam's regime from U.N. embargoes and disarmament mandates".

If you go over the references you will note that Galloway was specifically cited for deriving illicit gains via Iraqi manipulation of the Oil-for-Food program due to "his opinions". If you prefer an even more direct style of claim involving specific wording then I'll have to search for appropriate articles. To avoid current contention let's leave the cites off for now until the suitable write-ups turn up.

Update - I've found the investigative source documents attesting to Galloway's likely complicit involvement in illicit transactions as a result of oil allocations granted him by Saddam Hussein's government on the basis of his support for the regime. Still, I've fine-tuned the wording to fit within the narrowest reading of the citations while still retaining a measure of evaluative journalism.

Great, the newly added source does actually support the claim that he was rewarded for that reason. How about we add an 'according to a US Senate Report' or similar to make it clear who decided this, since the US Senate is hardly a neutral party in the incident. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, and will also add that Galloway still contests its accuracy.--Trackerwiki (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Good thinking. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line is that a very large proportion of the material makes statements which are simply not to be found in the sources. We can't draw inferences of the type "Cube and Venezuela are friendly and dislike the U.S. so they must have opposed the war because of precedent about 'pariah' regimes": either we have a source which says exactly that or we don't say it. The same goes for almost all of the recent additions which I've investigated the sourcing for in detail; some I haven't dug into.

I've removed the Galloway bit per WP:BLP. I'm not removing the rest at the moment, but please try to provide sources which directly support the claims in the article. Thanks. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I, too, remain concerned. We need to take things slowly. These changes remain controversial and so, in order to give editors a chance to evaluate neutrality, it is better to make small edits to the article, allowing for input and improvement. Dynablaster (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The article needed to be updated with more current opposition issues, in particular the incapacity or incompetence of Coalition leaders and agencies during the post-war period in uplifting Iraq and its peoples into a stable national polity. Wholesale additions were needed to impart historicity to many of the prior claims and concepts here, outcomes had to be evaluated against stated aims and methods from six years ago. I would have added much more on this sub-issue if I didn't have to focus on constantly answering objections --Trackerwiki (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You've removed all my contributions yet again. Please state your censorial concerns alongside each specific article posted and I will see how each of these can be reworded or re-evaluated in light of the objections.--Trackerwiki (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Dynablaster has removed the entirety of my contributions twice on the basis of a few errors and misinterpretations. Update - Dynablaster has now removed all my contributions yet a third time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracerwiki (talk • contribs) I've taken the liberty of moving this comment here - I hope you don't mind, but leaving a reply in the middle of a paragraph makes things very confusing. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe some of Dynablaster's concerns were errors and misinterpretations. If so, then since I made those same errors it seems that the material could benefit from a little clarification so the reader doesn't make them too. But a lot of our objections are to do with material which is unsourced. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have politely asked Tracerwiki to proceed slowly, making just a few edits each day, thereby allowing editors time to review the changes (s)he wish to make. This is the best way to move forward when material is disputed. Dynablaster (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok Dynablaster, am retracing my contributions by re-adding a few articles at a time to your last redo, starting with additions to the lead. Please review these and the associated cites for I will re-evaluate in light of your comments.--Trackerwiki (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

More material

Another of Trackerwiki's additions is:

Iran's government was unique in that its theocratic regime publicly opposed the war but covertly encouraged Coalition efforts along with the majority of the Iranian people, many of whom hoped the Coalition would next liberate Iran after Iraq.

This is sourced to an opinion piece - I think we need much more than that to make such claims about 'the majority of the Iranian people'. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

OK will look for better reference, although the opinion of the Iranian majority is not that salient and I'll remove it for now.

Ok, thanks. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Found more supportive references but will still need to re-word it into "many pro-Western Iranian hoped for U.S. interventions leading to freedom".--Trackerwiki (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

And this:

Geopolitical and legal rationales for the continuation of Saddam's neototalitarian regime, which favored its Sunni minorities provided the main grounds for foreign opposition to invasion, as the moral rationale for it's continuation was weak

(Emphasis added) I certainly don't think we can say the moral rationale was weak. We can talk about who thought it was - many people did but many people didn't - but that requires sources, of which there are currently none. But even then it's not the encyclopedia's place to say what is or isn't a good moral argument. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Will re-word accordingly. Perhaps 'regional morale' is a better term than 'moral rationale' to describe the enthusiastic support which the Coalition manifestly enjoyed among Iraq's neighbors, in particular Kuwait, Israel, Jordan, the Trucials, and Iran, and particularly among the Kurds and other minority northern peoples of Iraq.--Trackerwiki (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Slow additions

I'm glad we seem to have agreement on the 'slow additions' policy. Shall we all discuss them below and wait to reach consensus before making any other changes to the article? Hopefully that can save us from too many more reverts. Now, the first addition:

Iran was unique in that its theocratic regime publicly opposed the war while the mostly pro-U.S. Iranian public [1], innured to years of failings of despotic clergy, quietly welcomed Coalition efforts [2] and hoped that American interventions would lead to freedom in Iran [3][4][5].

• I think this material would be more appropriate in the article body than the lede.

ok

• Could you tell us which page in "Iranian Public Opinion on the Nuclear Program" supports the 'mostly pro-U.S.' bit, please?

Under the heading "Opportunity for the International Community",

...even though Iranians at large are suspicious of the United States, they are not fundamentally anti-American. In fact, American symbols are popular with Iranians at large, and most people have been supportive of a U.S.-Iran dialogue and the establishment of relations...--Trackerwiki (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think 'despotic clergy' is a bit strong - how about 'discontent with the clergy'?

The term has been used in Fahrenheit story "Tehran’s despots", but if you insist --Trackerwiki (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• The NYT source is an opinion piece, which I don't think we should cite.

Perhaps, but IIRC it is one of the most cited by opponents of intervention in Iran--Trackerwiki (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• The other sources aren't talking about the Iraq invasion in particular. We could get away with saying "many Iranians support U.S. presence in the Middle East" but "quietly welcomed Coalition efforts" is definitely a statement about this war in particular, which unless I've missed something the sources don't support.

Ok, quietly support U.S. presence in Middle East and South Asia will do--Trackerwiki (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Olaf Davis (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As of 2009, widespread sentiment for ending the war on advantageous terms ensured enough support for the 2006-2007 Surge strategy to see it through. [6] The security and stability gains sustained Iraq's ongoing economic boom as the Iraqi government took over security and governance duties all over Iraq. [7] Although the campaign with its unprecedentedly low casualty rates is considered the model of modern counterinsurgency, the success came at a steep cost in material expenditures and worldwide US force availability which severely limited US options for intervention elsewhere. Despite large drawdowns, sizeable US-MNF forces must remain to secure the fragile gains achieved for the foreseable future. [8]

• My concern with this is that it isn't about opposition to the war. It would be at home in Views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq or Iraq war, but this article (and certainly its lede) doesn't need to list tangentially connected things like the fact that Iraq had an economic boom. I haven't looked at the sources for this paragraph in detail. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Iranian position is a synthesis of different opinion pieces. WP:SYN We require a neutral source which directly addresses the topic if any this material is going to stay. Dynablaster (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

- Iraq's political and economic gains may seem tangential but these impact both the reason for and the results of the Surge, which in turn was the real issue as it strained US Army forces availability to near breaking point. A major conflict elsewhere would have caught the army dangerously short of warfighting resources. In the opinion of many experts, Iraq's geopolitical status at that point did not warrant the greater risk. A return to a focus on serving U.S. interests rather than those of Iraq's would have called for the opposite strategy, which was to advance the timetable for withdrawing Coalition forces following full-scale "Iraqification" of the conflict. Perhaps this belongs in an "opposition to the Surge" department, but for now I'm trying to update the entire article with timely stuff like this. In any case, will move the detailed arguments for/against the Surge off the lede. --Trackerwiki (talk) 05:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

- Will source more direct Iran cites, but please understand that reliable, official reporting in Iran on pro-Western sentiment is almost as scarce as reliable, official reporting was on the same within the Soviet Bloc prior to its breakup.

Which fact did not preclude supposedly "anecdotal stories" from before the downfall of the Soviet Bloc - stories which revealed the broad depth of anti-communist, pro-Western sentiment among Eastern Europeans in the 1980s - scooping scarce "official reporting" on the character and aims of the freedom movements which unexpectedly brought down the Iron Curtain. Like the failed Soviet empire, the failing Iranian theocracy likes neither Western media nor uncontrolled surveys conducted by same. And so both are not easy to come by packaged together. The Tarrance study is probably as good as it gets data-wise, especially given the ongoing clerical crackdowns on dissident Iranian leaders and public. If Iran's influence wasn't so important in Iraq this wouldn't have mattered. Still, I do have a reference to expert BBC analysis, but I've cited the BBC enough already. --Trackerwiki (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)