Talk:CIA sponsored regime change

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cold War Wiki Project CIA sponsored regime change is part of the Cold War WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Cold War on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to the people, places, things, and events, and anything else associated with the Cold War. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
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.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 3 Jan. 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Archive
Archives
  • /Archive 1 (January 2007 – December 2007)
  • /Archive 2


Contents

[edit] Venezuela 2007

I am removing the "dubious" and "neutrality disputed" tags from the Venezuela 2007 section. The tags refer to this page for discussion and argument. However, the editor has posted no sources in support of his/her criticism. The section cites a reliable source for the section per WP rules. If there is a reliable source that disputes this, let's have it. If the US gov't denies, let's see it. Without sources, there is no basis for doubting this story. In fact, the thrust of the story is consistent with 50+ years of US Latin American policy and the general hostility with which the US has treated Venezuela since Chavez was overwhelmingly elected (and re-elected, and re-elected again).--NYCJosh 00:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If someone believes a source is possibly problematic, that issue should be raised here before the article is mucked up. For the Venezuela 2007 section, one of the sources is Counterpunch, a periodical edited by veteran American and British journalists who have published in a wide array of US, UK and other newspapers and journals. See WP article Counterpunch. The author of this article, James Petras, is a former social science professor at a university in the US who researched Latin America for decades and has written numerous books and articles on the subject.--NYCJosh (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what about nazi germany and imperial japan

this article seems to only relate to regime chages that are bad for america —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.36.133 (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is about covert actions. WWII wasn't covert. -- kenb215 talk 21:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
How are they covert if we know about them? There were actions in Japan and Germany (and China) before the U.S. entered the war that were covert. --DHeyward (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You may wish to refer to WP article on covert action and other related articles (e.g. whistleblower, national security archive, declassification etc.) for an answer to your query. This page is not the forum for asking general questions of this type. With regard to your assertion of US covert action against Japan or Germany prior to entry of US into WWII, you are welcome to add material from reliable sources.--NYCJosh (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I changed the name back to CIA covert regime changes, to avoid this confusion.
If there is going to be a relatively emotional term such as "regime change", I believe it should cover the overt actions that did not have a declaration of war, not that anyone has often declared war since 1941 (what was Noriega thinking?). These actions tend to fall through the cracks, if one focuses on covert action, not having a comprehensive picture of US foreign policy anywhere.
There are also situations, such as Vietnam, where there were both extensive overt and covert actions. The Korean War and Iraq 1990-1991 are somewhat special cases, since they were, to varying extents, under UN authority, and they were mostly overt. In both, there certainly were covert actions, but they were in support of military operations. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

Today I removed the penultimate parag of the intro for the following reasons: For example the historian Spencer R. Weart has argued that coups against democracies supported by the US occurred against regimes correctly or incorrectly perceived, at the time, as nondemocracies, such as Communist dictatorships, or turning into such.[1]

This sentence is internally inconsistent. It states, as I understand it, that "democracies suppoted by the US" were then toppled by coups because they were incorrectly seen as non-democracies. If they were supported by the US, why would the US try to overthrow them through regime change?
On the other hand, if the sentence means that the US supported coups against democracies because the US misperceived the target countries as non-democtratic, then this is a POV source and must be balanced by the views of other historians that US foreign policy in Latin America, the Middle East and the developing world generally was either (1) unconcerned with democratic governance, or (2) tended to favor right-wing authoritarian rule because it guaranteed a gov't with policies the US desired.
The last alternative is correct. Add opposing sources if you can find them. There is no policy justification for deleting sourced material until the time someone may find an opposing source.Ultramarine (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
In that case it should be fixed to make more readable.--NYCJosh (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, fixed.Ultramarine (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Halperin et al. propose that one reason for the support, by the US and other Western nations, for certain right-wing dictatorships is that it is rare for democracy to exist in nations with low economic development.

This sentence discusses SUPPORT for certain regimes by the US. It is therefore irrelevant to this article, which focuses on US regime CHANGE. Also, there is an OR issue because the source provides no CONNECTION between US reasons for the coups and US desire for economic growth in the target countries. I.e. A discussion of economic growth under democratic or autocratic governments is irrelevant, unless a source states that the US undertook to overthrow a democracy in order to promote economic growth in the target country.
The article discusses US support for dictatorships and therefore all sides of this should be presented.Ultramarine (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Portions of the article might mention US support for various regimes, but that does not call for this discussion in the intro. It is confusing. Also, the OR issue was not addressed.--NYCJosh (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
We can rename the section if you prefer and have a more general discussion. Feel free to add sourced material that this is part of a global capitalist conspiracy etc. Ultramarine (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I's sorry, was that supposed to be responsive to my two criticisms of the sentence? --NYCJosh (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that your basic view is that this should simply be a list of incidents. My view is that we should also discuss this more generally, general reasons for why these happened and arguments for and against. This must also mention why the US have often supported dictatorships. Again, we do not to have this discussion in the intro, we can have it in another section.Ultramarine (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
If you would like to create an article on US support for right-wing authoritarian regimes, I will support you and will support this kind of discussion in the intro for that article. This is a different article and, not surprisingly, my view is that an article about covert regime change should have an intro that discusses that, not US support for existing regimes. We could have an intro that is 50 pages long, covering many RELATED topics (e.g. history of covert operations, history and mission of the CIA, comparative perspective of how other Western powers have orchestrated regime change, theoretical discussion of liberal democracy vs. socialism v. fascism as it relates to support or opposition to democratic governments, etc. etc.,) but we have to keep the intro of reasonable length and therefore on point.
Also, you have not addressed the OR issue I raised above.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
No response received to major objections to text in controversy. I will soon remove.--NYCJosh (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
No more OR than your claim that there is "on-going" policy of regime change. Nothing in my sources state they only apply to established dictatorships, they apply to new or established.Ultramarine (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
First sentence is irrelevant because even if true, two wrongs don't make it right. Second sentence is not responsive to regime CHANGE issue.--NYCJosh (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In these nations, the poor population without a middle class would vote for populist politics that would eventually fail, causing disappointment, and a return to dictatorship or even violent internal conflict. This, supporting a dictatorship that promotes economic growth and creates a solid middle class have often been seen as the best option available, anticipating that this will eventually lead to democratization.

This sentence is OR. There is no support in the source for any CONNECTION between a US-sponsored coup against a democratic gov't and the perceived promotion of economic growth for the target country. It is also irrelevant, since, as discussed, this article is about regime CHANGE by the US, not US support for authoritarian regimes.
Same source as above and same argument.Ultramarine (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

However, this view has been challenged recently by arguing that research shows that poor democracies perform better, including also on economic growth if excluding East Asia, than poor dictatorships.[1] Right-wing dictatorships in nations such as Portugal, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Chile, Brazil, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, and Indonesia eventually became democracies. Another point is that the when comparing the supported right-wing dictatorships with opposing left-wing dictatorshps, the latter were much worse if counting for example numbers killed.[2].

Irrelevant per above.--NYCJosh (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, all sides of the issue should be discussed.Ultramarine (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


Today I removed the following section from the intro: The National Endowment for Democracy states that a "misleading equation has been taken up by authoritarian rulers to deny the legitimacy of democracy assistance and to portray these efforts as an instrument of foreign policy designed to undermine US adversaries. NED's position has always been that regime change and democracy assistance are not synonymous. Democracy assistance does not actively promote domestic policy agendas or champion opposition forces. Achieving democracy is the purpose of democracy assistance groups' efforts, and the fall or removal of a non-democratic regime does not automatically produce democracy as an outcome. The replacement of Batista by Castro or the Shah by Khomeini makes that clear. Democracy assistance focuses not on determining short term or partisan outcomes in the sense of changing regimes or backing certain parties or candidates in elections. The outcomes we work toward are those of strengthening democracy, safeguarding human rights and enhancing democratic institutions, practices and culture. So our objective is not regime change per se. To be sure, ending a dictatorship can provide the space and opportunity for people to build democracy, but that is a long-term and arduous task, entailing a process of work, learning, and the cultivation of civic values and institutions of governance that enable pluralist societies to resolve differences through peaceful means."[3]

This seems to be the NED's position about its "democracy promotion" efforts. According to the NED's position, such efforts are NOT synonomous with regime change, and the NED's objectives are NOT "regime change per se." Thus this material seems irrelevant to this article, which IS about regime chage. In addition, even if it were relevant, this material is way too long--undue weight issue.--NYCJosh (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Not irrelevant, since it clarifies the issue and mentions regime change. How is one paragraph too long, when we are for example quoting numerous paragraphs from some dubious Venezuela claim? Ultramarine (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
What issue does it clarify?--NYCJosh (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The difference between regime change and democracy promotion which is commonly mistaken.Ultramarine (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It provides NO additional information about regime change. It just says that NED "democracy prootion" is not regime change per se. Basically, it is the NED defending its work. You have cited no reliable source alleging that the NED's work constitutes RC, so the NED denials are irrelevant to this article. If you want to propose adding material that states that NED supported action x which SOMEONE noteworthy states IS RC but the NED states is "democracy promotion" but not RC, then that might be relevant. (In that case, it might be more appropriate to include it in the relevant section of the article, not the Intro.)--NYCJosh (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
NED is allowed to express its view, as are the socialist webpages whose allegations are so frequently cited in this article. Obviously more clearly defining what RC is adds to the article.Ultramarine (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
NED is allowed to express its views. The issue is whether they are relevant to this article. Reasserting that the NED material "more clearly" defines RC does not make it so. See my comments above. Try substantive responses not re-asserting of your conclusions and labelling websites.--NYCJosh (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV material

"According to various sources,[4] [5] [6] the United States of America government has an established practice of forcibly overthrowing or trying to overthrow foreign governments perceived as hostile, directly or indirectly, and replacing them with new ones, a practice that has recently become known as regime change.[7] [8] [9] [10]It has been noted that governments targeted by the U.S. have included democratically-elected governments, thus the target "regimes" are not necessarily authoritarian governments or juntas, but in some cases are replaced by such dictatorships."

Presents dubious claims from dubous sources as undisputed facts, in particular the implication that this is a current policy.Ultramarine (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Several editors have expressed frustration because they feel you are wasting their time. This is a good example. If you have an issue with a source, name it. If you have evidence that the "current" policy (define "current"--since Bush II, since Clinton, Eisenhower. ?--when did the policy change, who changed it and why?), provide it. Otherwise, you are wasting our time. Please state your objection with reference to a WP rule. Otherwise, we don't care.--NYCJosh (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
You are making the claim, you have to provide the source. Which one make the claim regarding "established practice"? These sources just list specific instances, not that this is an "established practice", which seem to be an OR synthesis.Ultramarine (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Please decide what your objection is. You now seem to be objecting to the wording of the sentence, not its basic content.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I have not objected to including sourced views with proper attribution. If you do not object to current version which have removed "established practice", then there is no problem.Ultramarine (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I have changed it to "on-going history." That there is a "history" is not subject to serious dispute as the many sources in the article will attest. That it is "on-going" is necessary to avoid the connotation that it is "merely" history. This is supported by the many sources in the "recent claims" section.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
On-going implies currently which is dubious and POV. Recent and claims are not now and proved.Ultramarine (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The many reliable sources, most of them uncontroverted, cited in that section establish an on-going history. According to any reasonable understanding, in historical terms (i.e. in the sweep of post-WWII history), sources that show a continous pattern over the last few years--several in 2006 and 2007 according the article--establish an on-going pattern.
Also, the sources in the recent claims section do support on-going US funding, say for Regi's terrorist group in Iran, for covert regime change.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
No, if you are arguing that one cannot reasonable discuss the reasons for US regime change as per the section above, then one cannot make the claims you make which seem to your own OR synthesis of unproved claims.Ultramarine (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
What? Please stick to topic at hand.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
My point is that there seem to be a double standard; here you are talking about "reasonable understanding" of sources which "establish" something; I am arguing the same in the section above which you reject. You cannot have it both ways.Ultramarine (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the relevance. Here the issue is how to describe an undoubtedly relevant history given the many reliable sources. I am not suggesting here introducing any irrelevant material backed by irrelevant sources (OR issue and relevance issue per above). Please stop trying to horse trade.--NYCJosh (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a double standard. None of your sources claim "on-going" and "practice". Various claims of recent actions is not the same, see WP:SYN. Furthermore, none of these claims are noteable or trustworthy enough to be first thing mentioned in the article. Ultramarine (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title and scope

By consensus reached some time ago, this article is called "Covert US Regime Change Actions." Someone came along and changed the title to its current title, then unilaterally deleted most of the text and moved it to a CIA page. If anyone has any bold new ideas for the article, please propose it here first and provide your reasoning. I have restored most of the changes.

Someone should change the title back to what it was. This article is not an institutional history of the CIA, but a more general one about an aspect of the US foreign policy, much of it quite unknown in any detail to the vast majority of the public. Some the material does not necessarily fit neatly into the CIA box (although a lot of it does), so it's broader and its aim, as we have come to understand it, is not primarily to shed light on the CIA.--NYCJosh (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't agree more strongly that the distinction always needs to be made among as the actual (not necessarily overt) foreign policy of the United States, that which the CIA is directed to do by the White House/NSC, and those things where a CIA element essentially went off on its own. In the set of articles where I am, indeed, trying to define a CIA history, for older events where there has been significant declassification, it often turns out that a covert action was reviewed and authorized by the policy approval group of the time. Originally, those decisions came directly from the NSC, but later from a group such as the 54/12 committee, the Special Group, the 303 Committee, the Special Group (Counterinsurgency), etc. In other cases, there was a NSC/Presidential order, which again can have a variety of names such as NSC [directive], National Security Decision Directive, Presidential Directive, etc. For many things through at least the sixties, it usually has been possible to document the decision using such sources as the Foreign Relations of the United States series, the National Security Archive at George Washington University, CIA FOIA Reading Room, etc.
Have there been any operations where the CIA, or, even more importantly, its predecessors in the Truman Administration (e.g., Office of Policy Coordination) did things without approval? Certainly, although with the OPC, there was a good deal of broadly delegated authority. The CIA proper really got control of operations in 1952, so it's dubious to say, for example, that a 1947 Albanian coup attempt was a CIA operation.
Have there been cases where covert political action had wildly unexpected consequences? Again, yes. The Indonesian coup attempts in the fifties were outright failures. Ironically, an attempt merely to strengthen non-Communist political elements, in 1965, fed into a combination of events that led to a bloody suppression, by the Indonesian military, of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI). Independently of the CIA, the PKI killed six generals, and the military struck back. If there had been no CIA action, but the PKI still took those actions, would the military still have purged them? There's no real way to tell.
Ideally, I would like to see this article focus on US policies of regime change, which may or may not have involved CIA operations, and the CIA activities series deal with CIA operations, documenting whether or not the operation was approved. Approval gets rather soft in cases such as Iran-Contra, where the Administration clearly circumvented the intent of Congress and issued orders that included CIA components. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this article should be named US Covert Regime Change Actions, as it was for a good while before someone decided to change it, and should focus on US actions on the ground and US history abroad, not on the bureaucratic aspect you discuss, which is as you say is more appropriate for an article about the CIA as an institution. (Although a sentence in each case about presidential/NSC approval for each action, as appropriate, would be a good thing here.) If you wish to add some material about actions you mention that are not presently described in the article, go ahead.--NYCJosh (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
For most cases of covert regime change, there was a NSC-level action of some type. The exceptions may be in the roughly 1945-1952 time frame, before CIA got control of the covert action people in the OPC. Attempts against the Contras are probably as rogue as anything; I don't remember any NSC-level approval, although Casey, North, Secord, etc., still acted. Someone who knows the history of Iran-Contra better than I would have to judge if Reagan really knew -- although it might have been, depending on your literary taste, "who shall rid me of this turbulent priest", or "wink wink nudge nudge".
More complex are the situations, especially in Vietnam, where the US was aware of indigenous coup plans, and did not interfere -- although I'm not sure they could have intervened in a meaningful way. I'd say that the US was reasonably aware, but not certain, of the coup that overthrew Diem, and that went, at least, to Ambassadorial level and reporting to Washington. It raises the interesting question if there needs to be an NSC decision to do nothing.
In the past, was the article ever simply "US sponsored regime change?" Might this be considered? After all,
  1. Grenada 1983 (regime changed)
  2. Panama 1989 (regime changed)
  3. Iraq 1991 (regime did not change, although that was not an official goal)
  4. Iraq 2003 (regime changed)
hardly were covert, but they definitely involved regime change.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality, and an untrustworthy source

In the Iraq, 1968 section, that quote attributed to Archibald Roosevelt originally comes from a highly biased source. Roger Morris, the man who gives both the quote and the context through his interpretation, is notable for writing essays condemning Israel and US foreign policy. http://www.greeninstitute.net/publications/morris Some note to this effect should be included. TBSchemer (talk) 03:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

An author's critique of the US and Israeli foreign policy does not in and of itself make the author "highly biased." Morris has been published many times by major academic presses and publications. More to the point, the article cites facts and quotes that Morris published, not his views.--NYCJosh (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Not trying to judge this specific issue, I've been noticing, in some of the CIA articles, that Morris is often the only source. He may not appear as such in some links, but, when actually reading the articles, they quote Morris. I'm not suggesting Morris doesn't have legitimate credentials, but he does tend to appear in publications with a strong POV. If one took Morris and the "Black Book of Communism" out of some regions and time periods, there would be little sourcing left. I hope, for some of those periods and areas, to be able to find more sources, or, better yet, to find someone who knows south and SW Asia better than I do. I'm more familiar with SE Asia and Africa. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Please do feel free to add some additional sources. The Iraq 1968 coup has been extensively discussed in several sources besides the ones cited.--NYCJosh (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Appreciate the thought, and have found some other sources, but I do not feel comfortable editing this specific article. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] State-sponsored terrorism

Before changing things, it seemed fair to bring up my concerns on the talk page. I followed the link to "Demokratizatsiya" below, and did not find the phrase "state-sponsored terrorism".

The United States role in arming, training, and supporting the radical Islamic terrorist group, the Mujihadeen of Afghanistan in the 1980s, has been called the model for state-sponsored terrorism, and led to a new generation of regime change actions around the world by this group and its off-shoots. This guerrilla movement, initially intended to oust the Soviet Union from Afghanistan, gave rise to terrorist groups in nations such as Indonesia, the Philippians, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Chechnya, and the former Yugoslavia, with a view to bring about regime change along Islamic lines. [ref]Demokratizatsiya, Spring 2003, re-published at Find Articles, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3996/is_200304/ai_n9199132 [/ref]...

So, if the reference doesn't use the term, I suggest avoiding it. If "support to guerillas" or even "proxy war" were substituted, I think that would be more accurate both in terms of the source, and WP:NPOV.

When I hear the term "state-sponsored terrorism", I think of references to a state committing terrorism against its citizens or at least residents. That seems somewhat stretched in describing support to guerilla movements, and perhaps somewhat POV. While many, if not most, guerilla movements use terrorism, and Mao described that as part of Phase I in On Protracted War, I do not believe that the general literature on uncomventional warfare uses the term "state-sponsored terrorism" to apply to sponsoring insurgents. This is a fairly important distinction, as when a state starts using terrorist techniques against its own, it will almost invariably cause a loss of legitimacy for the government. In Minimanual of the Urban Guerilla, Marighella specifically discusses the guerilla tactic of causing state overreaction for just that reason.

Afghanistan is an unusual situation, since the government in place did not have a great deal of legitimacy, given the Soviet action in deposing earlier governments until they had one they liked; none of the parties really had any.

Would you be open to changing the words "state-sponsored terrorism"? The source speaks of terrorist movements spawned as a result, but these had even less state sponsorship. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello- I found the term "state-sponsored terrorism" in that article about 7 paragraphs down on the first page. Regarding your other argument to the effect that the term "state-sponsored terrorism" is not used to describe situations where states sponsor guerrilla movements to catalyze regime change, I must say that I have seen this in the literature often enough. [[11]]. The were also examples of mainstream media outlets who referred to the Contras as terrorists. The sponsorship came from an external state, the US. Am I missing something? BernardL (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The mainstream media may indeed seize onto a particular term, and use it repeatedly, but not necessarily accurately. As a trivial example, have you noticed that any group of buildings becomes a "compound", whether it's the Kennedy family residence or a cult headquarters?
Take the Contras as a Marxist movement, and look at sources such as Mao (http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/PW38.html) or Marighella (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marighella-carlos/1969/06/minimanual-urban-guerrilla/index.htm). I don't think you'll find either using "terrorism" in other than a quite specific manner, much as Lenin wrote "the purpose of terror is to terrorize." The mainstream media, as opposed to the more serious politicomilitary literature of any ideology, tends to equate guerilla warfare with terrorism. In the formal literature, the use of the term "terrorism" tends to be restricted to operations where the intention is, in Lenin's terms, to terrorize.
Such terror could come from a right-wing Latin American government death squad, or a NLF "armed propaganda" team torturing a village leader to death in public, as a warning against collaboration. When the NLF unit ambushed an RVN or US military unit, that was deadly, but it wasn't terrorism. No one would argue that the NLF, and later the NVA, were state-sponsored, but all of their tactics were not terror. To call everything terror makes the word meaningless. Statecraft.org isn't a bad site, but I don't think they routinely call support of guerillas "state-sponsored terrorism". They, and more formal research institutions of various governments (the Canadian Security Intelligence Service publishes a great deal and is usually of excellent quality, as is the Strategic Studies Institute at the US Army War College), or private groups such as the "other CSIS" (Center for Strategic and International Studies) or the British Royal United Service Institute, tend to call state support "proxy war" unless the specific actions being supported are terrorist in nature. I simply can't accept that "state sponsored terrorism" has replaced proxy war by guerillas, intent on regime change, as a completely general term. Indeed, in the literature with which I familiar, "state sponsored terrorism" is more what a government's secret police does, whether Gestapo or Cheka/OGPU/NKVD/NVKD/MGB/KGB or Kusay's playmates at the Special Security Organization.
The problem with overusing state sponsored terrorism is that it leaves us with no term that clearly identifies terrorism by a state, as opposed to indirect action. The Soviets provided assistance to various guerilla movements, but they kept their distance from the more nihilist ones that they supported as generally destabilizing, rather than those focused on installing a particular government. Neither the CIA nor KGB would recommend terror if, for example, a coup was simpler.
To avoid POV, I try to be quite specific in my terminology, and I'm finding overuse of state-sponsored terrorism to be more confusing and emotional than descriptive of specific things. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Your state-supported guerila insurgencies are probably poor examples because attackes against (US or other) military targets, which guerila warfare typically entails, are not defined by most to be "terrorism" (except of course for propaganda purposes by the governments fighting the guerilas to portray themselves as the victims). Terrorism, on the other hand, requires, according to many definitions, a civilian target.
In any case this conversation is now close to being off topic.--NYCJosh (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regime change

Agree with the idea of moving to a new article title, but strongly suggest that it not be limited to covert regime change. There's just as much question, for example, about the very overt regime change of Iraq in 2003. There are legal reasons to believe that it may be easier to use military than CIA forces for both covert and overt forces, and, if I understand the purpose of the planned article, it's getting a complete view of US regime change.

Let me be specific about what I mean by regime change. I refer to it as a situation where there has been no direct attack against the United States, which can get blurry if the particular regime, without reasonable doubt, is involved in terrorism or possibly the drug trade, although the latter is much more a law enforcement matter. Regime change can be overt or covert.

There would be several forms of overt regime change. Clearly, the US had very good reasons to change the Japanese regime after December 7, 1941. There is pre-emption, which is different than preventive war. Perhaps the best recent example of pre-emption in the process of self-defense, consistent with Article 51 of the UN charter, are the Israeli airstrikes on massed Egyptian and Syrian aircraft in 1967. Regime change was an goal insofar if it changed regime behavior; it wasn't a specific goal to overthrow the governments.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq, however, cannot be called pre-emptive, but it was preventive. I don't think any legal authority says that Article 51 applies to preventive attacks. If Kuwait had the capability, in 1990, to hit the massed Iraqi forces that were on its border, that probably would be considered preemption as part of self-defense.

I should note that there is considerable discussion in Congress that there may be a loophole, in which CIA personnel can't undertake a covert action without a Presidential finding and notification of key legislators, but that same action by military special operations personnel, as long as they don't need additional funds, may be within Presidential authority to launch without Congressional review. This isn't a good idea, but it may be a legitimate interpretation of law that exists today.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal for an article on US regime change seems frought with difficulties, precisely because of the complicated issues you raise. Even if you, I and some others could agree on its precise scope, others would object. I would support such an article in ADDITION to this one, but would not agree to rework this one along the lines you propose and subject it to all the possible objections.
I probably agree with your 2003 Iraq invasion views, and that could be included in the type of article you envision in addition to the present article.
I find your conclusion in your last paragraph abou the legal distinction between CIA and special forces-led RC to be untenable. You acknowledge that the UN Charter to which the US is a party, and which therefore constitutes the highest law of the US pursuant to US Const. Art. VI, prohibits the use of force (or even the threat of the use of force) unless two very particular circumstances obtain (imminent attack upon the US or threat thereof, or UN Sec Council finding of threat to peace). Thus any US presidential authorization fo special frces would be subject to that. --NYCJosh (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I acknowledge the UN Charter exists, but I do not draw the same conclusions about its prohibition that you do. I also observe, however, that, given the customary language of treaties, it does not prohibit the use of force, unless the matter in question has first been presented to the Security Council. Once the matter has been brought before the Security Council, then only Article 51 allows combat, in self-defense, without UNSC authorization.
Article 2 includes the language "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." I contrast that with the language of the Kellogg-Briand accord:
  • Article 1: The High Contracting Parties solemly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.
  • Article 2: The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.
My reading of Article 2 of the UN Charter is that it states a preference and a desirable state, but in no way bans war in which, ironically, the Kellogg-Briand pact does in extremely specific language. Articles 33-51 do ban unauthorized conflict, but, with the exception of the Article self-defense provisions, are conditional on the conflict having been brought before the UNSC. The language of 39-50, or Chapter VII, also known as the peace enforcement chapter, are vastly stronger than Chapter I.
If, in 2003, Iraq had brought the matter of a potential attack before the UNSC, the US would probably be bound by the UNSC resolution. In customary international law, however, a nation always retains the right to abrogate a treaty if its supreme national interests are involved. Now, I believe that the Constitution would require the advise and consent of the Senate to so abrogate, and I recognize that George W. Bush does not especially believe he is bound by the Constitution. Nevertheless, I cannot accept the interpretation that the UN Charter, without UNSC involvement, is binding on any nation. In the US system, as long as the UNSC provision is not operative, then Congressional authorization is sufficient for an act of war.
So, I don't think we will agree, and I am really not interested in starting another article when the fundamental assumptions are that different. The present article seems quite POV, and, if it stays in "covert regime change", I am not interested in working on it, especially when its title assumes that the CIA apparently is subordinate to no other part of the US government. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Someone changed the title to "CIA..." without consensus. Fortunately, the article is now back to "Covert..." (although the talk page title has still not been changed back). So at least your last-named concerned is addressed (even though I don't necessarily agree that the "assumption" you imply was in fact made by that title).--NYCJosh (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus for recent changes?

I have just noticed lots of changes by UltraMarine. I have not had a chance to take a close look at these but I was wondering if anyone else has and if he has consensus for these changes? Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Giovanni, thanks for minding the store. Since I put considerable effort into this article in the past, I looked through each of UtraMarine's edits. With the following exceptions, I do NOT agree to any of them. The exceptions are:
1. Ghana and Congo sections--I have no opinion as I have not reviewed in depth.
2. Iran 1980 section--I have no objection to the following changes that were recently made (in order of the changes): (a) "Evidence suggests" language, (b) addition of Powell's denial, (c) addition of Carlucci's denial, (d) move of the Scotland Herald cite, (e) Moving up of the Financial Times and Z mag references (NOT their subsequent deletions), (f) moving up of "dual-use" term, (g) moving of section beginning with "A review of", (h) addition of paragraph "Others have" about US support for both sides (although I will quible about some of the language).
I would like to note that some of UltraMarine's changes are unsupported by WP rules. To give but one brief illustration, UltraMarine added the word "claimed" for some facts stated as uncontroversial and uncontroverted by the sources, which UltraMarine justified with the line "no official source" (presumably meaning no US gov't source). Unlike Joseph Stalin, WP does not require or have a bias for "official sources".--NYCJosh (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation and accusations

Almost all of these are just speculation, or accusations without evidence. Especially the later Iran one. This article seems as if it does not fit wiki standards of quality. Contralya (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because your US high school history textbooks conveniently did include some of these important chapters of post-war US history does not render the article sub-quality. Try looking at the footnotes and then read the WP rules on reliable sources. If you still have an issue with "evidence" come back and offer a specific critique.--NYCJosh (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)