Talk:Coalition Provisional Authority/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

"Criticism of the CPA" ?

Six months ago this article contained only praise for the CPA. Article as of February 3, 2005. I added a section entitled "Criticism of the CPA" because the existing article only contained praise. Ill considered praise IMO, to accept the CPA's version, without consideration. I think that title no longer makes sense -- that it would make sense now for each section, each paragraph, to be balanced, with no explicit announcements.

I propose that title be removed, and that the subsection headings that follow it be changed to section headings.

Ariele recently added the paragraph that follows the title "Criticism of the CPA". Since she has made a number of attempts to insult me I would like someone else to tell her the paragraph that follows doesn't add anything to the readability or usability to the article. Personally, I don't think it even makes sense. And, personally, I think it should be removed. -- Geo Swan July 7, 2005 04:45 (UTC)

I agree that the opening paragraph there doesn't make any sense. I just don't understand it. For that reason, I agree that it should be removed, unless Ariele can fix it so that it makes sense and fits coherently where it is located.

I also proposed (below) a slight reorganization of the page. I would support the changes you suggest here. Unended July 7, 2005 13:18 (UTC)

Okay, I am going to remove the title "Criticism of the CPA", bump up the subsections. If Ariele, or someone else, doesn't revise the paragraph I questioned, or provide a defense of it here, I think it should be removed. -- Geo Swan July 8, 2005 15:12 (UTC)

I don't like that section either as it stands. I was thinking of something along the lines of "Legacy of the CPA' that could go into an unbiased analysis of the lasting effects of some of the CPA's actions. I intend to add a section detailing many of the edicts issued by the CPA and how they affected Iraqi society. Brian1975 8 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)

an error

The following section is mis-leading "One question that needs to be answered is why Ambassador Bremer spent entirely from the Iraqi funds he was administering in trust. In June of 2004 the CPA had spent, or allocated, 19.1 billion dollars of the Iraqi funds -- while spending only 400 million dollars from the American reconstruction funds."

The reason the money was not spent was that little work was being done, because security was a problem. Also, I think the author has is backwards. Iraqi oil money, during the occupation, was put into a bank account and not spent. American money was spent.

Sorry, I believe you are mistaken. This was quite thoroughly covered in the press. Bremer was given the authority to spend money from the remaining 20 billion dollars left over from the oil for food program. And he authorized the expenditure or commitment of 19 billion dollars worth. -- Geo Swan 13:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here is a link to a July 4th, 2004 article from the Washington Post. Read for yourself:

Spending patterns have been different with the Iraqi money. The Coalition Provisional Authority, the now-dissolved U.S.-led occupation administration, spent or locked in for future programs more than $19 billion from the $20 billion Development Fund for Iraq, which was established by the U.N. Security Council to manage Iraq's oil revenue, said Joseph A. Christoff, director of international affairs and trade at the General Accounting Office, the watchdog arm of Congress.

As for security? The WaPo article also said:

Of $3.2 billion earmarked for security and law enforcement, a key U.S. goal in Iraq, only $194 million has been spent.

Candidate for VfD

This article has the appearance of a soapbox article and actually deserves a "Voted for Deletion". And as you can see below, the discussion between the creator of this soapbox and previous contributors. The use of the word "critic" is so vague and doesn't say much to answer the questions "Who?, What?, and Why?". Take for example, let's pick on the so called "critics" CONCERN over Iraq's economy. Last year, in 2004, the country's GDP or "Real Growth Rate" was 52.3%. Compared to Iran's GDP of 6.3%, ...well, that sure is a surprise. Then there's the unemployment rate, which went from about 50-60% after the war in 2003 down to about 30% (in 2004) AFTER these so-called "Foreigners" appeared in Iraq. And no doubt there's more to illustrate however, since the contributors (presumeably anti-American activists) are so determined to plaster their viewpoints here, who will do the honors of CLEANING this article up? Not I. I'm still working on the HoHos and the DingDongs sweetcakes and desserts. Have fun. Ariele 2 July 2005 13:51 (UTC)

Meanwhile...As a result of the CPA's hard work and tenacity to restore Iraq's electrical production, the latest publicly available stats are given below:

Electricity - production: 32.6 billion kWh (2004)
Electricity - consumption: 33.7 billion kWh (2004)
Electricity - exports: 0 kWh (2004)
Electricity - imports: 1.1 billion kWh (2004)

You're just arguing substance here. That Iraq's GDP grew 52.3% has nothing to do with what are in fact the criticisms of the CPA and what it did there (i.e., shaped Iraq's economy to the beneifit of American investors in violation of international law). That is merely a substantive response to the criticisms. (Nor is it a particulary good one, for many reasons, least of all the fact that one would expect Iraq's GDP to increase dramatically after having sanctions lifted. The comparison to Iran (or any other country) is a joke.) If you were arguing (and could demonstrate) that there are no critics of the CPA and that this is not what they assert, that would be a legitimate complaint about the accuracy of the article. Unended July 2, 2005 18:03 (UTC)

Are you really calling yourself THE expert here? We should be so priviledged and honored to be in the presence of someone like you. We should erect a temple in your honor and worship you as a god. The same goes for Geo Swan who abandoned this article leaving us to wonder "how can someone be so stupid"?

Ariele 3 July 2005 01:52 (UTC)

In case "Unended" is still thinking he's playing a video game, how can creating jobs for Iraqis be considered a violation of international law? What you should be addressing is what has the coalition accomplished so that Iraq can be positioned competitively in the world's economies. As far as I know, I can buy goat cheese anywhere in the world except from Iraq. So Unended, how do you suppose Iraq can compete in the world markets without foreign investors? How will the Iraqi goat farmer market his/her goods without foreign investors?

Ariele 3 July 2005 02:51 (UTC)

Ariele, Unended and I provide references. I am going to remind you that rather than insult your correspondents, you can choose to be civil, look at their references, and the conclusions they have drawn, and find the intellectual flaws in their reasoning, or find other sources that contradict theirs?

If you can't do that, then I would encourage you to take the advice in the wikipedia meta-articles, and go take a long timeout. You keep promising to take your efforts to some other articles. Well, why don't you do that?

Ariele, I have got to tell you, as on other occasions, I find much of what you have written less than coherent. Your comments that I had "abandoned" this article, and that made me "stupid", just makes no sense. I work on articles as my schedule permits. If I saw that someone had posted a civil question to me on the talk page, I would make an effort to respond to it. You have mentioned my name on the talk page a number of times. But although you were incoherent it was clear that you meant to be offensive, so I felt I had not obligation to figure out what you were trying to say. If failing to respond to your incoherent insults is what constitutes abandonment in your eyes, then I am going to have to repeat myself, and suggest again that you take the advice of the wikipedia meta-articles, and go take a time-out.

Unended, if you decide to go back and examine the history of this article, and the article on Paul Bremer, you should know that Ariele has decided to make contributions to the wikipedia using half a dozen different identities. sHe is not only Ariele, but all the contributions from "Puffydoogle", "Paradigmbuff", "Sweeper", "Ethanol" are hER as well. All contributions from IP address in the range 66.20.x.x are from hER. No I have no idea why She does that, except that She had[exercised her liberty] to abandon Paradigmbuff when She committed too much vandalism and attracted the attention of the administrators. -- Geo Swan July 3, 2005 05:29 (UTC)

None of which you write have any bearing of the FACT THAT YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS LACK THE QUALITY WORTHY OF AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. You should stick with subjects you're more familiar with such as computers and monitoring IP addresses instead of investigative reporting because you really suck at it. For instance, you don't ask yourself enough questions to piece together things ANALYTICAlly. Secondly, good reporters ask questions and don't leave behind OPEN and DANGLING issues.

And thirdly, if English is not your native spoken and written language, you should never have been contributing to this article in the first place. This is not a place nor the topic for you to practice your ENGLISH with. If you find much of what I've written is incoherent, then again, you should avoid plastering distortions that make a soapbox article come to life for the world to see.

Ariele 3 July 2005 12:47 (UTC)

And while you're at it, I'd like to get a copy of your W-9 for contributions made to this foundation. Where can U.S. donators get a copy?

Ariele 3 July 2005 13:27 (UTC)

Wikiquette

Ariele, I am going to repeat myself -- again. You have allowed yourself to get very emotionally attached to this article, and the article on Paul Bremer. You seem to have become so emotionally attached that you cannot keep yourself from insulting other contributors. The advice of the wikipedia meta-articles is that when you feel that emotional about an article you step away and take a time-out. I am going to repeat myself, and encourage you to do that.

If you are not going to take a time-out, please refrain from insulting other contributors.

I know you have had this explained to you before. It is not considered polite to stick your text in the middle of another contibutors sentence on a talk page. It is confusing for readers. Yet you have indulged in this again. If I got your gender wrong you could have followed my paragraph with a civil paragraph of your own, at one further indent level, setting me, and our possible readers straight. -- Geo Swan July 3, 2005 18:18 (UTC)

I am a native English speaker. I think the quality of my English skills, and, FWIW, my reasoning skills, can stand comparison with any other contributor.

I am going to remind you that wikipedia contributors are encouraged to assume goodwill. I think someone needs to encourage you to make a greater effort to assume goodwill. I told you that I didn't understand your criticisms, that I didn't understand in what way I "abandoned" this article. You had choices as to how to reply.

You could have reviewed how you expressed yourself, to doublecheck its clarity.
You could have expanded on the points you had tried to make.
You chose to mount an attack, making no effort to defend your previsou statement.

Have you considered how declining to hold yourself accountable for your prior statements affects your credibility?

If you your next response is a civil one, if you are interested, I'll make an attempt to give you a list of all the things you said that I found unclear.

As for your comment that I was trying to turn this article into a soapbox. If there are any specific statement of mine, any judgement I make, that you feel is questionable, I promise you that if you can write a civil challenge, I will respond with a civil, thoughtful reply. If your civil challenge convinces me I made a mistake, I will say so. Similarly, if you find I have cited a source whose info has been superceded, or has been debunked, I would encourage you to say so in a civil way. I would encourage you to do this with all your correspondents. But, so long as you can't manage to be civil, I don't think I have any obligation to puzzle out what you might really mean. -- Geo Swan July 3, 2005 18:18 (UTC)

You want my W-9? That is some kind of US tax document? Don't Americans consider their income tax returns confidential? Why would you ask me for this? -- Geo Swan July 3, 2005 18:18 (UTC)

Opposition

I see you haven't changed at all. You remind me of Rama, one of the administrators on Wikipedia. A W-9 is not your PERSONAL income tax return. Meanwhile...

Hiring policies: exactly what aspect of a young, skilled, college educated employee of the CPA was considered "dangerous" to have around? You pointed this out and wrote about this in both Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority.
Fraud & other misbehavior: You also added that 9 billion dollars were unaccounted for implying that Bremer and the CPA mismanaged the funds through "fraud and other misbehavior". You left this one hanging.
Where were those essential services under Saddam Hussein? Your inputs indicate that after the fall of Saddam, the task of building those essential services became the responsibility of the CPA, more specifically Bechtel. After building, rebuilding schools and hospitals, restoring power generating & telecommunication facilities, water treatment plants and sewage systems so that raw sewage isn't running into the streets,... none of these were mentioned in your version of the article. Furthermore, your contributions allege that the CPA failed to meet their schedule of building those essential services in 14 months. Saddam had 30 years to build them but evidently didn't. He did build a lot of large, ugly, palaces and underground bunkers for himself; none of which was of any use to the average Iraqi.
Expatriation: How does this fit in with your criticisms of the CPA? Midstream on a topic of the country economy. How did it begin? Do you see what I mean? It is incoherent. "In the beginning....then there was....after which it ended with....

Ariele, I told you I would put an effort into replying to you, if you showed your goodwill by being civil. Were you really attempting to be civil? If so, let me encourage you to try harder.

Yes, I was criticial of the hiring policies of the CPA. But your question doesn't have anything to do with what I wrote. I didn't say the individual hirees were dangerous. The danger lay in staffing the CPA almost entirely with inexperienced people, working outside their area of expertise.
I provided some of the links to accounts documenting the fiscal mismanagement. Do you have a specific question about those accounts, or the conclusions I drew from them? About the specific figure of $9 billion unaccounted for... It is insulting that you are trying to hold me accountable for the $9 billion figure Rama cited. I see it as yet more reason to believe you have allowed yourself to become too emotionally involved with this article, and that you should step away, and take a time-out.
As for the extent to which Saddam's Hussein's administration was providing essential services -- what does that have to do with the Coalition's responsibility to provide those services? It is an obligation imposed on occupying powers under international law.
It was Unended who added the recent contribution on how Mr Bremer's decrees on the Iraqi economy were a violation of international law. Perhaps they can figure out how you relate expatriation to Mr Bremer's economic decrees. -- Geo Swan July 4, 2005 15:16 (UTC)

Hiring policies: You're reaction is hard to explain. When you linked the "washington post" article to support what you wrote, the link was directed at "young, college educated American people" hired by the U.S. government to work for the CPA. You did not identify specifically what you meant by "experience". I now assume you meant "military experience." And yes, I agree, that a recent MBA grad. from a university would not have had the "military experience" you might have been implying. The only way a person can gain that sort of experience is by being in a real combat.

Fraud & Misbehavior: Again, your reaction is baffling. I am not emotionally involved here. I have a vested interest in these two articles because I believe that my President truly means what he says. If he tells me that he stands ready to protect and secure the people whom he has sworn an oath to serve, I believe him implicitely. When he says that he stands behind Iraq to democratize the country, I said I'd support him. You say I am too emotionally attached to this article?

Essential Services: Are you well versed in international law? Here's my take on your explanation. You're thinking I'm just ingorant or an idiot. Because I disagree with you, you've taken this on as a "I'll show her" and have proceeded further by adding additional external links which make this article read like a soapbox. The reason why I will not humor you by adding statistics is because I already know what your motives are. As far as I know June 30, 2005 was the dead-line given by the CPA for public access to their archive and "status report". This report summarized all that the CPA had accomplished, restored, and built. The report was available to the public and YOU chose not to reveal that fact in your contributions.

Expatriation: How do I know it wasn't you? You know enough about it to point out that it was Bremer who passed the decree. Are you saying that Bremer cares so much for the Iraqis and for you that he passed a decree to ensure that all Iraqi assets remain in Iraq and be owned by Iraqis (as a protective measure against outsiders or some would so boldly say against infidels)? So, is that what you think I am? An infidel? Hey, like I said earlier, I can buy goat cheese anywhere in the world. But I prefer to buy American cheese. Hate to disappoint, but I don't agree with you and:

You're too emotionally involved.
You're looking for something that isn't there - "fraud & misbehavior"
You're knowledge in International Law is baffling because in times of war, the only international law mentioned in the media is the Geneva Convention. Are you saying that you're quoting international law from somewhere else? I see that you mentioned the United Nations a few times in your discussion. And then there's the other bit from you, something about the responsibilities of the occupying power. Is that your interpretation or actual law? I find that odd. I am just a tad bit familiar with this because I've studied this before in a history class from highschool. Unless you're saying that a "new" international law was passed making all nations responsible for rebuilding another while it's being occupied by a foreign power. If that were true, then I still support my position on the CPA - and that they fulfilled their duty to the best of their abilities during the 14 months time. The CPA is no longer the occupying power. The Iraqis are.

Perhaps you may be interested to know that I added the following to your portion of this article Critics of the CPA have repeatedly attempted to highlight the importance of their mission by soliciting public support through mainstream media and internet web-sites. A collection of their conservative viewpoints are provided here to give readers further insight into the minds of those who believe that democracy can only be won in the battlefield and what follows may accurately depict how things are today. The WorldFact book compiled by the CIA provides a somewhat more up-to-date summary of Iraq's current infrastructure and situation with its economy. [1]

Not that you really care, but have you ever considered the possibility that the criticisms you seem to have a collection of is a "means to an end"? I may have several userID's but I see that you do too.

Ariele 5 July 2005 05:55 (UTC)

And what makes you think I have other usernames Ariele? Let me assure you I do not. I have no hidden usernames. I have no hidden agendas. I always tell the truth. I never put forward a position I know to be false, to try to dishonestly win an argument. I consider the positions my correspondents put forward, and, if they come up with information I couldn't find, or they make a point that I find convincing, I say so. If you are trying to suggest I put forward positions I do not believe because I have an ulterior motive, let me assure you I never do that.

I really wish you would take my advice and make a greater effort to be civil. -- Geo Swan July 5, 2005 06:26 (UTC)

For starters, the most obvious is your Administrator privileges to Wikipedia accounts. UserID "RAMA" is on this list. GEO SWAN and RAMA are two different USER IDs. First of all, I was being civil to you. Secondly, I see no point in taking advice from a complete stranger. Your're not my parent. Finally, nowhere will you find that I have to take advice from a complete stranger and there are no Wiki policies, "Orders", "Articles", or "United Nations" decrees that mandate I have to like you as well. So, you'll likely have to look elsewhere.

Ariele 5 July 2005 11:58 (UTC)

Leaping headlong to the wrong conclusions

Back in February you inappropriately posted something in French to the talk page of an article. I had to use the babelfish for a translation. Rama is a native French speaker. He asked you why you posted a comment in French to the English wikipedia, where it would be likely to confuse people. He went on to make a comment about it being clear French was not your native language. You leaped to the conclusion that he used nefarious means to determine which nation you lived in. You accused him of using criminal means to determine which nation you lived in.

He explained to you that there was no nefarious, criminal act. He explained while your sentence was correct formed, it simply did not use the colloquial French idioms a native speaker of French would use. There was no conspiracy, no criminal act. He did not need to be an administrator to determine it. And IIRC, he told you he wasn't an administrator.

I am sure that you were the only person who read his explanation who could not recognize that he was telling you the truth.

I am not an administrator. I didn't use anything other than simple observation to determine you were posting under multiple usernames. You have an idiosyncratic, impulsive posting style. Most people make greater use of the preview function than you do. Typically, your posts are trailed by a series of minor revisions. It is your signature trait.

And when, in March, Sweeper started using the history feature to restore Paradigmbuff's opinions, that was a pretty good clue that Paradigmbuff had returned under a new identity.

When I offered a clean slate to Paradigmbuff in February, when they erased all their insults, and Ariele replied, that was a pretty good clue that Paradigmbuff was using the Ariele identity...

Finally, you have other interests. You post contributions to other articles, like those devoted to financial planning, or certain aspects of Christianity. When one of your new identities posts contributions to all the fields your old identities posted to, that was another clue you were the same person.

I used no nefarious means. I exercised no administrator privileges. I am not an administrator. I am not Rama.

As for why you should take my advice? You should take it because it is excellent advice. Calling other contributors names, making accusations, can have negative consequences for a wikipedia contributor. I looked into this when you called me "stupid".

Here is what I learned. I think some of your posts put you close to sufficient uncooperative behaviour that you could be banned from posting. There are procedures for requesting mediation, for requesting arbitration, and for requesting immediate sanctions. I have never used them. And I don't want to start, even if you did call me stupid.

The wikipedia meta-articles encouraged those who were in a dispute to try all reasonable means to reconcile it before they went to the administrators. And that is what I decided to do. I decided to give you the very best advice I could. And that advice was that you should be more civil.

Yes, I can see that you have made some efforts to be more civil. But those efforts seem to me to be inconsistent and incomplete. While I am trying my best to be nice to you that doesn't oblige me to reply to questions or comments from you that are not completely civil or not completely clear. -- Geo Swan July 5, 2005 19:12 (UTC)

As someone who has been there both during the CPA, and now during the transitional government, I have seen firsthand the causes and effects of what the CPA was, what it did, and what it became. I think this article is very misleading and fails to properly explore the complexity of such an amorphous entity such as the CPA was. To relegate the corruption and graft that was endemic within the CPA to nothing more than a footnote disguised as a paragraph shows a woefully inadequate lack of understanding of the subject matter.

The short history of how the CPA came about was a good start, but the rambling nature of the narrative and the lack of substantial details quickly alienates readers and relegates the rest of the history section to something to be skimmed rather than absorbed. An organization is best described by its deeds and actions and by the motivations of those involved. Would an article about OPEC be complete without a discussion of the oil embargo or those who precipitated it?

The economy section is grossly misleading. Having just returned from a trip to Baghdad last week, I can testify from a first-person perspective that those statistics quoted in the article are meaningless when taken out of context. The actions taken directly by L. Paul Bremer and the CPA have contributed substantially to the current instability in the country. To neglect to record these actions in an article is to do a great disservice to those historians, researchers, students, teachers, and many others who rely on the Wiki for accurate information about a subject.

I would be happy to take on the task of overhaulling this article if the interested parties agree to it. Brian1975 7 July 2005 19:13 (UTC)

I don't think you should feel the need to ask for permission to contribute to this, or any other article. Particularly if you have experience with the subject matter that other contributors don't have. I'd encourage you first to create a username though. Welcome. -- Geo Swan July 7, 2005 19:51 (UTC)

The last thing I'd like to do is become a party to the bickering. The page needs an overhaul-- it is incomplete. Thanks for the welcome. I'll start a draft later tonight and see what we can get done. Brian1975 7 July 2005 20:17 (UTC)

Anti-CPA Reinforcement

GeoSwan, your busybody interest in my multiple identities here on Wikipedia is rather amusing. Your counterpart "Brian1975" claimed to have been there in Iraq. YOU began your quarel with me when I refused to take your side..., I would be most interested to read his/her perspective on what should have been done instead (as far as strategies go and how to implement them). Brian1975 states that the instability of Iraq is the direct result of Bremer's and the CPA's actions. I've read a great deal of criticisms but have found none on how to implement a better plan. Since I've never been to Iraq (although a visit may be easily arranged), I find it difficult to side with you and the others because I have yet to read information or found conclusive evidence that supports your allegation linking the Americans with terrorist acts in Iraq. My advice to YOU is to take great care and caution when re-writing this article. Regards, Ariele 17:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Please

You called me a "busybody". Please don't call other wikipedia contributors names.
Please don't threaten people here, or carelessly write things that sound like threats. The final sentence of your last comment could be interpreted as a threat. I don't think you meant to threaten me. But, I shouldn't have to make the effort to figure out whether or not you intended to threaten me.
You called another wikipedia contributor my "counterpart". Can I suggest this is not really polite, implies some kind of inappropriate conspiracy, and does not comply with his request that he not be made a party to bickering? -- Geo Swan 22:56, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Brian1975

I am nobody's 'counterpart' in this or any other context. I don't know Geo Swan any better than I know Ariele or any other person who contributes their time to this project. As far as I can tell, this article is an encyclopedia article about an organization that existed in recent history. This article is not meant as a current events forum for debating the merits of what 'could' have been done or what 'should' have been done, but rather an analysis of what DID happen, and what effects those actions had on us as citizens of the world.

Ariele, I would be very interested to learn how you formed your opinions about the CPA and where you sourced your information about it. From reading the dialog above, my impression is that you seem to think that there is only one acceptable way to write this article, which is to present the CPA in a most favorable light and avoid discussing any of the numerous negative actions undertaken by the CPA, or that you feel that the actions of the CPA in general were not negative or damaging to the interests of the world or to the people of Iraq in particular.

I just returned from my fifth trip to Iraq about two weeks ago, and I can assure you that my first person perspective on the situation over there is very fresh on this topic. I also fail to see where anyone has stated that the Americans are directly linked to terrorist acts in Iraq. Nowhere in this article is that hypothesis presented or explored. Brian1975 09:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Purpose of This Article

I agree. This article is suppose to be about a historical event. I began expanding this article last year. When I found this article, it originally began with a brief history just as you noted earlier. That was it. Nothing else. At about the same time, I found a copy of the CPA's report of its accomplishments. With some minor editing, I copied its summary using quotes and reference to and so on..... My original plan was to work on the summary further to make the article read like an article instead of an outline. GEO SWAN saw that I had posted the CPA executive summary here and began adding criticisms of the CPA, which made the article read like a soapbox or forum for critics abound. So, I scrapped my plans to work on this further. Your question was where did I get my information? The answer is mostly from the CPA web-site, which I scanned through daily for news while sipping my morning coffee. The rest came from mainstream media. And it was a very big surprise indeed to discover one morning that the CPA had officially relinquished authority two days ahead of schedule. I wonder now if that may have been prematurely done (not that it really matters). And it's not the purpose of this article to be discussing the "what ifs" anyways.

Ariele 03:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like an entirely reasonable start for an article such as this. Your response raises a couple of points in my own mind that I could debate with myself for quite a long time and not be capable of resolving to my own satisfaction, however.

The first point is, "how much credibility do we assign to a press release or other item produced by an organization that is the subject of which we are writing?" In the world of technology, we often consume press releases from technology companies that talk about new features or new products, but do we hold in as high esteem the press releases or reports from government agencies or other bodies whose modus operandi involves political maneuvering as an intrinsic part of their daily business? The bias inherent in a report from an agency with a vested interest in presenting only a positive cover story to the public leads me to question each and every statement in such a report and to only rely on the parts that can be independently verified.

The second unresolvable point in my mind is the question of the mainstream media that you reference above. I have a hard time reconciling information available from the mainstream media with the reality of what it's actually like to live and work in Iraq with the U.S. Military and the CPA and the Iraqi Governing Council and the Interim government and everyone else who has had a hand in shaping the past and the present in that country.

As a person with a background in journalism (not my current occupation, though), I have been disenchanted with the lack of neutrality and bias in contemporary American journalism. Throughout the war with Iraq and the time to the present, I have yet to see a "mainstream" American media outlet cover the war story from a neutral perspective that didn't sound like an advertisement paid for by the American or British governments. During the actual days of the war, I preferred to watch the coverage provided by the CBC via satellite, as it really was a balanced coverage that presented the issues in a format that was clear and digestible, and actually explored the issues rather than picking those issues that were most marketable to the public. I generally haven't seen that kind of coverage in the U.S., and I must therefore generally question the validity of the data from reports that come from American media based upon this very poor record of comprehensive coverage of such a major event that occurred during our lifetime.

Brian1975 11:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The role of the International Advisory and Monitoring Board

I have not found written anywhere here or within the articles linked to this one indicating these organizations and monitoring boards are non-profit organizations. Okay, I've been criticized for not being "civil". But if these were non-profit organizations, then hey, they've done a good deed to society.

Ariele 13:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Please let me direct your attention to the minutes of the Board's first meeting -- the 9th point on the agenda:

9. It was agreed, as specified in the Terms of Reference that the costs associated with the running of the secretariat would be shared equally among the member institutions. This would continue to reinforce the spirit of independence with which the Board is expected to operate. It was also decided that incidental costs that are not material would be absorbed by the member institution providing the services.

-- Geo Swan 21:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Contributions of July 3rd/4th by User:LunaCity

Last night a new user made a couple of dozen changes to the CPA article. They make many unsupported claims. I feel that a number of those changes are questionable.

Humanitarian funds authorized to fund security forces?

LunaCity added a paragraph that included a list of activities for which expenditures from the Development Fund for Iraq were authorized. That list included Iraqi security forces. But United Nations resolution 1483 under which the Fund was set up makes no mention of funding security forces. Given that it was a humanitarian fund, I find this claim questionable.

The claim is supported by the CPA DFI page. -LunaCity

(I'm not familiar with how to comment on these talk pages)

(Comments on the talk pages are indented one further layer than the paragraph being commented on, by prefixing the paragraph with colons. One colon per indent. At the end of your contribution you append four tilde symbols in a row ~ -- they are the symbols that look like little sine waves. When you save the page the four tilde symbols are translated into a timestamp that includes your username.)

While I am interested in which CPA DFI page claims the CPA was authorized to disburse from the DFI for security purposes, let me point out again that it was United Nations resolution 1483 that transferred authority over the funds to the CPA. The transfer was under certain conditions. And it makes no mention of authorizing expenditures for security purposes. And I would strongly question any suggestion that the authorization of expenditures from the DFI for security purposes was implied -- because the DFI derived from a humanitarian fund. -- Geo Swan July 4, 2005 17:54 (UTC)

That's a separate issue, and I havn't heard anyone criticizing the current Iraqi government's use of the DFI to fund their security forces or government ministries. No objections to using DFI funds to provide equipment for Iraqi security forces has been raised that I am aware of in the press. Nor has anyone suggestied that IRRF funds (the $18.4 billion) should have been used to pay police and civil servants salaries. LunaCity 4 July 2005 18:12 (UTC)

No one has suggested that expenditures from the IRRF should be used for security purposes? Let me invite you to look at the exchange at the top of this page, entitled an error. The July 4th WaPo article says:

Of $3.2 billion earmarked for security and law enforcement, a key U.S. goal in Iraq, only $194 million has been spent.

If the Washington Post article is to be believed there was a $3.2 billion line item in the IRRF budget for security and law enforcement.

As for not hearing objections to how the current Iraqi government's expends from the DFI? The CPA went into a spending frenzy in its final months, and spent down all but $900 million -- ie less than 5%. There were practically no funds left in the DFI for there to be any controversery over their expenditure. -- Geo Swan July 4, 2005 18:51 (UTC)

Yes, there are line items for reconstruction of Iraq's security forces in the IRRF, but those should be distinguished from the payment of police salaries and the financing of security ministry budgets- paid for from the DFI. As for police equipment, it was a well-known controversy at the time that the US procurement process was hampering the delivery of supplies intended for both US forces and Iraqi police. I would not be surprised if DFI funds were spent to rush delivery of equipment through alternate channels.

You are also mistaken about the CPA spending practically all the funds in the DFI, because the DFI is continually taking in more money through oil sales. It was not a one-time lump sum of $20 billion, but rather $20 billion taken in through oil sales over the year. In other words, the CPA left a slight surplus in the Iraqi annual budget during its year in power. LunaCity 4 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)

I don't think it matters whether the CPA site acknowledges DFI humanitarian funds were spent for security purposes. I would uthority to expend those humanitarian funds was conditional -- conditional that it be spent for humanitarian purposes. If the CPA acknowledges spending humanitarian funds for non-humanitarian purposes then I would argue they are in a breach of the agreement under which spending authority was transferred.

The UN had oversight authority of the "oil for food" programme. My sources said that approximately $60 billion was openly earned through the sale of Iraqi oil, and held in trust under the authority of the UN. Expenditures were supposed to be requested by Saddam Hussein's administration. They were supposed to be vetted by UN officials, who would then authorize the release of funds. Those funds were only supposed to be released for goods or services which could be classified as humanitarian. Food, medicine, electricity, water, sewage and hospital reconstruction.

It is well known that UN officials, and the members of the UN Security Council, failed to provide effective oversight, and that Saddam was able to demand clandestine kickbacks from his suppliers. Billions of dollars were diverted. The scale of this diversion is still not entirely clear. I have read estimates as low as $2 billion, and as high as $10 billion. Unfortunately many of the articles that discuss this fail to distinguish between the kickbacks from the openly acknowledged sales Iraq was authorized to make under the oil for food programme and clandestine sales, where Saddam's administration covertly smuggled oil -- which would not be the responsibility of the UN administration.

My understanding is that the openly acknowledged oil revenue during the oil for food programme were $60 billion, and the openly acknowledged expenditures under that program were $40 billion. Leaving the $20 billion that the Coalition administered in trust on behalf of the Iraqi people. That $20 billion could not have been earned during the administration of the CPA, because, according to the CPA, the Iraqi oil infrastructure was too severely damaged to ship any oil until late in their period of authority. I don't know where you came across information to the contrary. Can you provide a source? -- Geo Swan July 4, 2005 20:24 (UTC)

You are incorrect that no Iraqi oil was exported under the CPA. Weekly status reports have been tracking Iraqi oil production since the summer of 2003. It was not shipping full capacity, but it was exporting somewhere around an average of 1 million barrels per day. I would link to a source, but I don't know where to find archived status reports.

Your other objection, that the DFI wasn't explicitly authorized for funding the security forces is somewhat questionable. The UN resolution does not state that the DFI shall only be used for food, medicine, etc. and DOES state in it's opening paragraphs that the establishment of the fund is in the interests of Iraqi security. Besides, where else was Iraq supposed to get money to pay it's security forces and to provide for its ministry budgets? It has almost no other source of income - as cited in the Reuters and LA Times articles I linked to. LunaCity 4 July 2005 21:03 (UTC)

I did a little searching around and managed to come up with some articles on iraqi oil production - http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/01/1078117363358.html?oneclick=true - indicated that production was back to pre-war levels in march 2004. According to this: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec03/oil_10-23.html - iraqi oil production was about 1.5 million BPD in October 2003, with exports of about 1.1 million BPD. LunaCity 4 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)

Revenue from Iraqi oil during the CPA's authority

Actually, I didn't say no revenue was generated from the Iraq's oil during the CPA. I said that oil revenue wasn't possible until the infrastructure, pipelines, wellheads, and so on, were repaired, which I didn't think happened until late in the CPA's term of authority. I was wrong. Those links you found show that oil revenue started to trickle in earlier. But trickle is the operative word. They also make clear that the oil revenue wasn't $20 billion, or anything like that. The October 2003 PBS interview estimated the revenue might amount to $2-$3 billion, which would have to be offset by the repair costs.

In other conflicts the UN, and nations, including the USA, are very strict that humanitarian funds only be used for humanitarian goods and services. In those other conflicts the USA was right to be strict that humanitarian funds only be used for humanitarian purposes. The nations in the UN should be concerned if the coalition diverted humanitarian funds to military purposes. When organized crime does this, it is called money laundering.

You ask:

Besides, where else was Iraq supposed to get money to pay it's security forces and to provide for its ministry budgets?

This is the wrong question. This article is about the CPA, not about Allawi's interim administration, or about the current Iraqi administration. International law prohibits occupying powers looting the resources of an occupied territory. IANAL, but my understanding of international law is that the occupying powers are supposed to dig deep, into their own coffers, to pay for the expenses of the occupation. -- Geo Swan July 5, 2005 01:50 (UTC)

Once again you are severely mistaken. If you will check this Brookings Institute compilation ... you will find numbers for the amount of money the DFI took in from oil sales since the war: http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index20050620.pdf It took in some $13 billion. There was $7 billion in the fund from the previous regime. That adds up to $20 billion. The $2-3 billion number was for the amount of revenue that might be generated in 2003 for the rest of the year.

Secondly, Iraqi ministries were still running and in need of money to pay civil servants under the CPA as well as Allawai's administration. You pointed out that the governing council appointed the heads of those ministries, so I presume you are aware of this. Why you would ignore the fact that these ministries require funding, I have no idea.

I will point out again that the UN resolution in no way prohibits oil revenue from being used to fund Iraqi ministries and security forces. And in it's preambulatory paragraphs repeatedly states that the resolution's intention is to promote Iraqi security and well-being. If you refuse to recognize this, I can only presume that you do so willfilly. LunaCity 5 July 2005 17:03 (UTC)

You are correct, I was wrong. The $20 billion was not all left over from the oil for food program. I took your hint last night, and took a good look at the CPA DFI site. I took a look at the KPMG's audit (.pdf) reports. The figure they show for Iraqi Oil expenditures is essentially the same as the brookings figure. But you are correct, and I was wrong.

Further, let me acknowledge that this somewhat blunts some of the force behind the criticism that the CPA spent 95% of the Iraqi funds, whil spending only 5% from the American funds. The 5% remains questionably low however. -- Geo Swan July 5, 2005 20:12 (UTC)

Value of citing stats from 2005?

LunaCity has cited statistics from June and July of 2005, to try to document that the CPA's efforts were effective. I would question the value of stats from 2005, when the CPA's authority ended in mid 2004.

A valid complaint. Weekly updates from June 2004 may be available on the USAID site, so I will try to replace that with the information available then. However, the contention that Bechtel did very little work is also unsourced and the previous entry made statement of opinion about the CPA's failure to make Bechtel finish it's work that were also unsourced. -LC

Meeting WTO standards?

LunaCity claims, without any backup documentation, that Mr Bremer's economic decrees were meets WTO standards. I am skeptical. I know, for instance, that Mr Bremer imposed upon Iraq the World's most extreme intellectual property rules. The claim that these privatization decrees were necessary to rebuild the Iraqi economy is questionable, given that Mr Bremer's CPA awarded contracts almost exclusively to foriegn firms. -- Geo Swan July 4, 2005 16:58 (UTC)

As noted, since the original is a statement of the position of critics, the response to those critics has also been included to provide balance. -LC

Link to souce (OECD) added LunaCity 4 July 2005 18:08 (UTC)

modified text to say "international" standards raher than WTO specifically, as OECD document details current common practices, not formalized by international traty. LunaCity 4 July 2005 18:23 (UTC)

Do you think you will be able to back up your claim that the privatization of the Iraqi economy was decreed in order to rebuild the Iraqi economy? Because, if that were true, wouldn't the CPA have been issuing reconstruction contracts to Iraqi firms? Wouldn't they have been hiring Iraqi workers? -- Geo Swan July 4, 2005 20:32 (UTC)

They have been hiring Iraqi workers and subcontracting to Iraqi firms. Prime contractors have been US firms, but they've then been directed to employ local subcontractors whenever possible. They also created the Accelerated Iraq Reconstruction Program designed to fund labor-intensive reconstruction projects to hire the unemployed on small public-works type projects. Check the weekly updates at http://www.usaid.gov/iraq and the weekly status reports - available right hand column of http://www.defendamerica.mil . Towards the end they have a table tracking the number of Iraqis employed by various US agencies. AIRP, USAID, etc. are included, as well as the allocations and expenditures table for the IRRF.

Here's a link to the latest weekly report http://www.defendamerica.mil/downloads/iraq_weeklyupdate_20050701.pdf LunaCity 4 July 2005 20:47 (UTC)

Here is alink to Bechtel's own page ... http://www.bechtel.com/iraq.htm

"As of June 26, the Iraq Infrastructure Reconstruction Program has awarded to Iraqi companies 253 out of 393 subcontracts for services. Additionally, over 10,000 companies from 100 countries have registered on Bechtel's Supplier and Contractor portal.

A key Bechtel and USAID goal under the Iraq Infrastructure Reconstruction Program is to maximize Iraqi participation in our work. Indeed, to increase the cost-effectiveness of the work, and to help revitalize the Iraqi economy, Bechtel decided to award the vast majority of the subcontracting work to Iraqi subcontractors." LunaCity 4 July 2005 20:56 (UTC)

For the purposes of this article it doesn't matter if contracts are being awarded to Iraqi firms now, and whether ordinary Iraqis are now being paid with expenditures of the DFI or IRRF. This article is about the CPA, and the period of their administration, April 2003 through June 2004. -- Geo Swan July 5, 2005 02:22 (UTC)

They were being hired then too. The AIRP was started under Bremer. Though ordinary Iraqis, if you mean civil servants and ministry employees by that, are still being paid from the DFI, or whatever it's called now under the Iraqi Transitional Government. LunaCity 5 July 2005 04:28 (UTC)

The source of funds varies by Ministry. Much of it comes from the Defense Department and the State Department under various programs administered by each. Brian1975 09:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Reference to totalitarianism wrt FDI policies

LunaCity, I think it's time that we both referenced the content of our edits on the criticisms/rebuttals section on the privatization of Iraq's economy. This is because I find your arguments a bit extreme, so I think we would do well to cite actual published pieces/essays leveling the charges from the two camps. What I find particulary extreme is the notion that regulations on foreign direct investment and expatriation of profit are somehow "totalitarian." That'd be like describing restrictions on immigration as "totalitarian." After all, there isn't any conceptual difference between regulating what foreigners may invest in a country and what foreigners may work in a country. I don't want to argue about substance, however, as the section is not a substantive argument. It is a description about what critics argue with respect to the CPA (and, to the extent you wish to add them), rebuttals to those criticisms. But the arguments have to actually coincide with what people actually argue. Although completely inane, I probably wouldn't be surprised if supporters of privatizing Iraq's economy alleged that maintaining restrictions on foreign direct investment is "totalitarian," but the least you could do would be to find a published argument making the claim. Unended July 4, 2005 22:13 (UTC)

I would be happy to just rewrite that paragraph in a more neutral tone of voice eliminting emotionally laden words like both "totalitarian" and "anti-democratic". It could also be made more concise, as the paragraph is kind of long as it stands now. LunaCity 4 July 2005 22:20 (UTC)

I'm not so sure we need a complete rewrite. I also don't see how "anti-democratic" could be inaccurate, since nobody would claim that the CPA is an elected Iraqi governing body. But that's getting back to substance. I don't really care what words are used so long as the assertions are fair characterizations of actual arguments. What might be best is to separate the cold facts (i.e., what the orders say) from the criticisms and rebuttals, putting the latter completely at the end of the section so as to acknowledge the controversy over the CPA and its activities in Iraq. Better yet, we should put the actual thrust of the orders (i.e., their text and what they do) in the main body (out of the "criticisms" section), and leave the criticism section for the controversy. Let me know what you think. Unended July 4, 2005 22:38 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind having a section quoting the complete text of the various orders - for instance, one quote omits the fact that land-ownership in Iraq is still restricted to less than 50% foreign ownership. So, no selective quoting, and then separate paragraphs for criticisms and defenses. I do think a more neutral tone of voice should be used to describe both sets of arguments, since the text should not imply agreement with either side. LunaCity 4 July 2005 22:51 (UTC)

A clean slate?

I read Rama's suggestion of reading various wiki guides. I too am a relative newcomer. I hadn't read all those guides in detail before. And now that I have read them there are a couple of things I would do differently.

Another wikipedian wrote that they felt personally attacked by me. I regret that is how they interpreted my contributions. My intention was to put forward civil intellectual challenges.

I for one, stand ready to assume goodwill, and start over with a clean slate. -- Geo Swan 21:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

npov

This article is very schizophrenic. While I think it is trying to be balanced by listing problems of the CPA and its accomplishments, the two sections do not present a NPOV. They present two biased POVs in the same article. I don't know enough about the CPA to rewrite the article myself, but the two sides should work towards a better article. The "pro-CPA" side probably needs to do the most work since the content is directly lifted from the CPA itself. That doesn't even make a pretense of being neutral or objective.

Agreed. I cleaned up one of the CPA critical sections. The CPA press release should be replaced as it contains virtually no specific facts, just generalities of the sort one might expect in statement of goals, rather than accomplishments. --Blainster 09:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV tag last night. I think the article is well on its way to being a much more neutral accounting of the available facts.

Brian1975 23:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Orders/Decrees

There's no mention of any orders or decrees issued by the CPA. According to this BBC News article 100 orders were issued by the CPA. -- Joolz 16:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For reference the orders can be found here, it would be good if the important ones could be worked into the article. -- Joolz 16:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Summary of Accomplishments

The following is an excerpt written by the Coalition Provisional Authority. The document in its entirety is archived on the former CPA website until June 30, 2005.

"After decades of dictatorship, the Iraqi people now control their destiny and have established many of the conditions needed for a free and prosperous future. Today, Iraq is focused on fostering the development of a market-based economy. Now free of building palaces for the elite and developing weapons of mass destructions, Iraq is using its resources for the benefit of its people. At the core of this new Iraq is the development of a democratic, accountable, and self-governing civil society respectful of human rights and freedom of expression.

Iraq has many challenges ahead; however, it is poised to be a nation united, prosperous, and able to take its rightful place as a responsible member of the region and the international community.

Over the course of the last fourteen months the Coalition Provisional Authority has focused on helping Iraqis build four foundational pillars for their sovereignty: Security, Governance, Essential Services, Economy.

Security

CPA assisted the Iraqi government in constructing the means to assume responsibility for external and internal security, including its own defense and police forces, and in establishing relationships with regional states and with the international community. CPA also assisted Iraq to clearly define within a legal framework, the roles and accountabilities of organizations providing security. Three Iraqi ministries play a primary role in Security: Defense, Interior and Justice.

Governance

CPA worked with Iraqis to ensure the early restoration of full sovereignty to the Iraqi people. The July 13, 2003 establishment of a Governing Council (GC), and the June 1, 2004 establishment of the Interim Iraqi government were major steps toward that goal. The establishment of effective representative government, ultimately sustained by democratic elections, has required the rapid development of new frameworks and capacities.

An Interim Constitution
Respect for the rule of law and human rights
Effective and fair justice systems
Open and transparent political institutions and processes
Creation of a vibrant civil society
Measures to improve the effectiveness of elected officials, including strengthened local government systems

Six Iraqi ministries play a primary role in Governance: Foreign Affairs, Women’s Issues, Human Rights, Culture, Youth and Sport, and Planning and Development Cooperation.

Essential Services

CPA helped the Iraqi government to reconstitute Iraq’s infrastructure, maintain a high level of oil production, ensure food security, improve water and sanitation infrastructure, improve health care quality and access, rehabilitate key infrastructures such as transportation and communications, improve education, and improve housing- quality and access.

Eleven Iraqi ministries play a primary role in Essential Services: Education, Higher Education, Health, Displacement and Migration, Communications, Municipalities and Public Works, Electricity, Housing and Construction, Water Resources, Transportation, Environment

Economy

CPA helped the Iraqi government to build market-based economy by:

Modernizing the Central Bank, strengthening the commercial banking sector and re-establishing the Stock Exchange and securities market
Developing transparent budgeting and accounting arrangements, and a framework for sound public sector finances and resource allocation
Laying the foundation for an open economy by drafting company, labor and intellectual property laws and streamlining existing commercial codes and regulations
Promoting private business and SMEs through building up the domestic banking sector and credit arrangements.
Establishing the structure of the oil industry. Seven Iraqi ministries play a leading role in Economy: Oil, Labor and Social Activity, Agriculture, Trade, Science and Technology, Industry and Minerals, and Finance.”

Hiring Policies

Could the subject of not hiring a certain "group" of people influenced the so called debate over "hiring policies" which Geo Swan was alluding to? [2]

What Geo Swan and Ariele should both agree to do

On Monday July 11, 2005 you wrote a brief reply to some comments of mine with some links to some definitions, and to the wikipedia meta-article on personal attacks.

I followed your links, including the personal attacks one. Let me direct your attention to

Personal attacks#Alternatives:

Instead, try:

Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party. This does not mean that you have to agree with them, but just agree to disagree.
Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is.
Explore issues in a less public forum like e-mail if a debate threatens to become personal.
Read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

I think the strained relations between you and I has got to the point where we should be using a "less public forum like e-mail." Other people, who are potential contributors to the articles we are interested in, are reading the talk pages, and are being frightened away. Brian1975 expressed reluctance to add his experience, if it meant he would be drawn into bickering.

Comments you and I make on the talk pages of the articles we contribute to should be confined solely to the substance of comments other people make.

I'd like you to stop making comments that I am trying, or that I tried, to turn the article into soapbox. At least stop saying it in articles Talk pages. I am perfectly happy to answer clear, specific, civil questions -- on my sources, or the conclusions I draw from them.

If you feel that I owe you some kind of apology, why don't you tell me about it on my personal talk page, or through email? -- Geo Swan 17:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I've already removed my contributions to this article a while back ago [3][4]. I was under the impression that "anyone can contribute (not practice)" on Wikipedia. My comments to this talk page is NOT bickering. Bickering comes across badly the same way as does the word "nagging", which is essentially an excuse to describe the action of a female or woman's outspokenness. In my culture, to describe my comments to a contributor's responses as "bickering" is "unacceptable". Especially when the contributor's comments were addressed directly to me or in response to my comments. And any attempts to persuade me and GEO SWAN into some agreement under your terms is "unacceptable". If you disagree with the way we do things here, then go write a book elsewhere.

Ariele 14:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

To a casual observer, it is bickering. I am glad to see that the article is making quite a bit of headway in the last few days. I was pleasantly surprised to see someone else contributing to it today not long after I removed the NPOV tag. This is a very important article about a topic that will continue to evolve for years to come as the facts about such a turbulent situation become known. It's important that we all continue to contribute whatever information we have available to each of us so that we can present the fullest and clearest picture possible.

Brian1975 23:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Could you please reconsider defeating the history mechanism ?

I know Rama explained that editing other people's comments on the talk pages is disruptive. He said he was sure you meant well.

I will assume that you thought your recent rewrite made the talk page clearer. I will assume you did not fully think through the implications your edits had for returning readers. Regular readers put the pages they are particularly interested in on their watchlist. And, when someone else makes a contribution to that page, they use the wikipedia's history feature to observe the changes. One you are familiar with a page, you don't want to have to re-read the entire article, you just want to see what is new.

The kind of editing you did back in February, and which you have returned to today, is very disruptive to people who use the history feature. When yoou cut blocks of text, written by other people, at different times, massage them, and paste the altered text back in the article at a different place, you break the history mechanism. The entire altered text now looks like you wrote.

Have I explained this problem so you understand it? Click on this link to see how confusing you made the article for users of the history feature.

Do you want to know what I think would be the best thing you could do? Revert your last edit. Do you know how to do that? -- Geo Swan 20:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Generic Page Edits

While I agree that making modifications to make the article easier to read are in order, I would request that anyone making an edit be sure that their edits are grammatically correct. There were a couple of recent copyedits to some of the passages that I had recently updated that introduced bad things such as split infinitives, incorrect usage of the comma, and creation of incomplete phrases where a gerund or independent clause should have stood. Feel free to correct my grammar if you feel it's not correct, but please don't substitute a sentence of lower grammatical quality in the name of trying to simplify the message. Brian1975 12:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Do we really know why Bremer left early?

The article has recently revised the explanation of why Bremer left early. Do we really know why Bremer left early? Or are we just speculating?

I spent some time recently reading the KPMG audit report. The auditors criticized Bremer for his sudden departure. While Bremer criticized Inspector General Bowen for never interviewing him, the KPMG auditors complained that Bremer never met with them.

If we are just speculating I'd like to point out that his sudden departure could as easily be explained by an attempt to evade responsibility for his frankly shocking, disastrous mismanagement of the funds he was charged to administer. -- Geo Swan 00:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

At the time of his departure, the State Department was busy taking over the Palace and fortifying it into an Embassy. The security that was put into place around the Palace was a substantial increase over the way things were handled by the CPA. Overnight literally hundreds of folks were to be locked out and unable to return to work. The way in which DoS came onto the scene and the DoD folks were pushed out along with the CPA folks didn't play well and a massive turf war was brewing. Bush finally put an end to it when he signed an order a few months later that returned responsibility for reconstruction to DoD. Bremer's residence was to be emptied out before Negroponte's arrival, and rather than stand around waiting for him while the DoD vs. DoS drama played out, he simply left. The Shi'ite militias (Moqtada al-Sadr, et al) at that time were getting out of hand, and the immediate future was looking very bleak. The folks taking care of him knew quite well that the transition was premature and a recipe for disaster in the making. The logical thing for any American in Iraq at the time was to leave or button down the hatches. All civilian airport traffic was closed and the land border crossings were also closed for the week leading up to the transfer of power and for a mini three day holiday afterwards that was observed by the Iraqis. Brian1975 19:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improvement of this Encyclopedia Article

If I may, I would like to suggest Wikipedia Administrators screen for soapboxes and check their accuracy as new articles are created on Wikipedia about Iraq. This article and most of those listed below could use some major editing and consolidating:

Spelling out the words of acronyms would be helpful for those readers unfamiliar with their meaning. Is there an easy access to a spell checker in this editor? Ariele 02:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC) and Revised on 5 August 2005

Amb. Bremer's book 'My Year in Iraq: The Struggle to Build a Future of Hope' will be available January 1, 2006. [5]