Talk:United States involvement in regime change

2001 Canada

[CIA_activies_in_afghanistan|funding of mujahadeen] resulted in rise of [al qaeda] resulted in terrorist attack on WTC 2001 which resulted in an attack on immigration policy and interfered internally with Canadas vision for its society. Before September 2001 Canada was a free place with democratic development geared towards a multicultural society (a stark contrast to its immidiate neighbour). Canada whose economy was depended by more than 60% on US exports had no choice to restrict free movement, incarcerate terrorism suspects and deport dissidents under US President George W. Bush's ultimatum whether they are "with or against us". They chose with. And thus the CIA indirectly destroyed Canada's multicultural society. Further as decades passed it became obvious that forgeign citizens could join the RCMP. FBI and DEA from the US were able to make arrests on Canadian sovereign soil. Thanks au revoir. Canada does not owe anyone an apology, US owes all immigrant and returnees from Canada an apology, but the damage is done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.127.141 (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Removal of "1968: Iraq" section

Skornezy added a section on "1968: Iraq," referring to a handful of marginal or WP:FRINGE sources alleging U.S. involvement in the 17 July Revolution. Despite noting that these claims are unsubstantiated and largely neglected by mainstream journalists and scholars, I attempted to edit Skornezy's text to reflect a more mainstream view that might allow it to be included here. However, Skornezy reverted almost all of my edits, including minor copyedits, in favor of his preferred version.

Consequently, since the two of us were not able to achieve a consensus for inclusion, I am removing the section as giving WP:UNDUE weight to WP:REDFLAG assertions that the vast majority of full-length studies of American foreign policy, U.S. involvement in regime change, and, for that matter, the history of Iraq do not even mention. For example:

• Tripp, Charles R. H. (2002). A History of Iraq. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521529006. One of the standard histories of Iraq, Tripp 2002 does not contain a single mention of U.S. involvement.
• Hahn, Peter (2011). Missions Accomplished?: The United States and Iraq Since World War I. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195333381. One of (if not the only?) full-length studies of U.S.-Iraq relations from the founding of the Iraqi state to the present, Hahn 2011 does not contain a single mention of U.S. involvement.
• Gibson, Bryan R. (2015). Sold Out? US Foreign Policy, Iraq, the Kurds, and the Cold War. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 230. ISBN 978-1-137-48711-7. The most detailed full-length study of U.S.-Iraq relations during the time period in question (1958-1975), Gibson 2015, discusses the allegation but only in a footnote, concluding: "There is no evidence to substantiate claims that the United States was behind the coup."
• Wolfe-Hunnicutt, Brandon (2017). "Oil Sovereignty, American Foreign Policy, and the 1968 Coups in Iraq". Diplomacy & Statecraft. 28 (2). Routledge: 235–253. doi:10.1080/09592296.2017.1309882. S2CID 157328042. Skornezy's own primary source, Wolfe-Hunnicutt 2017, does not rule out U.S. involvement entirely, barring the release of additional information in the future, but acknowledges that there is currently "no evidence that these groups received official support from Washington." Wolfe-Hunnicutt writes: "Certain American business groups did look with favour on the coup that overthrew Yahya, but there is, as yet, no evidence that these groups received official support from Washington. On the contrary, the Lyndon Johnson Administration repeatedly rebuffed appeals from business groups calling for American support for the Ba'ath. ... [The coup] was not particularly good news from the perspective of the NSC and the White House. After the spectacular failure of the Ba'ath to establish a stable regime in 1963, many in Washington grew sceptical of the Party, particularly after a group of radical Ba'athists seized power in Syria in 1966 and aligned their regime with the Soviet Union. As the new group took power in Iraq, the NSC acknowledged that it was as yet unclear 'how radical' they would be, but worried that as Ba'athists, 'their tendencies will be towards moving Iraq even closer to [the Palestinian] Fatah, the Syrians, and the Soviets.'" In a footnote, which Skornezy treats as fact rather than speculation, Wolfe-Hunnicutt mentions that "the evidence ... suggests if the Central Intelligence Agency backed the coup, it did so ... without proper authorisation or larger policy co-ordination."

I could go on, but for now, due to time constraints, I will leave you with the observation that Skornezy's proposed revision fails to mention how, specifically, the U.S. supported the coup effort. This is not an accident: Even proponents of Skornezy's thesis do not claim to have specific evidence or knowledge regarding what the "U.S. involvement" entailed. Rather, they typically state something to the effect of "more research is needed on this question, as many U.S. government records from the time remain classified."

Nevertheless, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Our article is intended to reflect a high-level overview of "United States involvement in regime change," listing well-documented cases (e.g., 1953 Iranian coup d'état, 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état, 2003 invasion of Iraq) as part of a broader discussion, but not regurgitating every mere allegation under the sun that anyone has ever raised about American foreign policy. For example, in a previous discussion editors declined to include allegations of a U.S. role in the Ukrainian Revolution of Dignity, citing that the allegations are not widely-substantiated in the secondary literature. Until "1968: Iraq" becomes accepted/documented in the academic literature to the point where it is generally discussed in high-level studies of "United States involvement in regime change" (and, indeed, we have a clearer idea of what is even being alleged!), it similarly should be omitted from our article. (If other editors disagree and if Skornezy can achieve consensus for his proposed revision here, then I will, of course, withdraw my challenge.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

These are not fringe theories, the main two sources I used are both authored by expert historians on Iraq and published in reputable academic institutions:

• Avneri, Netanel (2015). "The Iraqi Coups of July 1968 and the American Connection". Middle Eastern Studies. 51 (4): 649–663. ISSN 0026-3206.
• Wolfe-Hunnicutt, Brandon (2017). "Oil Sovereignty, American Foreign Policy, and the 1968 Coups in Iraq". Diplomacy & Statecraft. 28 (2). Routledge: 235–253. doi:10.1080/09592296.2017.1309882. S2CID 157328042.

(Unless otherwise cited, I'll be referencing from these two)

I believe you are misquoting Wolfe-Hunnicutt. The two sources compliment each other, as stated by Wolfe-Hunnicutt himself: "Both Avneri and myself see a significant American role in the events that brought the Ba'th to power. However, whereas Avneri sees consistent US support for the Ba'th, I focus on the divisions among policymakers and find that only one faction of the US government supported the coup. The more dominant faction within the Lyndon Johnson administration refused to accommodate the new regimes for fear of the threat that it might pose to Israel." I believe these nuances are adequately elaborated on in the article, and anyone can see it for themselves.

Therefore, because of these divisions, "The evidence presented in [Wolfe-Hunnicutt's] analysis suggests that if the Central Intelligence Agency backed the coup, it did so as what Democratic Representative Otis G. Pike described as a "rogue elephant"—meaning an agency operating without proper authorisation or larger policy co-ordination."

Meanwhile, Avneri (2015) documents that "Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Eugene Rostow heard from Robert Anderson, former Secretary of the Treasury (1957-61), to the effect that 'an Iraqi contact with high-level connections in the new government', Luṭfi al-'Ubaydi, was sent by 'the new Iraqi Government. . .to see him and discuss his sulphur deal'. 'Ubaydi also told him that the new government was 'anxious' to resume relations. Anderson, who "is described in the scholarly literature a 'CIA trouble-shooter,'" took "the lead in Iraqi-American commercial relations' since the overthrow of Qasim and the rise of the first Ba'th administration in 1963." While Ubaydi "is described in the scholarly literature as 'an Iraqi lawyer and politico with many friends within the Ba'th party,' ... [as well as] 'an economic advisor and a close friend' of President Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr.

Avneri establishes that "there was continuous contact between [Anderson] and the State Department" while the latter was liasing with Ubaydi—"an emissary of the regime that overthrew 'Arif." The Ba'ath also "sought to share its secretly made decisions about Yahya's fate and the oil contract with France with the State Department through the medium of Anderson," which Avneri states gives a boost to the claim of American involvement in the coup, and even provides an allegation/admission by one of the coup's plotters, Abdul Razzaq an-Naif, who stated in his memoirs that "for the 1968 coup you must look to Washington." Avneri writes that "Washington had a good reason to encourage the overthrow of the [Iraq's] government," and that "it is likely that the desire to overthrow the [Iraqi] government was seen in Washington as more important than the subsequent establishment of a more moderate regime."

We cite sources based on what they say, not on what they don't say. Because Tripp (2002) and Hahn (2011) do not comment on U.S. involvement in their respective books, TheTimesAreAChanging infers from this absence in commentary that this "proves" that U.S. involvement in the coup is a "fringe" theory. Not only is this an appeal to ignorance fallacy, since we don't know Tripp or Hahn's views on U.S. involvement because they haven't written or commented about it, but it's also probably a form of original research. According to WP:FRINGE, "reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner," i.e., the majority of reliable sources must explicitly challenge the views of reliable sources theorising U.S. involvement. Besides, Avneri and Wolfe-Hunnicutt's analyses are based on "recently declassified US State Department records," documents that were likely not available to Tripp and Hahn at the time when they each wrote their books.

Gibson (2015), the only source TheTimesAreAChanging provided that directly disputed U.S. involvement, dedicates a single sentence in a footnote to say that "There is no evidence to substantiate claims that the United States was behind the coup." Of course, I welcomed this and included it in the article myself, however a single sentence in a footnote is not nearly enough to paint Wolfe-Hunnicutt and Avneri's analyses as "fringe." Although not in relation to the 1968 coup, but regarding a previous Iraqi Ba'athist coup in 1963, Gibson—who does not believe the US helped the Ba'ath overthrow overthrow Iraq's government in 1963—admits that "It is accepted among scholars that the CIA ... assisted the Ba'th Party in its overthrow of [Iraq's] regime." If anything Gibson ought to be considered "fringe" by his own admission!

To summarise the section's evidence, all citing academic sources:

• Two historians on Iraq who "Both ... see a significant American role in the events that brought the Ba'th to power."
• Contemporary documents that report that there were "strong rumors" in Iraq that "Washington was behind the coup" when it occurred, and that "Several ministers, especially the Prime Minister were known to be 'pro-American.'"
• A "CIA trouble-shooter." and former U.S. Treasury Secretary who maintained "continuous contact" with both the U.S. State Department and "an emissary of the regime that overthrew 'Arif" with "many friends within the Ba'th party," including coup leader Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr. The new Ba'athist regime even relayed "its secretly made decisions" to this "CIA trouble-shooter" to pass on the State Department.
• An admission/allegation from one of the coup plotters that the U.S. was indeed involved in the coup: "for the 1968 coup you must look to Washington."

As an aside, many of the Ba'athists who participated in the 1968 coup also participated in the previous Iraqi Ba'athist coup of 1963, including coup leaders al-Bakr and Salih Mahdi Ammash; the 1963 coup is documented by the majority of scholars, including Wolfe-Hunnicutt, to have occurred with U.S. backing. Regarding 1963, Wolfe-Hunnicutt, citing declassified documents, establishes that the Kennedy Administration viewed Ammash as an "asset." Similarly, some evidence indicates that Saddam, who was living in Egypt before and during the 1963 coup, was "in frequent contact with US officials and intelligence agents" during his exile. Skornezy (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't find Skornezy's arguments convincing, but I will let any page-watchers weigh in on whether they feel these allegations merit inclusion in the main article on "United States involvement in regime change" based on the arguments presented.

To briefly address an apparent misunderstanding of policy on Skornezy's part, original research is perfectly permissible on talk pages, although not in article space. Editors are allowed to consider if the vast majority of the literature on both the political history of Iraq and U.S. foreign relations excludes the theory of U.S. involvement in the 1968 Ba'thist coup when making decisions of editorial discretion and due weight; verifiability is a necessary, but not sufficient, basis for inclusion.

The declassified documents that I have seen tend to disprove U.S. involvement or support of the coup, not that this can be stated in article space, but if more documents are being released and fresh arguments made by scholars that may become widely-accepted in the future, then perhaps Wikipedia should err on the side of caution and wait for that scholarly debate to play out before including the content in the high-level article on "United States involvement in regime change".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Right, but you did try to do include Tripp's lack of commentary in this edit. It's faulty logic and original research.

That FRUS document is "National Security Council member John Foster’s initial intelligence assessment." However, the American Embassy at Beirut—the principle source of political information on Iraq after the closure of the Baghdad Embassy during the June 1967 War—was much more optimistic" than Foster. Similarly, "As an unofficial emissary of the government, 'Ubaydi gave Anderson several messages that were not related to sulphur which indicated an Iraqi desire for cooperation with Washington" These are the "divisions among policymakers" that Wolfe-Hunnicutt was alluding to.

This aspect of Iraq's historiography, especially from the 1920s to just before the Iran-Iraq War, is relatively unstudied. For example, "Scholars are only beginning to uncover the extent to which the United States was involved in organizing the [1963] coup." The fact that we have two expert historians on Iraq who "Both ... see a significant American role in the events that brought the Ba'th to power" is significant and corroborates some of the other sources:

• Professor of Political Science: Ismael, Tareq Y.; Ismael, Jacqueline S. (2015). Iraq in the Twenty-First Century: Regime Change and the Making of a Failed State. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-56758-5.

With further help from the US the Ba'th returned to power in 1968.

• Journalist: Aburish, Said (2001). Saddam Hussein: The Politics of Revenge. Bloomsbury. p. 73. ISBN 0-7475-4903-6.

With a measure of justification, the writer Hassan Al Said cites the reputable French newspaper Le Monde and says that 'The change [in Iraq] was not for internal reasons only. Iraqi opposition leader Ahmad Chalabi describes the 1968 coup as the second stage of CIA-Ba'ath cooperation. The urbane Adnan Pachachi uses measured words to describe what might have happened: "I don’t know of outside involvement, but perhaps it happened. The regime of Prime Minister Taher Yahya was pro-Nasser and unpopular with the West. It would make sense." The eminent historian Hanna Batatu quotes President Abdel Rahman Aref as speaking of the involvement of 'non-Iraqi hands'. The background to all these statements is considerable. [...] But the more important connection, according to Ahmad Chalabi, came out of the meeting between Anderson and Bakr, which was arranged by Parker and Obeidi one year before the coup and at which oil and sulphur were discussed. These contacts followed what happened in 1966, when Saddam wrote a letter to the US Consulate in Basra asking for their help in overthrowing the government. [...] Years later, in his memoirs, Nayyef himself supported the allegation of the CIA involvement when he clearly stated '... for the 1968 coup you must look to Washington'. The question is not whether the CIA was involved, for America welcomed this coup as well; the question is how involved it was and with whom.

• Journalist: Lando, Barry (2010). Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq, From Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush. Doubleday Canada. p. 32. ISBN 9780385672887.

With this third attempt, the Baath took control of Iraq for good. There is evidence that, once again the U.S. was involved.

• Journalist: Campbell, Deborah (2016). A Disappearance in Damascus: A Story of Friendship and Survival in the Shadow of War. Knopf Canada. p. 287. ISBN 9780345809315.

The follow-up 1968 coup that brought Saddam Hussein closer to ultimate power was also backed by the CIA.

• U.S. National Security Council member during the coup: Morris, Roger (March 14, 2003). "A Tyrant 40 Years in the Making". The New York Times.

In 1968, after yet another coup, the Baathist general Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr seized control, bringing to the threshold of power his kinsman, Saddam Hussein. Again, this coup, amid more factional violence, came with C.I.A. backing. Serving on the staff of the National Security Council under Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon in the late 1960's, I often heard C.I.A. officers -- including Archibald Roosevelt, grandson of Theodore Roosevelt and a ranking C.I.A. official for the Near East and Africa at the time -- speak openly about their close relations with the Iraqi Baathists.

Skornezy (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Skornezy, Said Aburish is a questionable source who has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories, and I'm sure you don't need me to point out that his source, Ahmed Chalabi, has very little credibility.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

And Daniel Pipes, the source you cited to "disprove" Aburish, once promoted conspiracy theories about President Obama being Muslim; has been accused of "selectivity and distortion"; and has been cited as a having spent "decades promoting anti-Muslim tropes and has financed numerous activists and organizations that spread misinformation about Muslims and Islam."

Avneri 2015 favourably cites Aburish; critiqued or not, there is no reason why Wikipedia should not consider Aburish to be a reliable source provided attribution is made for possibly contentious analysis. Besides, I'm not currently advocating for his inclusion in this article. Skornezy (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

bangladesh regime change 2024 missing

Title 103.165.29.189 (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Spring 2025 HIST 401

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2025 and 15 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Admanv (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by AdamKline01 (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History 216 Modern Latin America

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2025 and 6 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MooRocket (article contribs). Peer reviewers: 73imaj, Mforster27.

— Assignment last updated by Katherine.Holt (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)