Talk:British support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War

Help with British news and other citations with CAAT

There is a good deal of substantive material at http://www.caat.org.uk/publications/countries/iraq-1991-briefing.php, but CAAT only generally referenced the name and date of various British media. I've left some of their references in, but regretfully left out a good deal of material that should be in the article, if it only can be properly cited. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Woody, for the rating

I agree there is a problem with sources, as I mentioned under the CAAT report. It may take someone with access to a UK library to develop additional sources.

As far as graphics, I've had to draw out, just for my own understanding, the structure of Iraqi front companies, agents, etc. I'm not sure if these would be useful or not. Up to this point, the British flow diagrams of that type are relatively straightforward; there's one for a transaction starting in France that probably involves ten countries, and is a graphics nightmare just on a piece of paper.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have access to JSTOR and to a University Library from next week so if you need any help in acquiring sources, then ask. If you need graphics drawn up then Military logistics can help out. If you don't think that any graphics or infoboxes can realistically be added, then change it to yes.

As always, if you need any help, my talkpage is always open... Woody (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

British eyes especially welcome

I suspect there are nuances of the politics that I don't pick up from this side of the pond, and sources that don't occur to me, so comments are very welcome. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Separate article for Iraqi procurement network?

I'm inclined to start moving this to its own article, although there would have to be a great deal of Wikilinking to the specific actions in different countries. Thoughts? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Proper national terminology

I suspect this title is not of the preferred sort. Should it be:

• United Kingdom support
• Great Britain support (sounds odd)
• or something else

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A bit confused

Howard, I've reviewed this a couple of times since you flagged it to me, but in all honesty I'm finding it quite confusing. Part of that is probably the mix of techniques and examples, but I think that key to my confusion is the absence of a clear reason for the article.

I have a feeling that there are a number of threads in the article which haven't been drawn out at this time; explicit support by HMG, tacit approval by HMG, commercial actions in contravention of both international law and HMGs wishes and finally efforts by Iraq to gain control of industrial assets in the UK.

In terms of specifics I'm unconvinced by the FAS interpretation of Matrix Churchill, but I'll need to look a bit deeper on that. I'll track down a copy of the Scott report and see what's said.

I'm afraid this is a little cursory as I'm extremely busy at the moment.

ALR (talk) 10:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

perhaps you are confused because it is confusing? :-(

There are several reasons, and, frankly, all of which deal with trying to manage a POV push on Iran-Iraq War, countering it with facts.

Matrix Churchill was there more as an example of the nuances and deception of Iraqi procurement. If you find a link to the Scott Report, I'd appreciate it, as it is something I'd like to read at length. One thing I was at least suggesting is that the Iraqis were subtle, although HMG policy may have fluctuated. A good question, to which I have no solid answer, is why HMG didn't stop the Matrix Churchill affair earlier, while it seemed to act promptly with Canira.

The whole Matrix Churchill story may need its own articles. You are correct that there are threads that haven't been fully developed, for any or all of several reasons. In the effort to help deal with the POV wars on Iran-Iraq, I wanted to get out, as quickly as possible, some articles, of at least start class, on nations besides the U.S. that had some involvement. This isn't an attempt to whitewash the U.S., but one to counter the misleading POV that the U.S. was the only third country with any involvement.

Another problem, on which I may be getting some help, is finding British material, from the 80s, which may or may not be online. CAAT seems to have good material, but they are frustrating in failing to identify their references: "Hansard 1984-1-31" or "Guardian 1982-11-7" is just not enough to find the source, unless I had the full document. As far as Hansard, I'm learning both how to navigate what they have online, and also occasionally trying to read between the lines. As far as the latter, I can look at the U.S. Congressional Record or congressional hearings, and immediately know what was and was not actually said in debate, and, perhaps more importantly, recognize the polite euphemisms in which attacks are delivered.

(While there are a few striking examples of magnificent insults, properly phrased, in our Congress, I envy your Parliament for much better dialogue. OTOH, on my one long and terrifying drive in the UK, when I stopped at a rest area on the M5, I was much cheered by a carefully lettered sign on the hot-air hand dryer in the gents'"Press button to hear a message from your Member of Parliament.")

My intuition is that while Iraq valued the manufacturing technology in Britain, an even higher priority was getting control of the U.S. division, which they converted from sales & support to primarily Iraqi procurement. This tied in with the Italian BNL branch in the U.S., and some (from my standpoint) shocking U.S. loan guarantees. The BNL matter made at least USD $5 billion available to Iraqi procurement, the U.S. division of Matrix Churchill being one of the primary beneficiaries.

Britain was not, IMHO, a critical player in the war, but had enough involvement, to throw doubt on the current article POV that the US was the only significant third country. Britain's involvement with Iraq was much less than that of the Soviets, French, Italians and U.S., but it was sufficient to mention. It's particularly important in understanding Iraqi procurement, although for that, it's also important to understand cutouts like Singapore. One of the comments on the Scott Report was that if all the End User Certificates truly were for Singapore, Singapore would have the world's largest military.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Howard. I think with all that in mind it's worth splitting the article into two main sections, one talking about the UK tacit approval of exports and the other exploring Iraqi effort to gain control of the industrial capacity in the UK and US. I think part of the issue is purely stylistic; I prefer to keep assessments to the bare bones, although recognise that the editing environment in WP doesn't make that particularly easy.

There is a more comprehensive case study on ISIS although they do seem to have a focus on Iraq. At the time of the trial I was in the Balkans, so not really paying that much attention.

I appreciate your point about reducing the focus on US influence on the Iran/ Iraq conflict, and that the UK in general wasn't a major player.

One of the snags with Hansard is that a lot of the more interesting papers aren't discussed in the house, but are deposited in the library. That makes them available to FOIA requests, but they're not easily available otherwise. It's a useful way to defuse difficult situations, but it does make finding collateral quite difficult.

I'll try to get a more detailed wade through later.

ALR (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on British support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090704124605/http://www.trust-us.ch:80/cryptome/01-Cryptome-061213/fac062797.txt to http://www.trust-us.ch/cryptome/01-Cryptome-061213/fac062797.txt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080304193529/http://www.nrg-nl.com:80/public/abc/node697.html to http://www.nrg-nl.com/public/abc/node697.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080311201359/http://www.bnfl.com:80/index.php?pageID=67 to http://www.bnfl.com/index.php?pageID=67
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080323081958/http://www.wisconsinproject.org:80/pubs/testimonies/2002/testimony-iirevised-eaa-house%20armed%20serv-091902.htm to http://www.wisconsinproject.org/pubs/testimonies/2002/testimony-iirevised-eaa-house%20armed%20serv-091902.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080515231507/http://www.exportcontrols.org/recruitment.html to http://www.exportcontrols.org/recruitment.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)