Talk:Coalition Provisional Authority

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

Structure of the CPA

Geo Swan,

When I re-read the article again, trying to follow the flow, I had difficulties understanding "The Structure of the CPA". The first paragraph seems fine then my mind had to switch gears when I found myself reading about the IAMB and the PRB. I didn't realize the IAMB and PRB were departments within the CPA.

,,,,Ariele 02:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should a "clean up" tag be used?

I've not received any feedback to this suggestion.,,,,,Ariele 21:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Who here has been in CPA~~
I just today found Wikipedia and decided to look up CPA. Given all the dialog on this page and the passionate expression of opinion, I am curious to know if anyone else on here was ever in CPA. Its a bit surprising (and disappointing) to me how much speculation and opinion is reflected in writing and arguing over what is supposed to be a fact-based piece for an online encyclopedia. Businessdr 06:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User:Brian1975 contributions to this article suggest he travels or traveled back and forth from Baghdad. There were some dispute over the neutrality of this article. I believe most of it developed when news of the missing $$$$ billions surfaced. Jump in anytime GEO SWAN. Ariele 04:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I worked for an Iraqi company that had contracts with the CPA, and I had access to the Palace and the Green Zone during that time. I have travelled to Baghdad six times, and still do work over there. I continue to see firsthand how the actions taken by the CPA have affected the country. The only pieces that I have contributed to this article are either substantiated by other publications, first-person observations, or logical conclusions supported by strong foundations. --Brian1975 18:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I had seen this paragraph when I provided my prior comments. You have been to Baghdad 6 times? How many weeks or months total was that? Your "substantiations" are all unreferenced, and you seem to somehow believe your first-person observations are supposed to be above reproach while those of others are totally discounted. I am more than content to let the reader come to their own conclusion on whose observations are more accurate and objective, and whose conclusions more valid, given the relative level of detailed support between our respective posts. Businessdr 06:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have never intended to convey an arrogance or discount the observations of others. There have been, and continue to be, many people from the West doing work in Iraq. The sheer amount of politics that have enveloped that small geographical area formerly known as the Green Zone are quite staggering. It's generally accepted that we don't send reporters into the scene of a story because we wish for them to stay in their offices and let everyone draw their own conclusions about a story. I think that is what is referred to as an editorial or opinion piece, and those kinds of writings frequently appear in publications like the Washington Post and the New York Times on their editorial pages.
The reason that we send reporters into an area to get a story is because we want to capture as many of the details and facts about a story as possible. The job of the reporter is to assemble those facts into a timeline and a story and then present them to us in a way that is relevant to us (ie. translates things into a language that we understand, and defines things which we do not understand). My personal observations are based upon my own dealings in the country. I have walked the streets of Ramadi and Baghdad without a weapon, I have worked for Iraqi companies with entire teams of people who don't speak any English, I have worked inside the Palace, outside the Palace, I have lived inside the Palace Compound and I have lived outside the Green Zone with regular Iraqi people, as well as with many affluent Iraqis.
Are my experiences any more or less valid than yours? Absolutely not. Are they different from yours? They absolutely are. Is my perspective different from yours? I would venture to state that my perspective and point of view is radically different based upon the overall exposure that I have had to a wider cross section of Iraqi society and their opinions about what is happening to them. I have had the privilege of being a first hand witness to the major events in the country over the past few years, and I have met some very well known people over there during my visits. My time there has not been spent isolating myself inside a small geography such as an FOB or the IZ, like almost all foreigners do. I have spent a lot of time driving around Baghdad, visiting schools, eating out in restaurants, dropping by the homes of friends, and generally seeing what it's like to live a regular life in Iraq today.
I hold these first-hand accounts of what is happening over there to be immensely more relevant than the second-hand accounts that have been published by media outlets that are very insulated from the reality of everyday life in Iraq. Yes, I did take many photographs. Many of them I am not allowed to release to the public. The ones that I am allowed to release, I have begun placing on this site. If you look at the photos on this article, you will see that I placed my photos of the Palace, of the press conference announcing the capture of Saddam, and of the INC members of the Iraqi Governing Council up already. I intend to post more of them when I get the time to clean them up. --Brian1975 01:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Did you take photographs ? Commons is always in dire need of such first-hand reporting. Rama 19:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~If your question is for me, Rama, I have many photos I took both inside and outside the Green Zone.Businessdr 07:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Updates~~
What is the "approved" process for updating these pages? Being new to Wikipedia, I attempted to make some minor corrections to a "quote" that was taken out of context, and a statement that was attributed to the quoted person that was neither said by the person nor true. However, minutes later, another person restored the original page.
Elsewhere there are statements, as an example, that some "contend" DFI funds were for certain purposes, while others "contend" that Congressionally appropriated funds were for other purposes. When someone writes "contends" it is a clear flag they don't know what they are talking about and are only guessing based on hearsay. There is no contention about what Congressional and DFI funds were for. The first was incorporated into U.S. law, and the second was part of a UN Resolution. However, it seems that if someone who knows the answer to unclear or incorrect statements wants to make an edit for purposes of correction, someone else can come along and undo that revision purely for political biases or preconceived notions.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the process and am interpreting the process in an unfair light. Can anyone shed some light on this for me? I am interested in helping fix errors concerning CPA and Iraq, but I have no interest in engaging in debate with people who don't have the facts and don't want to know the facts. Businessdr 05:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Were these the edits you made which were then quickly reversed? If they were, may I point out that they don't refer to any secondary sources? Personally, I am very curious to hear your first hand account of your time with the CPA. But that is not a citable source. I believe that would be what the wikipedia guides call "original research". No one doubts the value of original research in general. But it is frowned on in the wikipedia.

I will agree that "contends" may sometimes flag a correspondent who can't back up their assertions. Or it could be used by someone attempting to keep their contribution neutral. It could be used by someone for whom English is not their first language. Perhaps you could offer specific instances of assertions you find questionable?

As to whether the purpose of the funds was clear -- in at least one instance the DFI was called upon to buy equipment for US forces. So the purpose wasn't clear to everyone. Paul Bremer routinely flouted the terms of the UN resolution which authorized him to expend Iraq's oil revenue. Those expenditures were to be made in an open, transparent way. But they weren't. You can see that for yourself if you read the audit reports.

Do people sometimes come along and undo revisions purely due to political bias and preconceived notions? Yes, that happens. It is not supposed to happen. Some people think that the injunction to "be bold" means contributors should remove or reverse passages they find questionable. But I interpret that "be bold" injunction to be advise for those contributing new material. I think we should try to initiate a discussion on the talk page over passages we find questionable. If you made those edits I think you should have initiated a discussion here. If the reversal of the edits I linked to above is your example of someone reverting due to political bias or preconceived notion, then let me set your mind at ease. I respect Rama, and I am sure the reason he reverted was that the contributions were not attributed to a secondary source, and were from a numbered IP address. This article, and the L. Paul Bremer article have a history of vandalism from one particular user who made a practice of hiding behind multiple screen-names and numbered IP addresses.

Your contributions are welcome. There are guides as to how to make contributions, and when and how to challenge earlier editors contributions. -- Geo Swan 01:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~So, about your time with the CPA...~~
Were you in the first wave of hires?

How long were you there?

Did you have any background in finance or bookkeeping before you arrived?

Were you given any financial of bookkeeping responsibilities?

Did you live in the green zone?

If so, how many times did you leave the green zone?

Did you meet any Iraqis who didn't work for the CPA?

How were you hired? The WaPo article said the staffers they interviewed did not know how they were chosen, because they had not submitted any applications.

Did you have a job interview? The WaPo article said the staffers they interviewed did not have job interviews.

If so, who interviewed you?

Did the FBI conduct a security check into your background? #Interview your neighbours, professors and former employers? The WaPo article said the staffers they interviewed did not go through any kind of security check.

Finally, my most personal question -- the WaPo article said that, when you included their bonuses and overtime, the CPA staff earned six figure incomes, even those coming right from college. So, if you had been there a year, would you have earned six figures? -- Geo Swan 01:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Geo Swan,
Thanks for the reply. I have neither respect nor disrespect for Rama, as I do not know him/her. All I know is I tried make a couple edits. One for example was a blanket statement concerning the experience of people in CPA, and a reference to the Washington Post article that was taken completely out of context and used to infer that a statement made by the Post applied to all CPA personnel. If you read the article cited, it certainly appears to me that an attempt was made to provide a "reference" for something that was neither stated nor implied in the original source, but only supported a preconceived bias of the contributor. However, there may have been other reasons for the misunderstanding. Nevertheless, I question why someone providing an edit needs more support for a revision than the person providing the original post. I simply made an edit based on what was actually in the Washington Post article, as opposed to distorting the words and intent of the article. Given more time, I will put together a point by point basis for every word proposed to be changed. I had simply hoped this was not necessary.
What I can answer more quickly--and therefore have time to respond to--are your questions.
1) Were you in the first wave of hires?
No, I arrived in Jan. '04
2) How long were you there?
7 months
3) Did you have any background in finance or bookkeeping before you arrived?
I have a Doctorate in Business Administration, have written a book on cost management, and led the cost management practice for the public sector at Price Waterhouse. I have taught strategic planning, financial management, managerial accouting, business ethics, and economic analysis at the graduate school level (George Washington Univ., Central Michigan Univ., and Troy State Univ.)
4) Were you given any financial of bookkeeping responsibilities?
I was the principal finance advisor to an Iraqi ministry
5) Did you live in the green zone?
Yes
6) If so, how many times did you leave the green zone?
Several times a week
7) Did you meet any Iraqis who didn't work for the CPA?
Many, including many I worked with on a near daily basis.
8) How were you hired? The WaPo article said the staffers they interviewed did not know how they were chosen, because they had not submitted any applications.
I submitted an application to the CPA office at the Pentagon, and it was accepted after interviews
9) Did you have a job interview? The WaPo article said the staffers they interviewed did not have job interviews.
Yes, two times
10) If so, who interviewed you?
A retired Army general officer was responsible for finding and recommending individuals for this particular ministry. I interviewed with him, as well as the senior advisor (head) for the ministry I was hired to support. I can also tell you that not having an interview was certainly an exception. Moreover, the Washington Post article was about a couple people, both of whom I know personally. They were initially hired to help put together a conference, which was not what they eventually got into when the Post attributed to them the "running of a country." The advisors in the CPA had an important policy and advisory role, but this is not what Anita Greco (one of the two persons referred to in the aricle) were originally hired for. I can also tell you there were vastly more applications for positions than there were vacancies. Generally, there were many very qualified and experience people there. My guess is Anita got offered a position because of the outstanding work she did. She did not "run the country." She was, however, a very competent person in the Ministry of Finance. If I ever needed to get information, or help in getting anything done in Finance, she was always the first one I'd see. She was a go getter, and inexperienced in finance or not, she was smart enough to ask questions and perservered until she got the necessary answers. I'd take one of her over a half-dozen of some of the other, more experienced people I ran into. Her example makes great copy for a newspaper that wants to make headlines, but it does little to understand the issues and challenges that existed, or the quality of people who tried to face those challenges.
11) Did the FBI conduct a security check into your background?
Yes. I sumitted paperwork for a security clearance, and I received a secret clearance.
12) Interview your neighbours, professors and former employers? The WaPo article said the staffers they interviewed did not go through any kind of security check.
I assume so, but I have no personnal knowledge. You are never notifed on whom is contacted regarding an interview, and I have had previous clearances exceeding top secret.
13) Finally, my most personal question -- the WaPo article said that, when you included their bonuses and overtime, the CPA staff earned six figure incomes, even those coming right from college. So, if you had been there a year, would you have earned six figures?
First, the Post article is incorrect in saying everyone earned a six figure salary, even including bonuses. Pay was based on experience and prior pay. No one who was making $30,000 a year previously suddenly got a huge pay jump. Secondly, there was a 25% dislocation allowance and a 25% hazardous duty bonus after you had been in country for a minimum amount of time (I forget, but I think it was around 30-45 days). Both of these are standard. Also, anyone who'd begrudge a civilian for volunteering to risk their lives on a daily basis a 25% bonus I have to wonder about. I was not there for the money, and if it had been that great, I could go back tomorrow. I did earn a 6 figure salary, but I did the job despite the pay cut (yes, I have made a 6 figure salary since 1997). There was even a billionaire there (he had been a founder of a major software company), and he certainly wasn't there for the money either.
Businessdr 21:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~GEOSWAN and RAMA~~
~~It could be used by someone for whom English is not their first language.~~
~~This is an excuse to hide some very personal issues.~~
~~This article, and the L. Paul Bremer article have a history of vandalism from one particular user who made a practice of hiding behind multiple screen-names and numbered IP addresses.~~
Again, remarks made by GEOSWAN suggest that these individuals (yep, multiple individuals) have some personal issues that can only be sorted out by THERAPY! Get a life. |_|>Ariele 05:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~CORRECTION: political issues. Why? Who knows? Who really cares? Let's put it to a vote.~~
I still suspect GEO SWAN and RAMA's origins are the same. I imagine these are user id's accessible by .... hmmmm, institution?????? USER:RAMA's excercise of authority as administrator here at "Wiki" should be under review. Should he/she/it be allowed to continue as administrator? Who should replace him? Not I....., seeing how I'm the alleged vandal.....tsskkk, tsskk,,,,Ariele 16:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Using multiple identities~~
Purposely using multiple identities, in order to vote, multiple times would be intellectually dishonest.

Purposely using multiple identities, to give the pretense that their views are supported by others, would be intellectually dishonest.

I don't believe Ariele uses their multiple identities for either of these purposes. Nevertheless their use of multiple identities was confusing and disruptive. FWIW I haven't seen them use any other identity since I outed them, on July 3rd. They do continue to edit from anonymous IP addresses. But this does not seem to be an attempt to deceive.

Ariele did acknowledge using multiple IDs on July 5th.

The record of Ariele's vandalism is indisputable. Here are just a few instances:
Sweeper [6]

User:66.20.152.241: [7]

User:66.20.153.80:[8]

Paradigmbuff: [9], [10], [11]

Ariele, you and I both live in free countries. You can suspect that Rama and I are the same person. But since you have no basis for this suspicion I think the wikipedia policy of "assume good faith" and "no personal attacks" obliges you to keep this suspicion to yourself.

I have asked you, well over a dozen times, to attmpt to be more civil. But. in my opinion, your attempts continue to fall short. -- Geo Swan 19:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My contributions towards this article and that of L. Paul Bremer are unbiased, based on fact, and substantiated with a source (i.e. links). I do not consider my edits as an act of vandalism. You regarded my edits of your contributions as an act of vandalism. Since I run into time crunches often (blogging is just a hobby for me), I sampled a couple of what you've written and compared with your source --- disappointed with your portrayal of both the CPA and the man who use to be in charge.
Additionally, do you extend the same courtesy towards the subject you write about? -- "Assume good faith" and "no personal attacks" are your exact words. I am disappointed with you. You used your writing abilities to discredit people who did put their lives on the line for others.
I was assuming "good faith" when you made your controversial edits to both articles - edits by the way without supporting or opposing views (just your interpretation of how things were or are). How is that unbiased?
~~If I want to compare both GEO SWAN and RAMA are similar in origin - how is that not so? And how is it such a problem for you?~~
I'm not a religious person and don't like to preach. But there's an old parable (a couple of thousand years old) that has to do with what you do with your "talents". And the one who wasted his talent (as the story goes) lost the one remaining talent he had to another and was cast into "outerdarkness where there's weeping and gnashing of teeth". Being a fair person is not a sin (being fair is not a wasting of talent either)....Ariele 03:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I may have multiple User IDs, but there's only one Ariele. You say Ariele uses their multiple identities. "Their" is actually "her" and "identities" are actually "User IDs". I will be assuming good faith once again.,,,,Ariele 04:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~VOTE: Who Cares that USERs: Ariele, Paradigmbuff, Puffydoogle, Ethanol, Sweeper, and IP Addressees Have Multiple Log-Ins On Wikipedia?~~
~~Not I (So what?),,,Ariele 05:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~VOTE: Who thinks USERs: Ariele, Paradigmbuff, Puffydoogle, Ethanol, Sweeper, and IP Adressess Are All VANDALS~~
~~Not I ,,,, Ariele 05:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~VOTE: Who Do You Think Speaks English Fluently?~~
~~Ariele 05:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~VOTE: Who Considers Him/Her to Be a Patriotic American?~~
~~Ariele 06:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
I have read your User page. I see that your patriotism is important in your life. That is fine. You should feel free to believe whatever you want. However, when we come to contribute to the wikipedia, we have an obligation to try to write from a neutral point of view. That means trying our best to leave our own personal beliefs behind. It is a difficult task. I doubt if any wikipedia contributor manages it 100% of the time. But it should be our goal. You have written that you think Paul Bremer deserves special respect because you think he is an "American Patriot". The wikipedia is an international effort, and his patriotism, or lack thereof, should play no role in articles that talk about him. And I think your patriotism should play no role here either. -- Geo Swan 20:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Geo Swan,~~
What do you do? Are you an Activist, Reporter, Image Consultant, or Public Relations Rep.? My current User page consists mostly of my recent vacation photos and a picture of my beloved companion and pet Cat, who has since crossed the rainbow as some would call it and might be sitting on Gods lap now or checking out the scenery in France. Christian theologians have no idea where pets go when they die. Even Solomon, the wisest man in the world, had no idea where pets go after life here on earth....I've strayed from the subject.....now, back to you.
You say "You have written that you think Paul Bremer deserves special respect because you think he is an "American Patriot". My contributions to both articles are backed up by publicly released information. I've not requested any "special respect" for Bremer. I've only suggested that your contributions display a more neutral point of view. My stance has not wavered.
~~Since you brought the subject up, I think courtesy should be extended to the President of the United States. Don't you think?~~
Just out of curiosity, why do you suppose Bremer is NOT an American Patriot? You keep implying that he is not. Are you making a judgment call? Or are you just trying to stir up more emotional banter?
~~Ariele 23 November 2005~~
Among many other edits where you comment on Bremer's patriotism, in this passage, while writing as Paradigmbuff, you wrote: "I don't appreciate non-citizens of the U.S. bashing our patriots"
~~Really? I must have had one too many Coronaita's that month.,,,,The "bashing" part is a rather interesting topic...care to elaborate?,,,,Ariele 21:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
How much courtesy should be extended to public figures like Bremer or Bush? Public scrutiny is part of the job someone should expect if they run for public office in a democracy -- or when they are appointed to a position of high public trust. The courtesy I extend to public figures does not extend to accepting their assertions without question. -- Geo Swan 18:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments on a very inaccurate article~~
Geo Swan,
Now that I have had a bit more time to review the article that Rama reposted to eliminate my corrections, let me offer some comments.
The first sections are reasonably correct. While there is a biased tone that runs throughout these sections, I have no edits to offer that someone would not claim were equally biased in the opposite direction. I can thus accept them as they are. It is when we get to the section on the PRB and subsequent sections that bias turns into falsehoods.
The CPA's Program Review Board (PRB)
It is stated that "It was the Board's responsibility to review and make recommendations to the CPA Administrator on which contracts should be awarded."
This is untrue. I wonder if Rama read the link which he provided to the CPA PRB page, or if he just ignored facts that didn't support his position. The PRB was part of a budgeting process. It did not dictate or typically even consider contracts. This is because you need a budget authorized before going out to bid, and the PRB was involved is this budgeting process.
The article then states: "In order to ensure transparency, all of the key discussions regarding the pros and cons of the programs under consideration were to be made public."
Where did this come from? The CPA Order #3 states: "The Recorder of the Board shall prepare written minutes of each formal session of the Board, summarizing the Board's consideration of and action upon all matters brought before it." A summary is not discussion of all the pros and cons.
The article next states: "The CPA Administrator was only supposed to make decisions on the awarding of contracts after receiving a recommendation from this committee."
Again, where did this come from? First, the Administrator did not personally award contracts. Second, the PRB made no recommendations at all on contracts.
The article then lists some items that apparently came from the IAMB sponsored audit by KPMG. However, nowhere does the article point out the IAMB responsibility:
"International Advisory and Monitoring Board of the Development Fund for Iraq ["IAMB"]. Advises the Board on matters relating to external audit processes, financial reporting and internal control systems of the Development Fund for Iraq."
Isn't it interesting that the IAMB audit complains about the failure of CPA internal controls, yet ignores the fact that the IAMB had responsibility for advising what those controls should be? Moreover, whoever did the "research" for this article on the KPMG audit noted that the only voting Iraqi PRB member only showed up apparently twice. Would it not be interesting to see and report on how many times the IAMB member showed up, especially given that they were the ones in whom responsibility for advising on internal controls was vested? Does this strike you as a balanced review for the sake of informing a reader? For me, it smacks of selected reporting designed to support a previously selected point of view.
Privatization of Iraq's Economy
This section illustrates some of the "balance" or lack thereof in objective analysis. The second paragraph has 14 lines on what unnamed and unsourced critics had to say about CPA policies, but only 4 lines on what others had to say.
Later there is a reference to CPA Order 57 related to the appointment of Inspectors General. In reference to this Order, it is stated "Critics contend this is a mechanism for ensuring continuing American influence in Iraqi governance even after the transfer of all sovereignty to the country."
My prior edits based on first person knowledge were rejected, yet here we have someone making a statement like this with no cited references, names, or personal experience. If the contention is that the Americans may have a lasting effect on reducing the level of corruption rampant in Iraqi governance, then I prepared to live with that blame. If on the other hand CPA is being blamed because it is the right of any Iraqi government official to be as corrupt as he or she wishes, I will take issue with that. We in CPA had--and took very seriously--a duty to help the Iraqi population, and weeding out corruption (as limited as our abilities in this regard were) was important. This order was an attempt to make progress in this area. Finally, the order really becomes null and void once a constitution is in place and a duly elected government is in office, despite the words in the Order. This criticism is thus false on its face.
In the next paragraph, it is stated "an occupying power is prohibited from rewriting the laws of the occupied country," and that policies and CPA Orders affecting the economy were "illegal under international law..." Really? Exactly on what is this contention based? I am not an international lawyer, but perhaps Rama is. He should then be able to provide the appropriate citation.
Criticism of Financial Management
It is stated that "Critics suggest that Bremer selectively spent from the DFI because it was more free from accounting oversight by the GAO."
Again, what critics and what basis for this statement? The pros and cons of using one source of funds verses another could take pages in its own right. However, oversight was never one of the considerations. It is true that the DFI had fewer constraints, given that the Congressionally approved funds were for very specific uses. For instance, not only were funds appropriated for transportation, but it went done to ports, and then to dredging. The next paragraph in the article partially makes this point, but why raise these paper dragons with absolutely no basis in fact? It seems that the author repeatedly cites unnamed "critics" without any attempt to weed out truth from fiction. Instead of a serious reference article, it turns this piece into a mere source of speculation to fuel preconceived notions based on ignorance.
Under "Audits of the CPA's expenditures of Iraqi Funds," it states "The IAMB tried to insist on certain financial controls with limited success." What does this mean? What is the source? Did the IAMB representative to the PRB ever say anything prior to the closing of CPA and the audit by KPMG?
Staffing Policies
Another fine example of distortion of the facts so great as to not be accidental. Bremer set hiring practices? That would be news to the person that hired me. The only standard was to get the best people available as quickly as possible.
The last paragraph is not simply inaccurate. I suspect it is an intended lie. The first two sentences state "The Washington Post article quotes Colonel Yoswa for official acknowledgment of something the several dozen CPA staffers revealed. The sole criteria the CPA used to choose their staff was a referral by the controversial Heritage Foundation think tank."
Aside from the fact that the first sentence makes little sense, the errors above cannot simply be mistakes: 1) The only quote by the Post of Colonel Yoswa suggested nothing of sort in the sentence that followed. 2) The "sole criteria" referenced is a lie. This was the sole criteria for getting names for a handful of people to work on organizing a single conference, a very minor task compared to the overall work of CPA. The relationship to the Heritage Foundation related to a very few people, not the many hundreds who were members of CPA over its lifetime. The Washington Post article neither implied nor supported such a conclusion. Not a single person in the ministry I supported, for example, had any association with the Heritage Foundation. 3) There were no specified criteria from Bremer. Departments made decisions on their own based on getting good people, much as anyone would do in wanting to have good people working for them. For example, recommendations related to character, experience, expertise, and work ethic were all relevant. 4) I didn't see the Post use the word "controversial" in relation to the Heritage Foundation. What makes the Heritage Foundation controversial, or is this just Rama's way of helping build a tone that supports his preconceived notions?
Reconstruction
Again, Ramos resorts to his "some critics" in claiming that Bechtel did relatively little work, while offering nothing to explain this. Of course if you don't want to accept that there is any reason other than corruption and malfeasance, you would not look for another explanation. All companies doing work under contract in Iraq, as anywhere, contract to do a certain amount of work for a certain price. However, the conditions under which these contracts were signed changed tremendously since early in 2003. Security became a much greater concern, and contract costs had to increasingly be diverted to security to get work done. Either prices went up to pay for the additional security, or performance goals were reduced. Moreover, in some cases, reconstruction was undone by insurgents almost as quickly as it could be put in place. These two factors alone account for the vast bulk of why progress has not been much greater.

Summary
There is a lot that was not done well in CPA, and I could add much to the lessons learned and what could have been done better. I also did not agree with everything Bremer did or the decisions he made. However, I took seriously my obligation to the Iraqi people, and I believe the vast majority of CPA members did as well, including Bremer. Why would any sane person risk their lives on a daily basis if they didn't think there was the potential of a higher level good to come from all of this? In my case, at least, the money alone was certainly not sufficient.
I do not object to CPA being put under scrutiny. It is awfully easy to be a Monday morning quarterback and criticize with the benefit of hindsight. However, even that does not bother me. What does bother me is when people who have a political axe to grind either ignore facts right in front of them, or they distort facts to build a case that better suits their agenda. That certainly appears to be the case here, as well as other areas I have recently reviewed (such as the Oil-for-Food program article). I am willing to add to knowledge where I can, and discuss areas that are open for interpretation. I do not have the time or interest, however, to engage with people who are only selling a political philosophy without regard for the facts. Given that my edits to the article were undone by Rama without any comment, I am concerned that is the case here. If Wikipedia is to be a real online encyclopedia, it is a very worthwhile effort and I'd like to contribute to it. If, however, it is to sink into a mere political soapbox, I have better things to do with my time. The reaction my comments get will guide me in that decision. Thanks.
Businessdr 20:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
PS - You indicated previously you respected Rama, while I offered no opinion either way. However, I can say this. Respect is something I offer based on actions and the values those actions infer. After having had the time to make a more detailed review of the article, having seen the volume of distorted "facts" and outright falsehoods in this article, and having had my few corrections changed back without comment, I am quickly forming an opinion...and its not the same as yours.

Confession number one -- many of the sections you are concerned about were not written by Rama, they were written by me. But, let me assure you that I have no secret agenda. What I wrote represented my best efforts to summarize the sources I had access to. If you, or anyone else, can produce sources that rebut mine, or can point out flaws in my reasoning or expression I will be among the first to agree to a correction.
~~I won't try to answer all points you find questionable, only those I contributed -- OK?~~
Let me tackle the first aspect you find questionable. Where did I get the idea that the CPA had an obligation to manage the expenditures of Iraq's resources in an open, transparent manner? The Development Fund for Iraq—Appendix—Matters noted involving internal controls and other operations issues during the audit of the Fund for the period to 31 December 2003 addresses the transparency obligation on the CPA.
~~Please take a look at page 9, section 2.1 . (I've copied the text below.)~~
Article 14 of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483:
Underlines that the Development Fund for Iraq shall be used in a transparent manner to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people, for the economic reconstruction and repair of Iraq’s infrastructure, for the continued disarmament of Iraq, and for the costs of Iraqi civilian administration, and for other purposes benefiting the people of Iraq;
Am I mistinterpreting this article? What meaning do you think "transparent" has? I thought it meant that the entire process, the request for tenders, the competing bids, and arguments for and against individual vendors that the Board considered when making their recommendation to Bremer, should all be open to public scrutiny?
~~Please take a look at Sections 2.2.1, 2,2,2 and 2.2.3. It seems to me that the KPMG auditors took a wide view of the CPA's obligation to be transparent it its expenditures of Iraqi funds.~~
I haven't read Bremer's CPA order #3. But I read order #2, where he committed the CPA to hire an outside firm to serve as internal auditors. Can you point to the URL for CPA order #3? One thing that struck me about order #2 is that Bremer's phrasing made it sound like the IAMB was accountable to him, not vice versa.
~~The IAMB also spoke about the CPA's obligation to spend Iraq's revenue and resources transparently.~~
~~Sorry, I don't understand your fifth paragraph. Are you contradicting section 2.1 of the KPMG management notes?~~
You quoted: "In order to ensure transparency, all of the key discussions regarding the pros and cons of the programs under consideration were to be made public" -- and ask -- Where did this come from? Again, isn't this what section 2.2.1 says?
If I have to choose between trusting Paul Bremer's interpretation of the CPA's obligations or trusting the IAMB's interpretation I am inclined to choose the IAMB's interpretation. Can you explain why we should choose Bremer's interpretation? From the KPMG audit's account it sounds like Bremer totally failed to fulfill the obligation he undertook to hire internal auditors. The CPA disbursed $12 billion in cash money, and yet it went its first eleven months without doing a cash reconciliation? I have a google alert on Bremer. I haven't seen him offer any meaningful explanation for this terrible mistake.
You write: "nowhere does the article point out the IAMB responsibility:"
Well, you are free to add that in, if you think it applies. I wondered about that, when I first started looking into the CPA's expenditure of Iraq's revenue and resources. I think there are a couple of factors. First, the IAMB didn't have theri first meeting until the CPA had been functioning for more than six months. I wondered about that. Then I noticed that the UN was allowed six months to finish out its existing programs. My guess is that, for some reason, the IAMB wasn't started up until all the UN programs had wound up. That is just a guess. Do you have a theory? Another factor is that I think the members of the IAMB were simply unprepared for deceit and intransigence from Bremer. I have mentioned their repeated attempts to get the CPA to repair the oil meters. In their final press release they wrote:
"The IAMB regrets, despite its repeated requests, the delay in receiving reports on audits undertaken by various agencies on sole-sourced contracts funded by the DFI. In the light of these delays the IAMB decided to commission a special audit to determine the extent of sole-sourced contracts. The IAMB was also informed by the CPA that contrary to earlier representations the award of metering contracts have been delayed and continues to urge the expeditious resolution of this critical issue. Finally, the IAMB noted the delay in completing the audits on the State Oil Marketing Organization (SOMO) and requested the CPA to press for prompt finalization of these."
~~I am going to skip over your concerns with the privatization section -- I didn't contribute to it.~~
You quoted: "Critics suggest that Bremer selectively spent from the DFI because it was more free from accounting oversight by the GAO."
~~I wrote that passage. But I didn't just make it up. I read several articles that made that point. I'll dig them up.~~
In the paragraph you use the word "ignorance", and other less than complimentary personal reflections. In theory these wikipedia meta-discussions, on the talk pages are all supposed to be civil and collegial. I realize that it may not seem that way from the discussions in this discussion page. But you will find the discussion pages for articles that aren't on controversial topics are in general civil and collegial.
Which financial controls did the IAMB try to insist on, with limited success?
I already mentioned metering the oil pipelines.

The IAMB flagged the CPA practice of bartering captured Iraqi assets for services. IIRC,they argued that the CPA's bartering practice did not establish a fair market value for the captured assets. So no clear price could be calculated for the services the assets were exchanged for.

The IAMB was concerned over the number of sole source contracts.

That is just off the top of my head.
I started the section on hiring policies. I based it on the WaPo article. I understand that what I wrote does not correspond to your experience. That is a problem. Without questioning your personal experience let me say that I don't understand your objections to how I summarized that article. I thought I was accurately summarizing what the WaPo article said. I re-read it after reading your concerns, and I still think it is an accurate reflection of the article. If the WaPo article is inaccurate, or only reflects the experience of the first wave of hirees and the wikipedia article carries forward this distorted view, that is a problem.
One thing I don't understand is that if the CPA's staff was sprinkled by a sufficient number of senior, experienced people, by January 2004, when you were hired, why did the KPMG auditors experience the trouble they described getting the files they requested or finding CPA officials who had the necessary familiarity with the files they were responsible for?
Concerning where did I get the idea about the "sole criteria?" The fourth paragraph following the subhead "war on terror: reads:
"For months they wondered what they had in common, how their names had come to the attention of the Pentagon, until one day they figured it out: They had all posted their resumes at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative-leaning think tank."
I am about to write an opinion you will probably find unpleasant. While I personally value your experience in Iraq, and have some questions of you, I think you will need to be able to cite sources when you remove or rewrite passages, just like any other contributor, even though you have personal knowledge of the topic. Wikipedia has a policy of "no original research". This is intended to prevent the wikipedia becoming a source of editorials and personal speculation.
~~Unfortunately, basing edits solely on your personal experience, would fall under "original research".~~
If I understand you, you will only consider contributing to this article if you get satisfactory answers to your questions. Well, even if the answers you get here don't satisfy you, I hope you will still consider answering some further questions I have about your Iraq experiences. I appreciate the answers you have already given. -- Geo Swan 21:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 Program Review Board

2.1 General background

The PRB was responsible for recommending expenditure of resources from the the Fund and other sources. The PRB was also responsible for reviewing all identified resource requirements, and their subsequent prioritization and integration into a funding plan. The funding plan forecasts available resources, recommends allocation of these resources and justifies the proposed expenditures and the recommended manner of expenditures. All funding plans (programs) were to be recommended for approval by the PRB prior to approval by the CPA Administrator.

During our work we noted the following issues regarding the PRB:

2.2 Minutes

2.2.1 We noted PRB minutes did not always contain detailed, complete or clear documentation to obtain an understanding of discussions and issues. Additionally, the resolution of questions raised by participants was not always documented in PRB minutes. Minutes should be sufficiently detailed to ensure transparency of the fund allocation process.

2.2.2 Additionally, we found the PRB minutes did not include voting details for each PRB program recommended or rejected and justification for the decision. PRB programs are to be recommended on a majority basis, and therefore minutes should include voting details for each PRB program.

2.2.3 CPA Regulation 3 states the PRB may take official action only in formal sessions at which no fewer than 70% of the eleven voting members of the Board are present. We noted one case when a program funded by the DFI was recommended by only four voting members present, one case by only six voting members present and eight cases by only seven voting members present. The PRB should follow the CPA Regulation to ensure that the PRB process remains transparent.

2.3 Iraqi involvement

We noted PRB voting members consisted of ten CPA officials and one official from the Iraqi Ministry of Finance. Of the 43 PRB meetings held during the period to 31 December 2003 we noted the Iraqi official attended two meetings.

2.4 Approval of programs by the PRB

2.4.1 We noted one case when a contract was awarded prior to the program being recommended for approval by the PRB. Contracts should not be awarded prior to program being recommended for approval by the PRB.

2.4.2 CPA Regulation 3 states the PRB may recommend programs for approval only in formal sessions. We noted one case when a program was delayed pending further justification during a PRB meeting, but subsequently recommended for approval out-of-session by the board members without documentation in subsequent PRB minutes. All allocations of funding to be recommended for approval by the PRB should only be taken in formal sessions and documented in PRB minutes.

2.5 PRB funding

2.5.1 We noted one case when a program was recommended to be funded using Appropriated Funds (APF), with DFI funds to be used only if APF were not approved. The program was subsequently funded by the DFI without further documentation. When DFI funds are used as a secondary source of funding, the reason for not utilizing the primary source of funds should be documented.

2.5.2 Additionally, we noted one case when a program was to be funded by a mixture of seized assets and DFI funds without documentation of the allocation of funds from each source. The two funding sources have separate accounting records and documentation of the funding allocation should be clarified to ensure transparency and prevent funds being utilized in excess of the approved allocation.
~~Response to Geo Swan~~
Geo Swan,
Thanks for a rational response. Given the tone of the prior discussions with other people and the numerous inaccuracies and biases, I was not expecting much in the way of logic. I am grateful for the thoughtful reply. Given that there is much to respond to, let me do so point by point and see if we can narrow any gaps between us, or even reach agreement in some areas.
I accept that you attempted to summarize the sources you had access to as best you could. I also do not pretend to have had access to all resources, nor have I reviewed all those that you have pointed me to (as all the audit reports). Hopefully, however, we can both work to inform one another.
Concerning the first point, you said "Where did I [i.e., you] get the idea that the CPA had an obligation to manage the expenditures of Iraq's resources in an open, transparent manner?" However, I never asked such a question. I acknowledge that CPA had such an obligation. I would further agree that CPA did not do a particularly good job in that regard. However, let's stick to the facts. My first point was that it was not true that, according to you, "It was the Board's responsibility to review and make recommendations to the CPA Administrator on which contracts should be awarded." I gave specific reasons this was false. I am not sure if it is worthwhile to repeat that again here, but the PRB was not designed to review or recommend on contracts. You cannot even put out an invitation for bid if you do not have budget available. The PRB was a budgeting body, not a contracting body. The fact that something like this is in the Wikipedia article tells me somebody was making up their facts. If you were the source for this passage, I am not claiming that somebody was you. However, I will claim the original source of what you cited did make this up. I was incorrect in citing Order #3. It was in fact Regulation #3 and can be found at:
http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/20030619_CPAREG_3_Program_Review_Board_.pdf
While I acknowledged above that the CPA could and should have done a better job documenting actions in area, I have to wonder how much of the auditors' findings represented opinions as opposed to findings against some definitive standard. I am not an auditor so am not going to suggest a definitive answer. Also, I know on some occasions members of the PRB were unable to make the schedule meeting. However, I know coordination in at least some of those cases occurred outside of the meeting to get concurrence from the absent members. When the audit says that on one occasion a program was funded with only 4 members present, they leave unanswered whether non-present members were subsequently contacted and approval received. I know this may not be viewed as appropriate by some people. However, please keep in mind that even attending a meeting meant risking your life to get to the Green Zone for an Iraqi. Moreover, the audit claims the Ministry of Finance representative was present only 2 occasions. If you look at the minutes at http://www.iraqcoalition.org/budget/program_review_board.html you can see this is clearly not true. This one item alone brings much of this audit in question for me.
When you asked what the UN requirement for transparency meant, you apparently jumped to conclusions of your own based on a lack of understanding of the role of the PRB (budgeting rather than contracting, as pointed out above). Therefore, transparency did NOT include "the request for tenders, the competing bids, and arguments for and against individual vendors that the Board considered when making their recommendations to Bremer..." This was not the role of the PRB and such considerations never came up, as these types of decisions came much later in the process. What did come up, and arguably could have been included in the minutes, was the relative importance of a project relative to other needs for funds, whether the funding level was a reasonable estimate of the resources that would ultimately be required, what the estimated schedule would be, etc. All of these estimates were without any contractor input, as contractors were not even considered at this point in the budget development.
You also said "One thing that struck me about order #2 is that Bremer's phrasing made it sound like the IAMB was accountable to him, not vice versa."
I don't know what words gave you that impression. The regulation clearly states:
"Consistent with its terms of reference, the IAMB shall perform functions similar to those of outside audit committees and may provide information and comments to the PRB and the Administrator as appropriate to serve the purposes of Resolution 1483 and this Regulation."
By reference to an outside audit committee, the regulation is saying the IAMB is independent of CPA. CPA did not work for the IAMB, and the IAMB did not work for CPA. However, as a member of the PRB, the IAMB did have an obligation to point out any concerns on transparency or internal controls. Please notice that the date on the regulation is June 10, 2003. There was over a year for the IAMB to make comments and suggest improvements, and it was not until their auditors completed a report after the closure of CPA that they management to offer comment?! Doesn't this strike you as an amazing amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking? Or perhaps, more realistically, it was just a bit of CYA.
In comment to your question if in my fifth paragraph I was contradicting section 2.1 of the KPMG management notes, I was not. I don't what independent auditor standard in the basis for judging if something is "transparent." To me that term is subjective, although I acknowledge more could have been done in this regard. Nevertheless, "all the pros and cons of the programs under consideration were to be made public," I believe I am safe in saying, is not a requirement. I am on the board of an $8B organization. Minutes are taken at every meeting, we do not take votes if we do not have a quorum, and a record of the voting is kept. Indeed, these are all things you have argued for. However, we DO NOT record all the pros and cons. When a budget, for example, is put forward, if the directors have no points to raise or questions to ask, there is no discussion of pros and cons. We all do our "homework" before coming to the board meeting, and frequently the vote is a mere formality. We do record the vote, but we do not necessarily record all the considerations and tradeoffs that went into making the decision. I think you will find this standard of any board, because few board decisions are so simple that no preparation and analysis is required before the board meeting. The board minutes only capture what goes on at the board meeting.
The above has nothing to do with "trusting Paul Bremer's interpretation of the CPA's obligations or trusting the IAMB's interpretation." It has to do with 1) understanding the role of the PRB, 2) asking what standard the audit was conducted against (auditors are not allowed to make things up on the fly or use personal judgment, and 3) questioning why the IAMB representative waited over a year to question of comment on the validity of the process used by the PRB, particularly when that was their specific responsibility fulfilling their outside audit committee function. It is interesting to note the "standard" for transparency (e.g., a recorded vote by every member in attendance) set for CPA in the KPMG audit wasn't even met by the IAMB in their minutes. I wonder who is auditing the IAMB, and if they will be using the same "standard"? I am not about to defend every action taken by CPA, and I had concerns of my own which I share with the CPA IG when interviewed. However, I tried to restrict my comments to facts and conclusions that could be well supported. My responses here are intended to correct conclusions that neither factual nor well supported once all the facts are on the table.

Concerning your response to my concerns on IAMB responsibilities, you speculated on a number of reasons. You acknowledged this was speculation and asked if I had any ideas. I do not. Rather than guess, I prefer to simply consider the facts. 1) The IAMB met beginning Dec. 5, 2003. 2) The IAMB was briefed by CPA beginning with the Feb. 12, 2004 meeting 3) The IAMB never recorded any objections to the CPA briefings are noted any deficiencies in the briefings or the PRB process prior to the audit after the closure of CPA
Then as another reason you go on to claim: "Another factor is that I think the members of the IAMB were simply unprepared for deceit and intransigence from Bremer." How does this address any of the above? Moreover, there is a big difference between intransigence on a particular issue (which may have had reasons neither of us are privy to) and deceit. What deceit do you have in mind, and what are your references for that? The statement that "contrary to earlier representations the award of metering contracts have been delayed..."? Without knowing exactly what those "representations" were, we would both be speculating to the facts. If you didn't know it already, the US was no fan of the CPA (or even the US presence in Iraq). I am not about to take IAMB words as gospel without some facts to back it up or knowing more about CPA reasons (to which I have no knowledge). I do know that some people in CPA much closer to the Oil Ministry felt the lack of metering was a big mistake. On the surface, I would agree. I just chose not to jump to unfounded conclusions, other than mistakes were made.
You took issue with my use of the word "ignorance" and other personal reflections. First, I was admittedly upset by what appeared to be overt attempt to distort the facts, and to make a case for a preconceived point of view without consideration of fact. That impression was solidified in my mind when Rama chose to delete my edits by reverting to a prior version without any comment as to why.
I acknowledge that my conclusion was premature, at least in regard to you. Your response, as I noted previously, was rational and well considered. I am pleased to take the time to respond to your comments. Hopefully I will better inform you, and I suspect you will better inform me as well. However, the word collegial means "Characterized by or having power and authority vested equally among colleagues." I can only consider myself a colleague with someone whom I respect. I do not respect someone who is out to deceive. I am now convinced that characterization does not include you, and I apologize for any inference to the contrary. Hopefully others on both sides of this issue can read this and appreciate people can differ in values while maintaining an ability to make their points rationally and on the basis of fact and logic.
Concerning your comments on financial controls the IAMB sought, I am inclined to agree with the first two, albeit I have no particular insights into either of these (oil pipeline metering and bartering of captured Iraqi assets). I also have no real insight into the number of sole source contracts, but I do understand reasons for having to go this direction. Whether those reasons provided sufficient justification at this point in time, and whether or not the percentage of sole source contracts represented an overuse of this approach, I do not know.
I am sorry, but you are way off base on the hiring practices section. When you intended to or not, you jumped to conclusions for which there was no foundation, and inferred a reference to the Washington Post where not existed. I thought my response was clear, but if on rereading it, you still didn't understand my point, then I accept responsibility for that. Sometimes what is clear to a writer in not nearly as clear to the reader who doesn't have the same thoughts running through his/her head. Let me try again. This time I will attempt it step by step:
"CPA chief Paul Bremer replied to criticisms of the CPA by pleading that he was burdened by an inexperienced staff, with a high turnover. However, critics of Ambassador Bremer would suggest that he bore the responsibility for setting the CPA's hiring practices, and those hiring practices give the appearance of being highly partisan."
1) I would not be surprised to know Bremer said he was burdened by inexperienced staff and high turnover. The experience levels varied by the part of the organization, and the effort that organization put into recruiting. My ministry, for example, had a very large degree of experience. So did many of the ministries. Others, however, had much less experience. One of the ministries that was hampered by inexperience (in my personal opinion) was finance. I believe that is reflected in the audit. Turnover was an even bigger problem. Most people were there on the order of 6 months. That made for a real challenge. However, I'm not sure what the answer would have been here, without paying people even more than they already received.
"The Washington Post article quotes Colonel Yoswa for official acknowledgement of something the several dozen CPA staffers revealed."
What does this mean? What quoted words are you referring to? Yoswa never said anything about the criteria CPA used to choose their staff at all. He spoke specifically about a very few individuals who were assigned to do a specific special project. If accomplishing this special project led to their entry into CPA, this was certainly an exception--probably a unique exception. You seem to have concluded that hiring for the Madrid donors conference somehow equated to hiring for CPA. This was not true. In fact, I had never even heard of the Madrid donors conference until after I was at CPA, and I never had the slightest involvement with it during my entire time. As I said in my prior post, the Madrid donors conference (which the Yoswa quote on selection references) involved literally a handful of people out of several hundreds that worked at CPA.
"The sole criteria the CPA used to choose their staff was a referral by the controversial Heritage Foundation think tank."
As I stated just above, this is totally untrue. I am not sure why there is any confusion on this point. The Washington Post article certainly doesn't claim that the Heritage Foundation had anything to do with being a selection criteria for anything other than the Madrid donors conference. Also, where did the Post claim the Heritage Foundation was "controversial?" If they are controversial, would you call the Brookings Institute controversial?
"Ambassador Bremer was responsible for the hiring policy that caused his staff to be composed of young and inexperienced staff, who were then assigned responsibilities outside their nominal fields of expertise."
Where did this come from? As I explained previously, Bremer did not establish to my knowledge a set of hiring criteria. Are you aware of anything to the contrary? As I stated before, this was largely the role of the mangers of the various departments. In my case, this was the "Senior Advisor" of one of the Iraqi ministries.
"I started the section on hiring policies. I based it on the WaPo article. I understand that what I wrote does not correspond to your experience. That is a problem. Without questioning your personal experience let me say that I don't understand your objections to how I summarized that article."
I hope I have made my concerns more clear this time around.
"I thought I was accurately summarizing what the WaPo article said. I re-read it after reading your concerns, and I still think it is an accurate reflection of the article. If the WaPo article is inaccurate, or only reflects the experience of the first wave of hirees and the wikipedia article carries forward this distorted view, that is a problem."
The Post article is not inaccurate. What is inaccurate is your assumption that hiring criteria for a conference was synonymous with hiring criteria for CPA. That's a bit like saying the hiring criteria for the janitor at the local hospital requires only an 8th grade education, and then complaining that no one at the hospital (including the doctors) have more than an 8th grade education.
"One thing I don't understand is that if the CPA's staff was sprinkled by a sufficient number of senior, experienced people, by January 2004, when you were hired, why did the KPMG auditors experience the trouble they described getting the files they requested or finding CPA officials who had the necessary familiarity with the files they were responsible for?"
That is a very fair question. Unfortunately, the answer is not one that most people who prefer to look for conspiracies, massive deceit, etc. are prepared to accept. While this is only a cursory answer, my initial reaction is tied to the following" 1) Lack of infrastructure 2) High turnover 3) Extremely arduous conditions 4) Inadequate financial controls outside the control of CPA
When I say lack of infrastructure, I mean all the things we take in a typical work environment. CPA literally came into a vacated building, took over desks, installed computers and phones, rolled up their sleeves, and did the best they could getting to work. Why is that so difficult? For so many reasons we all take for granted back home. We had no filing system or policies on how to set up a filing system. There were no rules on what information to keep, in what format, where to store it, who to coordinate it with, etc. Could this have been done? Of course. However, in the "real world" all this already exists. We simply read the polices, use the filing system, etc. We don't have to take the time to create it all from scratch. Of course we could have taken the first 12 months out to focus on this rather than the primary job, but I doubt we would have won any accolades for this either. If is hard for the average person to appreciate the difficulty of managing information in this environment. We didn't even have a phone book for the phone in the CPA. I had a phone number on my desk, but I didn't even know its number. I could only use it to call out. If I needed anyone, I had to walk to their desk...and the Republican Palace is a big place.
I can certainly personally attest to the lack of organization and overall disarray of the place. I worked on several infrastructure projects in the Green Zone, and the Palace specifically, and I know that projects that should have taken no more than a week in the rest of the industrialized world were taking months and years to complete, if they were completed at all. After working with folks at high levels within the CPA, and at the operational level, I also know for a fact that incompetent leadership and management is to blame for most of the reasons that you cite above. There is absolutely no rational reason why a phone directory didn't exist or your number wasn't provided to you. This is a clear result of no-bid contracts being let to companies like Halliburton, who then subcontract them out to their KBR subsidiary (incorporated in the Bahamas, by the way, so they pay little or no taxes, but that's another story...), who then subcontracts the work out to large multinational conglomerates (like Alcatel and Lucent), who then subcontract out to other entities to do the work. The end result is that CPA paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for labor that was ultimately performed by underqualified Eastern European or unskilled Iraqi workers with little or no oversight. --Brian1975 19:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So let me see if I have this right? The lack of a competitor to Halliburton when the contract was initially let in 2003 caused CPA not to have a phone directory? Since you have the inside information that I am not privy to, perhaps you can share with us all in which contract the generation of a telephone directory was placed. By the way, I was not defending the lack of a phone book. However, apparently unlike you, I am attempting to take a balanced look at things by acknowledging things that did not work well, while defending against false statements, whether due to ignorance or slanderous intent. The east Europeans I came into contact with, for example, ran the KBR laundry. I seemed to have gotten my laundry back just fine. The Iraqis I met cooked my meals, cut my hair, and translated for me. They all seemed competent enough to me. Given your apparently much greater insight, perhaps you can share with us specifics and the role you had rather than the sweeping generalizations you have provided here. Were you really in the Green Zone? It sure isn't apparent from the above. Businessdr 03:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Based upon the contracting situation that I explained above regarding how contracts are let and sublet and sublet again, I don't feel that it's a leap to draw the conclusion that something that one would consider to be an obvious no-brainer (eg. a phone directory) would be left out of the statement of work, if such a statement of work existed in the contract to install a phone system. Much of the work that was accomplished was all thrown under KBR's LOGCAP contracts, which were very large blanket IDIQ contracts that were usually vague when it got down to the details of what should be done. Often, the contract would state nothing more than "install phone system for 100 workstations." Additionally, there may have been operational or security reasons why phone directories were not published. I don't think you or I know the answer to that question, but I know that I can send a quick email and find out the definitive answer if we need to settle this. I'm sorry that my posts are causing you so much grief. That was never the intent. The phonebook issue was a scenario which you presented, and which I commented about based upon knowledge that I have about how those things were put into place. --Brian1975 02:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When I say high turnover (which I mentioned previously), you need to appreciate what this mean in an environment where consistent policies for data collection and filing do not exist, where it takes half your time in country to get really trained in the job, etc. People who criticize CPA work in environments where policies, practices and procedures for doing things have been developed over years, and where people operate in that environment for years. No one in CPA had such luxuries.
I'm sorry, but I cannot support this argument that you present here. My impression of what you are writing in this paragraph is that you feel that partial blame should be placed upon the environment in which everyone was working and that the lack of an institutional history contributed directly to CPA not doing its job as effectively as possible. I have worked in many new companies and in many new divisions of old companies and for the government and the military. "Lack of established standard operating procedures" is never an acceptable excuse for shoddy work. By that statement, I am not trying to imply that CPA did shoddy work. One of the great benefits that we have here in the industrialized world is that of standards. We have a standard for most anything. We even have here in the USA, a National Institute of Standards and Technology that deals in nothing but setting standards. We have the GAAP rules in Accounting. In the telecommunications world, we have the EIA/TIA standards and the ANSI standards. When a new office is opened, whether that office is a public agency like CPA, or a private one, like the multitude of contractors over there, the only excuse for not properly investigating, establishing, and following appropriate standards in the conduct of business falls directly upon management. Managers are either competent in their subject matter and trained in management, or they're not, in which case they'll fall woefully short of their goals. --Brian1975 02:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the work performed by those folks in the CPA, and those contractors working on behalf of the CPA, is highly suspect. To illustrate my point: many of the workers hired by KBR to perform logistics functions for the CPA were inept and unqualified to do the work. The main contracting officer at KBR was computer-illiterate and didn't know how to edit existing documents that were written using Microsoft Word. Our contract was held up for almost two months waiting for the guy to type it with a typewriter. The contractors for CPA were so obsessed with making sure there were warm bodies over there that they never quite bothered to check if those warm bodies came with any skills. The skillset of most everyone that I dealt with was appalling. --Brian1975 19:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Really? What "main contracting officer"? Perhaps if you share with me where exactly this person was located, I will have some idea of who you are talking about, because I have no idea what "main" contracting officer you are referring to. There were several people who could have filled that description from someone who had very limited insight into CPA. Also, when you say "the skillset of most everyone that I dealt with was appalling," what functions or organizations in CPA did you deal with? I'd really be interested to understand what level of interface you really had with CPA. By the way, if contractors working for CPA were universally incompetent, how did you manage to get involved? Apparently you were the one competent company (or person) in the country. Businessdr 03:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone in the Palace area knows where KBR's compound office is, and it's not hard to find the contracts office inside the KBR compound once you're inside. I'm not going to respond to your personal attack against me regarding my competence. I have never made any sarcastic or disparaging remarks about you. Please be civil. --Brian1975 02:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When I refer to arduous conditions, I mean that I was literally risking my life every time I stepped outside of the Green Zone. I always wore body armor and carried either an AK-47 or a 9mm handgun. Anita Greco, the young gal in the Finance Ministry that the Post article referred to, had IEDs go off next to her on several occasions. A friend of mine from the University of Virginia was nearly killed when hit by 4 AK-47 rounds (one deflected from his heart only by a battery in his chest pocket). The two Iraqi escorts in the front seat of his vehicle were killed. I am not relaying this for sympathy, accolades, or any reason other than to say that ignoring the impact of such conditions to work in a normal manner and accomplish normal results is shortsighted.
Nobody has said anything to belittle your efforts outside the Green Zone, but from your characterization of these trips, you give the impression that most of your time was spent inside, and not outside. I lived outside and subsisted on the local economy. I saw what it is like to work under those conditions, and I can't say that I agree with the assessment that it was such a detriment to the mission. If FedEx, UPS, and DHL can all manage to deliver a package from anywhere in the USA to anywhere in the Baghdad area in under six days, without losing anything along the way, then why is it so hard for other companies to perform at a similar level? If Atheer and Iraqna can each deploy hundreds of cellphone base stations in under 90 days, then what's the excuse for KBR taking twice as long as that to setup a single satellite antenna? I have my own theories about why these things are so different, but I'd like to hear your perspective before I post them.--Brian1975 02:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The methods used by CPA to travel are not the kinds of methods that fit within the guidelines for winning "hearts and minds." As long as the CPA chose to pursue a policy of building the Green Zone into a Citadel and only venturing out on special occasions, the Iraqi suspicions of the CPA and its intentions were vindicated. On the numerous times that I went shopping around Baghdad, I heard (and continue to hear) the same report from the shopkeepers who run the shops that I have visited. That report is that, in the years since the war, they have never been visited by any westerners. During the time that the country was run by the CPA, the people of the country never had a chance to meet or speak with the people who were responsible for liberating it. The needs of the people on the street were being neglected in lieu of the needs of the coalition and its forces. --Brian1975 19:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now this is a really interesting passage. When exactly were you in Baghdad and visiting these shopkeepers. Was it when the car bombed the Kurdish HQ (I was about 15 seconds away from that one)? Was it when they killed the Deputy Senior Advisor for Oil by attaching a bomb to his car (I was a few hundred yards from that one)? Was it when they ambushed cars going between the Green Zone and the Airport on an almost daily basis (I made that run more times than I can count). Was it when the Green Zone was getting mortared on an almost daily basis (I've been within 200 yards of a hit)? Did you have any personal friends killed while you were there as I did? If no to all this, then you were fortunate to be there early in the life of CPA and I can forgive you for the ignorance displayed. If the answer is yes, then a certain quote from PT Barnum comes to mind. Businessdr 03:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I vividly remember each of the incidents which you recall above. I have had my personal guards shot at and blown up. I chose not to tell those kinds of stories in this article since they were irrelevant. We completed the work that we were asked to do, and we did it without making excuses for the security situation. Anyone doing work in the country should be well aware of the risks involved. You assess the risks, and then you plan around them. I most certainly would not be out shopping in Sadr City or Dora during the time that the Badr Brigades were rattling their sabres, nor would it be appropriate to go shopping in an area where a Sunni mosque had just been blown up. I am truly very sorry for the loss of your friends while you were there. I am sorry whenever I hear of anyone dying there, whether Iraqi, American, or otherwise. It is a very tough thing to live through something like that when those around you don't survive. We all know the risks when we go there. My hope is that the risks to my personal safety are outweighed by the potential good that can come of the work that I am able to do while I'm there. I have never turned down an opportunity to go there. In fact, two of my first three trips there were done without any compenstation at all. --Brian1975 02:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, when I refer to the inability of CPA to establish adequate financial controls, I mean that a very large percentage of DFI funds were ultimately controlled by Iraqis, not CPA. The entire Ministry payroll was paid by DFI funds. Once funds were disbursed to the Iraqi Ministry of Finance, they were outside the control of the CPA. Funds went from the Ministry of Finance to the various operating Ministries, who in turn paid their staff. I know from first hand experience that there were many ghost workers on the payroll. Some workers did not exist, others had two or more jobs at the same time, and others simply never came to work except to pick up a pay check. Corruption in Iraq was rampant. How do you audit how these funds were spent and expect documentation from CPA when their disbursement was outside our control? I argued that more could and should have been done, but it was a difficult situation even if my recommendations had been fully accepted. We were trying to rebuild a country, and trying to develop adequate internal financial controls inside the Iraqi ministries, as important as that goal would have been, simply was not at the top of the list. Moreover, corruption is something that is not weeded out overnight. Given the above, isn't it odd how CPA was also chastised by some unnamed critics in the article for wanting to impose "American" notions of an Inspector General?
This inability to account for funds properly continues to this day. The Iraqi ministries continue to be funded by the American taxpayers, and often at inadequate levels. The notion of a "payroll" is a bit misleading. The regional commanders in the new Iraqi Army and Iraqi police services basically scribbled headcount totals on papers which are handcarried to Baghdad and then large sacks of cash are dispensed to them. This is not a payroll. This is a massive cash handling operation that is ripe for mismanagement, bribes, and thievery. There is no accountability for the ultimate disposal of those funds. There is no double-entry bookkeeping system at the district level within the country to account for those funds. Corruption was not a priority to the CPA, nor to the governments that have inherited the country since. What we in the west view as corruption is viewed in Iraq as the standard way of doing business for the past fifty years. --Brian1975 19:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Brian, what distresses me is that your ignorance is possibly viewed by casual readers here as somehow factual simply because you claim to have been in Iraq. "The Iraqi ministries continue to be funded by the American taxpayers..." Oh really? Please share with us your insight (and references) on a fact apparently known only to you. Do you really know anything at all about how security forces were paid. If so, please share with us the details, and please include the time frame to which you are referring, as the process changed over time. Oh yes, while you are talking about cash, let me ask you how many of those shopkeepers you apparently knew so well had checking accounts? Also, how many of them had accountants trained in double entry bookkeeping? On corruption, you say it was not a priority for CPA, but then CPA is disparaged for writing a regulation that established an Inspector General function across the ministries. That seems a bit hypocritical. There were also grave concerns about tightening up on ghost workers and creating riots by workers in the ministries during a time when security was tenable. I don't expect you to necessarily agree with the decisions made by Bremer (I didn't fully myself), but even having an intelligent conversation on this point requires an understanding of the word "tradeoff" and someone who does not make generalizations about all people in a group based on the observations of a few. This last point is the essence of discrimination and bigotry, whether it be religious, racial, sex, or some other class. Generalizing in such a way is a dangerous thing, but you seem to have no hesitancy in labeling everyone in CPA incompetent. Businessdr 03:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
US taxpayers fund the Iraq Reconstruction Management Office (IRMO). Here's a list of IRMO prime contracts. (see http://www.rebuilding-iraq.net/pdf/contracts/another_contract_in_place_constr_iraq.pdf) If you have any doubt of the source of funding, check out an RFP that is soliciting a vendor to install washing machines at the Baghdad Police College which is run by the Ministry of the Interior (see http://www.baghdadbusinesscenter.org/Tenders/BPC/SOW%20Commercial%20Laundry%20Machines%20Closing%2012%20Nov%202005.pdf)

The large portion of the funding for the Ministry of Defense, Ministry of the Interior, and Ministry of Finance comes from the US taxpayers. The oil revenues brought in by the Ministry of Oil are not sufficient to run the entire country. Other than the import duties charged by Iraqi customs (duties which the coalition doesn't pay), the Iraqi government has very little other sources of revenue. If you know of any other sources of revenue, I know I would be very interested to know about it.
Regarding Mr. Bremer's decisions, I don't agree that acceptable "tradeoffs" were ever made. Both the publicly available evidence and private information point to the fact that Bremer was advancing a political agenda at the expense of the lives and livlihoods of the people of Iraq. I hardly consider that an acceptable tradeoff. My personal opinion is that the political interests were too arrogant or blind to learn from more recent world history. We have examples of places like the former East Germany and Romania that were controlled by a powerful secret police like Iraq was, and had state-planned economies. Now, more than a decade after the fall of the Berlin wall, we still see rampant unemployment in areas of East Germany and Romania. What makes the folks in Washington think that similar market reforms could be forced on a country like Iraq in the timeline that was given? If a homogeneous country like Germany can't overcome it's economic issues in a decade without the added complexities of religious and cultural factions fighting each other, than what other word would you choose to describe the actions of Bremer and the CPA other than "arrogant" or "short-sighted" or "inept?" --Brian1975 02:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Concerning where did I get the idea about the "sole criteria?" The fourth paragraph following the subhead "war on terror: reads: "For months they wondered what they had in common, how their names had come to the attention of the Pentagon, until one day they figured it out: They had all posted their resumes at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative-leaning think tank."
Again, who was this article on? All of CPA? No. It was on a very specific group of people who were all selected at one time to accomplish a particular task. Nowhere does the article state or even imply that these specific individuals were random samples of candidates for CPA. In retrospect, I guess I can understand how you came to that conclusion. However, that is not the case.
"I am about to write an opinion you will probably find unpleasant. While I personally value your experience in Iraq, and have some questions of you, I think you will need to be able to cite sources when you remove or rewrite passages, just like any other contributor, even though you have personal knowledge of the topic. Wikipedia has a policy of "no original research". This is intended to prevent the wikipedia becoming a source of editorials and personal speculation."
Geo Swan, I don't find the above unpleasant at all. In fact, this is exactly as it should be. However, I hope you agree that this standard should not apply only to someone making "edits." The same standard should apply to the original post. I believe I have in every case made my points not only for the few things I changed, but for other items I did not yet change. I may have failed in adequately communicating my points, but I am happy to reword anything I have not made adequately clear.
"If I understand you, you will only consider contributing to this article if you get satisfactory answers to your questions. Well, even if the answers you get here don't satisfy you, I hope you will still consider answering some further questions I have about your Iraq experiences. I appreciate the answers you have already given. -- Geo Swan 21:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)"
You are correct I will only hang around if I get satisfactory answers. However, that does not mean an answer that agrees with my position. It means an answer that is based on fact where available, that is logical in its presentation, that is open to alternative points of view, and that makes a rational case for choices made among alternative points of view. I feel I have gotten that from you, and again I thank you. This dialog is taking a great deal of my time (as I imagine it is of yours as well), and I have no desire to waste such time in meaningless debates. However, if it contributes to an increase in knowledge and critical thinking, either on your part, my part, or some other reader, than I am prepared to hang in here for awhile. Thanks again. Businessdr 08:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When I last edited the article, I had made it to the point where the finance stuff is. I purposefully stopped editing at that point to give the first sections time to settle, and also to do more research regarding the financial issues that are still coming to light today. The current reports in the media regarding the bribes and dishonesty of the CPA contracting officers was a well known standard operating procedure over there at that time, and I have had a hell of a time documenting well known procedures and substantiating them with official media reports. The sequestering of the western media in their hotels and away from the happenings in the Green Zone and out around town prevented most of them from doing their jobs and reporting an accurate story. The bulk of the investigating and reporting of stories on the ground in Iraq have all been worked in Washington. --Brian1975 18:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So much for the rational discourse that Geo Swan sought and deserved. So the bribery of contracting officers was "a well known standard operating procedure..." My goodness, you really are a bigot, aren't you? The surprising thing is you don't even seem to care who knows it. I guess that is your choice. However, for something to show up in Wikipedia, I suggest you do a better job of citing references and providing a supporting analysis between conflicting references than you seem interested in doing thus far. This is not some personal soapbox you own on your own street corner. When I took over responsibility for paying a security force of 4000 persons spread across Iraq, I decided to do a personal audit of the pay that had previously been given out. I took a trip to one of the larger areas, Basra, in the south of Iraq, and personally visited every single site were people were supposed to be stationed. Pay for these individuals had previously been channeled through the US Army. I found that many of the people on the payroll either did not exist or did not show for duty. Of the authorized payroll I withdrew from the Central Bank in Basra, I ended up bringing back around $100,000 in cash. I could easily have taken that cash to the marketplace in the Green Zone, and over the course of a few weeks converted it all to dollars. Instead, I had it all redeposited in the Central Bank once I got back to Baghdad. I don't mind people saying the financial controls were too loose (they were). What I mind is people such as you who have no interest in sharing knowledge but simply espousing preconceived notions, so that the challenges never come to light. In the process, everyone is painted with the same brush, using the example of someone indicted for bribery, as applicable to everyone. There were many good people in CPA who went there truly to help the Iraqis, and you insult every one of them by your despicable falsehoods. Challenges such as the fact pay had to be distributed from around 100 pay sites across the country, the fact that CPA did not have the manpower to personally make this distribution every month, the fact that CPA did not have the manpower to do country wide on a recurring basis the type of audit I did on a one time basis in only one of those 100 locations, and the fact that the CPA HAD to rely on the ministries to distribute pay in a proper manner are all ignored by not having the rational type of discussion Geo Swan and I had begun to have. My CPA office had a dozen people attempting to oversee an Iraqi ministry of 40,000. We had to rely on the Iraqi ministry to do much of anything, and we had a terrible challene with corruption in all the ministries. If only we had known of you earlier, we no doubt could have called upon your expertise to solve all our problems. Its only too bad that I now learn of someone who had all the answers. Businessdr 03:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Please don't break the history mechanism~~
Ariele, I know that several people have explained to you that many people consider it disruptive when someone cuts a block of text on a talk page, and move it to another location. When you do that the date stamps in the signature don't correspond to when the text was (re)added. You have been asked not to use this practice. It has been explained to you that some people consider this kind of edit a form of vandalism. Please be more careful. When you have something to add, as a followup to someone else's comment, can you confine yourself to just adding it after their comment, with one further indent, just like everyone else?
I know that several people have explained to you that you aren't supposed to edit other people's edits on the talk page. So you shouldn't have put my text in ~~strikeout~~. Please be more careful. -- Geo Swan 22:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It has been explained to you that some people consider this kind of edit a form of vandalism. I know that several people have explained to you that you aren't supposed to edit other people's edits on the talk page. So you shouldn't have put my text in ~~strikeout~~. Please be more careful.
~~There you go AGAIN calling my edits vandalism and whining. Your computer ran out of space. This whole entire Wikipedia is YOURS isn't it?~~
~~If you had been more competent at setting up your $200,000+ computer servers, we wouldn't be experiencing technical difficulties would we? ....24.148.180.76 00:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
GeoSwan, Why did you delete "I think most of us have been programmed to think linearly (e.g. from the top down) when the subject is focused on the topics of democracy and government"? Did you find in your research of Bremer, that he had on one public occassion, called himself a "con con"? I assumed what he meant was he is/was a "constitutional conservative" as oppose to the other word, "Neocon", used loosely by the press. Any comments on that, users GEO SWAN, Brian1975, or BusinessDr?
~~GeoSwan, I assume your "full discussion" under VOTE FOR PATRIOTISM means you consider yourself to be an AMERICAN PATRIOT???~~
~~Wasn't this link here once before? Welcome to the Green Zone, A Fortified Bubble~~
~~Ariele 14:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
You made five edits in a row. The first one was indistinguishable from vandalism, and the second one was indistinguishable from vandalism. The third edit was a trivial meta-question. The fourth edit was a continuation of mistake you made that was indistinguishable from vandalism. The fifth edit starts with an offhand non-excuse for your earlier attempts to limit discussion to those who share your sense of American patriotism. This is inappropriate for an international project. I make no apology for reverting this. It also included a request that I explain your own comments to you. Finally it contains a question as to whether I found references to Bremer describing himself as a "con-con". No, I did not any references to Bremer describing himself as a "con-con"..
I make no apology for deleting vandalism or edits that are indistinguishable from vandalism. I am not the only person who has requested that you refrain from making this kind of edits that are disruptive to those of us who make use of the history mechanism. I explained this above. Let me try to explain this more simply.

People sign the comments they make to the talk page.

Those signatures include a time stamp.

People can look at the date in a time stamp, and use if to go to the edit history, to determine the order in which earlier and later comments were added.

They can indicate that they want to compare versions, where they only see how two versions differ.

They can step forward, and step backward, paying attention to the differences, to see how the article evolved.

But, when you cut a block of comments, and then paste it somewhere else, the time stamps in the comments don't correspond to when that block was added. It confuses the order in which comments were added. It breaks the history mechanism.
As to whether I consider myself an American patriot. I know you know I am not an American. However I think I place as high a value on the high principles that people identify with America as any patriotic American. In particular I value free speech, freedom of thought, association and expression, the principle of the presumption of innocence, and the rule of law. It often seems to me that a disturbing number of Americans, who regard themselves as patriots, don't value those high principles. -- Geo Swan 02:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Objectivity~~
Geo Swan's comment "It often seems to me that a disturbing number of Americans, who regard themselves as patriots, don't value those high principles" explains to me why the main article lacks objectivity.
~~Did you know there were Americans who volunteered to go to Iraq to work WITH the Coalition Provisional Authority; not for them?~~
~~I've made several suggestions for improvement....I believe others have noticed there's something very odd happening here.~~
~~It's sad to find that their stories and others as well, are being blocked from here. If this is GEOSWAN's strategy of promoting the IAMB and the PRB, this is not the forum to do so.~~
~~,,,,Ariele 04:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~

Geo Swan,
I have see others indent their responses when inserted within the same heading. However, I have not discovered how to do that. Could you please point to where that capability exists on the edit page? Thanks. Businessdr 22:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Every line that you preface with colon(s) gets indented. One indent per colon.

If you indent a line with asterisks (or colons and an asterisk) it becomes a bulleted paragraph.

If you have a bunch of consecutive lines (no blank lines between them) that you preface with number signs "#", they become numbered paragraphs.

Right below the edit window there is a smaller window where you can add the remark that will be put next to your edit in the edit history.-- Geo Swan 07:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~The Main Article~~
There's a great deal of information added most recently to the discussion page. I feel we've flooded the talk page with a lot of information. The earlier contributions by Brian1975 seem rather good. I thought some of those photos were from him? And there's his explanation for some of the controversial topics Geo Swan threw at everyone. How are you folks going to incorporate your discussion in the talk page into the article?
Were you all aware that Ambassador Bremer's book is publishing on January 1, 2006?
I've huffed and puffed at Geo Swan before but concluded it's just a lost cause.
I have discovered here in Wikipedia, if you were to contribute your opposing point of view (substantiated by facts of course), I don't see why that would be a problem for both GeoSwan and Brian1975?
I am concerned that someone deleted a contributor's edit. This someone was not a regular and has only visited this article once or twice I believe. It was something about Greenstock leaving the CPA 3 months early. This could explain why there has not been anyone new editing and contributing to this article. We must be careful not to run people off.
Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and its main page did say "anyone can edit". You and I must be mindful of that.
O.K. I'm off my soapbox now.....Ariele 02:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Let's get back to the point...~~
Ariele,
I have to say something that I wish I didn't, as I probably would like you a great deal if we met in person. However, can I suggest you limit discussion on this page to points relevant to the article to which it is attached? This is not some personal blog that everyone should use to espouse a particular point of view. I am certain your point of view is much more aligned with mine than Brian. However, my sense is neither of you have recently contributed greatly to improving the quality of the article. Your perspective seems to be to push a pro-America political agenda. I fully support that in general, but it seems to me this really isn't the place. Brian's perspective is to push a negative perspective of anything at all associated with actions taken by the Bush administration, and accusing anyone associated with CPA of corruption and malfeasance, all totally devoid of any objective analysis. Neither approach is particularly useful to developing an article that is objective, balanced, and provides meaningful insight to a reader consistent with the purpose of Wikipedia.
I don't have any agenda at hand other than to present the most complete set of facts and the most reasonable logical conclusions that can be drawn from those facts. One of the most exciting features of Wiki is that as new facts come to light, we can all rush to our keyboards and update our articles and incorporate those new facts and possibly draw new conclusions as a more complete picture is made available. The good doctor's bias begins to show when he says things like "push a negative perspective of anything at all associated with actions taken by the Bush administration." This article isn't about the Bush Administration or the Blair Government. It's about what effectively can be categorized as the "Bremer Administration," since Garner was not around long enough to see any of the major changes that CPA put into place.
I mentioned previously that I haven't even begun to analyze the narratives about the financial and economic changes that happened under CPA. Offhand, I can think of one HUGE good thing that the CPA did, which was the issuance of the new Iraqi Dinar. What a success that has been. It was adopted universally throughout the country on a timeline that would make the adopters of the Euro proud, and it has helped stablize a currency that wasn't worth much thanks to the policies of Saddam and his crew. That's a clear example of something that CPA got right, and something that was done really well. I'm guessing from your other posts that you might have had something to do with that project, and I commend you for it. However, there were many other foolhardy actions by the CPA that will take years to play out. A longer term project for me was to take both the CPA's report and the CPA orders and analyze their impact on Iraq and the world based upon available data, and to continue to update that analysis as new data becomes available. Whether this project ends up in this article or branches off into an independent commentary somewhere else remains to be seen. I honestly don't see why you think my comments are worthless, unless you've somehow injected your emotions into this discussion and view criticisms of the CPA's actions as direct criticisms of you. People who have problems distinguishing between their selves and their institutions usually have names like Saddam and Stalin. Please don't make the mistake of confusing the good work that you personally did with the often bad work that your institution did. --Brian1975 02:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I realize you mean well, but I really would like to see all conversation focused on objective, rational discussion of the merits of the article and areas for potential improvement. Brian's comments were worthless in terms of meaningful analysis, but I have a difficult time finding much analysis in your comments either. Rather than taking votes on who is a patriotic American, perhaps you can comment on the dialog that Geo Swan and I had begun and see if we can develop a concensus around changes in the article text that are needed.
I hope you take this in the positive spirit in which it is intended. Thanks. Businessdr 04:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Good luck!,,,,Ariele 21:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Corruption~~
Articles such as this: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-colonel27nov27,0,1641096.story?coll=la-home-headlines and this: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/oct2005/basr-o21_prn.shtml don't support the notion that everything was going well. Fraud inspectors don't kill themselves when they investigate bad things and find nothing wrong. Typically, it's when they do find things wrong that their lives end prematurely. --Brian1975 03:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Coalition Provisional Authority Article~~
Ariele,
So I take it, given your example, that it is OK to edit other people's user pages. Being a new user, I didn't know that before. Please read what people say before responding to them. I never claimed or inferred that I was a "deputy" of Bremer. I did, however, work in CPA for 7 months. I am glad you already knew everything I have discussed regarding the CPA article. However, it is clear that Brian and GeoSwan were confused on the facts. What I have offered is clarification of things such as their misinterpretation of the Washington Post article regarding hiring personnel, and Brian's claim that corruption was the norm. I would like to add something worthwhile, but its difficult when all the discussion focuses around something said 9 months ago. Heavens sakes. If you grew up in a family of counselors, did you ever hear the words "get over it and move on"? This article could use a great deal of improvement to make it objective, and I'd welcome the chance to collaborate with you and others in doing so. By the way, my "claim" of having worked in CPA is no more or less than your claim of having been in France. At some point don't we have to trust one another a bit unless evidence points to the contrary?Businessdr 08:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to edit on your user page. I realized yesterday what I had done but got busy with some new research. As for your comment "moving on", I have...I'm trying to learn more about spyware. For someone like me, that's moving pretty far.,,,,FYI: I was in Paris on vacation and just "love love love" the city and people there!,,,,Ariele 02:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've had some more time to think over what you said. "No" no one has ever said to me "move on". In practice, their response would have been "let's talk about this" or "How do you feel about it?" and so on....Instead, my head was once filled with ancient Greek ideology on human behavior.,,,,,don't knock it unless you've tried it.,,,,,Ariele 01:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]