Talk:Iraq Survey Group

message: * Although it might cost the article some thoroughness - and despite it being very cliche - I can't provide proof about some things, like optempo. If I had them, I could provide the fragos and mission briefs for the MCT missions I went on, but they were secret. It would be an crime to have saved them and a bigger crime to reveal them. Sorry. Do what you have to do... NetSerfer 22:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cleanup up the 'experts' a bit. You're right: there were only a few dozens of WMD experts in ISG. What MCT was your friend with? I worked with most of the team commanders. NetSerfer 23:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: is that IYNSHO? =-\ .... JDR 12:51, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Facts and Research

message: Is the ISG a 1200 member-team or a 1400 member-team?
----
The term expert ought to be qualified.  I know of an officer in his early 20's at the time who led a team searching a huge area of Iraq for WMD who immediately prior to working for the ISG was in fact qualified to be an Officer of the Watch on a warship and whose only training on chemical weapons was the standard package all members of the military get.  My point is, they weren't all experts on WMD, which is certainly implied here.
:I cleanup up the 'experts' a bit. You're right: there were only a few dozens of WMD experts in ISG. What MCT was your friend with? I worked with most of the team commanders. NetSerfer 23:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: is that IYNSHO? =-\ .... JDR 12:51, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: MCTs

message: I made a few changes...
1. The listing of key points buries the lede of the report.  The most significant points, from the point of view of Administration justifications for the war, were that there were no WMDs, hadn't been any for years, and Husayn's ability to restart programs had deteriorated, not improved, in the last decade.
I moved the point about buying influence to the bottom.  This is because it had the weakest evidence in the report.  While it's widely acknowledged that Husayn skimmed money from the program, the only "evidence" of buying influence is the papers that Ahmed Chalabi alleged to have custody of.  No independent observer ever saw those alleged papers, and Chalabi's people offered "my dog ate my homework" excuses about multiple hard drive failures when pressed.
On Chalabi being the sole source for evidence of bribery, see:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/003616.php
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_08_08.php#003264
2. Where the article said "Iraq had planned on restarting all banned weapons programs ...", I changed it to "Iraq hoped to restart...".  THis is because the Duelfer report indicates Husayn's *desire* to restart, but that he had, in practical terms, been letting programs deteriorate, rather than been preparing for the end of sanctions.
On the lack of interest in restarting BW, see the key findings, page 1 of the Biological Weapons section:
"ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW
program or was conducting BW-specifi c work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite
evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of
discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level.
Iraq would have faced great diffi culty in re-establishing an effective BW agent production capability."
3. In Political Implications, I reworded the Administration claims to appear as allegations, rather than as facts, since multiple reports have disproven them.
-MattJensen
It wasn't disproven, sorry.
Hi - I thought it would be best to have one bullet point each about the three main WMD programs, describing what the Duelfer report found about them. There was already one about nuclear weapons, so below that one I've now added two bullet points covering the report's key findings about chemical and biological weapons:
1. "Iraq destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in 1991, and only a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions were discovered by the ISG. Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort at a future time, however." -- see the first two key findings of the Duelfer report's section on chemical weapons.
2. "Saddam's regime abandoned its biological weapons program and its ambition to obtain advanced biological weapons in 1995. While it could have re-established an elementary BW program within weeks, ISG discovered no indications it was pursuing such a course. No-itsme (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duelfer Report edits 

message: The section on "Political implications" is fairly POV-heavy at the moment. I'm not sure it's really possible to have a section that covers the "political implications" of the ISG's findings without it becoming a football being scrimmaged over aggressively by the pro-Bush/anti-Bush teams. Even the section title, "Political implications", is problematic, in that it commits the article to presenting the political implications -- but those implications are themselves the subject of the controversy, and the things that are being strenuously disagreed about by both sides.
I'd suggest the following changes (which, if someone doesn't object to them, or do them first, I'll probably do myself over the next few days):
* Rename the section to something like "Controversy regarding findings".
* Recast the POV-heavy language in more-neutral terms that simply present each side's intrepration of what the ISG results mean. For example, the current language implies that the WMD commission report and the report of the Senate Intelligence Committee showed Bush was not to blame for relying on the flawed intelligence. That position is pro-Bush POV: neither of those reports actually addresses that issue directly, though they are frequently cited as evidence for that position by Bush defenders.
-- John Callender 17:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV problems in the "Political implications" section 

message: Alledgeing that this was only a "Pentagon and CIA" hunt for Saddam's WMD is not a NPOV (and borders on being factually inaccurate). JDR 17:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement reads:  It consisted of a 1,400-member team organized by The Pentagon and CIA to hunt for Saddam's suspected stockpiles of WMD. Given that David Kay worked for the Pentagon from '83 to '88. Given that Charles A. Duelfer worked for the agency before being appointed to the group. Given that the title of the findings is "Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD" . I think it is fair to say that that the Pentagon and CIA organized the hunt. Further, given that the article states a 1,400 member team, I think it is a stretch to suggest the article implies only the before mentioned agencies were involved. Noting a 1,400 member international team ought to remove any lingering doubt, given that there is a whole section on Organization and Operations. Finally, User:Reddi made his comments and NPOV tag on 9 November 2005 , and since that time no one has commented, or made any substantial changes to the article. I am removing the NPOV tag. --Uncle Bungle 23:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: The following text was removed from the article, and I can't find a reason here or in the edit history:
"The failure to find any stockpiles of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons was embarassing (to - LP) Washington and London, who used intelligence indicating that Iraq did possess WMD stockpiles as one of the primary justifications for the invasion of Iraq. The British government, in particular, placed very heavy emphasis on this intelligence in order to win support for the invasion."
Anyone know why it was deleted?
Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text removal 

message: I clairfied the end of the Oganizations and Operations part where it talks about the second two soliders that where killed. Only thing I did was add the battery and battalion of the unit. I was in the battalion over there when it happened.
Revcoyote (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clairfication 

message: I am curious as to the value of specifying who led or worked in various elements. Several of these men are still in military or government service. While their service is not secret, it is not widely circulated as a matter of operational and personal security. I know named individuals who want their names removed for those very reasons, some of whom have little or no internet presence other than this article.
Furthermore, these names are not referenced, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy concerning biographies of living persons (BLP). All names and positions held "must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed." Original research is not allowed for BLP. Names of individuals that appeared in the news are one thing, but please remove names of individuals who merely served.
Aravatos (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Names of Commanders and Personnel