Talk:Covert United States foreign regime change actions/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Neutrality

A general pledge: Wikipedia super-users, editors, moderators and experts: Please do not look for "neutrality" when it comes to power and its possible abuse. Instead only look for honesty, witnesses, sources and truth. Thanks, Myriam Thyes, Dusseldorf. —Preceding undated comment added 23:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

Brazil...

I find it very interesting that Brazil isn't listed under the countries whose regime was changed by the USA. It's a widely know fact that the CIA was behind the military coup of 1964... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.145.82.23 (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Venezuela 2007

I am removing the "dubious" and "neutrality disputed" tags from the Venezuela 2007 section. The tags refer to this page for discussion and argument. However, the editor has posted no sources in support of his/her criticism. The section cites a reliable source for the section per WP rules. If there is a reliable source that disputes this, let's have it. If the US gov't denies, let's see it. Without sources, there is no basis for doubting this story. In fact, the thrust of the story is consistent with 50+ years of US Latin American policy and the general hostility with which the US has treated Venezuela since Chavez was overwhelmingly elected (and re-elected, and re-elected again).--NYCJosh 00:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If someone believes a source is possibly problematic, that issue should be raised here before the article is mucked up. For the Venezuela 2007 section, one of the sources is Counterpunch, a periodical edited by veteran American and British journalists who have published in a wide array of US, UK and other newspapers and journals. See WP article Counterpunch. The author of this article, James Petras, is a former social science professor at a university in the US who researched Latin America for decades and has written numerous books and articles on the subject.--NYCJosh (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

what about nazi germany and imperial japan

this article seems to only relate to regime chages that are bad for america —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.36.133 (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is about covert actions. WWII wasn't covert. -- kenb215 talk 21:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

How are they covert if we know about them? There were actions in Japan and Germany (and China) before the U.S. entered the war that were covert. --DHeyward (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to refer to WP article on covert action and other related articles (e.g. whistleblower, national security archive, declassification etc.) for an answer to your query. This page is not the forum for asking general questions of this type. With regard to your assertion of US covert action against Japan or Germany prior to entry of US into WWII, you are welcome to add material from reliable sources.--NYCJosh (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I changed the name back to CIA covert regime changes, to avoid this confusion.

If there is going to be a relatively emotional term such as "regime change", I believe it should cover the overt actions that did not have a declaration of war, not that anyone has often declared war since 1941 (what was Noriega thinking?). These actions tend to fall through the cracks, if one focuses on covert action, not having a comprehensive picture of US foreign policy anywhere.

There are also situations, such as Vietnam, where there were both extensive overt and covert actions. The Korean War and Iraq 1990-1991 are somewhat special cases, since they were, to varying extents, under UN authority, and they were mostly overt. In both, there certainly were covert actions, but they were in support of military operations. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

Today I removed the penultimate parag of the intro for the following reasons: For example the historian Spencer R. Weart has argued that coups against democracies supported by the US occurred against regimes correctly or incorrectly perceived, at the time, as nondemocracies, such as Communist dictatorships, or turning into such.

This sentence is internally inconsistent. It states, as I understand it, that "democracies suppoted by the US" were then toppled by coups because they were incorrectly seen as non-democracies. If they were supported by the US, why would the US try to overthrow them through regime change?

On the other hand, if the sentence means that the US supported coups against democracies because the US misperceived the target countries as non-democtratic, then this is a POV source and must be balanced by the views of other historians that US foreign policy in Latin America, the Middle East and the developing world generally was either (1) unconcerned with democratic governance, or (2) tended to favor right-wing authoritarian rule because it guaranteed a gov't with policies the US desired.

The last alternative is correct. Add opposing sources if you can find them. There is no policy justification for deleting sourced material until the time someone may find an opposing source.Ultramarine (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case it should be fixed to make more readable.--NYCJosh (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, fixed.Ultramarine (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Halperin et al. propose that one reason for the support, by the US and other Western nations, for certain right-wing dictatorships is that it is rare for democracy to exist in nations with low economic development.

This sentence discusses SUPPORT for certain regimes by the US. It is therefore irrelevant to this article, which focuses on US regime CHANGE. Also, there is an OR issue because the source provides no CONNECTION between US reasons for the coups and US desire for economic growth in the target countries. I.e. A discussion of economic growth under democratic or autocratic governments is irrelevant, unless a source states that the US undertook to overthrow a democracy in order to promote economic growth in the target country.

The article discusses US support for dictatorships and therefore all sides of this should be presented.Ultramarine (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Portions of the article might mention US support for various regimes, but that does not call for this discussion in the intro. It is confusing. Also, the OR issue was not addressed.--NYCJosh (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

We can rename the section if you prefer and have a more general discussion. Feel free to add sourced material that this is part of a global capitalist conspiracy etc. Ultramarine (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I's sorry, was that supposed to be responsive to my two criticisms of the sentence? --NYCJosh (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that your basic view is that this should simply be a list of incidents. My view is that we should also discuss this more generally, general reasons for why these happened and arguments for and against. This must also mention why the US have often supported dictatorships. Again, we do not to have this discussion in the intro, we can have it in another section.Ultramarine (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to create an article on US support for right-wing authoritarian regimes, I will support you and will support this kind of discussion in the intro for that article. This is a different article and, not surprisingly, my view is that an article about covert regime change should have an intro that discusses that, not US support for existing regimes. We could have an intro that is 50 pages long, covering many RELATED topics (e.g. history of covert operations, history and mission of the CIA, comparative perspective of how other Western powers have orchestrated regime change, theoretical discussion of liberal democracy vs. socialism v. fascism as it relates to support or opposition to democratic governments, etc. etc.,) but we have to keep the intro of reasonable length and therefore on point.

Also, you have not addressed the OR issue I raised above.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No response received to major objections to text in controversy. I will soon remove.--NYCJosh (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No more OR than your claim that there is "on-going" policy of regime change. Nothing in my sources state they only apply to established dictatorships, they apply to new or established.Ultramarine (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

First sentence is irrelevant because even if true, two wrongs don't make it right. Second sentence is not responsive to regime CHANGE issue.--NYCJosh (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In these nations, the poor population without a middle class would vote for populist politics that would eventually fail, causing disappointment, and a return to dictatorship or even violent internal conflict. This, supporting a dictatorship that promotes economic growth and creates a solid middle class have often been seen as the best option available, anticipating that this will eventually lead to democratization.

This sentence is OR. There is no support in the source for any CONNECTION between a US-sponsored coup against a democratic gov't and the perceived promotion of economic growth for the target country. It is also irrelevant, since, as discussed, this article is about regime CHANGE by the US, not US support for authoritarian regimes.

Same source as above and same argument.Ultramarine (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

However, this view has been challenged recently by arguing that research shows that poor democracies perform better, including also on economic growth if excluding East Asia, than poor dictatorships.[1] Right-wing dictatorships in nations such as Portugal, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Chile, Brazil, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, and Indonesia eventually became democracies. Another point is that the when comparing the supported right-wing dictatorships with opposing left-wing dictatorshps, the latter were much worse if counting for example numbers killed.[2].

Irrelevant per above.--NYCJosh (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, all sides of the issue should be discussed.Ultramarine (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Today I removed the following section from the intro: The National Endowment for Democracy states that a "misleading equation has been taken up by authoritarian rulers to deny the legitimacy of democracy assistance and to portray these efforts as an instrument of foreign policy designed to undermine US adversaries. NED's position has always been that regime change and democracy assistance are not synonymous. Democracy assistance does not actively promote domestic policy agendas or champion opposition forces. Achieving democracy is the purpose of democracy assistance groups' efforts, and the fall or removal of a non-democratic regime does not automatically produce democracy as an outcome. The replacement of Batista by Castro or the Shah by Khomeini makes that clear. Democracy assistance focuses not on determining short term or partisan outcomes in the sense of changing regimes or backing certain parties or candidates in elections. The outcomes we work toward are those of strengthening democracy, safeguarding human rights and enhancing democratic institutions, practices and culture. So our objective is not regime change per se. To be sure, ending a dictatorship can provide the space and opportunity for people to build democracy, but that is a long-term and arduous task, entailing a process of work, learning, and the cultivation of civic values and institutions of governance that enable pluralist societies to resolve differences through peaceful means."[3]

This seems to be the NED's position about its "democracy promotion" efforts. According to the NED's position, such efforts are NOT synonomous with regime change, and the NED's objectives are NOT "regime change per se." Thus this material seems irrelevant to this article, which IS about regime chage. In addition, even if it were relevant, this material is way too long--undue weight issue.--NYCJosh (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Not irrelevant, since it clarifies the issue and mentions regime change. How is one paragraph too long, when we are for example quoting numerous paragraphs from some dubious Venezuela claim? Ultramarine (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What issue does it clarify?--NYCJosh (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The difference between regime change and democracy promotion which is commonly mistaken.Ultramarine (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It provides NO additional information about regime change. It just says that NED "democracy prootion" is not regime change per se. Basically, it is the NED defending its work. You have cited no reliable source alleging that the NED's work constitutes RC, so the NED denials are irrelevant to this article. If you want to propose adding material that states that NED supported action x which SOMEONE noteworthy states IS RC but the NED states is "democracy promotion" but not RC, then that might be relevant. (In that case, it might be more appropriate to include it in the relevant section of the article, not the Intro.)--NYCJosh (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

NED is allowed to express its view, as are the socialist webpages whose allegations are so frequently cited in this article. Obviously more clearly defining what RC is adds to the article.Ultramarine (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

NED is allowed to express its views. The issue is whether they are relevant to this article. Reasserting that the NED material "more clearly" defines RC does not make it so. See my comments above. Try substantive responses not re-asserting of your conclusions and labelling websites.--NYCJosh (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

POV material

"According to various sources,[4] [5] [6] the United States of America government has an established practice of forcibly overthrowing or trying to overthrow foreign governments perceived as hostile, directly or indirectly, and replacing them with new ones, a practice that has recently become known as regime change.[7] [8] [9] [10]It has been noted that governments targeted by the U.S. have included democratically-elected governments, thus the target "regimes" are not necessarily authoritarian governments or juntas, but in some cases are replaced by such dictatorships."

Presents dubious claims from dubous sources as undisputed facts, in particular the implication that this is a current policy.Ultramarine (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Several editors have expressed frustration because they feel you are wasting their time. This is a good example. If you have an issue with a source, name it. If you have evidence that the "current" policy (define "current"--since Bush II, since Clinton, Eisenhower. ?--when did the policy change, who changed it and why?), provide it. Otherwise, you are wasting our time. Please state your objection with reference to a WP rule. Otherwise, we don't care.--NYCJosh (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You are making the claim, you have to provide the source. Which one make the claim regarding "established practice"? These sources just list specific instances, not that this is an "established practice", which seem to be an OR synthesis.Ultramarine (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Please decide what your objection is. You now seem to be objecting to the wording of the sentence, not its basic content.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not objected to including sourced views with proper attribution. If you do not object to current version which have removed "established practice", then there is no problem.Ultramarine (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have changed it to "on-going history." That there is a "history" is not subject to serious dispute as the many sources in the article will attest. That it is "on-going" is necessary to avoid the connotation that it is "merely" history. This is supported by the many sources in the "recent claims" section.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

On-going implies currently which is dubious and POV. Recent and claims are not now and proved.Ultramarine (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The many reliable sources, most of them uncontroverted, cited in that section establish an on-going history. According to any reasonable understanding, in historical terms (i.e. in the sweep of post-WWII history), sources that show a continous pattern over the last few years--several in 2006 and 2007 according the article--establish an on-going pattern.

Also, the sources in the recent claims section do support on-going US funding, say for Regi's terrorist group in Iran, for covert regime change.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No, if you are arguing that one cannot reasonable discuss the reasons for US regime change as per the section above, then one cannot make the claims you make which seem to your own OR synthesis of unproved claims.Ultramarine (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What? Please stick to topic at hand.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

My point is that there seem to be a double standard; here you are talking about "reasonable understanding" of sources which "establish" something; I am arguing the same in the section above which you reject. You cannot have it both ways.Ultramarine (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance. Here the issue is how to describe an undoubtedly relevant history given the many reliable sources. I am not suggesting here introducing any irrelevant material backed by irrelevant sources (OR issue and relevance issue per above). Please stop trying to horse trade.--NYCJosh (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a double standard. None of your sources claim "on-going" and "practice". Various claims of recent actions is not the same, see WP:SYN. Furthermore, none of these claims are noteable or trustworthy enough to be first thing mentioned in the article. Ultramarine (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Title and scope

By consensus reached some time ago, this article is called "Covert US Regime Change Actions." Someone came along and changed the title to its current title, then unilaterally deleted most of the text and moved it to a CIA page. If anyone has any bold new ideas for the article, please propose it here first and provide your reasoning. I have restored most of the changes.

Someone should change the title back to what it was. This article is not an institutional history of the CIA, but a more general one about an aspect of the US foreign policy, much of it quite unknown in any detail to the vast majority of the public. Some the material does not necessarily fit neatly into the CIA box (although a lot of it does), so it's broader and its aim, as we have come to understand it, is not primarily to shed light on the CIA.--NYCJosh (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't agree more strongly that the distinction always needs to be made among as the actual (not necessarily overt) foreign policy of the United States, that which the CIA is directed to do by the White House/NSC, and those things where a CIA element essentially went off on its own. In the set of articles where I am, indeed, trying to define a CIA history, for older events where there has been significant declassification, it often turns out that a covert action was reviewed and authorized by the policy approval group of the time. Originally, those decisions came directly from the NSC, but later from a group such as the 54/12 committee, the Special Group, the 303 Committee, the Special Group (Counterinsurgency), etc. In other cases, there was a NSC/Presidential order, which again can have a variety of names such as NSC [directive], National Security Decision Directive, Presidential Directive, etc. For many things through at least the sixties, it usually has been possible to document the decision using such sources as the Foreign Relations of the United States series, the National Security Archive at George Washington University, CIA FOIA Reading Room, etc.

Have there been any operations where the CIA, or, even more importantly, its predecessors in the Truman Administration (e.g., Office of Policy Coordination) did things without approval? Certainly, although with the OPC, there was a good deal of broadly delegated authority. The CIA proper really got control of operations in 1952, so it's dubious to say, for example, that a 1947 Albanian coup attempt was a CIA operation.

Have there been cases where covert political action had wildly unexpected consequences? Again, yes. The Indonesian coup attempts in the fifties were outright failures. Ironically, an attempt merely to strengthen non-Communist political elements, in 1965, fed into a combination of events that led to a bloody suppression, by the Indonesian military, of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI). Independently of the CIA, the PKI killed six generals, and the military struck back. If there had been no CIA action, but the PKI still took those actions, would the military still have purged them? There's no real way to tell.

Ideally, I would like to see this article focus on US policies of regime change, which may or may not have involved CIA operations, and the CIA activities series deal with CIA operations, documenting whether or not the operation was approved. Approval gets rather soft in cases such as Iran-Contra, where the Administration clearly circumvented the intent of Congress and issued orders that included CIA components. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be named US Covert Regime Change Actions, as it was for a good while before someone decided to change it, and should focus on US actions on the ground and US history abroad, not on the bureaucratic aspect you discuss, which is as you say is more appropriate for an article about the CIA as an institution. (Although a sentence in each case about presidential/NSC approval for each action, as appropriate, would be a good thing here.) If you wish to add some material about actions you mention that are not presently described in the article, go ahead.--NYCJosh (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

For most cases of covert regime change, there was a NSC-level action of some type. The exceptions may be in the roughly 1945-1952 time frame, before CIA got control of the covert action people in the OPC. Attempts against the Contras are probably as rogue as anything; I don't remember any NSC-level approval, although Casey, North, Secord, etc., still acted. Someone who knows the history of Iran-Contra better than I would have to judge if Reagan really knew -- although it might have been, depending on your literary taste, "who shall rid me of this turbulent priest", or "wink wink nudge nudge".

More complex are the situations, especially in Vietnam, where the US was aware of indigenous coup plans, and did not interfere -- although I'm not sure they could have intervened in a meaningful way. I'd say that the US was reasonably aware, but not certain, of the coup that overthrew Diem, and that went, at least, to Ambassadorial level and reporting to Washington. It raises the interesting question if there needs to be an NSC decision to do nothing.

In the past, was the article ever simply "US sponsored regime change?" Might this be considered? After all,

1. Grenada 1983 (regime changed)
2. Panama 1989 (regime changed)
3. Iraq 1991 (regime did not change, although that was not an official goal)
4. Iraq 2003 (regime changed)

hardly were covert, but they definitely involved regime change.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

State-sponsored terrorism

Before changing things, it seemed fair to bring up my concerns on the talk page. I followed the link to "Demokratizatsiya" below, and did not find the phrase "state-sponsored terrorism".

The United States role in arming, training, and supporting the radical Islamic terrorist group, the Mujihadeen of Afghanistan in the 1980s, has been called the model for state-sponsored terrorism, and led to a new generation of regime change actions around the world by this group and its off-shoots. This guerrilla movement, initially intended to oust the Soviet Union from Afghanistan, gave rise to terrorist groups in nations such as Indonesia, the Philippians, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Chechnya, and the former Yugoslavia, with a view to bring about regime change along Islamic lines. [ref]Demokratizatsiya, Spring 2003, re-published at Find Articles, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3996/is_200304/ai_n9199132 [/ref]...

So, if the reference doesn't use the term, I suggest avoiding it. If "support to guerillas" or even "proxy war" were substituted, I think that would be more accurate both in terms of the source, and WP:NPOV.

When I hear the term "state-sponsored terrorism", I think of references to a state committing terrorism against its citizens or at least residents. That seems somewhat stretched in describing support to guerilla movements, and perhaps somewhat POV. While many, if not most, guerilla movements use terrorism, and Mao described that as part of Phase I in On Protracted War, I do not believe that the general literature on uncomventional warfare uses the term "state-sponsored terrorism" to apply to sponsoring insurgents. This is a fairly important distinction, as when a state starts using terrorist techniques against its own, it will almost invariably cause a loss of legitimacy for the government. In Minimanual of the Urban Guerilla, Marighella specifically discusses the guerilla tactic of causing state overreaction for just that reason.

Afghanistan is an unusual situation, since the government in place did not have a great deal of legitimacy, given the Soviet action in deposing earlier governments until they had one they liked; none of the parties really had any.

Would you be open to changing the words "state-sponsored terrorism"? The source speaks of terrorist movements spawned as a result, but these had even less state sponsorship. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello- I found the term "state-sponsored terrorism" in that article about 7 paragraphs down on the first page. Regarding your other argument to the effect that the term "state-sponsored terrorism" is not used to describe situations where states sponsor guerrilla movements to catalyze regime change, I must say that I have seen this in the literature often enough. [[11]]. The were also examples of mainstream media outlets who referred to the Contras as terrorists. The sponsorship came from an external state, the US. Am I missing something? BernardL (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The mainstream media may indeed seize onto a particular term, and use it repeatedly, but not necessarily accurately. As a trivial example, have you noticed that any group of buildings becomes a "compound", whether it's the Kennedy family residence or a cult headquarters?

Take the Contras as a Marxist movement, and look at sources such as Mao (http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/PW38.html) or Marighella (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marighella-carlos/1969/06/minimanual-urban-guerrilla/index.htm). I don't think you'll find either using "terrorism" in other than a quite specific manner, much as Lenin wrote "the purpose of terror is to terrorize." The mainstream media, as opposed to the more serious politicomilitary literature of any ideology, tends to equate guerilla warfare with terrorism. In the formal literature, the use of the term "terrorism" tends to be restricted to operations where the intention is, in Lenin's terms, to terrorize.

Such terror could come from a right-wing Latin American government death squad, or a NLF "armed propaganda" team torturing a village leader to death in public, as a warning against collaboration. When the NLF unit ambushed an RVN or US military unit, that was deadly, but it wasn't terrorism. No one would argue that the NLF, and later the NVA, were state-sponsored, but all of their tactics were not terror. To call everything terror makes the word meaningless. Statecraft.org isn't a bad site, but I don't think they routinely call support of guerillas "state-sponsored terrorism". They, and more formal research institutions of various governments (the Canadian Security Intelligence Service publishes a great deal and is usually of excellent quality, as is the Strategic Studies Institute at the US Army War College), or private groups such as the "other CSIS" (Center for Strategic and International Studies) or the British Royal United Service Institute, tend to call state support "proxy war" unless the specific actions being supported are terrorist in nature. I simply can't accept that "state sponsored terrorism" has replaced proxy war by guerillas, intent on regime change, as a completely general term. Indeed, in the literature with which I familiar, "state sponsored terrorism" is more what a government's secret police does, whether Gestapo or Cheka/OGPU/NKVD/NVKD/MGB/KGB or Kusay's playmates at the Special Security Organization.

The problem with overusing state sponsored terrorism is that it leaves us with no term that clearly identifies terrorism by a state, as opposed to indirect action. The Soviets provided assistance to various guerilla movements, but they kept their distance from the more nihilist ones that they supported as generally destabilizing, rather than those focused on installing a particular government. Neither the CIA nor KGB would recommend terror if, for example, a coup was simpler.

To avoid POV, I try to be quite specific in my terminology, and I'm finding overuse of state-sponsored terrorism to be more confusing and emotional than descriptive of specific things. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Your state-supported guerila insurgencies are probably poor examples because attackes against (US or other) military targets, which guerila warfare typically entails, are not defined by most to be "terrorism" (except of course for propaganda purposes by the governments fighting the guerilas to portray themselves as the victims). Terrorism, on the other hand, requires, according to many definitions, a civilian target.

In any case this conversation is now close to being off topic.--NYCJosh (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Regime change

Agree with the idea of moving to a new article title, but strongly suggest that it not be limited to covert regime change. There's just as much question, for example, about the very overt regime change of Iraq in 2003. There are legal reasons to believe that it may be easier to use military than CIA forces for both covert and overt forces, and, if I understand the purpose of the planned article, it's getting a complete view of US regime change.

Let me be specific about what I mean by regime change. I refer to it as a situation where there has been no direct attack against the United States, which can get blurry if the particular regime, without reasonable doubt, is involved in terrorism or possibly the drug trade, although the latter is much more a law enforcement matter. Regime change can be overt or covert.

There would be several forms of overt regime change. Clearly, the US had very good reasons to change the Japanese regime after December 7, 1941. There is pre-emption, which is different than preventive war. Perhaps the best recent example of pre-emption in the process of self-defense, consistent with Article 51 of the UN charter, are the Israeli airstrikes on massed Egyptian and Syrian aircraft in 1967. Regime change was an goal insofar if it changed regime behavior; it wasn't a specific goal to overthrow the governments.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq, however, cannot be called pre-emptive, but it was preventive. I don't think any legal authority says that Article 51 applies to preventive attacks. If Kuwait had the capability, in 1990, to hit the massed Iraqi forces that were on its border, that probably would be considered preemption as part of self-defense.

I should note that there is considerable discussion in Congress that there may be a loophole, in which CIA personnel can't undertake a covert action without a Presidential finding and notification of key legislators, but that same action by military special operations personnel, as long as they don't need additional funds, may be within Presidential authority to launch without Congressional review. This isn't a good idea, but it may be a legitimate interpretation of law that exists today.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal for an article on US regime change seems frought with difficulties, precisely because of the complicated issues you raise. Even if you, I and some others could agree on its precise scope, others would object. I would support such an article in ADDITION to this one, but would not agree to rework this one along the lines you propose and subject it to all the possible objections.

I probably agree with your 2003 Iraq invasion views, and that could be included in the type of article you envision in addition to the present article.

I find your conclusion in your last paragraph abou the legal distinction between CIA and special forces-led RC to be untenable. You acknowledge that the UN Charter to which the US is a party, and which therefore constitutes the highest law of the US pursuant to US Const. Art. VI, prohibits the use of force (or even the threat of the use of force) unless two very particular circumstances obtain (imminent attack upon the US or threat thereof, or UN Sec Council finding of threat to peace). Thus any US presidential authorization fo special frces would be subject to that. --NYCJosh (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge the UN Charter exists, but I do not draw the same conclusions about its prohibition that you do. I also observe, however, that, given the customary language of treaties, it does not prohibit the use of force, unless the matter in question has first been presented to the Security Council. Once the matter has been brought before the Security Council, then only Article 51 allows combat, in self-defense, without UNSC authorization.

Article 2 includes the language "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." I contrast that with the language of the Kellogg-Briand accord:

• Article 1: The High Contracting Parties solemly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.
• Article 2: The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.

My reading of Article 2 of the UN Charter is that it states a preference and a desirable state, but in no way bans war in which, ironically, the Kellogg-Briand pact does in extremely specific language. Articles 33-51 do ban unauthorized conflict, but, with the exception of the Article self-defense provisions, are conditional on the conflict having been brought before the UNSC. The language of 39-50, or Chapter VII, also known as the peace enforcement chapter, are vastly stronger than Chapter I.

If, in 2003, Iraq had brought the matter of a potential attack before the UNSC, the US would probably be bound by the UNSC resolution. In customary international law, however, a nation always retains the right to abrogate a treaty if its supreme national interests are involved. Now, I believe that the Constitution would require the advise and consent of the Senate to so abrogate, and I recognize that George W. Bush does not especially believe he is bound by the Constitution. Nevertheless, I cannot accept the interpretation that the UN Charter, without UNSC involvement, is binding on any nation. In the US system, as long as the UNSC provision is not operative, then Congressional authorization is sufficient for an act of war.

So, I don't think we will agree, and I am really not interested in starting another article when the fundamental assumptions are that different. The present article seems quite POV, and, if it stays in "covert regime change", I am not interested in working on it, especially when its title assumes that the CIA apparently is subordinate to no other part of the US government. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone changed the title to "CIA..." without consensus. Fortunately, the article is now back to "Covert..." (although the talk page title has still not been changed back). So at least your last-named concerned is addressed (even though I don't necessarily agree that the "assumption" you imply was in fact made by that title).--NYCJosh (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus for recent changes?

I have just noticed lots of changes by UltraMarine. I have not had a chance to take a close look at these but I was wondering if anyone else has and if he has consensus for these changes? Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Giovanni, thanks for minding the store. Since I put considerable effort into this article in the past, I looked through each of UtraMarine's edits. With the following exceptions, I do NOT agree to any of them. The exceptions are:

1. Ghana and Congo sections--I have no opinion as I have not reviewed in depth.

2. Iran 1980 section--I have no objection to the following changes that were recently made (in order of the changes): (a) "Evidence suggests" language, (b) addition of Powell's denial, (c) addition of Carlucci's denial, (d) move of the Scotland Herald cite, (e) Moving up of the Financial Times and Z mag references (NOT their subsequent deletions), (f) moving up of "dual-use" term, (g) moving of section beginning with "A review of", (h) addition of paragraph "Others have" about US support for both sides (although I will quible about some of the language).

I would like to note that some of UltraMarine's changes are unsupported by WP rules. To give but one brief illustration, UltraMarine added the word "claimed" for some facts stated as uncontroversial and uncontroverted by the sources, which UltraMarine justified with the line "no official source" (presumably meaning no US gov't source). Unlike Joseph Stalin, WP does not require or have a bias for "official sources".--NYCJosh (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Speculation and accusations

Almost all of these are just speculation, or accusations without evidence. Especially the later Iran one. This article seems as if it does not fit wiki standards of quality. Contralya (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because your US high school history textbooks conveniently failed to include some of these important chapters of post-war US history does not render the article sub-quality. Try looking at the footnotes and then read the WP rules on reliable sources. If you still have an issue with "evidence" come back and offer a specific critique.--NYCJosh (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

USA supporting Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1973 and back-giving to Greece

Why is this missing, there are already lots of sources through-out wikipedia pointing at this. Please, add the section. --87.219.85.181 (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add some text in compliance with WP rules (e.g. fully supported by reliable sources). We don't take orders around here.--NYCJosh (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Added Brazil, Greece, Argentina and Turkey

I added Brazil, Greece, Argentina and Turkey. DVoit 01:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Third party documentation vs involved party accusations

A quick review of the entries in this article shows that many of the purported regime changes are in fact not backed by independent, reliable, third party sources. This article's goal seems to be the documentation of US actions that attempted to or resulted in the change of foreign governments. When simple accusations of such activity are listed as being fact or listed as even probable then this article strays over the line of what is and is not verifiable. It is, as in all articles, the burden of the accuser to provide proof. There are several entries that violate this principle such as Zimbabwe, Venezuela and Myanmar that need either correction or proper citation. Before I make any changes I would appreciate if the invested editors that have already put work into this article provide input or objection to the premise of this so that I can avoid an edit war or steppig on toes. Please hit me up! TomPointTwo (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes

From my perspective the problems in this article can be addressed in two principle areas:

Scope

The article's stated scope is the covert change of govenment sponsored by the United States. Within that scope it needs to be clarified wether that includes regime changes or theoretical regime changes that were tacitly "approved of" by the US without active participation, regime changes in which the US was involved but not the point agency or the primary catalyst (or sponsor) for change and wether or not contingency plans put in place such as Operation Gladio should be included as they never actually changed any regimes.

Sorry to interject in the middle of your post, but I wanted to provide my answer to the important questions you raise. Various people have been playing around with the title of this article. For example, someone changed it from "U.S. sponsored regime change actions," its title for a long time, by substituting "CIA" instead of "U.S." This change in my view diminishes the article, because (1) it becomes focused on an organization (the CIA) and not about geopolitical relations and US foreign policy and history; and (2) it forces debates about bureaucratic turf battles (e.g. was it the CIA or some other US covert operatives?) instead of the main issues.

Similarly, the title is (or was) "U.S....actions." This in my view means that the article's scope includes actions by the US (not theoretical plans) whether or not they were ultimately successful or enduring. Such actions shed light on US government goals, methods, priorities and preferences, whether or not they proved successful. In this vein, the scope encompasses US actions that CONTRIBUTED to regime change even if other factors were also present (aren't there almost always factors other than actions of one player for a complex set of events like a regime change?). In this way we avoid having to debate whether the US action was the predominant action or whether the change could have happened differently without US actions. Stated differently, the article is supposed to be about (covert) US foreign policy, not about what OTHER factors did or did not exist and is supposed to shed light on US government goals, methods, priorities and preferences.

Thus, in specific answer to one of your questions, US tacit approval is not an action, and neither is a theoretical plan. US actions on the ground (or in the air, etc.) matter and should be included, as should US government expressions of approval of important aspects of a regime change action that is expressed before the event to key players, in my view.--NYCJosh (talk) 04:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, I find that when dealing with a lengthy or itemized discussion like this that interjecting as you have is the preferable method of compartmentalizing what would otherwise be a sprawling conversation. First off I'd like to say that focusing on US policy instead of the CIA's actions is, in my opinion, agreeable and preferred so as to avoid tying the article to that specific agency. There is already plenty of specific material here on the CIA. When trying to establish scope in regard to the US though I find that I disagree. To try and chronicle all US policy decisions that simply contributed to "regime change" would lead to a runaway inclusiveness in the article's scope. Once that became the yardstick almost all intervention in the international community would have to be considered, from foreign aid to humanitarian assistance, to political speeches, to media dissemination, to complex treaty considerations in the UN, to even the decision to not intervene in some situations at all. The scope would simply become unmanageable and of little use to the reader as the focus of the article stayed from a concise chronicle of a specific subject to a simple listing of foreign policy decisions.

If the intention is to chronicle premeditated attempted by the US government to influence a regime change in other countries then the burden of proof requires that intent and tangible action to bring about that change in regime be demonstrated. I would propose that the scope be the preemptive, intentional, targeted, and specific attempt, whether successful or not, by the US government or US government assets to covertly affect a foreign nation's system of government outside of the international legal framework.

Once we can get a better handle on what this article can or should be (esp after it's AfD nom) I think the rest will fall into place much easier. I just wanted to get this down, I'll look over the rest tomorrow but for now I have to be in bed. Thanks for taking the time to give me your thoughts and bring me up to speed on some of the article's back story. TomPointTwo (talk) 08:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad we seem to agree about focusing on the US not just CIA. With regard to your concern about the article becoming too unfocused, bear in mind that it's limited to "covert" r.c. So most of the types of interventions you listed (humanitarian assistance, pol speeches, UN etc.) would typically (by themselves) have no place here. The other issue about "premeditated" etc. is problematic for several reasons. First, since this is an article about COVERT actions, getting info about the actions is difficult enough; getting senior policy makers' thoughts about their "intentions" and "premeditations," especially when they make decisions that result in many people getting killed, not consulting with Congress, etc. (besides self-serving memoirs to put the best possible light on their own roles, speeches to score political points, etc.) is typically almost impossible. Then there is the policy of "plausible deniability" which was set up precisely to insulate the president and the political leadership from political accountability, so that the intel agencies make the decisions about the more unsaviory aspects of some policies. In the covert operations world, there is a general policy of not leaving a paper trail.

More generally, words like "premeditated" more readily apply to an individual human being, not to a complex, large entity like the US gov't. There are many gov't officials involved in formulating, planning and carrying out major aspects of any significant action. They may have different aims or intentions for why they are doing what they are doing. This is an article about policy and history, not psychology. That's not to say that the objectives and intentions of senior planners and decision makers should not be included here--they should to the extent there is reliable sourcing. But these have little bearing on the issue of whether or not any r.g. action merits inclusion.

To think of this another way, this article deals with an aspect of US foreign policy and history. We are trying to be dispassionate observers studying the actions of a political entity known as the US government. Actions matter; subjective intentions of various key players within the gov't are of secondary importance, to the extent we even have any reliable evidence of such.--NYCJosh (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Some immediatly apparent entries that need to be reviewed, modified or removed by this criteria include:

• Communist states 1945-1989
• Italy 1953-1980s
  • No actual change of regime

None necessary. The US supported covert actions whose goal were regime change. But I agree that this section should be expanded. The WP links in this Italy section of our article have sources that could be used. I also read a book by former Director of CIA William Colby, in which he freely talks about his role (at that time as a CIA officer) in Italy in the 1960s doing psy-ops (e.g. planting false stories in the Italian press, spreading rumors, etc.) to discredit particular Italian political parties in order to bring about the desired type of regime change. That's intended as a lead not a source. --NYCJosh (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Brazil 1964
  • Not a primary catalyst or partipant for regime change. This coup would have happend without US involvment.
• Argentina 1976
  • An instance of the US knowing about the planned coup and giving implied approval but no actual support. The CIA did not sponsor this regime change.
• Iran 1980
  • Another instance were there was no actual CIA sponsoring of a regime change. The US gave intelligence and some material support to Iraq immediatly preceeding and during the Iran-Iraq was but that is extensivly covered elsewhere and does not fit the scope of this article.

This article is not limited to "CIA." In this case, a White House senior official will do just fine. Imagine how limited and stilted this article would be if actions by the White House could not be included. The sources support the US giving the green light to Saddam to attack and the US providing important satellite intel. --NYCJosh (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Turkey 1980
  • Another instance of approval without actual participation. The US didn't initate this regime change, it would have happened with or without US support.
• Venezuela 2002
  • Mainly accusations with no hard evidence that the US sponsored the coup. This is more of a situation where the US was probably complicit but there is no evidence that the US was activly involved in planning or executing the coup. Also problems with using politically biaed and fringe sources.

Look at FN 77. Source supports US personnel, Navy assets' support, US covert support for political protests, etc. --NYCJosh (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Georgia, 2003
  • Hardly an instance of covert regime change. Also most accusations of wrong doing are from invovled and biased parties, ie the Russian government.
• Ukraine, 2004
  • The same as with Georgia
• Myanmar (Burma), 2007
  • Obviously there has been no regime change here and the Junta has not even directly accused the US of attempting one. Obvious problems with lack of thrid party sources backing the claims the Junta has made.

I have tried to respond quickly to the sections I have worked on. I do not support deletion for any of the rest without further study.--NYCJosh (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

Quite a few entries are treated as fact when they are either historically debated or without any actual evidence. The article often puts forth the statment of CIA/US involvment in regime change or attempted regime change when the only citation to back that claim is dubious. The entries that fall under this category that require third party reliable sources would include:

• Greece 1967
  • There is no cited evidence that the CIA supported or initiated the Junta coup in 67.
• Zimbabwe 2000s
  • The only evidence presented is from Mugabe and the Zimbabwe state run media. This is simply an accusation by a biased party.
• Venezuela 2002
  • See "scope" entry
• Equatorial Guinea 2004
  • As with Zimbabwe the accuations are biased and without evidence coming form a source konwn to attempt to scapegoat the US in order to retain domestic control. Needs reliable, third party sources to be more than a simple accusation.
• Lebanon 2005
  • More accusations without reliable thrid party sourcing. With some work the US aid package to Lebanon could be fleshed out but extending that line of thought to covert regime change is dubious. As of now only a single opinion piece by a politically biased source.
• Palestinian Authority, 2006-Present
  • In desperate need of a rewrite for tone and resourcing to better back claims of the US attempting a coup.

I added another source. --NYCJosh (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Venezuela 2007
  • A laundry list of accusations without any sourcing. Without thrid reliable thrid party sourcing backing the claims made the entire section needs to be removed.
• Myanmar (Burma), 2007
  • See "scope" entry

TomPointTwo (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Zimbabwe, there is evidence from other sources. The first source to report this coup detat plan was an Australian news organisation known as SBS who ran a special program on it. Their source was direct evidence which was leaked from a Private Military Contractor from Canada who the opposition at the time was attempting to hire to assassinate Mugabe. They recorded the footage as an insurance policy so they wouldn't be left out to dry and in the video the opposition leader is clearly heard and seen requesting the assassination after the election. Not sure where to find the video now but I remember it clearly. It also implicated other countries.--58.178.174.10 (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Other articles

This article should be integrated into the series "History of the United States." Or should we create a different series, say "US foreign policy"? Anyone have any thoughts? --NYCJosh (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

odd definition of regime change

While I realize this article has certain.... goals, it should be remembered not to go overboard with individual claims. The listing of Georgia, Ukraine and Lebanon as “covert regime changes” seems to be a drastic overstatement. Just because a pro-US forces come to power does not mean it was somehow orchestrated by the CIA. If that were the case we would need to add sections for every western nation around the world documenting every election as CIA backed. The section on Burma is even more ridiculous considering there was no regime change and, like previously stated, being pro-US does not automatically mean the CIA were covertly involved. Lastly since the bar seems to be set so low someone might as well mention the current protests in Iran since they oppose a US enemy. PS: I am aware no one will add Iran since it is seen as a “good thing” and no one would ever say the US had something to do with something positive.--jfry3 (talk) 06:05 June 25 2009

I won't respond to your Georgia, Ukraine, Lebanon and Burma questions because I am unfamiliar with those. As for your "no one would ever" flipant comment, why don't you try adding here an example of a covert US r.c. action that you think was positive or a "good thing" and if you actually have a reliable source to support it I for one will welcome the addition.--NYCJosh (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

When I stated a “good thing” I meant it in a broader context then that of covert activities. You undoubtedly have noticed that anti-Americanism is quite a rampant phenomenon. Foreign based regime changes, US backed or otherwise, tend to workout badly. To answer the question anyway, the examples of Georgia, Ukraine and Lebanon are generally considered to be positive (although not covertly CIA backed as I was trying to emphasise). The Burma situation (while not effective) also received wide support. Lastly I will expand on my comments about Iran. I was being sarcastic in my statements due to the fact that the Iranian government claims that the US and Britain have orchestrated the entire situation there, from the election to the protests. Clearly they did not (hence my statement about a low bar) and I am sure you have seen that the protesters are generally supported by many people and nations. --jfry3 (talk) 03:50, June 28 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 19:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC).

Your first post seemed to criticize the article generally for failing to include r.c.s that were "good things," but then you proceed to list several examples that you count as "good things"? Your concern seems to be a lack of evidence of these "good" r.c.s but at the same time you state the view that article is over-inclusive of r.c.s that in your view had primarily negative outcomes. Since the current Iran situation is not in the article (and there is no proposal as far as I know to add it) I feel it's off-topic to discuss it. --NYCJosh (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

My first post criticized the article entitled “Covert U.S. regime change actions” for including instances that did not fit that classification. The statements that you seem to have focused on about whether or not they were good things were merely the last two lines so it eludes me as to how you could see that as my primary criticism. The second post was a direct response to a question you postulated to me about the four nations political situations. Nations I might add you stated you would not like to discuss “because I am unfamiliar with those”. Iran is an example of a nation much like the previous four however, as you pointed out, is not in the article. As the purpose of the first post was to point out the four nations should not be in the article I obviously am using Iran as an example of the paradox of your argument that is based on one’s POV toward the US rather than on facts around the situation.

On a side note whether or not something is in the article does not dictate how “on topic” it is. With that logic I could just edit something in and make it “on topic”. The point of Wikipedia is to expand and inform. --jfry3

The source for Ukraine and Georgia appears to support the statements in the article. The same is true for the sources for Lebanon and Burma.--NYCJosh (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

South East Asia missing?

It seems there is a gaping hole in this article, particularly in the covert and otherwise involvement in South East Asia from the 40's through to the 70's. Indonesia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia & Malaysia all were manipulated or affected by US foreign policy in the scope this article is talking about at some point either successfully or unsuccessfully. Some even say that Australia, India, Pakistan and of course the Phillipines were affected as well.--58.178.174.10 (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to find some sources and start adding info. Successful or unsuccessful--doesn't matter as long as the US undertook a covert action.--NYCJosh (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Panama missing?

This seems like an important omission, please see Manuel Noriega AniRaptor2001 (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're referring to the US invasion of Panama, that was not a covert operation. If there is some other US action against Panama you have in mind, let us know or better yet find some sources and go to work. --NYCJosh (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply, I apologize for the blunt posting. I understand that General Noriega remained on the CIA's payroll well into his dictatorship. What would be the appropriate classification of such CIA involvement in a foreign country's affairs? Was Noriega's involvement with the CIA publicly known at the time? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Good question. Is there a WP article for authoritarian/dictatorial governments supported by the US? That would be a long list. If there isn't such an article it would be a worthy project to start. Often a gov't is kept in power in order to prevent, for example, a popular movement from taking over the gov't. So the reader would get a sense of a range of movements/agendas the US considers so threatening that it is willing to back the authoritarian gov't (even of he is known to be profiting personally from the drug trade). Let me know what you find and maybe we could collaborate on such an article.

Obviously, the articles on Panama, History of Panama, History of Central America, Noriega, etc. would also seem appropriate.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Haiti

Is anyone interested in starting sections (for 1991 and for 2004) for Haiti based on the sources linked to from this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jan/29/us-latin-america-haiti-honduras ? Haiti happens to be a timely topic.

The Guardian article's author also provides an interesting explanation for Washington's interest in regime change in small Latin American countries, which may be interesting to include in the introduction. The author is a regularly featured columnist at the Guardian and at other general-audience publications and is a founder and director of Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) and thus his views are notable. --NYCJosh (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I just added Haiti 1991 and Haiti 2004 sections. I used some references that were more Haiti-specific, including some prior articles written by Weisbrot.Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

1993 Guatemala coup?

The article states: "In 1993 the CIA helped in overthrowing Jorge Serrano Elías. Jorge then attempted a self-coup, suspended the constitution, dissolved Congress and the Supreme Court, and imposed censorship. He was replaced by Ramiro de León Carpio." The source cited does not state that the CIA helped in the coup. Andrew1193 (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Just Pathetic

You rancid, self-rightous, deluded moral preeners and pathological liars are so thoroughly insulated from reality it is almost distubing. You should be ashamed of yourselves for passing along illiterate, historically innaccurate, ridiculous, unreadable pro-Communist blog entries as though they were encyclopedia articles to impressionable young minds. 90% of you are obviously lazy, stupid, teenage male "rebels" who never lived through these events and who plainly fail to understand them. You seemingly patrol wikipedia 24/7, without rest, for the sole purpose of deleting any assertions or evidence which challenge your predetermined outlook. After all, if all the facts were on the table; no one would go along with your easily disproved emotionalist rantings. Well, fine. You go on believing whatever you want to believe. Carter provoked the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, 9/11 was an inside job, we greenlit the Iran Iraq War (look at the arms sales to Iraq, stupid!), we put Saddam and Assad and Khomeini in power, the US caused the Rwandan genocide, America and Israel are behind the backwards nature of backwards countries with backwards people. Whatever. Here's the actual US response to the invasion of Afghanistan: "I cannot understand--it just baffles me--why the Soviets these last few years have behaved as they have. Why did they have to build up all those arms? Why did they have to go into Afghanistan? Why can't they relax a bit about Eastern Europe? Why do they try every door to see if it is locked? Maybe we have made some mistakes with them." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGjAsQJh7OM&feature=channel Why don't you take up Brzezinski's challenge in the link? Because there are no such documents. But who needs evidence? Tens of thousands of pages of documentary evidence just doesn't compare to good ol' "Bill" Blum's translation of a fabricated nonexistent debunked French interview which is universally accepted as false from CounterPunch, does it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.241.251 (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not bother to respond to anonymous rants lacking specific factual contributions supported by RS per WP rules.--NYCJosh (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

British Guiana 1961-63

Isn't this missing from the page?

President Kennedy ordered the C.I.A. to topple Prime Minister Cheddi Jagan's government soon after a meeting with him at the White House in 1961. By 1963 this mission was accomplished.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/103094real-cia.html

In fact, this is probably one of the most clear cut cases of a President ordering the toppling of a foreign regime, especially for the Kennedy administration. (It was also particularly rash, and proceeded despite British warnings that it was an overreaction.)

Declassified documentation exists showing interest from the President's office directly.

http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/nsa/documents/PD/00812/all.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.115.253 (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel free to propose added text with some details.--NYCJosh (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Status of targeted regimes

• Many of the governments targeted by the US have been democratically elected, thus the target regimes are not necessarily authoritarian governments or military dictatorships, but in some cases are replaced by such dictatorships.

This sentence is unclear. Does it mean the US replaced democracies with dictatorships? If so, was this deliberate, or just ignorant?

Yes to the first question. No generally applicable answer to the second. Feel free to read some history, starting perhaps with some of the sources provided in the article. Then, armed with your new knowledge, come back and contribute to the article if you can! --NYCJosh (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm also wondering whether it would be good to mention overthrows such as the 1973 Chile coup, which was (ostensibly) undertaken to prevent the establishment of an authoritarian or totalitarian government? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to add. Prime Minister Salvador Allende of Chile, overthrown in a US supported violent coup in 1973, was the democratically elected head of government of the country.--NYCJosh (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Iran 1980

I removed the following paragraphs because the US attempted rescue of US diplomatic personnel from Tehran, and some US policy makers thinking on the possibilty of lining up Saddam of Iraq as an ally seem unrelated to a regime change action:

During the 1979-1981 Iranian Hostage Crisis, the US launched Operation Eagle Claw ), a covert United States military operation that attempted to rescue 52 Americans from the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran on 24 April 1980. The attempt was aborted when three helicopters that were part of the operation were damaged by a sandstorm or forced to return to the carrier USS Nimitz (CVN-68). As the U.S. force prepared to leave Iran, a refueling accident led to the remaining helicopters and a C-130 Hercules refueling aircraft being destroyed or left behind, and the deaths of eight American servicemen. President Carter addressed the nation, saying: "To the families of those who died and who were wounded, I want to express the admiration I feel for the courage of their loved ones and the sorrow that I feel personally for their sacrifice. The mission on which they were embarked was a humanitarian mission. It was not directed against Iran; it was not directed against the people of Iran. It was not undertaken with any feeling of hostility toward Iran or its people. It has caused no Iranian casualties. It was my decision to attempt the rescue operation. It was my decision to cancel it when problems developed in the placement of our rescue team for a future rescue operation. The responsibility is fully my own."

Diplomatic relations between Iraq and the US had been severed shortly after the 1967 Arab-Israeli Six-Day War. A decade later, following a series of major political developments, particularly after the Iranian Revolution and the seizure of embassy staff in the hostage crisis, President Jimmy Carter ordered a review of American policy toward Iraq. Saddam Hussein had "condemned the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan" and "signed an alliance with Saudi Arabia to block the Soviet-backed attempt to take over North Yemen. In 1979 he also allowed the CIA, which he had once so virulently attacked, to open an office in Baghdad." Brzezinski maintained that with the right combination of blandishments, Iraq could be weaned away from Moscow. Encouraged by the suppression of the Iraqi Communist party, and perhaps believing that Iraq could, like Egypt after the October 1973 War, also be convinced to turn toward Washington, Brzezinski concluded that Iraq was poised to succeed Iran as the principle pillar of stability in the Persian Gulf.

--NYCJosh (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I will not do it; the case could well be made that the entire section on Iran in 1980 could be deleted, for the simple fact that there was no US-supported coup in Iran in 1980 nor any such coup attempt, regardless of the extent to which the US supported Iraq during its war against Iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.118.198 (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It was a US regime change action because it was a US secret action in response to the ascending to power after the Iranian revolution of an Iranian govt that the US wanted removed using Saddam Hussein as a proxy. No "coup" in the traditional sense is required for inclusion in this article.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Haiti

The CIA most certainly did not support the 1991 coup--if it did; why did the US and UN invade Haiti to restore the democratic government it overthrew, and why did the US intervene diplomatically to save Aristide's life? The really very extremist and biased sources cited are not in my view sufficient to justify the assertion, so, at least for now; I have removed it.70.131.118.198 (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The section on Burma should go. It's just arbitrary allegations from Burmese media that do even implicate the US. Iraq 1960 is already covered in Iraq 1963, which mentioned the US support for Kurdish rebels against Kassem. Turkey 1960 and 1980 do not involve ANY "regime change ACTIONS" by the US at all--it's just implied that the US supported the new regimes diplomatically. The same is true of Georgia, Ukraine, and Lebanon. Equatorial Guinea is, again, unsupported assertions sans evidence from Zimbabwe--not only does E. Guinea deny them, I doubt Mugabe even takes his own propaganda too seriously. The same can be said of Zimbabwe--"Mugabe claims"? Who cares what he claims? Venezuela in 2007, though not 2002, has the same problem. Bolivia can go: "Documents show meetings citing concern[61] over the situation there, discussions of people involved,[62] intelligence notes regarding his term[63] and support for opposition groups.[64]" That has nothing to do with overthrow of the government. Afghanistan 1973-74 is from a widely unreliable propaganda source--Mr. Morris is the only source supporting this allegation, as well as other allegations which are likewise near universally disputed--Iraq 1968 is another example. While the contrary over the latter is accurately described in the article, on Afghanistan I am afraid the absence of a reliable source determines it should go. If anyone is aware of a more credible source--like CIA records--it could be restored.

On Ghana, the article originally referred to Nkrumah as a dictator. This was accurate: "In 1958 Nkrumah introduced legislation to restrict various freedoms in Ghana. After the Gold Miners' Strike of 1955, Nkrumah introduced the Trade Union Act, which made strikes illegal. When he suspected opponents in parliament of plotting against him, he wrote the Preventive Detention Act that made it possible for his administration to arrest and detain anyone charged with treason without due process of law in the judicial system.

When the railway workers went on strike in 1961, Nkrumah ordered strike leaders and opposition politicians arrested under the Trade Union Act of 1958. While Nkrumah had organized strikes just a few years before, he now opposed industrial democracy because it conflicted with rapid industrial development. He told the unions that their days as advocates for the safety and just compensation of miners were over, and that their new job was to work with management to mobilize human resources. Wages must give way to patriotic duty because the good of the nation superseded the good of individual workers, Nkrumah's administration contended. The Detention Act led to widespread disaffection with Nkrumah’s administration. Some of his associates used the law to arrest innocent people to acquire their political offices and business assets. Advisers close to Nkrumah became reluctant to question policies for fear that they might be seen as opponents. When the clinics ran out of pharmaceuticals, no one notified him. Some people believed that he no longer cared. Police came to resent their role in society. Nkrumah disappeared from public view out of a justifiable fear of assassination. In 1964, he proposed a constitutional amendment making the CPP the only legal party and himself president for life of both nation and party. The amendment passed with over 99 percent of the vote. In any event, Ghana had effectively been a one-party state since independence. The amendment transformed Nkrumah's presidency into a de facto legal dictatorship."

The source for that is Wikipedia.70.131.118.198 (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Please sign all comments or criticisms if you want a substantive response.

WP is not RS. Please provide RS per WP rules for any substantive statements. --NYCJosh (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Afghansitan 1973-74

Today I restored the section on Afghanistan 1973-74 removed by an anonymous editor with the claim "unreliable source." The Asia Times is an on-line publication (formerly hard copy) that is read by hundreds of thousands of readers each week and is one of the largest English-language dailies published in Asia. Roger Morris is an American foreign policy expert/academic (I believe former US govt official) with numerous books on US foreign policy in the Middle East and Asia to his credit.--NYCJosh (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

More generally, please propose here any deletions of an entire section before doing do, indicating the specific objections, and sign the proposal. Removing an entire section whose footnote(s) support the section while giving a terse, flimsy reason without first proposing it here borders on vandalism.--NYCJosh (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Iran 1979

There is no source provided in support for this section. The only sentence arguable about US desire for regime change is: "At the same time, certain high-level officials in the State Department decided that the Shah had to go, regardless of who replaced him."

First, no RS is provided. Second, "had to go" doesn't by itself mean a US operation implemented on the ground. It could be read to mean that those State Dept officials understood the Shah to have become so unpopular that further American efforts to keep him in office as ruler of Iran would most likely be unsuccessful. This section should be removed but whoever disagrees should speak up now, provide some RS and explain.--NYCJosh (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

El Salvador 1982-1990

The section presents no allegation of a US regime change action, certainly not a covert one. A US effort to support a govt in power doesn't qualify. This section doesn't belong here and should be deleted, but whoever disagrees should respond here. --NYCJosh (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It was a covert US intervention in the internal political affairs of another nation. According to the sources, the US intervened to prevent right-wing military coups and to prevent an overthrow by left-wing guerillas, and it arguably helped pressure the junta to accept a democratic transition. Therefore, the case could be made. I'm not sure if it does meet the criteria or not, but the US certainly took actions that did to some extent affect what regime would rule El Salvador, for better or worse.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you name one action stated by a source to have been undertaken by the US govt that was (1) covert, secret from Congress and the US public at the time, and (2) for regime change (not regime SUPPORT)? Both criteria have to be met.--NYCJosh (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

International law

Anyone interested in putting together a section on international law and covert regime change? How about on assassination and the scope of CIA mission under US law?--NYCJosh (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Guatemala 1954

One of the claims asserted doesn't appear to be supported by the source. It makes it sound like Arbenz personally purged the judiciary when the actual source indicates that the judiciary was purged by a majority vote in congress. While Arbenz urged action, pressuring them to decide, he didn't personally replace the judicial officials.

Wiki article: "His land reform, designed by the Communist Party, was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, which he then purged. His regime openly praised Stalin, relied on the communists for key decisions, and received arms from the Soviet bloc.[31]"

Page 155 of the source (Shattered Hope): "Congress acted immediately. After a few hours of tumultuous debate, it impeached the errant judges by a 41 to 9 vote on grounds of 'ignorance of the law which shows unfitness and manifest incapacity to administer justice,' and replaced them with more sympathetic individuals. The new judges reversed their predecessor's rulings, and the agrarian reform continued free from judicial restraint." Tundrasama (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with the that source. Please change if the text if you've have checked it.--NYCJosh (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Others

South Vietnam, Tibet, Laos, Bangladesh (allegedly), Greece could also be mentioned.

Feel free to propose text backed up by RS.--NYCJosh (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, "Iran 1980" presents (rather spurious) charges of US support for Saddam (under Carter, and at a time when all US arms sales to Iraq were illegal) against Khomeini. But there is no mention of similiar cases that actually have strong, well-accepted evidence backing them up: Take, for example, the clear-cut green-light given for Indonesia's invasion of East Timor. Further, including all such support for an invasion would make the article much too broad, hence these charges should probably be removed. Will we add the Turkish invasion of Cyprus as well?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Iran 1980 has sources for the proposition that US supported Saddam with a view to overturning the govt that resulted from the Iranian revolution.

With regard to the larger point, in my view if the US action was covert and was directed to regime change then it's fair game. East Timor was not yet a widely recognized country (although it had declared independence, it was recognized by only six small countries and not the UN), and thus I don't see how US support for the carnage of the Indonesian dictator to suppress Timorese human rights activits etc. constituted regime change. If you provide sources for the proposition that US sought regime change and provided covert support for Turkey's invasion of Cyprus then in my view such a section could be added.--NYCJosh (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Were there not CIA operations in the Dominican Republic in the sixties as well? And what about Italy?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

CIA operations are not the same thing as regime change. Not sure to what you are referring in DR. In Italy, the CIA manipulated the media throughout the 50s, 60s and 70s, and may have supported Italian secret service false flag operations, to portray Italian socialists in a bad light. If you have reliable sources for an instance in which US covert action targeted an Italian govt with a view to regime change, let's see it.--NYCJosh (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

removed paragraph on US Commandos in Iran

I removed the paragraph on US commandos in Iran since it violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. First, the use of secondhand reports of media reports is terrible ("Asia Times says that the New Yorker says"). The cited Asia Times article says: "American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has copiously written about recent US covert operations inside Iran."[12] This is not nearly enough evidence for wikipedia to state that American commandos have been operating inside Iran and that their efforts are a "foreign regime change action". The second quote from Washington Quarterly merely says that the Balochi's could prove valuable to destablizing the Iranian regime and that the United States has had some contacts with them. It does NOT say anything about American commandos actually being present in Iran with the intent of promoting regime change. GabrielF (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you not happy with the sources or are you saying that the sources provided does not support the text in the article? As it was, the article makes pretty clear that it's a bit of a he said/she said type game and doesn't really assert it as gospel. You've also placed a POV tag at the top of the article which indicates a problem with the entirety of the article. Was this intentional and if so what is the general complaint? TomPointTwo (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I am unhappy with the use of secondhand sources and would prefer that the article quoted Hersh directly. I also believe that by using the section title "US Commandos in Iran" in an article titled "Covert United States foreign regime change actions" we are implying that the US is putting American commandos into Iran in order to bring about regime change. With regard to the Belochi's, the source does not say this. Rather it says that the US has in the past maintained contacts with a group that (according to a writer who is outside of government) might in the future be useful for carrying out regime change. See below for my reasoning on the POV tag for the article. GabrielF (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That's actually a Tertiary source, Hersh's is secondary. A Google search for "Hersh Iran" returns the Hersh article as the first result. I assume you don't mind re-adding the text with the cite. As far as the Belochi mention, it is included in a reliable cite drawing a reasonable conclusion so its inclusion isn't POV or OR to me. If you have some sort of issue with its truthfulness as evidenced by another RS then please include it here so we can take a look. TomPointTwo (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The text needs to be rewritten to reflect Hersh's tone (which is much less definitive than this article - e.g. "; it is impossible at this early stage, however, to credit JSOC or C.I.A. activities, or to assess their impact on the Iranian leadership." or "Many of the activities may be being carried out by dissidents in Iran, and not by Americans in the field.") as well as the fact that he relies on unnamed sources and that his reporting is controversial. Is there an official US response to Hersh? Do other notable commentators disagree with his assessment? I'm not convinced that this constitutes a "regime change action" in the same vein as, say, the Bay of Pigs. Is the goal to actually change the regime or to cause trouble and perhaps develop some contacts that might be useful in the future? Wikipedia policy is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. Just adding an additional citation to the existing text without addressing the flaws and the controversies surrounding this citation does not meet that standard. GabrielF (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

I've added a POV tag to this article. The tone here is highly problematic. To take one example: "The United States had for many decades coddled the dictator Ferdinand Marcos, even as his regime abused human rights and his wife Imelda Marcos plundered their country of billions of dollars." A word like "coddled" is tremendously judgmental. There are also a number of places where the article implies a conclusion without offering sufficient evidence. For instance, the article implies that the US is using the People's Mujahedin of Iran as a vehicle to overthrow the Iranian regime. It is clear that this group advocates the overthrow of the Iranian regime but it is also clear that the relationship between the US and that organization is very complicated. This article says that the PMOI is "protected" by the US (what does that even mean?) but I don't see any evidence that the US has actually directed PMOI to overthrow the Iranian regime. GabrielF (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm totally on board with your issues of tone. Inevitably articles like this are magnets for those looking for a soapbox. If you want to start combing for inappropriate adjectives I'd say go for. I'd also say that a broader set examples would be beneficial. TomPointTwo (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

El Salvador

Why does the section on El Salvador belong in this article? The text says that the United States supported the government in the civil war. How is this regime change? The only part of this section that seems to relate to the topic is the US forcing the Salvadorean regime to make democratic reforms, but its unclear if this pressure was "covert" and its also unclear that it constituted "regime change" as opposed to a part of a country's gradual shift from one form of government to another. GabrielF (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)