Talk:Gulf War (Iraq, 1991)

Please join in! I'd simply ask, in the interest of collaboration, that substantial deletions or rewrites first be discussed on the talk page.

Plans for the article

I know I need to work the diplomatic initiatives into it, with listing the relevant UNSC resolutions on a subpage.

It's a delicate balance of too much and not enough information on the military details. I'm also trying to find the right balance between the discussion of the KARI air defense system here, and in integrated air defense system.

Howard C. Berkowitz 01:23, 6 July 2008 (CDT)

Resolutions in subpage

OK; they are now listed. I'd especially welcome working some of them into the diplomatic maneuvering to prevent the war. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:12, 9 July 2008 (CDT)

Air defense

Does anyone know definitively if the SA-5 GAMMON SAM was used by the Iraqis? I've seen one or two references, but most references to their area air defense only mentions the SA-2, SA-3, and SA-6. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:12, 9 July 2008 (CDT)

Nonstandard subpages

Hi Howard,

I don't see the point of the proliferation of nonstandard subpages. We have standardized subpages so that people know where to look for particular types of information. Their function is not to name subtopics, as "UNSC Resolutions," "Iraqi OOB," and "Code words" do. Unless you've got a really, really good reason for these idiosyncratic subpage names, please incorporate these into standardized subpages.

Where? "Code words" of course belong on Related Articles; "Iraqi OOB" looks like the beginning of a separate article (and no general, collaboratively-developed, unsigned article should be a subpage of another article); and "UNSC Resolutions" also looks like a separate article, although I can imagine people looking for such a list on a CZ:Catalogs subpage. (Increasingly, I'm coming to the view that we should simply name "Catalogs" something more intuitive, like "Tables" or "Data.")

CZ:Subpages should have a full list and discussion of subpage types and their functions. --Larry Sanger 09:31, 21 August 2008 (CDT)

My feeling is that we need to do more with the subpage option, and create logical clusters focused around a main topic. If the original named subpages are insufficient, surely this suggests that the original type identification was preliminary and incomplete? I really don;t see why a bureaucratic formality of the recent past should shape the structure of CZ. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 14:19, 21 August 2008 (CDT)

Subpages and code words

The codewords subpage was brought up, in the forum, as one way not to deal only with the capitalization issue but with code words in general -- although I'm frankly of the opinion that for those few that don't want to deal with code words, they aren't going to get far in reading.

Related articles, I suppose, is as good a place as any to put them. If there were a workgroup-specific convention on subpages, I'd consider having code words for military. Part of the reason is there is an inherent problem with having to do a whole cluster on something that isn't much more than a one-sentence, or a paragraph at most, meaning of a code word or defining of a term.

I'd again suggest having the technical means of searches turning up a definition "as if it were an article", in the specific case of there being no general article/cluster and it being hard to define a cluster. Redirects are another possibility, but it seems a little ugly to hit "Case White", be directed to "1939 invasion of Poland" and then have to read through text to find that was the German code word for the invasion.

It's my fairly strong belief that there is something that is an appropriate level between redirect and full cluster. Definition, if it wasn't so deprecated by the search engine, could well be right, if it could be taken up to no more than a paragraph. Perhaps there could be an option flag that indicates that "definition only" is intentional.

Order of battle? Fine with me to move it, although it is something that makes sense if there are ever workgroup-specific subpages; I think there should be. Chemistry, if anything, has too many, and I speak as a one-time chemist. There are a great many subpages for even one-word information that, IMHO, would be better as fields in a general chemical template.

Howard C. Berkowitz 10:50, 21 August 2008 (CDT)

Done. Howard C. Berkowitz 11:10, 21 August 2008 (CDT)

Howard, I'm trying to figure out how to reply to you without (1) committing myself to a lot more debate, (2) getting our rules respected, and (3) treating you disrespectfully.

I'm not having much success.  :-)

Let me put it this way, because I really don't have time to do your comment justice (though I did read it all). All I have time to do is to point out that, in my opinion, these subpages violate (did violate? There was just now an edit conflict and you wrote "Done"...) our current rules, for the reasons I stated. Since I do not have the time to convince you of this, nor am I willing to make a time-saving executive decision (after all, I could be wrong!), I must leave the matter to your conscience and to anyone else who might want to take up the issue. --Larry Sanger 13:42, 21 August 2008 (CDT)

Larry, is there still a controversy? I thought I moved the code words to related articles, removed the metadata references to the special purpose subpages, and tried to put speedydelete on them. I made separate articles of the subpages. Is there a problem? I thought I did what yu asked -- maybe this is out of sequence and you already answered in the forum.

When I said "fine with me" and "done", I thought I meant agreement.Howard C. Berkowitz 18:43, 26 August 2008 (CDT)

Missing background

I came to this article through a circuitous route, and I'm not even close to being expert in military history. However, while the article appears to be fairly well written and comprehensive, there is something missing in the Background section and/or the Hussein-Glaspie meetings subsection: Why did Iraq attack Kuwait? There's reference to brinksmanship, miscommunications, and the U.S. Army's forward planning, but the article jumps from there to Glaspie warning (or not) Hussein to not invade Kuwait. I have a moderately good idea why, but someone who doesn't won't find out from this article. Could someone please add this background? Anthony Argyriou 17:37, 26 August 2008 (CDT)

Perhaps someone can answer better, or conjure Saddam's ghost. I have never seen a better explanation of the invasion than Saddam thought he could do it and no one would interfere. By brinksmanship, I meant that he threatened, and no one told him, in language he would accept "invade Kuwait and you will be ejected."

All the U.S. could threaten, without Saudi consent, was air strikes. Any serious ground force would have to come through Saudi Arabia, and, even after the invasion, the Saudis thought long and hard before allowing infidels into their country.

If any of his surviving immediate circle knew, it hasn't been published. The U.S. only became certain he intended to attack about 3 days or so beforehand.Howard C. Berkowitz 18:50, 26 August 2008 (CDT)

THe background to the invasion of Kuwait is historical, in that the British created the country artificially in order to weaken the new state of Iraq. Thus, the Iraqis considered it to be their right to annex the territory, which they had been deprived of by western geopolitical interests. I agree that Saddam thought he could get away with doing so, and arguably he might have if the Kuwaiti Royal Family had not penetrated the US tv and media with (false) evidence of the brutality of the Iraqi invasion. Thus, the Gulf War is as much about American politics as it is about Iraq, and as much about Great Power manipulation in the past as it is about the present. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 21:50, 26 August 2008 (CDT)