Talk:Efraín Ríos Montt/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

The wording has already been changed, addressing the difficult points concerning SOTA brought up in the discussion. Archiving the SOTA conversation just means moving beyond the acrimony. 172 08:21, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The wording remains inaccurate. No consensus was reached. How do you sleep at night, 172? Dhartung 18:31, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well. Internet trolls don't bother me when I sleep... And the wording is not inaccurate. 172 03:06, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I apologize that my attempt to establish historical accuracy in regard to an obscure portion of this unquestionably reprehensible man's career is appearing to be "trolling". Could you tell me which parts of my research on the Talk page you object to? I notice that you didn't make any comment there, you just changed the page, and you removed my NPOV label, and you got a pal to remove the protection, without participating in the "consensus" of which you speak yourself. Your approach is obtuse, because I am no fan of US policy towards LatAm during this period; instead of treating me as an ally you have worked against all my attempts to create a better -- if you like, more convincing -- history. I have no respect for your methods, Kurtz. --Dhartung | Talk 07:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did not call you a troll; nor did I bring up any specific objections to your research on the talk page. However, at times I suppose I have responded in kind to your own hostile comments directed to me. 172 07:27, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the sucker-punch approach. Mention trolls obliquely, then deny you were talking about the person you're responding to. You're experienced, indeed. It is, however, your refusal to participate in a Wikipedia process of consensus to which I respond, not your carefully considered name-calling.--Dhartung | Talk 07:46, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Didn't Dhartung establish that there was no focus on counterinsugrency 'til Kennedy? Trollmaster Trey 04:04, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is true that the lessons of the Cuban Revolution brought major changes. Counterinsurgency fits in a more general sense before that; but you are right, until the Cuban Revolution, the mission was not defined in these terms. Change it back to "jungle warfare" if you please-- it is reasonable to use both terms in that context. What I really object to with respect to that paragraph is your gratuitous use of the word "Communist" as a proper noun, even when you are not referring to any specific political parties. 172 05:04, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ignoring your comment to me, I'll try to address the substance here. There was no formal mission for counterinsurgency at the SOA until 1961; that is simply historical fact. They didn't have an internal history supporting that curriculum, because they had to import one from the Special Warfare School at Ft. Bragg. If there were graduates of the facility before that point who developed nasty reputations, it probably has some other genesis. In 1950, as far as the available historical record speaks to us (and I plan a trip to a major city library at some point to improve the SOA article in this context), the training courses were based on the US Army Field Manual (yeah, the one that apocryphally taught the 'Private Ryan' guys how to make 'sticky bombs'); if they were for LatAm personnel, they were translated into Spanish and called a special course. This is what we know that Rios Montt took (various sources incl. National Security Archive). In a broader sense, the US Army personnel doing the training were not experienced in counter-insurgency; they were experienced in conventional land warfare, mostly fighting Japan in the Pacific. US policy wrt to LatAm in this period was transitioning from a period where they worked to out-liaison the German and Italian efforts to woo local militaries, to concerns about containment and implementation of the Rio Treaty. They saw the threat in terms of governments turning against the US, not some guys (named, say, "Fidel") traipsing about in the jungle. Opinion alert: I believe the US armed forces are historically slow to awaken to the threat of insurgency; witness recent history in Mesopotamia. The contemporary situation in Indochina also points to some arrested development in this area. If anything, the US was more involved in supporting reactionary insurgencies, such as yon coup d'etat vs. the elected Arbenz govt. Note, however, that this was a CIA operation. In fact there was no significant insurgency, Red or otherwise, in Guatemala in 1950 or 1954; that didn't happen until 1958 when whatever malcontents were stomping about in the bush were joined by a cadre of rejected army officers. Indeed, an astute analysis might well lay the blame for the US developing a counterinsurgency doctrine on the Guatemalan insurgency itself as a non-trivial trigger factor (the more obvious political tripwire having been the fall of Cuba).

Bottom line: whatever policy failures the SOA counterinsurgency doctrine brought about, its curriculum in 1961 has scant relevance to training received by our subject in 1950. Rewording would ideally either acknowledge that fact in wordy detail, or skip the reference entirely.--Dhartung | Talk 07:46, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was aware of these changes in the early 1960s. "Insurgency" was not the language used in the original version of the article that I posted. When it was added, I felt that the term was acceptable in a very general sense. But I do suppose that some military historians will expect that we speak in terms of the technical changes. If you know where more precise language can be used, please go ahead and make the changes. 172 08:00, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. I have no current plans to re-escalate regarding Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, but if we get back into a back-and-forth revert war, I hope to follow some sort of process where the facts can be ascertained and consensus wording can be developed. I find that the NPOV template is a handy and non-confrontational way to alert people to the fact that there is such a process taking place on the Talk page. When I attempted this approach before, I was reverted, so forgive me if I began to take a dim view of your objectivity. --Dhartung | Talk 08:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If the word bothers you, please, just change it. We do not need to make this process more complicated than it is. Unless you are planning to add gratuitously the word "Communist" all over the place even when there are no Communist Parties of which to speak like Trey Stone, don’t expect me to revert you. 172 08:29, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The reason I had said "Communist" is because of the Cold War time frame and fear of Soviet international influence (and before you say anything yes I know that Arbenz was not a Soviet bitch). I suppose "communist" is fine, though. The Return of Trey 07:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

#2 Google Hit

Congratulations to all who have worked on this article. It's now the #2 Google hit on a search for Efraín Ríos Montt (either with or without quotations). Neutrality^talk 07:28, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Current minor edit

"Perceived" makes it clear that "communist" is opinion, and besides Arbenz is already referred to as a left-populist if I'm not mistaken. Me likes this one better. The Return of Trey 07:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)