Seriously. Huge parts of this article read more like a romanticized novel about the brave achievements of the daring US troops than an NPOV article. But I guess that is to be expected. After all, this is the US Wikpedia, right? And only a terrorist would ever question the war, right?
*sigh* [[Special:Contributions/85.224.198.207|85.224.198.207]] ([[User talk:85.224.198.207|talk]]) 11:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan articles
War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia articles
Seriously. Huge parts of this article read more like a romanticized novel about the brave achievements of the daring US troops than an NPOV article. But I guess that is to be expected. After all, this is the US Wikpedia, right? And only a terrorist would ever question the war, right?
Do you think that information on the Taliban insurgency and military operations following the fall of the Taliban should be put here or in a seperate article?
Images
To G3Pro : I have removed these images for a reason ; they distort what war really looks like. If I see your pictures I get the impression that your glorious special forces won the war just by riding camels -everything is clean and nice. The reality of war are dead civilians, destroyed home , hunger, disease etc. But I am willing to suggest a compromise : We just delete half of the images of the glorious US Special Forces in their righteous war on terror and replace the other half with pictures of dead Afghan children. The other alternative would be to completely remove these pictures since they do in no way enhance ones understanding of the topic.
Operation Enduring Freedom was won fought almost exclusively by special operations forces and military jets. In paragraphs which describe the fighting and events during the war (Mazar I Sharif uprising, bombing campaign, operation Anaconda, etc), I included images which were very relevant to the discussion and add a visual perspective to the article which so lacks one. Removing the pictures contributes nothing to the article and is quite childish (Mommy, I don't want those pictures anymore!) and is considered Wikipedia:Vandalism. --G3pro 13:00, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Actually I find it quite revealling that you choose not to comment on my accusations concerning a distorted view of the invasion of Afghanistan. Your pictures just show the clean, precise war which was propagated by the US and I am not willing to accept this. I repeat what I said earlier ; Either we replace half the pictures and replace them with Afghan victims - a Compromise - or if you think that in this case it would be better not to show any pictures - reality is ugly after all - we can remove them completely. Wikipedia does not need any Pro-War or Pro-US-Imperialism propaganda and I will do everything in my power to prevent this stuff from spreading.
And besides, what kind of information do I get from the pictures ? That Special Forces ride camels ?
Operation Enduring Freedom was fought almost exclusively by special operations forces. If there is one category of pictures that would perfectly categorize this operation, it would be of the special operations soldier. There are about 10,000 troops in Afghanistan, split between US Army SF, Navy SEALs, AF combat controllers, AF special operations, 1st SFOD-D (delta), CIA-SAD (special activities division/paramilitary), 10th Mountain Division, 75th Ranger regiment, Army PSYOPS, and Marine Force Recon. There are also thousands of support personnel and aviators from the Navy (precision strike aircraft), Air Force (B-52s famously), Army (Apache, Kiowa, Chinook, Blackhawk), and Marine Corps (Cobra, SeaKnights). These are the forces that fought in Afghanistan. And if you know anything about the troop units I listed, you would understand that they are all Special operations capable units, and about 70% of them are high-speed-low-drag.
If you knew anything about what these forces do or anything about how the operation was carried out, you would know about Special Forces soldiers training Afghan soldiers, air force combat controllers targetting enemy positions for air strike, and rangers/SOF/10th mountain searching caves and mountains for Taliban and al Qaeda. What kind of information do you get from these pictures? Well, you would get the idea that the US led a war far different than any war previously fought. It was not fought like the Soviets in the 80s. It was not fought with infantry divisions. It was fought with unconventional forces who would use horses to move around in a foreign country, not helicopters or tanks or whatever.
If you think that the images show a pro-war/pro-US-imperialism, you don't belong even near an NPOV discussion. What purpose does showing images from www.ogrish.com serve for this article? Are you trying to tell me that war has innocents being harmed? Everyone knows about the side-effects of war. If you want a compromise, include pictures of the Taliban soldiers or al-qaeda terrorists you so sympathise with.
But don't even think about removing images which so well describe the structure of the war, events of the war, participants of the war, leaders of the war, operations of the war, and nature of the war. You want compromise? Include some photos of your favorite Taliban and al-Qaeda soldiers. Don't sink to using juvenile vandalism to get your opinion that the US is an evil/imperialistic nation. --G3pro 15:32, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I do not sympathise with the Taliban, brain-washed Yankee-Drone. Actually your country did more then just sympathise with them for a long time - you supported them and allowed them to overthrow the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. And now when I demand that the victims have their place too you accuse me of sympathising with the Taliban. Your hypocrisy is really sickening.
Concerning your statement about the information I should have gotten from viewing these pictures: I think that you overestimate both the information
someone without your unhealthy obsession with Special Forces can get from these Pictures and the interest the average reader has in that particular topic.
Since we still live in a time when people get tricked into supporting war by propaganda it can never hurt to include pictures to show how war really looks like. Showing some pictures of the Taliban is in no way different from showing pictures of the glorious US special forces in their Holy War against Terrorism - in both cases the people causing the horrors of war are shown, not the victims.
So you ignore the method in which the war was fought and the major players in the war, and you ignore the fact that there are always innocent victims of war. Instead of advocating including images of taliban soldiers which would properly keep the perspective to agressors versus defenders, you advocate including images of injured children. You fundamentally don't understand doing the format you advocate puts the visual perspective of the US versus innocent children. Then again, maybe you do understand that, as you showed by calling OEF "an imperialistic war". Include images of the taliban and al Qaeda, and you will have a properly balanced article. --G3pro 18:34, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hi G3pro - I don't necessarily agree that we should include pictures of dead babies, but I do agree that we should resist the tendency to turn discussions of war into discussions purely about the mechanics of war and ignore other implications. You say, "everyone knows about the side-effects of war," but I might as well say, "Everyone knows that war is fought by soldiers." I don't think we should be attempting to construct any particular tale about what happened here - you might feel that the innocents lost are just detritus and not the main point of the conflict, which is about "aggresors versus defenders", but others may disagree. Images are always difficult to balance out; they are enormously powerful and rarely morally neutral.
Therefore, I propose we err on the side of caution and simply eschew any imagery at all. Our job is NOT to say, "Look at the horrors of war!", but neither should we elide that message. Difficult to do. Graft 18:55, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
> you advocate puts the visual perspective of the US versus innocent children
One simple question : Were these children killed or injured by the Taliban or the US military ? But we really should show both sides. What do you think about showing pictures of American children killed by the Taliban airforce and of American villages destroyed during this war ?
But aside from this : Of course I am also willing to show pictures of the Taliban if you think that it would be more balanced. Then we would have pictures of the Taliban and the US Special Forces and of the civilan victims of this invasion - which were by the way nearly wholly caused by US bombing.
Two points. There is already an extremely long section on civilian deaths. Nothing wrong with including pictures in this area, but for Turrican to suggest that the inclusion of US SF pictures somehow minimizes this is ridiculous.
Secondly, the contribution of special forces in Afghanistan is historic in light of the fact that they were primarily responsible for the destruction of the Taliban regime. There has never been a conflict in history this large where special operation soldiers took on such a large burden and had the greatest impact. TDC 20:21, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
Just to make it clear ; I am not against the inclusion of pictures of Special Forces - I am against using them exclusively while not showing other sides of the war. You just can't deny the fact that such a selection would over-emphasise one point of the invasion.
If we were to have pictures of civilian deaths for this conflict, then we need to start doing the same thing for every single war out there. For example, the article on the D-day invasions of Normandy has no pictures (nor no mention for that matter) of the thousands of French civilians that died that day from Allied bombings (which actually exceeded Allied soldier deaths IIRC). --Bletch 16:45, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Casualties
The casualty section doesnt' seem to mention US and Allied forces casualties. Or, am I just missing it? Does anyone know of a site that tracks these? Google didn't help me much. Best I can tell the US lost about 200 dead to date in worldwide 'Enduring Freedom' operations. No estimate of wounded found. Links? Wolfman 21:13, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I found one: Operation Enduring Freedom Casualties. I have added an article on it, linked from the main page (Coalition Casualties in Afghanistan). However, if anyone wants to make a combined article on casualties (Taliban, civilian, etc.) using the coalition numbers (like the Iraq casualty page), that is fine. Just make a mention here. PBP, 4 November 2004
In the background section, there is no mention of the negotiations between the Bush Administration and the Taleban over the Unocol pipeline deal; isn't that relevant? I thought that Bush decided to invade Afghanistan when they couldn't get a good concession from the Taleban, but then Bush had to wait until 9/11 for an excuse to launch the attack, no?
Re:"Bush decided to invade Afghanistan when they couldn't get a good concession from the Taleban"( Carlyle-Bush_Bin_Laden-Group
took that for granted ). But such US-deals will soon be over.
Worldwide English Wikipedia faces an anihilating verdict:It's
the one-dimensional product of the Christian-Jewish community
You speak about Afghanistan & Iran & Pakistan & Columbia & Irak.
You can't change that anymore. You are the foos of freedom.
You will have the same destruction as Nagasaki at home too.
This barely literate comment is somewhat difficult to make out due to horrendous english, but I gather the writer, (hiding behind anonymity of course) disapproves of the US, or possibly Wikipedia, or possibly international trade deals, one cannot be sure. I also don't know who the 'Christian-Jewish' community is, I'm certainly not part of it. Could we get a phone number or email for this 'organised community' you rant of? Actually, other than simply mocking this pitiable rant, which to be fair is like shooting fish in a barrel, I wanted to ask why offal like this is left on the boards. Is this community moderated, so such drivel is deleted away, or is it left there as an object lesson in just how stupid some people can be?
Casualties ranked oddly.
Currently in the infobox the order for the coalation nations is USA (Makes sense as they have the most deaths) UK and then Canada, but Canada has lost more men, so shouldn't they be switched? Or is there something else I'm missing in how their ranked?1st scots
Shouldn't Norway be added to the list of combatants? Norway was among the first in, and has had a presence ever since, both in the American led operations and in ISAF, with special forces, engineers (mine- and explosivessweepers), F16 fighter jets, Provincial Reconstructions Teams, a Quick Response Team, a field hospital, various logistics units such as a C130, and has also led the Regional Area Coordinator – North from December 2005 - May 2006.
No, Norway should not be on the list of combatants, because they are not combatting the Taliban or Al-Qaeda. During the invasion, yes their SF may have engaged the enemy, but the international special forces coalition that was used during the opening months of the war was made up of many many many nations. THe list would go on and on if all were included. The combatant list is for nations/parties who are actively combatting using massive forces and taking part in the major operations.
I agree with not adding Norway to the participant list, only the biggest allies should be there. However, we are fighting the Taliban, at least your F-16s have been bombing them on quite a few occasions. The Norwegian forces are mostly there for reconstruction, but there's been combat too, we had a WIA just some days ago. And the special forces guys have been doing "stuff" over there since the beginning. The Marinejegerkommandoen (Navy special forces) even got a Navy Presidential Unit Citation from mr. Bush. We're in there, contributing. Manxruler15:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
cite, meantime remove
'Some injuries and damage to housing have said to happen from boxes of relief supplies dropped from U.S. aircraft.
No actual casualties from those source have been observed so far thus can be seen as propagandaormyths.'
It would be better to have some evidence than this claim-couter-claim I think.
I disagree that ‘invasion’ is a POV term, it is instead a descriptive term. In Korea one side invaded, then the other side invaded. In WWII, one side invaded, then the other side invaded. It is a term used to describe overwhelming entry of an external military force into a country. The point about Liberation is moot. Liberation is an end, not a means. Yes operation overlord led to the liberation of France, and that Liberation was accomplished by means of an invasion. In addition, those who want to use the term 'Liberation' here had better be prepared for the obvious follow-up edits talking about how the country has really not been 'liberated' that much at all...
Secondly, some seem to object to invasion of Afghanistan because the government was not entirely recognised, and that it should be an invasion against the Taliban. That also is POV. Invasion of Afghanistan is descriptive, not leading. The forces of the US entered the country; they limited (barring covert ops) their attacks within the geographic confines of Afghanistan. The fact that not many nations recognised the government of the Taliban is irrelevant to the fact that they were the de facto government of the country. Put it this way, if China invaded Taiwan, would these same people on here call it a 'Liberation' because almost no country on the planet recognises the independence of Taiwan?
Thirdly, some people seem to oppose the term US-led, as they did not do all the fighting. Again, that is deceptive. Regardless of who did the fighting, the invasion was unarguably led by the US. Its technical, supply and support requirements were met by the US its air power, intelligence and logistics were American, as well a financial and political leadership. Furthermore this was done to accomplish a US objective, at the behest of the US government and the US people.
Given a combination of logic and precedent, I see no reason why the title: 'US-led Invasion of Afghanistan' should not be used. It is not POV and it is, ultimately, the best description of what actually happened.
The title easily follows Allied invasion of Italy and Allied invasion of Sicily in syntax. However, I don't entirely agree with the "United States" part - it was a NATO operation. I would find it appropriate to rename it to it's military name as done in for example Operation Barbarossa or simply "2001 Invasion of Afghanistan". The problems is
"NATO invasion of Afghanistan" is the technically correct term and should as such be used.
The title does not acknowledge contributions from other countries - considering soldiers from Canada and UK died during the war it seems a bit inaapropriate. It would be appropriate to at least acknowledge that other countries shed blood.
The title does not acknowledge the significant fact that NATO sanctioned the war - this is important as it signifies a fundamental shift in NATO policy in terms of usage and deployment of NATO troops. Conveying THAT message and the implications thereof is IMHO more important than saying "The United States orchestrated the war" although that message is certainly significant as well.
In the end it's a question of what message you want to convey and I simply feel that NATO's involvement is more significant in historical terms than the fact that the US was primus motor.
In regards to the invasion part "liberation" is clearly unacceptable if we imagine titles such as "German liberation of Poland" or "German liberation of Czechoslovakia". Gardar Rurak04:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the wonders of Paradox. 'US-led invasion' does not work because it underestimates the role of NATO in sanctioning and participating in the invasion. On the other hand, 'NATO Invasion of Afghanistan' does not work because it vstly over-represents the role of NATO in what was, de facto, a US Operation done with US air-power, US calling the strategic shots, US motives and US equipment. Perhaps given both of these cases, the title '2001 invasion of Afghanistan' would suit more people. though I for one would still vote for 'US-led'. Nordenfeldt
I agree completely with '2001 invasion of Afghanistan' or something very similar. The use of the "united states" completely understates international involvement and is offensive to all other participating countries. --metta, The Sunborn16:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with "2001 invasion of Afghanistan". Though "U.S.-led" is logically fine (just typographically hard to read). JackyR12:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're British, this page should be entitled 'Fourth Afghan War'. I've added a brief mention of this in the main text. --Major Bonkers09:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is certain is that "United States invasion of Afghanistan" is a wrong (and even a little shocking) title. "United States-led" or "Nato" (or "2001") would be better. France and Germany sent thousands of troops and (at least France) participated in air attacks: they wouldn't have done that without NATO or U.N. approval. The title should reflect the fact that the wars in Afghanistan and Irak do not have the same status (only the English-speaking public considered, at least in the beginning, that both invasions were anti-terrorist operations). Thbz10:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second what you are saying, I think stating the year would be most appropriate as other conflicts are named similarly and it creates a unified way users can search for conflicts. I would second a motion to call it (2001) Invasion of Aghanistan or (2001) War in Aghanistan or something along those lines. Defining it by who led it decreases the roles of the member states I believe.
I further support what Thbz is stating. I feel the name should reflect that not only the United States attacked Afghanistan. I vote in support of (2001) War in Afghanistan, or (2001) Invasion of Afghanistan. --Zer0faults17:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The invasion was US-led and very few other countries participated. Later on other countries took the command of some forces. Añoranza00:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can find the timeline online, the US and UK lead the assault and soon after numerous countries through NATO joined. --Zer0faults00:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I have to disagree, stating US led diminishes the roles of the other nations involved. No other war seems to be named in such a way on wikipedia, because all member nations contributions are viewed equally in the naming conventions. I believe here on wikipedia we should not diminish any nations roles, UK provided great air support during the war and now NATO is doing any amazing job in multiple areas. US led doesn't justify this. --Zer0faults10:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was Bush's ultimatum, it was Bush's resolution granted by the Security Council, and it was by an overwhelming majority Bush's troops, so definitely US-led. Añoranza01:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"NATO invasion" would be my first choice, followed by "2001 invasion". I don't know about the other NATO members, but for Canada's military this is a huge deal, and the title "US invasion" diminishes the role of that role. --Arctic Gnome23:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think War in Afghanistan is the appropiate title. The troop levels were never sufficient to really qualify as an invasion and primary combat operations were almost always done by Afghan troops. Equating Afghanistan with Normandy, Desert Storm, and Iraq just seems a little misleading. Topkai2223:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commanders: David Fraser, incorrect link
Under the list of "Commanders," the link to Canadian general David Fraser is incorrect. It links to a poet from Vancouver Island -- not the same guy, I assume. This should obviously be changed. I'm not sure if Wikipedia does links to external pages but if so might consider this bio from the Canadian Forces: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/operations/archer/bios/fraser_e.asp
The Harry Schmidt link about the four Canadians killed in friendly fire is also an incorrect link, it leads to someone who died in the 60's. 70.48.12.7001:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a "Cite sources" box. This is not because the article has no sources, but because it has remarkably few for the length, and is on a topic which is recent and political and thus requires decent referencing. I've ended up here because a daughter article, List of casualties of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, is at AfD, where there seems to be a feeling that every paragraph should be separately referenced. It would be a shame if this article too ended up on AfD because of poor referencing.
Btw, this article is also very heavily written from the invading countries' POV. I recognise that this is largely because of publicity surrounding the foreign forces' military plans/outcomes, and a lack of published sources saying, "And this is what Taliban general XXX decided to do to prepare defences/counter-attack, etc". However the article needs to admit this and warn the reader. Currently, a passing Martian would have no difficulty deciding which "side" wrote it! I'll wait a little before slapping a POV notice on it, because I don't want anyone to feel got at, but this article does need work. Happy editing, JackyR21:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Citations needed for Human Rights section please. I removed 2 faulty links leaving 2 allegations without supporting evidence. --Zer0faults17:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
US-dubbed "War on terror" (The neutrality of this term is disputed.)
Rather than reverting we should find a solution. It is a propaganda term and cannot stay without quotation marks and a comment. Removing NPOV tags is against wikipedia policy. Añoranza08:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view for how to use NPOV tags, your comments are not NPOV tags. It is also a violation of Wiki Policy to mis represent policy, but I do not believe you are doing it in bad faith, which is why I am directing you to the appropriate policy page. Also I do not see a discussion here regarding this dispute, if you would like to start one perhaps you should lay out your factual information in bullets or something so people can review it. Thank you --Zer0faults14:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know very well that the term is disputed, and not only by me, as you take part in the discussions of all articles where it is used, and you also know that the normal NPOV tag does not work inside a box. It is a complete overkill to use an NPOV tag for a whole article just because of one header. Añoranza19:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a problem with Wiki policy feel free to debate in on the appropriate Wiki policy page, admins and community are very open to discussion. As I stated if you want it tagged then perhaps you should start a discussion in the war on terror article asking the community if they feel every mention in every article that contains "war on terror" should be changed to say "US-Dubbed "War on Terror" (the use of this term is disputed)" --Zer0faults13:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you were already told, an article about a propaganda term is completely ok, using propaganda terms without quotation marks or comment is inappropriate. The article itself uses quotation marks, they should not be ommitted elsewhere. Añoranza11:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you found the correct POV tags. If you would have put those up in the first place there would not have been an issue, however you were leaving commentary and attempting to enforce that commentary as policy. --Zer0faults11:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please now state your factual information below so it can be weighed against those who feel otherwise, then we can begin to compile questions and surveys regarding the matter and put it to rest. --Zer0faults11:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved to this title "United States war in Afghanistan" as a more neutral and more historic meaning term than "United States invasion of Afghanistan" which is a loaded term that is less neutral than simply "war." --Northmeister02:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was there as a U.S. Soldier from 2002 thru 2003 and I'd honestly say that it was more of a liberation than invasion- I've seen both (this was not my only deployment). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.3.233 (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't concur. I strongly agree with Jersey Devil that this change should have been discussed on the talk page first. I strongly disagree that the title "United States invasion of Afghanistan" is loaded. Is Northmeister trying to state that the United States did not invade Afghanistan? So far as I am concerned it is the new title that is biased.
I disagree with Tortuous Devastating Cudgel and Northmeister over their position on the relationship between the USA and the Northern Alliance. There is evidence that this was simply a marraige of convenience, that the NA did not, does not support the restoration of democracy. Rumsfeld's counted on the NA to capture Osama Bin Laden and Talibna Mullah Mohammed Omar and most of their senior lieutenants -- and the NA signally failed. Further they sold hundreds of innocent men to gullible American intelligence officials, who believed their claims that they were the senior al Qaeda and Taliban cadre.
I think the original title should be restored, and a proper discussion and vote taken over whether the article should have a name change. -- Geo Swan14:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is your reasoning for title restoration? This article covers the war, not just the "invasion." Your views on the NA, though interesting commentary, does not negate the fact that the NA welcomed American soldiers in their fight against the oppressive Taliban regime. --Northmeister14:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few things. The NA is not a monolithic organization. There were democrats, Islamists, tribalists, those who joined out of convience or for the millions of dollars in bribes paid, and those who sided because they did not want to be in the sights of a combat air controler as he guided a B1-Bto its destination. Secondly, local Afghan allies did about 99% of the legwork. Special Forces most cetainly coordinated them better than they could have hoped for, and the Air power certainly played an overwhelming role, but this was mainly a NA operation backed by US air Power and special operations. Torturous Devastating Cudgel16:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you just unilatterally make a major change on this page without so much as of asking for opinions of a possible change on this talk page?--Jersey Devil06:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support the change, this article covers more then just invasion, it covers the entire war. Perhaps those that want an invasion article should consider branching out? Maybe the topic is large enough for something on the invasion (first part) and then the war (everything that takes place in the middle). The Korean War was not just a Korean invasion.
Invasion:
The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer
War:1)A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
2)The period of such conflict.
I actually agree with the change as well on the same basis, but you can't just make such an important change in an article without at least consulting on the talk page.--Jersey Devil21:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being bold is a part of Wikipedia editing. I did not make the change in a vacuum. The consensus seems in the past and now for it. It makes perfect sense, per your and others statements. This is the discussion. If consensus were to emerge against the change, then though I would disagree, I would support the will of the community in this regard. --Northmeister23:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abuse of the "be bold" advice is right up near my list of top weaknesses of the wikipedia as it stands today. What makes you think "being bold" means relying solely on your own judgement when you must have anticipated your change would not win universal support?
I notice you don't seem to have bothered to take care of the over one hundred double redirects your move created. -- Geo Swan02:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No move is ever universally supported. But, the point is the name. There is general agreement here that the name is right. I apologize about taking care of the one hundred double redirects..any help here would be appreciated; I will do my best to catch them all. If the move I made for a name change is not accepted and the community wishes to have "invasion" instead (which is not the case), then so be it - I stand for the community (even if I disagree with the community). Without boldness on the part of men, where would the world be? --Northmeister02:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the material in this article overlaps with that in Operation Enduring Freedom. It might be worthwhile to merge most of it here and turn the other page into a disambiguation (of sorts) between the Afghanistan and Phillipines operations. Kirill Lokshin13:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, Operation Enduring Freedom is about the umbrella operations, 3 to be exact. It would be inappopriate to merge it into (1) erasing the other 2 operations. --zero faults|sockpuppets|00:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that we shouldn't split the actual narrative of the operations in Afghanistan between that page and this one. The Operation Enduring Freedom article should be written at a fairly global level, discussing all three operations (or just disambiguating between them, since all of them have articles in their own right); right now, it's basically a copy of this article with some details stripped out. Kirill Lokshin00:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you feel the content relating to the 2 other operations should be discarded? OEF is not just about Afghanistan, it may serve you well to read the article before commenting further. --zero faults|sockpuppets|04:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is also being discussed in the wrong place as the merge tag points to the talk page of OEF, therefore not all users may be able to find where this discussion is taking place. Can we move it over there? I will copy and paste everyones comments. --zero faults|sockpuppets|12:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of POV flag
I removed the POV flag from the template includer (Part of War on Terrorism). The flag is in the wrong place; the user who put it there argues that the term War on Terrorism is not a neutral term (the POV flag is already in place in the article concerned). Even if that were the case, it has no bearing on the neutrality of the statement "Part of the War on Terrorism", because it doesn't matter how you term the NATO anti-terror operations: Operation Enduring Freedom IS part of them. This has nothing to do with a personal point-of-view. Putting the flag there in the first place was a logical fallacy on part of the user who did so. Cheers, Something Wicked21:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the same token, would you argue that "Part of the American Civil War" is not neutral? The term—regardless of who invented it, and for what purpose—seems to be the one overwhelmingly used to name the conflict in question; are there other options you think we should consider? Kirill Lokshin00:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Using the term "war on terror" without inverted commas is clearly biased in favours of the US administration that most uses it. Also note that the article war on terror itself uses inverted commas and explains the propagandistic nature of the term. Añoranza04:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is getting huge and the new article is a detached topic from this page. It's a different conflict going on there. Anyway, the new article exists, and you even deleted the link leading to it.--TheFEARgod08:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article length seems appropiate to me. I do not believe it is a different conflict, the Taliban were never defeated, they simply went in hiding and reemerged when coalition troop strength weakened. I think the information you are trying to remove from this article belongs here, but you can include a link to your article. If you or someone can manage to summarize the information you are trying to remove from this article, I would support it. The section 'Coalition Response' contains very recent information that I find highly important and relevant for this article. Dionyseus08:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to state that the U.S. invasion has ended in 2001-2002, the current operations are not part of the invasion (as the article name states)--TheFEARgod13:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Organizing article(s) on the recent Afghan conflict
I don't think the name of the article "United States invasion of Afghanistan" is appropriate if it describes the conflict in Afghanistan since 2002 (there are now many more factions). The problem is that the article has tended to creep into describing the years after 2002 as well, when it is more of multinational/Nato/UN mission mixed with what could be labelled a civil war.
I think it would make sense to create an overall article on the war in Afghanistan since 2001, where the US-led invasion was one phase. The Taliban insurgency (or whatever it should be called) could be another phase. Both could have separate more detailed articles.
I thought the name was bad in the first place as it never was just the US invading. So I support a split as well since its pas tthe invasion portion unless such articles already exist. --zero faults|sockpuppets|12:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly minor edit, but thought I'd mention it here. The article states that the participating countries were listed in a rough order of contribution. A quick glance at this list shows this is obviously not the case. Austrailia, with its 300 soldiers was above the UK and France, both with thousands of soldiers participating. That list in general seems to need a bit of maintenance. Harley peters21:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My "vandalism" (explaination foir Bad Night guy)
"Please stop removing content from the article without explaining why. That is considered vandalism, and therefore, your edits will be reverted. Bad Night02:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
Are you crazy? This is considered improvement. For example,
Osama bin Laden or Kabul or F-16 linked every times is against Wiki rules. At the other time, many other words are not linked at all in your version.
Casulaties: who needs a number of US civilians (one!) allegedly killed - when there are other foreigners killed (and civilians are not combatants)? Why pointing out the US wounded from all of the coalition? Why attributing allegeld (and outdated) numbers of Afghan civilians to Taliban/al-Qaeda "combatants"? How if they were killed by Taliban/al-Qaeda? And, importantly, what are the sources and dates for the casaulties other than the coalition?
How do you choose which coalition country should be, and which should be not? I for one am deeply offended when I don't find Poland. Seriously. It's also getting outright strange when you see Slovakians in the photoi, but not anywhere in the article. Come on.
Various little corrections and addings, including more on ISAF and more in the See also section, as well as for (for example) poiunting out the civilian casaulties section is VERY outdated (2002!).
As you see, I'm not "removing content" ANYWHERE. I'm changing (I belive for better) and adding content. I also just decided to add "Category:Wars of Canada", because of their high casaulties (second/third after US among the foreign forces).
Also, I conside myself maker of the Second Chechen War (and all of its subsarticles), if you would like to see what I think is well done article on the current conflict.
Restored contribution about US plans in July 2001 to attack by mid-October
The following was removed without explanation:
The U.S. may have decided long before 9/11 to invade Afghanistan in October 2001. Senior U.S. officials told Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, in mid-July 2001 that U.S. military action against Afghanistan would be commenced by the middle of October 2001 (BBC News, 18 September 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm last visited Nov. 5, 2006). Further, Mr. Naik reported that, based on the information he received from the senior U.S. officials, it was doubtful that the U.S. would abandon its plan to invade Afghanistan even if the Taleban immediately surrendered Bin Laden (BBC News, 18 September 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm last visited Nov. 5, 2006).
I have restored it. --NYCJosh17:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's just some unsubstained claims by a former Pakistani official. Pakistan supported Taliban before and at the time (to put it it mildly). All the US was doing there at the time was rather clumsy attempts to assassinate bin Laden and humanitarian assistance to civilians. --HanzoHattori23:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please check WP policy on reliable sourcing. A BBC story is definetly citable. If you personally wish not to believe it because it is largely based on the report of one Pakistan senior diplomat that is your perogative. You cannot deprive WP readers from deciding for themselves. --NYCJosh00:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is citable, even if outdated and about lies of some guy who even has no article about him on Wikipedia at all (and he is mentioned only once, and guess where? in the 9/11 conspiracy theories). But I see it is VERY IMPORTANT for some unknown reason, so I edited it be more wikified and less laughable. Cheers. --HanzoHattori18:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the passive voice "it was alleged" per WP policy. I also removed the editorializing someone inserted that the Pakistani diplomat's views are highly doubtful because Uzbekistan did not invade. First, per WP policy this is impermissible editorializing or OR. Second, just because some of the details of the US invasion later changed (or some coalition members dropped out from public and active participation) does not seriously undermine the credibility of the report.--NYCJosh21:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP needs a policy on conspiracy theories... The BBC article is reliable sourcing, however futher investigation of the incident (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a072101berlin&scale=2#a072101berlin, http://cisac.stanford.edu/people/thomaswsimonsjr/, and espicially http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020722/web20020712) it becomes fairly clear that the meeting was informal, between former ex-officials from the countries involved. It is also clear that the military option referred to was a threat, not a promise. It is clear from the 9/11 commision report that the US had been considering all sorts of options to get Bin Laden, including missle strikes and special operations. I'm sure more extensive operations were also planned out (the US military, after all, loves to plan), but this doesn't equate to "invasion." I'm going to immediatly change the language to reflect this, and if I don't get feedback defending the value of this section within a few days I'll probably remove it.
image
Don't we have any images more representative of the war than that strange black and white photo of US soldiers on horseback? yandman13:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not much of an expert on Wikipedia editing, but a question. Is there a way to add The Battle of Panjwaii to the links of battles available in the 2001 war in Afghanistan campaign box? It certainly is an important battle worthy of being included there, I would if I knew how. Thanks in advance.--Arsenous Commodore22:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All done.
Warrior on Terrorism
Your version is incorrect from the following resons:
wrong interlinking - several times each phrase (Taliban even 9 times), while most others not linked at all
completely random-chosen countries in the infobox, without any order (mine are above 1,000, by importance and alphabetical order)
totally wrong casaulties
Afghan civilians are NOT Taliban nor al-Qaeda, it was and remains the Afghan civil war (and figures are outdated anyway - from early 2002);
Americans are not special and should be treated just like everyone else (wounded, very odd "1 civilian");
the figures other than the Coalition's are unreferenced (and probably outdated - should be "at least" or "minimum of", when provided sources)
laughable 9-11 Conspiracy claim (see above), and this even unwikified
Wow. What are you talking about? Show me (everyone), because now I say you are lieing.
The proof is here: [2] The only thing removed are (outdated, early 2002) figures for civilian casaulties highly incorrectly qualified in the infobox as Taliban & Co's, and these from a very strange sources anyway (www.unknownnews.net - a private website where you can read about "Bush's family Nazi connections", for example).
Also, the same guy is also trolling on the articles. See: [3] - all my edits and corrections reverted as "vandalism". If needed, everyone can check out what stands for "vandalism" according to the self-proclaimed Warrior on Terrorism and Vandalism. --HanzoHattori01:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sources for those figures were approved by the editors, therefore, by removing them unilaterally you are vandalizing the article. The same goes for the 2004-2006 Waziristan conflict article. I am not "trolling" as you claim, I am reverting the senseless removal of content. Warrior on Terrorism08:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you don't understand, so I tell you again and as simply as possible: civilian casaulties are NOT CASAULTIES OF TALIBAN AND/OR AL-QAEDA. This is senseless. If they were members of these groups, they were no civilians. --HanzoHattori20:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Silly Warrior, Taliban was not "the Government of Afghanistan", but just a rebel faction (the government was the Rabbani's Islamic State of Afghanistan). They always were rebels, and they remain now. Anyway, government officials of the side in the war are not civilians, but a military targets - themselves protected by their own military forces. Do you claim hundreds/thousands "Taliban civilians" and "al-Qaeda civilians" killed? --HanzoHattori13:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Taliban WAS the Government of Afghanistan, as recognized by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. I suggest you do some research before coming here insulting people. Warrior on Terrorism20:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Hanzo's defense, the recognition was short-lived and unique to those three countries; Rabbani still held the UN seat and the majority of the world's recognition. Most of the Western world, at least, from my readings on the subject, seemed to treat the Taliban with a bit of curiosity, wondering if they'd be able to unite the country effectively. However, once they started hosting bin Laden, world opinion gradually swung away from them. Thus, I'd agree with Hanzo that they were not considered, by most of the world, as the legitimate and complete rules of the country. Shigernafy07:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, they didn't rule the entirety of the country; the Northern Alliance put up a fight in parts of the country. That aside, you could say they controlled the country, but I would not go so far as to say they were the government. I suppose its an issue of semantics, though: you seem to equate control exclusively with government (ie, that's the only prerequisite to being a government), whereas I apparently am being more broad about the issue and would say that you require internal and external approval to be considered a government. In the end it comes down to perception: they certainly thought of themselves as the government of Afghanistan, but few others did. So for the purposes of this article, is their perception or the perception of others what we go by?
(I would still agree with Hanzo in that they were a faction vying for control of the country, with more success than most. They did control Kabul and thus inhabit the capital, but not only did they not control all of the country, not only was their rule decentralised and uncoordinated, but the vast majority of the world considered them a group of rebels competing for control with the final outcome not necessarily decided, which to me casts some doubt on their claims of government.)
That said, the whole point of the debate about their governance and legitimacy was - I think - to discuss whether some casualty statistics had a role in the article. I'm not a wikipro, but saying that removing information approved by the editors is vandalism seems odd to me - isn't everyone an editor? Does that mean changing anything I add or write is vandalism? I'm not trying to be a troll about this question; I honestly don't see how that line is reasonable with the millions of edits going on around here all the time.
What exactly is the issue at hand? Including dead Taliban in the "civilian casualties" count? The veracity of the count in general? I feel like we've gotten so sidetracked (and I admit I am certainly to blame for this as well) that the actual issue has become obscured by arguing about entrenched positions that won't get us anywhere fast.
Whether you like it or not, the Taliban indeed were the Government of Afghanistan. They even had Ministers, Governors, and Ambassadors, as well as armed forces (see List of Taliban leaders). The fact that they didn't control all of the country is irrelevant. Would you say that the current Iraqi Government is not the Government of Iraq, then? Anyway, the issue is about removing sources previously approved by a considerable amount of editors. Warrior on Terrorism04:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Italy has 1,900 troops in Afghanistan as part of the ISAF peacekeeping mission. Most of the Italians are based in Kabul, which is in the east, but 750 are serving in the western city of Herat. --HanzoHattori19:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Italians are not fighting so your point is?.......
Why does Canada have its own section? Nothing against Canada, just that, if there is a section for Canada, why not Britain? Or the Dutch, also engaged in southern Afghanistan. There is after all a separate article for Canada in Afghanistan.
I think that would be a good idea. I believe Canada has its own page do to the high number of operations as compaired to other NATO Forses. Longbranch00:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Canada has its own section because it is a major combatant in the war, and has been the leading coalition member in many operations. The article is not "US war in afghanistan", it is just about the war not one nation only.
Understand that, so therefore there should be a US section, a British section (Brits having also led), but how does someone decide who else? What nations are significant to warrant there own section? The Dutch have led the southern Afghanistan NATO operation, so what about a Dutch section? The Italians have led an OEF operation, so why not an Italian section? In much of the period covered by the Canadian section, Canada was an important contributor, but not the lead or commanding nation. Why not have a NATO section rather than Canada/Britain/Dutch sections? The article is in danger of lacking consistency.
I think the Canadian Involvement section should be replaced with a NATO Involvement section, with the detail of Canadian operations there (along with UK, Dutch and other forces - with more details of Canada in the ‘Canadian involvement in Afghanistan’ page). Thoughts? Chwyatt14:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The canadian involvement should stay the way it is. There is nothing wrong with it the way it is. Canada did lead NATO and ISAF. It should also remain its own section because Canada was under its OWN command until just recently in the last days of July 06.
Also, the reason I feel NATO should not have its own section is because the majority of NATO members in the country are not actively participating in the operations.
Should there be a British Involvement section then, as Britain has led ISAF and NATO southern Afghanistan, as well as being a major contributor? Also, does the logic to having a Canadian section also mean there should be a Dutch section, as the Dutch have led ISAF, led the European Participating Air Forces detachment and now lead NATO southern Afghanistan as well as being significant contributors. Chwyatt11:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the information under the "Canadian Involvement" section is relevant and should be left in this article. However, I think that moving it to the "Canada" subsection under the "Nature of the Coalition" section is a good idea. Likewise, other countries' subsections there could be expanded as appropriate (I'm thinking UK and Netherlands). Also, why is there not a USA subsection there? --thirty-seven18:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does anyone here think about giving a section like this one to all non-US major combatants. Meaning the Canadian(keeping it the way it is now) the UK and Netherlands?
Well Basically now Canada is a Major force in the war. That is why there is a section. It is like having World war 2 with a section on the USA. The USA was one of the major allies of WW2 and therefore there should obviously be a section about it in WW2. Anywho this is not WW2. The point is that any MAJOR allies should have an involved section, and as you can see they do. (RiseAgainst0100:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Oh and all I can think of why there isn't a USA subsection is because since the Iraq war there concentration of troops and effort went into Iraq...that's all I can think of since I don't really know why. (RiseAgainst0101:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Germany is not a combatant and therfore should no longer be in the combatant list. THey are "peacekeeping" up north where the fighting isnt happening.
Sign your name with the for tildas from onow on. And why are my alphabetical changes put back to unaplphabetical???was it in some other specific order ??? (RiseAgainst0123:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Germany is in north Afghanistan doing peacekeeping duties. They arent a combatant. They shouldnt be on the combatant list in the campaign box. User:Hellopple 10 December 2006 {UTC}
Being a combatant, the definition of combatant, is open to interpretation. Germany is in the north on ‘peacekeeping’ duties and not the more aggressive NATO operations in the south, but they have been in fire fights, contacts, with al-Qaeda/Taliban in the past (and KSK special forces were part of Operation Enduring Freedom). And of course, to al-Qaeda/Taliban, Germany, indeed any foreigner, is a combatant. Chwyatt20:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There has been many many many nations using special operations in combat in afghanistan.. most of it was during the opening of the war. If we include germany for their KSK, then all nations who have had SOF in afghanistan and the list would draw away from the actual combatants (ones who are fighting daily). And if you go on what the Taliban and al-qaeda say then this article would be about how allah is helping them defeat all the infidels. User:Hellopple 8:12, 10 Dec 06. (UTC)
Indeed, I would not take the Taliban’s viewpoint as sound, but it is possible (but not my opinion) to view ISAF as ‘occupiers’ and even ‘traditional peacekeepers’ as combatants. And if a nation’s troops have been involved in actions, even if just in self defence, they could be viewed as combatants. Chwyatt09:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copperchair sockpuppets
This page is a favorite of Copperchair(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) and his sockpuppets. Copperchair was placed on probation and banned from editing certain types of articles by the Arbitration Committee. He was blocked from editing Wikipedia for repeatedly violating his restrictions on editing. He was finally blocked for 366 days on March 12, 2006. At that point he began using sockpuppets to evade his ban. Below is a list of his sockpuppets. If new editors appear on this page with editing patterns that are similar to the sockpuppets below, please let me know on my talk page or by e-mail so that I can investigate fully.
I see Sweden’s flag (and commander) has made an appearance as a list of combatants at the top of the article. Now full respect to the Swedish forces in Afghanistan, but I don’t think anyone could consider Sweden a major player in this conflict.
So whose flags should appear in the Military Conflict box as a combatant?
I think on the one side the Taliban and al-Qaeda (the latter without a flag)
On the other, Afghanistan, the USA, NATO and the Northern Alliance (or instead of NATO, the significant non-US NATO forces engaged in combat ops, namely Britain, Canada and the Netherlands (the Dutch having taken over from Canada in the south). I think there is a case for Australia, even France and Germany...but not Sweden. Chwyatt20:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Beh-nam put the US forces first. This needs to be settled, once and for all. Really it should be Afghanistan, Northern Alliance and NATO (underwhich could be the US, UK, Canada, Netherlands, France..... and so on. Put the main players there, the rest come later. Longbranch04:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, The US, Canada and the UK and the Dutch should not be included in the same spot as the French and the others. This being because Canada the UK and the Dutch are actually willing to fight, whereas the others are not.
Whilst the French could do a lot lot more, the French are a combatant. French Mirage 200D close air support aircraft supported the initial OEF operation and a French infantry detachment deployed to Mazar-i Sharif in 2002. French aircraft returned in 2006 and French special forces have frequently deployed to Afghanistan on combat operations, separate from ISAF. It is inaccurate to say France is not a combatant. Its just that their contributions have not been good enough (imo).
I don’t think the French flag should be on the article as, whilst they are a combatant, they are not as significant as the US/UK/Can/Dutch. I think NATO’s flag should be up instead of UK/Canada/Netherlands as UK/Canada/Dutch forces operate under NATO command whilst some US forces operate outside NATO command. The NATO flag would include other small combatants like Estonia and Denmark involved in combat ops.
No, Canada should not be taken off the list of combatants, because it has only recently (Aug 1 06) come under NATO command. Previously it was fighting independently.
I think the US flag should go before the Afghans, because whilst Afghan forces outnumber US forces, the Americans are ‘running the show’ (so to speak). Chwyatt09:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth having seperate boxes for the invasion and fighting the insurgancy? I found it a bit confusing to see that the invasion forces included the Northern Alliance and Afghanistan (was it invading itself?). The same seems to be true for the forces involved (did they invade or have they joined since? Were they / Are they there under Nato or Individual governments? etc). I think it would be more accurate to consider this as 2 conflicts with no clear boundary of when one started and the other ended. What do other people think?? CaptinJohn12:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the name of this article has changed from “Invasion of Afghanistan” to “War in Afghanistan”, I think that overcomes that problem. But I think this is still one war/campaign and as this is a campaign where some nations have joined and some have left and levels of commitment change, what flags go in the box does become inevitably problematic. Chwyatt14:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Errors in article
The stated purpose is incorrect. (The officially-stated purpose of the invasion was to target al-Qaeda members, and to punish the Taliban government in Afghanistan which had provided support and haven to al-Qaeda.) The actual mission statement was "to destroy al-Queda and deny them sanctuary and freedom of movement within Afghanistan".
In addition, the Uzbekistan section is misleading. The Uzbek airbase, K2, was used for support activities and for deployment and C2 of Special Forces into all of Afghanistan except for the Khandahar region. There were no significant humanitarian efforts arising from K2 as is stated in the article.
Hey. It seems to be widely accepted that the Afgan invasion by the U.S. was set-up and organized by the CIA for more than 1 month prior to the Military's invasion on Oct. 12. It is supposedly one of the biggest and most expensive CIA operations in history, with CIA among the first American casualties. Some have called it a CIA war with the Defense Dept. as backup... Can someone with a better knowledge than me please write the CIA involvement into the article? Thanks. 216.67.155.4003:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Separate sections for Canada, Britain, Dutch - Article too long – Various edits
I don’t think it is a good idea to have separate sections for different countries (as per a previous edit) operating under NATO control in the south since 2006 for two reasons. Firstly it’s starting to look a mess. Maybe the detail should be put in separate British and Canadian ops in Afghanistan articles.
Secondly the distinctions can be artificial. Dutch forces supporting Canadians; Canadians supporting Brits; Brits supporting Canadians. For consistency, in line with the rest of the article, sections (in my opinion) should be by date and operation order, not separate countries.
Also I don’t see what warrants a separate sub-section about Canada during Operation Anaconda or ISAF. For consistency there would have to be separate sub-sections for other countries involved in Operation Anaconda. I have not deleted, just moved the bits about Canada to the Operation Anaconda sub-section and NATO section. Again detail should probably be in the main Operation Anaconda and ISAF articles.
Also as the article is a little too long, I have removed duplications in the ‘Coalition response’ subsection and the ‘2006 NATO’ sub-section. Operation Medusa was introduced at least three times in separate sections and the new NATO mission twice. I think one combined-coalition and one Canadian photo is enough.
The “Nature of the coalition” section is a duplication of the “Afghanistan War order of battle”, “War on Terrorism: Allies” article and ISAF and OEF articles, and due to article being to long, has been moved.
This article is down from 72 kilobytes to 61 kilobytes. The wikipedia recommendation is ...readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose. Maybe it should be split in two
War in Afghanistan (2001–2005)
War in Afghanistan (2006-)
Well, I have to disagree about having it all in one "blurb." Putting the different nations actions in their own section under the NATO heading makes it much easier to find info and to read knowing who who are reading about.
General Hillier was commander of the ISAF from october 2003 until February 2005, when he was promoted to Chief of the Defence Staff(CinC Canadian armed forces). So the answer to your question is yes. Raoulduke4720:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is NO... Rick Hillier is the commander of the entire CF (the equivalent of a CEO) . Not the commander of Canadians in theatre.
This article was getting very big, far bigger than the recommended wikipedia length. As other phases of the war had separate articles, I thought the NATO mission (of which there is more detail that could go on), warranted its own article. Also no doubt the nature of operations and nations involved in Afghanistan in 2007 may well change. I have called it Coalition combat operations in Afghanistan in 2006 to recognise that not all western forces (in particular US) operate under NATO control and to exclude ISAF forces in the north not involved in combat operations. Chwyatt12:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OEF Casualties
There is a difference of opinion on the number of casualties for the war. Rather than continuing to revert/edit, I propose to keep 190.10.0.111's edits in place until we get more clarification. I wasn't aware that my source was listing all OEF casualties vs just the Afghanistan casualties. Publicus19:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Afghanistan becoming a failed state
I have added a section to the timeline of the war discussing the risk of Afghanistan becoming a failed state. In my research on Afghanistan, the issue of becoming a failed state surfaced repeatedly so it seemed important to add to this entry. I'm not sure if this is the best place for this information, so please let me know if you have comments.Midwestmax21:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it makes more sense as its own section, as it doesn't quite fit the preceding chronology cleanly. I've made this chagne. SlipperyN00:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Section on drug trade
I plan to add a section on drug trade as it relates to the conflict. If you have thoughts about how to go about this, let me know--I'll make the edits in the next day or so. SlipperyN00:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Norway
Is not Norway missing on the participant list?
User:Axezz
It is missing, but should not be added, imo. Norway has made important contributions for a nation its size (F-16s, special forces, contributions to ISAF and humanitarian aid). But inevitably for a small nation, its contribution is small compared to the overall force.
Having a list of every nation would just be messy and unnecessary. The list of combatants should stick to ‘significant’ contributors. There is a link to and others and more details of coalition contributions should, imo, go there. There are pages to go into details of coalition contributions.
Unlike the US, Britain, Canada and the Netherlands; France and Germany have not led offensive military operations as part of either OEF or NATO in the south.
France and Germany have been significant contributors to ISAF, but the ISAF flag is represented. Britain, Canada and the Netherlands have also made significant contributors to ISAF but have also made significant contributions to the more intensive contributions in the south of the country. For that operation, French and German contributions have been a lot smaller (small numbers of special forces and aircraft), and no more significant than nations like Estonia, Denmark, Norway or Portugal (amongst others). Chwyatt08:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having a list of every nation would just be messy and unnecessary. The list of combatants should stick to ‘significant’ contributors. There is a link to and others and more details of coalition contributions should, imo, go there. There are pages to go into details of coalition contributions.
Yes the word significant is open to debate. I would say that the Afghans and the Americans are obvious flags to go on the list. ISAF also, and if a nation’s main contribution is part of the ‘peacekeeping’ component of ISAF, then they are covered.
If they have provided ‘significant’ troop numbers (at least a battalion) to the more intensive combat operations in the south, then that nation should be highlighted.
It is clear that France and Germany refused a strong involvement in the latest operations in the south. But I am not sure what objective reason would dictates such a focus of the article on the south and on the recent fights. The article is War in Afghanistan (2001–present), not War in the South of Afghanistan in the recent period. The limited support of these countries for this part of operations is already emphasized in the dedicated articles. As for the contribution of France to the conflict in general (EOF and ISAF):
French commitment to OEF has been strong and resolute since the beginning of the operation.[...] In addition to its OEF commitment, France is one of the main contributors to the NATO International Security Assistance Force. US Central Command Web site. (and considering that France is included in ISAF is just plain wrong as its commitment in OEF is not NATO related)
US CENTCOM will be diplomatic and applaud the French contribution, like it does with other contributors. Also, whilst ISAF is not part of OEF, to their (and others) eyes, ISAF fits in with OEF in a broad sense, in making an Afghanistan without the Taliban.
The majority of French forces are not on active combat ops against the Taliban. France has made a contribution to OEF and/or active combat operations, separate from ISAF, but not as big a contribution as others (US, UK, Canada, Dutch). Its current contribution (excluding the PRTs) are a few Rafale aircraft and an occasional special forces deployment. Chwyatt17:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
+ The discussion here is a bit prejudiced as I see it. The article is named "War in Afghanistan (2001-present)", and that includes in my humble opinion every combat operation during that whole period and not only of 2006 and 2007. The focus of the article is a little bit unbalanced concerning this aspect. Additionally, the reference to Enduring Freedom Allies as combattants is worthless when for example Canada and Netherlands who do not take part in OEF at the moment are listed as combattants, too, but operated within ISAF operations. By the way, every foreign soldier in Afghanistan is, regardless what his role is, a combattant by international law. It's not up to an encyclopedia to bring this to a political level. eurogoofy
+ Added flags of Nations which do contribute or have contributed troops to combat operations of ISAF or OEF-A and which are/were known to are/were involved in hostilities, too. Corrected minor other points, such as ranking in the commanders list. eurogoofy
I agree with eurogoofy. This argument could continue now, but the actual solution in the info box is the best one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.95.222.67 (talk) 15:48:04, August 19, 2007 (UTC)
Commanders (enemy forces)
I see this is for the insurgency period. I'd like to remind they lost numerous leaders during the original campaign 2001-2002. For example, Juma Namangani (the first IMU leader) was killed in 2001. But the IMU isn't even listed (yes, I know NOW they're operating in Pakistan). --HanzoHattori11:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Christian crosses on Muslim combatants
Please refrain from using Christian crosses on deceased Muslim combatants. There is an alternative that looks like a generic square tombstone or something. Thanks Publicus13:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Publicus. The alternative you used to replace the crosses looks like question marks to me, that's not better, is it? Question marks look more like we don't know what the status of these guys are, and that's not good. Couldn't you find "a generic square tombstone or something"? That would have been much better. Question marks usually don't signify death. Manxruler15:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They look like questions marks to you? That's weird. They look like little tombstones to me. The symbol I replaced it with should show up as a tombstone. Kirill made the new template with the code "|alt=yes" added to the regular † tag. Can you see the differences here? old template † --- new template (KIA)Publicus15:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the old template is a cross, allright, but the new one looks like one of these ?, just underlined. Maybe its my computer or something, I'm kinda baffled... Manxruler05:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is weird. I would ask one of the admins for some help on this, it sounds like your browser is having problems reading the code. You could ask Kirill since it's his template. Publicus14:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me the argument against 'stated purpose' hinges entirely on the absurd proposition that all other views on the purpose of the invasion constitute 'fringe' theories. Despite the fact a movie expressing these theories grossed $220 million. Despite the fact that 43% of Americans believe their own government is covering up facts about the official pretext for the war.[4]
You are making a very weak, tortuous argument in a desperate attempt to cling onto this articles pro-administration POV, and making edits with 'see talk' descriptions as if you have actually won the argument! This is highly antisocial behaviour, and I am considering taking action to bring in outside mediation here since you clearly won't discuss this properly. Damburger17:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, I invite you to bring in an administrator to mediate. "There was a piece of media about a fringe theory" is not an excuse to give undue weight to any view, nor is the fact that a percent of Americans believe something reason to advocate POV material in an article. According to this article, 55% of Americans believe that Humans were created in their current form with no evolution involved- that does not mean that we are free to add weasel words to the Evolution article saying that "According to evolution scientists, evolution is such and such". The consensus and all reliable, editorially-sound publications agree the actions of the Taliban government in Afghanistan and their involvement with al Qaeda to be the main motivation for the US going to war, and neither you nor Mr.Grantevans2 have provided me with any reliable sources to cast this into doubt and thus require a disclaiming statement such as the one that you have reverted to in the article. --ForbiddenWord20:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know how NATO combat aircraft get to and from Afghanistan. I assume the carrier based planes fly across Pakistan, but this is just a guess. Also, how do military supplies get into Afghanistan?
Dubai is a major hub for UN (UNAMA) and coalition air contact. Don't know about whether they fly over Iran or make a detour down and then thru Pakistani airspace though. Buckshot0621:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
USA government pov permeates the article
Why is there insistance on presenting the US governments's pronouncements as fact? i.e. regarding the purpose of the invasion. Many people believe the purpose was related to oil pipelines so why the insistence that the article parrot US government's "stop terrorism" as the 1 and only motive? Mr.grantevans12:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If an entity says "I am going to war because of X", and subsequently goes to war, unless there are reliable sources stating otherwise, NPOV insists that X be listed as the reason for the war. To state otherwise via the use of weasel words or whatever without reliable sources would be to attempt to skew the article or insinuate that there is wrongdoing. I know that there are some who have and do, but it's not enough to just say or imply "just because the government says X, we can't trust it". The effort of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia, and creating original research like that in the article runs counter to the project's effort. --ForbiddenWord14:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: By that methodology our articles on 9/11 would have to accept the
reasons given by alQueda as to why they attacked. Could we have a lead paragraph about 9/11 which said: "The purpose of the 9/11 attack was to reciprocate for US bases being established on Saudi holy land"? I'm sure we would have a qualifier in that sentence even if the entity's motive were to make it to the first paragraph. My point is that by accepting the White House's statement of motive as fact we are skewing the article. Mr.grantevans14:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, one reliable source springs instantly to mind: The movie Fahrenheit_9/11byMichael Moore. Agree with him or not, a film of such high profile is certainly notable enough to be a reliable source. Secondly - the idea that governments always do things for the reasons they state is so absurdly naive that it makes me suspect you are trolling. 'The stated aim' is not a weasel statement. There is considerable public debate on the US governments aims in entering Afghanistan, and to have the narrative voice say their aim is what they said it was, is to unfairly dismiss that debate. It certainly isn't original research.
I've seen enough edit wars recently to last me a year, so please do not redo your edit until further discussion has taken place here. At the moment its two against one, and whilst that isn't much of a consensus it should be good enough for you until someone else comments on this. Damburger01:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to mention that Osama and the Taliban admitted to plotting to destroy the WTC and the pentagon so that is the reason we are in Afgahnistan. I believe your arguments might carry more weight if they were directed towards the war in Iraq, which by the way is the argument within the movie Fehrenheit 911, not Aghanaistan. On a side note as someone who was in the Pentagon when the plane hit it I would like to add...Fooy on you.--Kumioko02:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though I agree that the government doesn't always do as they say for the reasons they say, I Concur with K, the reasons for entering Afghanistan have never really been in question, several large planes crashing into building and the like, its the Iraq conflict that generally stirs debate.--Langloisrg03:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Mr.grantevans pointed out, there were economic reasons for going into Afghanistan that existed prior to 9/11. Michael Moore and others have suggested these reasons were more of a motivation that going after Bin Laden. This is not the place to have a debate about that, I'm merely pointing out that the debate exists, and as the anti-government side of it has been represented in an Oscar-winning movie, it is certainly notable enough to make it into the article as a source. Damburger10:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So Michael Moore is selling some Truth to the masses. That is not a valid reason to make it appear as if the only people who attribute the war to 9/11 is one administration. Please do not marginalize reality to cater for fringe theories. Weregerbil12:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even comment on whether or not I approved of Moore's theories or not. And I'd like to point out that a film peddling 'fringe' theories does not gross $220 million. Even if you hate him and think he is a crack, he is certainly not 'fringe', he is very much mainstream.
In any case, the phrase 'stated aim' is not weasel. Its a very common phrase used in these circumstances by people who agree and disagree with the said aim, and its speaker. Damburger15:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the amount of money made by someone is proof of the validity of his ideas. I am not very familiar with Mr. Moore's work; I have seen something he did and it seemed like a lot of exaggerated half-truths engineered to make the viewer more ignorant about reality. Surely entertaining; and scandals (even fabricated ones) sell well, but "best selling" doesn't make something true. Seeing a film does not equate to believing what it says. If many people see a film about flat earth, that does not automatically make flat earthism a mainstream theory. There are any number of popular films and TV shows, yet the actors in them are not encyclopedic sources. Weregerbil16:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
$220 million represents a very large number of people going to see his film. If such a significant audience went to see a movie about the Earth being flat, the flat Earth theory would require a more prominent position in wikipedia. Something can't be 'fringe' if its believed by a significant portion of the population. Damburger16:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing a film does not equate with believing every word in a film. We do not have prominent articles detailing genuine historical incidents of a love affair on a ship and a bunch of hairy-footed (feeted?) creatures saving the world from unspeakable evil. Most people can tell apart reality and professional wrestling. Also, peoples' beliefs do not equal reality. The majority of polled Americans say an electron is bigger than an atom. Google will find you statistics on how many percent of Americans belive in angels, ghosts, the devil, witches, astrology, how often the Earth revolves around the Sun (or, according to their belief, vice versa)... Wikipedia is about reality, not about all the gunk that movie audiences may or may not believe. Weregerbil18:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What utter nonsense. You are giving such ridiculously specious examples I don't even know where to start. None of the films you mentioned were documentaries. They didn't operate under the pretence of being factual. In any case, your argument that a multi-million dollar grossing, oscar winning film represents a 'fringe' viewpoint is so self-evidently asinine I can't even believe I'm having to refute it. Damburger22:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please remain WP:CIVIL. "Operating under the pretense of being factual" does not equate with "presenting a widely held view". Professional wrestling operates on the pretense of being factual, yet it is entertainment fiction, and believing it is real is pretty fringe (AFAIK, that phenomenon does not exist where I live). Weregerbil09:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, you are really clutching at straws here, suggesting that almost everyone who went to see that movie didn't believe the theories it presenting. Apply Occam's Razor. In any case, the movie is notable to have its own wikipedia page so it is certainly notable to be mentioned as one viewpoint. You haven't got a leg to stand on. Damburger11:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I still don't subscribe to the theory that seeing a movie is the same as believing what it says. Or that believing something makes it true. Weregerbil12:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What rubbish. Wikipedia isn't here to decide whats true, its to report peoples opinions on the matter. Your attempt to paint anything other than US goverment policy as 'fringe' is absolutely ridiculous. Damburger14:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia actually does not exist to report peoples' opinions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It reports verifiable reliable sources, not random opinions. As usual, your interpretation of what my "attept" is, is incorrect. I don't give a damn about US government policy; it's not the policy of my government and is of little concern to me. I am concerned about blatant attempts to misrepresent reality. Incidentally, please see WP:CIVIL. Weregerbil15:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should cater to any theories whether fringe or non-fringe and I certainly don't think history supports an assumption of truthfulness to what any government says. We should simply state what is known; and what is known is that the US government has stated certain reasons for invading Afghanistan and only the people within the Pentagon and White House's inner circle know whether or not the stated motive for public consumtion is the true and sole motive. It might be or it might nor be and it seems to me that reality is marginalized when any government's statements as to motive are accepted as being the true and complete motive. To me (and pardon if the analogy is melodramatic) it would be similar in protocol to an article stating as fact: " Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia to free the people of Sudetland ". Mr.grantevans15:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Are we dangerously close to Godwin's Law here? :-) Saying that would indeed be weird. Because the preponderance of sources say otherwise. Per WP:WEIGHT uncommon theories are not to be given undue attention. And claiming that the US government is the only source making the 9/11-war connection, and are the only people using the term "war on terrorism", is very much untrue; are we at least in agreement on that? Weregerbil16:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can agree on that but that is not the point. It is a false choice to have to choose motives put forth by either a government or a movie maker. Reality is that no one really knows what anyone else's motives are about anything and especially not when it comes to invasions and wars. It is unnecessary for an encyclopedia to promote the stated motives of a government as if they are fact; the motives stated for such an important event must be attributed or left unmentioned at all which I think would be best. It is also not in any way taking sides to include the words "stated aim". Excluding the alternative motives as suggested by Moore and others gives,I think, the article quite a bit of skewing but I am willing to live with that exclusion I suppose. The other thing is that Wikipedia is supposed to be a global enterprise (I think) and I wonder whether the majority of the world's population believes that the Afghan invasion was only "in response" to 9/11? Just because that is likely the majority anglo/american interpretation of motive does not mean it has majority acceptance globally. Mr.grantevans22:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not "anglo/american". I see 9/11 systematically reported as the reason for the Afghanistan/Taleban war. Claiming that the US government are the only people saying so is simply untruthful. If you want some global perspective, check out the other 20 versions of this article in different languages (links in "in other languages" at the left of the article). From the languages I can decipher, the only one trying to make other claims is this one. Weregerbil09:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if my words are not clear; I'll try again; 1:I never thought or said any particular person is anglo/american.2:I am not claiming anything at all and certainly have not said that the US government is the only people saying something. I am simply saying that motives should be attributed to the entity officially expressing the motive which in this case would be the US government justifying the US led invasion of Afghanistan. Please have a look at how we address the motive for the 9/11 attacks [5]. I am simply saying we should address the motive for the Afghanistan invasion in the same way, by attributing the motive to the primary entity expressing the motive. Mr.grantevans13:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<- left shift
"Attributing" something that is generally accepted makes it appear as if only one small bunch of people has a dissenting opinion. It is not useful to "attribute" every single sentence and fact to someone. Please don't marginalize reality and mislead the reader. Weregerbil05:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weregerbil,I don't understand your 1st. sentence in your last post.Perhaps the wording is off? and are you saying that the US government's statements of motive for the invasion are an absolute "reality"? Mr.grantevans12:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As to the first sentence: an encyclopedia article for fish does not start with "According to the U.S. Department of Wildlife and Fisheries of the Bush administration, fish are cold-blooded aquatic vertebrates." That diminishes the value of information to the reader, as he must constantly wonder whether the nature of a fish is a fringe theory put forward by a small minority, and fish are really a government conspiracy. Second, your interpretation of what I am saying is incorrect. I am saying that the motives are widely reported by pretty much all reliable sources; making it appear as if they aren't is misleading and untruthful. Take a look at WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. Weregerbil13:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what you are now saying I think your first sentence is a misspeak and should say something like ..."as if a small bunch of people has that accepted(rather than "dissenting") opinion". Regarding the fish analogy, the source would have no reason to not fully and accurately disclose their position; any government invading a country might well have reason not to fully disclose their motives for the invasion. Also, I've seen nothing to indicate that the US government's stated invasion motive is generally accepted throughout the world, and certainly not in regards to the ongoing 6 year war. Also, I can not understand why you keep referencing other (fringe etc.) theories. No such theories have been put forward by my edits. Those references seem like a Strawman deflection; albeit an unintentional deflection most likely. Mr.grantevans13:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oil and other motivation theories
Sorry to butt in here, but this argument is full of red flags. The idea that the US instigated September 11th, or that the US invaded Afghanistan for oil is still, according to Wikipedia, a fringe theory. It might be worth noting that Afghanistan has no petroleum. --Hojimachongtalk17:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The theories that the US instigated September 11th, or that the US invaded Afghanistan for oil were not mentioned before and were not part of this discussion as far as I can tell. I'd suggest Hojimachong's introduction of these theories should be a under a new heading although I have seen no indication that anyone wishes to discuss those 2 topics or introduce them into the article. I could add that I think the oil theory might be pipeline related rather than in the ground related but I am not interested in discussing that nor any theories myself. Mr.grantevans01:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you citing WP:FRINGE? It does not anywhere suggest that alternatives to the US-government line represent 'fringe' theories. I'm finding these shallow arguments tedious now, please stop. Damburger17:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Separate section dealing with motive
Perhaps we should look at the 9/11 article[6] as an example of how to deal with motive; i.e. as a separate sub-topic within the article. Perhaps we should address the motive for the Afghanistan invasion in a similar way. If not, why not? It seems to me that motive goes to the heart of events in general and conflicts in particular and the 9/11 attacks entry has a reasonably extensive section dealing with motive. This invasion and war deserve the same attention to motive, at least in my view. Mr.grantevans12:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article on 9/11 and this article provide an imperfect parallel. The section at the link you provided is almost entirely sources that attempt to match up the actions of 9/11 with the stated or assumed aims of al Qaeda. The organization in question at that article is (obviously) not a large public entity like the US Government- as such, they do not have a large apparatus for speaking to the public arena. As such, there has been a sizable amount of mainstream political research into the aims and intentions of al Qaeda's actions leading up to and on 9/11, so it is an extremely well-sourced section of which there is a plethora of reliable information- that is to say, the section reflects the wider consensus in the political world for the motivation and reasons for the 9/11 attacks. On the other hand, this article reflects what is the mainstream and consensus view for the reasoning behind the war in Afghanistan, which is generally agreed upon to be the reasons that the US Government stated, as in the article. If there are notable, reliable (nonfringe and nonquack) public personalities who report and doubt the consensus reason for the invasion of Afghanistan, it should not be hard to come up with some reliable sources to add an alternate motivation section to this article. It is important, though, to remember that under NPOV guidelines that such views must be given only due weight, which is my objection to insisting the addition of a clause that calls the consensus opinion on the motivation into question. --ForbiddenWord14:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine that you disagree, but I can cite numerous reliable sources that assert that the invasion of Afghanistan followed refusal by the Taliban to comply with United States demands regarding al Qaeda.[7] If you do not back up your assertions with reliable sources, there is no substance to your objection. --ForbiddenWord19:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine you are aware there are numerous (likely thousands) reliable sources outlining US foreign policy and economic interests in Afghanistan going back long before 9/11; in fact decades before. I don't think it would be productive to start a contest of reliable sources in this regard. I think the onus is upon you to show that a "consensus" exists supporting your opinion before the article is mandated to present the US government's stated motive as if that is the factually true and sole motive for the invasion of Afghanistan. Mr.grantevans222:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the onus is upon you to show that what was stated is not true- you're the one that wants to change the status quo, give me a reason why. In reading through sources for the background yesterday, all reliable sources that I was able to find stated simply that the invasion was undertaken in response to the Afghanistani government's refusal to comply with US demands. I have no reliable reason to doubt the sources that I did find unless you give me one. --ForbiddenWord12:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason you are now giving here above"Afghanistani government's refusal to comply with US demands" is different from the one you just put in the article "in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks". Which is it that you think is a general consensus? I appreciate your efforts here but I really think the article would be better if a separate motive section was created similar to the one in the 9/11 attack article. Just to make mention in passing of some general impression does not do the issue of motive justice. The other possibility is to not mention motive at all and I would endorse that approach as well. Mr.grantevans216:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you! There should be a section detailing motives. However, what I've been trying to get at above is I don't think that there is wide enough consensus that the primary motive of the Afghanistan invasion is far enough from the US Gov't's stated aim to merit the inclusion of an "allegedly" disclaimer in the introduction. By all means, I encourage you to write a section up! I know that all wars are hotly debated topics, and I would by no means oppose a section looking into reasons for the war in Afghanistan. --ForbiddenWord17:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect claims of opposing viewpoints being 'Fringe'
Its starting to get annoying. An opinion voiced by an Oscar-winning, $220 million grossing movie IS NOT FRINGE. Intellectually dishonest references to WP:FRINGE are a plague on this talk page, and many others. Claiming that Michael Moore represents a fringe viewpoint is, given his proven popularity, and extraordinary claim - but those making it have not provided us with extraordinary evidence. Damburger23:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that everything that Mr. Moore says is automatically mainstream. Or that every conspiracy theory that a movie mentions in passing automatically becomes accepted by a large portion of the people who happen to see it. Perhaps I am overly optimistic about peoples' ability to exercise media criticism? I hope Wikipedia does not need to become a soapbox echoing everything that Mr. Moore happens to say, in a movie or otherwise. Weregerbil16:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have made up your mind already and will not be convinced that anything but the public statements of politicians you support is not fringe. This really wasn't addressed at you. Damburger20:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UN, NATO, ISAF?
I removed the UN and NATO flags from the infobox. Though UN-mandated, it is not a blue helmet force, its status more akin to the KFOR.
The US, because it is by far the primary contributor to ISAF, and that besides that a significant portion of its contingent (8000 troops) is outside the ISAF chain of command. --Victor falk15:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commanders
How shall the list of commanders look like now?
If CENTCOM Adm. Fallon is listed, then the in-field OEF commander is missing in the list. On the other hand, two other important NATO commanders were erased from the list recently. ISAF HQ directly reports to JFCB that is in command of all NATO operations in Afghanistan, whilst JFCB directly reports to APO at Shape.
There is no need to delete that part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.95.196.150 (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand (I'm not a professional military), the JFCB is a supporting logistical organisation to the ISAF, and Egon Ramms has no direct influence on the strategic, operative, or tactical disposition of particular units in Afghanistan. I think it's comparable in not having Wilhelm Keitel, as a commander of the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, in the combatant box for Operation Barbarossa, though army groups ( e.g. Army Group Centre), which could be said to be the equivalent a unit at an equivalent level to the ISAF in their respective chain of commands, reported directly to the OKW. Anyway, his link redirects to JFSB, not to an article about him.
The case for Bantz J. Craddock is even weaker, he is SACEUR, his area of responsability is part of EUCOM, not CENTCOM, which is the AOR Afghanistan falls under; there his no mention about Afghanistan in his article whatsoever.
Nope, not true as proven with this excerpt from ISAFs mainpage
"ISAF Command Structure
Based on the 16 April 2003 North Atlantic Council’s decision, NATO has been assuming over the strategic command, control and coordination of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan since 11 August 2003.
NATO’s Allied Command Operations (ACO), based at the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers in Europe (SHAPE), in Mons (Belgium), assumes the overall command of the operation.
ACO’s subordinate headquarters, Allied Joint Force Command (JFC) Headquarters Brunssum (The Netherlands), under the leadership of Joint Force Commander General Egon Ramms (Germany), runs the operation, duties including the planning and command of the force as well as the provision of a force commander and headquarters.
ISAF is composed of the Headquarters, the Air Task Force (ATF), the Regional Commands (RCs), the Forward Support Bases (FSB), and Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.95.201.139 (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, there is still a proper listing missing. For example Gen. T. Franks is not in charge of operations in Afghanistan anymore. More correct would be to list the current commander of US CENTCOM, and thats Adm. W.J. Fallon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.95.201.139 (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women. is not,in my opinion, a clear confession. It is simply a recollection of what he thought at the time of the Lebanon event. The fact it came over 3 years later is also interesting because I don't see why he would have reasonably waited so long to take claim for such an event. Mr.grantevans221:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
