New Immissions/Updates:
boundless - educate - edutalab - empatico - es-ebooks - es16 - fr16 - fsfiles - hesperian - solidaria - wikipediaforschools
- wikipediaforschoolses - wikipediaforschoolsfr - wikipediaforschoolspt - worldmap -

See also: Liber Liber - Libro Parlato - Liber Musica  - Manuzio -  Liber Liber ISO Files - Alphabetical Order - Multivolume ZIP Complete Archive - PDF Files - OGG Music Files -

PROJECT GUTENBERG HTML: Volume I - Volume II - Volume III - Volume IV - Volume V - Volume VI - Volume VII - Volume VIII - Volume IX

Ascolta ""Volevo solo fare un audiolibro"" su Spreaker.
CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
WikiProject Afghanistan War in Afghanistan (2001–present) is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Afghanistan-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
WikiProject Central Asia War in Afghanistan (2001–present) 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, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang, Tibet and Central Asian portions of Iran 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.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2005 press source article for details.

The citation is in: Tony Kevin. "The facts regarding David Hicks", Crikey.com.au, 18 August 2005.

An event mentioned in this article is an October 7 selected anniversary.

See prior talk, mostly about naming, at Talk:2001 U.S. Attack on Afghanistan and Talk:U.S. Attack on Afghanistan.

Contents

[edit] Bombing Kabul hours after twin towers hit?

Under Military operations Initial attack the article states, "It is said that prior to October 7, 2001 U.S. and British Special Forces clandestinely infiltrated Afghanistan to make contact with the Northern Alliance to organize those forces to overthrow the Taliban. But CNN released exclusive footage of Kabul being bombed to all the American broadcasters at approximately 5:08pm September 11 2001[13]. Who was doing the air raids that targetted the city's airport among other things , has never been answered."

this has a very sketchy link to a chinese? online paper. im not saying it isnt true, but the citation source is bad and it seems like an attempt to imply that the US is in some sort of consipiracy, i would like to suggest either a new reputable source be found or the sentence be removed.

I remember this incident clearly. Kabul came under missile attack on the day of September 11th. At the time I thought that the US had already launched atttacks, but it turns out that those missile attacks were from the Northern Alliance, who were pissed about their leader having been assassinated like a day before. I actually didn't check to see if the sentence was removed, but if it hasn't been I will. Topkai22 08:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NATO?

No mention of NATO, even though the whole thing is a NATO operation. The article should really be titled NATO invasion of Afghanistan, but I won't relaunch that battle today. 10:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur, wasn't this a NATO operation, followed up by ISAF forces today? The article isn't specifically referring to only the US participation in the war, so I don't see any reason not to expand it. Or was this already discussed somewhere else?KarlXII 22:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is incorrect. I believe that the US forces are not under the NATO command hierarchy. -- Geo Swan 11:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


Geo Swan, you are correct, the US forces are not under NATO / ISAF. However, I still have some reservation against the title as the US involvement was only part of the total war in Afghanistan - local forces played a key role on the ground and NATO and ISAF forces have an important role in the later parts of the conflict. The current title is, if not technically incorrect, at least misleading and a bit too narrow.KarlXII 18:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph Removed

I removed the first paragraph under the heading "Renewed Taliban Insurgency". Stylistically, it was a major divergence from the voice used in the majority of the article. More importantly, though, it contained exceedingly bad grammar and sentence structure. Most importantly of all, it was superfluous information tainted with subjective commentary.

Molinero 20:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Title: Attack or Invasion?

The campaign was unquestionably an "invasion". Why insist on calling it an "attack on Afghanistan", as if it was meant to hurt the entire country? The US said it was only trying to remove the Taliban regime. When other forces have sought to destablize regimes, we don't generally call theses "attacks ON" the countries. --Ed Poor

If there is fact general agreement to thusly change the name of the article, please delete this version and use "move this page" to rename it with the edit history intact. --Brion 11:34 Aug 12, 2002 (PDT)
You said to see this page. What are you talking about? Is there some reason you reverted my move of the US military campaign article from "invasion of" back to "attack on"? I thought the Cunctator and I had already settled that an hour ago. --Ed Poor 13:17 Aug 12, 2002 (PDT)
If there is fact general agreement to thusly change the name of the article (which there now is), please delete this version and use "move this page" to rename it with the edit history intact. --Brion 13:18 Aug 12, 2002 (PDT)
Hmm, I was under the impression you were a sysop. I'll delete it myself so there's room for the rename, but in the future remember that "move this page" is available for renaming pages to new titles without breaking the edit history over multiple pages. --Brion
Today must be Monday. Or as my favorite nuclear power plant operator likes to say: "D'oh!" I was supposed to MOVE the page rather than REDIRECT it. Okay, I'll have to ask Mav or Lee or someone to give me admin privileges so I can do stuff like that. I'll write to the listserv, and thanks for explaining it so patiently to me, Brion. --Ed Poor 13:24 Aug 12, 2002 (PDT)

I appear to have been caught up in something bigger than Ben Hur here. Just how many times has ths page been changed over the past two days??? - Arno

I've been wanting to change the TITLE of the article to "US invasion of Afghanistan", which sounds neutral to me. An invasion can be an nasty selfish act of aggression (as when the Nazis invaded Poland and France) or a noble, selfless act of defense (as when the Allies invaded France to repel the Nazis). The word "attack" carries a more aggressive connotation than "invasion", and I felt that the title should not express a Point of View. Points of View should be in the article bodies, properly attributed. Consider: did the Allies "attack" France in WWII? Surely, from someone's point of view the invasion amounted to an attack. Probably the Vichy government thought so. Maybe Hitler thought so. But the article for that military action should be called Normandy Invasion. IANAL, and I my pro-US bias might be blinding me; if so, please correct me. --Ed Poor

Ed: remember: everything expresses a point of view. That there can be a "noble, selfless act of defense" in war is a pretty bold point of view (held by most red-blooded patriots, true). A better question to ask yourself when naming an article is whether the title properly implies what the content will be. The initial attack was an attack, and was called so by everyone, the U.S. government, the U.S. media, the international media, the pro-Islamic entities, etc. Even now "invasion" is somewhat misleading, since most of the land-fighting was done by Afghan forces. But I do agree that it's less misleading than "attack" now. --The Cunctator

I don't have the relevant information at hand, but would someone who does please mention the casualties due to the accidental airstrike by a US pilot on Canadian troops? - montréalais

Merci! - montréalais

From an old version of the genocide article:

    • The silent genocide of 2001/2002 in Afghanistan was committed by the United States in collaboration with the Pakistan government, by deliberately cutting off the overland food supplies (by trucks, etc.) to 7.5 million people who were known to be starving and close to death [5]. Before the United States terrorist attack against Afghanistan, the New York Times reported that 50% of these 7.5 million were expected to die of hunger if the US requested border closure and/or carried out the threatened terrorist attacks. The real number of victims is unknown, but maybe was "only" 1 million or so, thanks to many surviving by eating grass [6]. This genocide was referred to as "silent", because despite 60 years' improvements in communications technology and networking since the Holocaust, US [7] and UK [8] media chose to be silent on this issue, just as German media were silent during the Holocaust 60 years earler. This genocide is commonly referred to using the euphemism "humanitarian crisis" [9], although it does seem to satisfy the ICC definition of genocide above.

[5] World Food Program (United Nations organisation)
[6] Afghan village forced to eat grass, by Ravi Nessman, Associated Press
[7] Warning: Media Management Now In Effect, by Danny Schechter
[8] Media Alert: BBC Director-General given an easy ride by the Independent, by Cromwell-Edwards
[9] The Coming Apocalypse by Geov Parrish

Further Reading

  • Problem from Hell America's Failure to Prevent Genocide, Samantha Power, Basic Books, 2002, hardcover, 640 pages, ISBN: 0465061508

The above needs to be double-checked and/or neutralized (see NPOV). If it's good enough for one of the Afghanistan articles, we can back from genocide.

First find some proof it happened, not links to worst case scenario articles saying it might happen. Rmhermen 09:06 Aug 27, 2002 (PDT)

This article seems excessively anti-US. Also, it confuses several ideas -- IMHO, deliberately so.

The article asserts that the US "attacked" Afghanistan itself, as punishment for the terrorist attack on 9-11. This point of view really should be attributed to its advocate, rather than stated as fact. The US said it targeted the Taliban -- a dominant group recognized at the time by only 1 or 2 governments in the world. It didn't say it was punishing Afghanistan. Anyone who thinks so is, of course, entitled to that opinion, and I'd be happy for the article to identify them and explore their reasoning: Source A said that the US was punishing the entire Afghan nation for the alleged acts of a few would do nicely.

The article blurs the distinction between an aggressive "invasion" (as when a country takes over another for its benefit) and a punitive invasion (to make it stop doing something). This difference should be amplified, and also if some political analysts believe there is no difference they should be named and their reasons given.

Considering the magnitude of the importance of the issues involved when the US chooses to commit its military toward any goal, we ought not give any aspect short shrift. --Ed Poor 22:21 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)

Ed, please give specific examples of sentences you want changed. DanKeshet

I believe it would violate NPOV to state that the US didn't attack Afghanistan. It most certainly DID attack Afghanistan and this was certainly inspired by the 9/11 attacks. Lir 23:59 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)

I reverted two important sentences from your changes, Ed.

  1. ....religion quote missing because wikipedia not responding... This is not the only reason they changed the name. A lot of people were concerned because the name had religious overtones, period. That it was becoming a new "crusade" of Christiandom against Islam.
  2. Do you have any evidence that the reporters from Time magazine or the BBC opposed the war? The Time magazine article practically gushed about the ingeniousness of the commanders to have already planned the war before it was even necessary.

DanKeshet

To reopen the naming debate, I'd prefer 2001 Afghanistan war. Yes, it was a US-led war, but there were others present, most notably the northern alliance. Martin

Ok, let's open it.

I don't like the terminology invasion of, except for a one-sided account of a particular incursion. For example, the famous Allied invasion at Normandy, which was, I'm sure we'd all agree, part of a larger war.

On the other hand, the US invasion of Grenada wasn't much of a "war", as (according to my friend who participated) it was more of a rout, being over in just a few days.

Maybe we need to shop around (google around?) a bit, and find out what HISTORIANS are calling these events:

  • battle of...
  • invasion of...
  • ...war...
  • bombing of...

The problem with the word "invasion" is that it cannot describe the totality of a two-sided conflict. In particular, in casts one party in the role of the aggressive evil attacker and the other role as the responding good defender -- especially in situations where there is A LOT OF CONTROVERSY over the "good" and "bad" roles.

By the way, the term military campaign is entirely neutral! Its the generic term for the class which includes such things as "Operation Iraqi Freedom".

The names for military campaigns are almost NEVER neutral, but are deliberately chosen to reflect the POV of the country carrying out the campaign. (That's why there was a big flap over Operation Infinite Justice, i.e., "this is payback for 9-11, you Taliban scum!")

I think we should describe:

  • the official names of military campaigns, and what those names are intended to convey
  • the generally accepted, historian-approved names of those campaigns (if and when they differ)
  • the generally accepted, historian-approved names of wars, ESPECIALLY when those "war names" differ from either of the above.

And above all, let us strive to maintain impartiality and neutrality on this, the most sensitive of political topics. Note that I do not say "fair" or "correct" or "right" -- I really mean neutral, in the Larry Sanger, Jimbo Wales sense. --Uncle Ed

Actually, Ed, you're only partly right about military campaign names. See the semiotics of militarism; until 1989, U.S. military campaign codenames were essentially random; "Since 1989, major U.S. military operations have been dubbed with an eye toward shaping domestic and international perceptions about the activities they describe." The Bush administration has taken this to an extreme. --The Cunctator
A shame really. Learning about WW2 would have been more interesting if Operation Overlord had been named Operation Die Nazi Scum ...

I am going to request that this article be renamed "US-led military operations in Afghanistan, 2002" The current title is grossly POV. Adam 05:36, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

  • U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan would be more accurate. The 2002 is not necessary because there have not been other U.S.-led invasions of Afghanistan. Kingturtle 05:44, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
This was debated extensively here last year (see above). An invasion is a military attack on a country with a view to conquering or occupying it, as in "The German invasion of Poland". This was neither the intent nor the effect of the 2002 operations. Personally I would call it US-led liberation of Afghanistan, but that would be equally POV. The NPOV phrasing is "military operations". Adam 06:06, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Naming a war after one side in the conflict is historically uncommon and non-neutral in the sense that it focuses on one side more than the other. I think "2002 War in Afghanistan" would be much better than your new title, Adam. It's hard to be more neutral than the year and the place and I also find that most news outlets like the BBC, CNN, etc. refer to it just as the Afghanistan War or similar, but I think the 2002 is useful to distinguish from other wars in Afghanistan. Daniel Quinlan 06:41, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Page moved back and reverted

I moved this page back in order to fix many broken redirects that the mover carelessly left behind. The page name is also a contentious issue and was agreed upon by discussions here and elsewhere. I also reverted a major text deletion in this article that was under the guise of NPOV; deleting factual and attributed content is never NPOV. If there are still NPOV problems with the text then neutralize it instead of deleting it. If it is misplaced, then put it into the timeline or another article. Deletion is hardly ever called for except in cases of totally irrelevancy or bias. Neither of those criteria apply to the deleted text. --mav 07:04, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It takes time to move redirects. I think you could have given the guy a reminder to fix them instead. Just the same, I'd rather find a better name than either his or the current one, so I'm fine with your unmove. Daniel Quinlan 07:07, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)
Invasion CAN mean a generic use of force. Dictionary.com gives that as usage: but not as a specific definition. The primary definition is to move into another's territory for conquest or plunder. Which is POV and incorrect. So I support the move to a different name and the one he chose seems to be sufficiently neutral. The massive edit is another matter of course so I support the revert by maveric149. We should deal with the two issues separately. Ark30inf 07:13, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
"Attack on Afghanistan" is the common name for the conflict (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)). Even the Bush cheerleaders over at FOX News called it that. And given the fact that relatively few US forces were used, I'd say it was barely an invasion but more of a use of special forces mobilizing indigenous forces. --mav
The naming conventions also mention that if a title is misleading then the rule is not hard and fast. Invasion is misleading for the reasons I gave. Attack on Afghanistan is somewhat better and I can live with it but military operations in Afghanistan is probably the most accurate. Most accurate or most common I guess is the question. As long as its not Invasion. And....I could care less what FOX News uses to juice up stories. They entertain me and give my political views a chance to be heard, but I doubt they would be good at writing a neutral and accurate encyclopedia :-) Ark30inf 07:28, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
And I wrote that convention to not be hard and fast for good reasons that are touched on in that page. :) 'Most accurate' takes a back seat to 'most widely used' as long as 'most widely used' is not too wrong, misleading or biased. Otherwise we would have to change the name of Killer Whale (not a whale) to its scientific name as well as many, many other animal articles that are similarly named. --mav


I reverted the page because of an attempt at historical revisionism by User:TDC. Just have a look at his Userpage and try to guess his agenda.

".... I also find it amazing how often people like Howard Zinn. John Pilger, George Galloway, Michael Moore, Naomi Klein, Robert Fisk, and last but not least Gnome Chomsky sound exactly like Osama bin Laden."

Writing about Human Right Abuses in Cuba but denying the ones made by the US Army. Such people make me sick. Turrican

Whoa, hold on there chief. I never stated anywhere that there were no human rights abuses committed by the US Army. But in this particular case, the evidence seems rather weak when one actually looks at the facts. TDC 16:09, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)


I have read the article and I would like to mention some things :

- Even the article mentions that the venerable Robert Young Pelton is obviously so opposed to Jamie Doran that it is likely that he even denies these fact because of his personal dislike towards him.

Pelton makes it very clear why he does not like Doran: Doran is making false accusations against individuals that Pelton personal knows. And it is Doran, not Pelton who dislikes the other due to personal reasons. User:TDC|TDC]] 20:39, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

- Pelton does not believe Doran because he has no pictures. Hell, the fact that one time a bunch american soldiers were stupid enough to document their own human right abuses does not mean that even the Special Forces are stupid enough to do the same. Actually I would be extremly surprised if they did so.

Turrican

Once again, you are misrepresenting the information. Pelton does not believe Doran not only because Doran has no direct evidence (The only piece of direct evidence that Doran has was mysteriously stolen by "forces unknown") and because Pelton was present during the incidnet, and Doran was not.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not just interviews with faceless nameless Talibs.
But keep it up, I enjoy seeing your case getting weaker by the sentence. TDC 20:39, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Believe what you will Yankee. Btw: I have changed the "some"- Claim to mention Robert Young Pelton specificially. If this is presented with the link to the article attached I have no problem with the current version. Turrican

My "beleifs" have nothing what so ever to do with the information I put forth. I too, BTW, have no problem with the counter claim citation. Just so long as we also mention that Pelton was present while Doran was not. TDC 21:01, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vote on best name

Everyone, I'm not even sure what the best name is, I'm just sure it's not the current one. :-) I hereby volunteer to move the article and handle the redirects (I've done it before) if a vote indicates another name has more support than the current name.

To vote, put your name in the list (triple tilde will do). If you have comments, please place them below. If you have another name to suggest, add it to the list, but please don't go crazy with it...

[edit] Question #1: which one (need to distinguish from other conflicts)

  • Coalition

(if you care between U.S.-led or U.S., indicate your preference) US-Led

[edit] Question #2: what was it?

[edit] Question #3: where?

Obviously, a few combinations won't work, but we can eliminate those pretty easily. An example (my preference too) would be "2001 Afghanistan War". — DQ

I'd go with "2001 US-led invasion of Afghanistan" for completeness, but then someone else will complain that the invasion wasn't what it was... ;-)
James F. 10:49, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I prefer it as it stands. Secretlondon 20:36, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)
I would contend the U.S. didn't invade - doesn't that involve putting troops on the ground? ;) Morwen 22:01, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
It's fine the way it stands. I will read a vote to change, as a vote for a parallel change to the Soviet invasion article for the sake of maintaining NPOV balance. ☮ Eclecticology 07:43, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The best word for this is "Incursion" , it has a lot of history in it's use as well. [gdewey}

[edit] Comments here

If I might insert a word of explanatiion here?

  • There seem to be three issues:
  • First, I am unfamiliar with the technicalities of redirecting. I was getting a lesson on it at Village Pump when you undid my move. I apologise if I inadvertantly made a mess.
I don't blame you — it's tricky to get a contentious article moved. Daniel Quinlan 09:34, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)
  • Second, I defend my renaming of the article. Both "attack" and "invasion" are politically loaded words, and IMHO do not accurately describe what took place. I freely admit by political bias here: I would call the article US-led liberation of Afghanistan, but that would be just as biased as "attack" (I might write such an article anyway). I think the title I chose is the least non-judgemental of the options so far.
I also agree. Vote! Daniel Quinlan 09:34, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)
  • Third, the article is full of tendentious and politically loaded phraseology, much of it is written in the present tense about things that happened a year ago, it is disorganised and poorly written in places, and there is far too much inessential detail for an encyclopaedia article. Nevertheless, I concede that my deletions may have been more sweeping than appropriate. When I feel calmer about the whole business I may have another go. Or maybe not :)
  • Adam 09:23, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Wikipedia has many examples of politically charged text (usually the negative type) and it is difficult to change some articles and it takes a lot, I repeat, a lot of effort and cooperation between people who disagree. Take, for example, the George W. Bush page which launches into a tedious discussion of the political nature of the family, Neal's S&L problem, etc. in paragraph 3. Yet, the John F. Kennedy page doesn't even mention that his farther, Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., was a powerful politician (Ambassador to England, SEC chairman), his brothers Ted Kennedy and Robert Kennedy, and other well-known relatives (I can't even name them all, Patrick Kennedy, William Kennedy Smith, ...). Anyway, take a deep breath, read up on NPOV, and start editing. Daniel Quinlan 09:34, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)

Opperation Infinate Justice just links here - any objection to me putting in something about it being the first name of the campaign, and the reasons for the change?2toise 09:26, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The operation names could probably stand a bit of work and clean-up, sure. Daniel Quinlan 09:34, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)


Robert Young Pelton here. I was in Sheberghan prison the dates that Jamie Doran mentions. I counted the dead bodies on a daily basis (I was staying 500 meters up the road from the prison) I took photographs and video (photos were supplied to Newsweek for their Convoy of Death article. The Red Cross was inside the prison treated wounded prisoners. Some members of a US Special Forces A team were also in the prison treating the wounded. They were photographed by myself. General Dostum issued a statement saying that around 250 prisoners had died dued to previous injuries, sickness and during the move from Kunduz to Sheberghan. Prisoners were put in containers because they drove through areas of active fighting and the Qali Jangi uprising was ongoing. I was also with Doran and he was doing a doco on Afghanistan. He then tried to push the idea of british SAS members (they were SBS) massacring prisoners which didnt fly, then the idea of Americans massacring taliban prisoners, which also didnt fly. So to salvage his footage he used interviews with unnamed, unidentifed afghans to invent his convoy of death story. A story which Newsweek then picked up without crediting Doran and ran without naming eye witnesses or sources. All I can say is that I was there, I took photos and videos and both Doran and Newsweek seem to think that their version can sell tickets/magazines. As I have said before if Dostum or the Americans wanted to kill talibs all they had to do was hit the comms button and order an airstrike.


Years later perhaps Mr. Pelton You remember that a CIA-agent shoot those days an interrogated prisoner what caused revolt, riots and escape-attempts where CIA-Agents fired into them.

[edit] Neutrality of article title

We need to separate the questions of what is most "accurate" title from:

  • what is the most popular
  • what is the least contentious

I propose that we build a consenus on the following criteria for an article title:

  1. It clearly refers to the topic
  2. It has a good chance of being call the same thing by historians in 10 or 20 years
  3. It gives neither side cause to complain that it gives partisan advantage to the other side.

[edit] Invasion

This means the entry of military forces, without permisson. If a battalion from El Salvador goes to California for a joint training exercise with the US military, that's not an invasion. If US troops go into Afghanistan to decimate the Taliban, that's an invasion.

[edit] Battle

Two sides fight against each other. Note that the bombing of Hiroshima was not a battle because it was all US offense with no Japanese counter-attack. The invasion of Grenada in 1983 involved battles, however.

[edit] War

This is a more elastic term, because there's no agreement on how many battles makes a war -- but there's an international flavor to this type of military conflict. I don't know if Israel and the PA are in a "war" (they're certainly "at each other's throats").

Some countries feel a need to "declare war" before waging it -- but no historian doubts that the US and South Vietnam fought a "war" with "North Vietnam".

[edit] Campaign

This is the easiest term to define, although it's not used much by civilians. It means "one country's activities in all or part of a war". The Tet Offensive was a campaign launched by North Vietnam. The US had campaigns going on in Northern Africa, parts of the Pacific and Far East, and all over Europe during WWII.

[edit] Ed Poor conclusion

We all know that US forces battled the Taliban. There were several battles, and many of us saw maps Taliban showing Taliban-held areas shrinking day by day. Some Taliban were captured, other killed, and a lot escaped to Pakistan. So, we all agree that BATTLES occurred over there.

The name of the region isn't in dispute either. We all call it Afghanistan.

The remaining question is whether the events there should be called a "war" or what? It really comes down to 2 points of view (POV):

  1. the US military waged a campaign in Afghanistan against the Taliban: this campaign amounts to an invasion, so call it the US invasion of Afghanistan
  2. the US military and the Taliban both battled each other in Afghanistan: these battles amount to a war, so call it the 2001 Afghan War or something similar.

It all comes down to what POV you want to emphasize: did the US do everything? Or did the US and Taliban both do something?

--Uncle Ed 17:49, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

First off, it's a very bad idea to vote on this until we've hashed out what we agree on and what we disagree on. Voting is not nearly as precise or powerful a tool as our normal modes of editing. If we have a long conversation and understand why we disagree, but still disagree, then we can vote to resolve the disagreement. But let's at least try to edit it through standard procedures.

I disagree in this case. It seems like we're settling into two possible names and I think this has been aided by the vote, "U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan" vs. "2001 Afghanistan War". If the results are not clear, we can try an additional vote. Daniel Quinlan 21:45, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with changing it to U.S.-led, because that's more accurate. But I think dropping the "US" from the title at all would be deliberately obfuscatory by hiding the agents of the action. Would we rename the analagous Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to "1980s War in Afghanistan"? I don't think we would, or should, and I don't see why this page is any different. DanKeshet

Boy, thats a good argument. Based on it I withdraw my questions on the neutrality of the term and would not oppose it elsewhere (Iraq for instance). But I do still question whether it is accurate in the particular case. Most of the fighting was done by native forces. Our role was pretty much airpower and a few special ops. Can that be accurately described as an invasion? Does calling it that mislead the reader? If I can be satisfied in that I would withdraw my opposition. Ark30inf 21:30, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I don't think the USSR operation and the US-led operation are analogous enough to justify giving them the same name. Daniel Quinlan 21:45, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)
Why not? DanKeshet

If the argument is made that "invasion" is a POV term per se, then we should never use it, and we should also speak of the "German military operations in Poland in 1939" etc. We couldn't pass judgement here on what is an evil "invasion" and what is a possibly good "military operation". But I think the word "invasion" is sufficiently neutral. It is possible to think that an invasion is justified, so the title of the article does not imply a condemnation of the U.S. action. --Wik 21:17, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)

Invasion is POV in that it connects the US-led operation with other invasions where the term "invasion" is commonly used, such as Germany invading Poland, Japan invading Manchuria, USSR invading Afghanistan, etc. The US-led operation differs in that it was a joint operation between the Northern Alliance and the US-led coalition. You could make the case that the US aided on one side of a civil war of a sort, but most of the territory was never held by the US. Compare to Manchuria, Poland, the USSR invasion. Invasion is both POV and inaccurate. Daniel Quinlan 21:45, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)
I don't see any objective difference at all. Invaders often have local allies, so what? The country was (and still is) controlled by the U.S., the same as, say, Norway was controlled by Germany in 1940-45. And the word invasion is commonly used in this case too; it has been used by mainstream news sources like BBC and CNN. --Wik 21:58, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)
Germany invaded Norway, but that was just one tiny bit of WWII, not the entire war. As far as the POV goes, it's pretty simple to see the difference:
  • U.S. invasion of Afghanistan - term used by opponents (or more biased terms)
  • U.S. liberation of Afghanistan - term used by proponents (or more biased terms)
Daniel Quinlan 23:08, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)
I don't see what the point is about it being a tiny bit of WWII. You say yourself: "Germany invaded Norway". Then why not "the U.S. invaded Afghanistan"? One's moral judgement about the two cases may differ, but that should be irrelevant for an objective description. "Invasion" is also used not only by neutral sources, but even by many proponents. It is not comparable to "liberation" which is inevitably POV. --Wik 23:27, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)
point 1: "Invasion" generally describes the act of invading. I think it is POV to characterize the US ousting of the Taliban as an invasion. Also, this page is about the war.
point 2: Note that we also say "Liberation of France" without feeling too bad about it. That's why proponents don't feel too disingenious when they say "Liberation of Afghanistan", drawing a comparison between the Taliban and other "invaders", such as the Nazis. It's also why opponents don't feel too disingenious when they say "Invasion of Afghanistan", drawing a comparison between the US and other "invaders", such as the Nazis. The difference is whether or not you think the US was justified. "2001 War in Afghanistan" makes no such judgement. Daniel Quinlan 23:59, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)
1) There wasn't much of a war. We don't speak of the "war in Grenada" either. Due to the inequality of the opponents, the result that the Taliban would be driven from power was never in doubt. 2) "Liberation of France" is more acceptable since in that case a previous foreign occupier was driven out, and thereafter the "invaders" left themselves. In Afghanistan a domestic government was overthrown and the invaders are still there after two years. You can't compare the Taliban with the Nazis except to say they were both the "bad guys", but that's POV. The Taliban were a domestic force, not invaders. --Wik 00:18, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)
Both the French and the people of Afghanistan had more liberty after either operation. However, I think saying it was a "Liberation" would be POV when naming the article. "Invasion" isn't even correct since the Northern Alliance led the invasion of Taliban-controlled areas. Invasion is also not entirely correct since the Taliban didn't even control all of Afghanistan when the war broke out (you might say "Liberation" is not correct for similar and related reasons). Grenada was an invasion, not a war, because it was a single operation. Boom, over. The name has nothing to do with equality of opponents (case in point, Normandy Invasion). Daniel Quinlan 00:41, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)
Whether the people of Afghanistan have more liberty now is of course highly debatable. I'm not convinced by the other points either. The Northern Alliance troops couldn't have done anything on their own. The Taliban controlled 95% of the country. The whole thing was pretty much "boom, over" too, except that Afghanistan is larger than Grenada. Not sure what your point is about the Normandy invasion. --Wik 02:00, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)
This is a good debate, now I am leaning back toward US-led military operations in Afghanistan since it is NPOV, accurate, and does not limit it to the actual date of 2001 (since operations continue). Wishy-washy aint I.Ark30inf 00:42, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Even the dictionary agrees that "Invasion" is a somewhat loaded word: 1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.. Yes, there are exceptions where it isn't (and that's why the definition says "especially" and not "always", such as the Invasion of Normandy), but it implies that the US intends to hold Afghanistan as the Soviets did, as Germany did Europe, as Japan did Asia, etc. Daniel Quinlan 00:41, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)

I said I wouldn't get involved in this again, but I can't help myself. There are two issues causing this deadlock.

  • The first is that people are trying to impose a World War II era vocabulary on 21st century events. Since the advent of modern stateless terrorist organisations, this vocabulary has become obselete. Words like "war" "invasion" and "battle" no longer mean what they once meant, and no longer apply to many conflict situations. To compare what the US did in Afghanistan with the Normandy landings is absurd and misleading. The technically correct term for this kind of event is "military operations."
  • The second is that we all have political agendas here, though some of us are reluctant to admit to them. I supported the liberation of Afghanistan, and I acknowledge that this view colours my view on matters of terminology. I know that most of you come from the American intellectual class and that most of you opposed the US attack / invasion / imperialist conquest / genocide (or whatever) of Afghanistan. We are not going to agree on this question, which is why we need to find the least politically loaded term we can. I submit, again, that this is "military operations."
  • Adam 00:56, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
We all have our opinions. I gladly admit that I opposed what I consider an imperialist conquest. But I'm not calling for using the term "imperialist conquest" here. I think "invasion" is a sufficiently neutral term. If we use it for other invasions, then we have to use it here too. It would be an undue euphemism to call the U.S. action a "military operation" and the German action in Poland an "invasion." If "invasion" is to be considered a loaded term, we would have to stop using it entirely. --Wik 02:00, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)
Careful! There are a lot of people from the European intellectual class too. Anyway, I hold that "2001 War in Afghanistan" is somewhat better and at least as neutral as "U.S.-led military operations in Afghanistan". It's shorter too. I might be able to wrap my head around "U.S.-led War in Afghanistan" since I doubt anyone would claim the Taliban was leading things at any point after hostilities broke out. Daniel Quinlan 01:34, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)

"US-led war" is an attempt at compromise that produces a meaningless phrase. If there was a "war" the US did'nt "lead" it, it "waged" it. I would much rather avoid the word "war", which is, as I said above, not applicable to what was really a counter-terrorist police action, though it had aspects of an Afghan civil war mixed up in it. But if we have to have "war" I will settle for "Afghanistan War of 2001". Adam 01:49, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

But the title, of course, is the least of this article's problems. It remains a morass of propaganda, irrelevant detail and out-of-date reportage, and it remains poorly structured and badly written. Adam 01:52, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well, it's an interesting view that one country should have the right to police the world according to its own rules. You may well argue that it was justified, but it's still an invasion. --Wik 02:06, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)

Folks, lets take this one thing at a time. Can we settle on a title thats NPOV and accurate even if its not our favorite?Ark30inf 02:08, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Indeed, and I think that title is "Afghanistan War 2001". It tells us where the event happened, it more-or-less tells what the event was, and it tells us when it happened. There will continue to be objections to "invasion", so this is the nearest to a consensus title we are likely to get. Adam
Cool, how about it all?Ark30inf 03:07, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
No, let's just fix a deadline for the vote, and then go by the majority. How about 24 hours from now? --Wik 03:12, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)
I was actually hoping there could be consensus. But I suppose thats a utopian dream.Ark30inf 03:19, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
We would have a consensus if only everyone would agree with me :) Adam
Afghanistan War 2001 does seem the better option - it isn't as simple as comparing it to other 'invasions', since the US led coalition does not even really control most areas of Afgh. There are so many other factions involved, and such a complex political and miltary landscape (conflict within the NA, warlords acting pretty much independently, other coalition actors etc) that to characterise it simply as a us led invasion seems too oversimplify.212.112.96.46 05:30, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

What we really need for the progress of why the US will not win the war in so-called Afghanistan is different meanings! The decisive step in the newest US-expeditionary war-tactic is to reduce the role of Hekmatiar in the Herat-throughpass to Kabul. He will not go away. And nevertheless Rumsfeld declared on C-span recently that his forces will extend the reign of US-military control beyond the Kabul aerea-borders.

[edit] Naming revisited

Allow me to summarize some of the issues raised to see if we can find a better name. My listing of the issues here does not mean that the issues themselves have not been disputed or that I don't dispute them.

  • "invasion" has POV connotations of aggression.
  • "invasion" is inaccurate, because the US' role was minor on the ground, major in the air.
  • Gives all agency to the US, whereas there were two sides fighting in the war.
  • Name obscures role played by non-US, US allied forces. (hence "U.S.-led")

Objections to other names (e.g. "2001 Afghanistan War", "War in Afghanistan") include:

  • Did not take place entirely in 2001.
  • Obscures role played by a major combatant (the US).
Doesn't it equally obscure the role played by Al-Qaida and the Taliban too? I have a hunch that second objection is primarily raised by people who want to highlight the role played by the US because of their views of the US. Daniel Quinlan 20:07, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)
No, by being the de facto government of Afghanistan, I consider the Taliban to be covered in the name "War in Afghanistan". DanKeshet 20:34, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)

Are there any names which answer all of these objections? Let me propose "US-Afghan War". (By analogy, the page Soviet invasion of Afghanistan could be renamed Soviet-Afghan War.) This addresses all the points I have summarized. Unfortunately, it suffers from another point:

  • Not widely used.

And I'm going to propose another vote block, with a twist: 1) instead of assuming the form of the title, we list the whole title. 2) we list the objections along with the titles. 3) we don't start voting until 48 hours after it's been posted, so we have a chance to list all the objections thoroughly. DanKeshet

Why? The current vote has produced two titles which happen to be the most popular ones:
I wish we could all come to agreement, but we seem to be locked, largely for reasons of POV, I'm afraid. Until people get over trying to push various points, I think we're going to be stuck here. If the only issue with the "2001" is that the war extended into 2002, then let's talk about fixing that. Daniel Quinlan 20:07, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)
Daniel, I don't consider us locked. We're taking part in a conversation, spread out over a few days and a few server outages. I actually think we're making progress; new names have been suggested. And at least I--and I hope others--understand people's objections and reasoning much better. There's no rush; better to get it done well then just be done with it. DanKeshet

[edit] No Consensus

The reason there is no consensus is because of a POV conflict.

Half of us feel that what the US did in Afghanistan, beginning in 2001, constitutes an illegitimate invasion. We want the word "invasion" in the title to reflect our POV: so that everyone knows it wasn't a "fair fight". That nasty bully George W. Bush just went in and smashed the sovereignty of an innocent country that was just minding its own business: a clear case of naked aggression,

The other half of us don't want the title to express this POV: we'd rather put it into the article itself, properly attributed. The motive for this can be either (a) because we disagree with the "evil aggressive" POV or (b) because we just want to keep POV out of article titles.

The only way this conflict (between Wikipedians) can be resolved is if there is some higher principle we can all agree on. --Uncle Ed 14:01, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ed, please. Claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is more POV is just petty. DanKeshet

Well, currently the article says in the first sentence that the Northern Alliance "invaded" Afghanistan. Perhaps a name change could alleviate such gross misunderstanding.--Pharos 03:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Extradition/Negotiations

Re: my recent edit/reversion: the taliban specifically offered to extradite to a "neutral nation, not the United States", not to an Islamic nation. See [1]. Also, regarding the final bit about moderates, their intent was BOTH to convince Omar AND to forestall U.S. hostilities, thus the particular choice of phrasing. If it is tortured, that can be ammended, but both need to be communicated. Finally, I don't know why we would want to leave out that Bush repeatedly refused negotiation or discussion, since this is a highly significant point demonstrating the extent to which he was willing to avoid military action in a controversial campaign. Graft 04:54, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Very well. I left in some of that, although I reworked it quite a bit. My explanation of the changes:

  • removed (i.e., not the United States) — redundant text, a bit too editorial comment-to-audience-ish
  • changed give up bin Laden to turn bin Laden over to the U.S. — I don't know, it just seemed like the first one implied he was going to be strung up without a trial (counter example: Mohammed Atta).
  • changed to forestall hostilities to and avoid the impending retaliation from the United States — I think it's necessary to make clear that hostilities had already begun, "forestall" is a bit on the wishful thinking side, "avoid" seems a lot more accurate.
  • changed last sentence to President Bush rejected these offers made by the Taliban as unacceptable and the administration stated that negotiation based on these offers was out of the question. — I looked at the several speeches made by Bush and some press conferences and this seemed more accurate of what was said and is still accurate about what happened. I left in your out of the question which you were so fond of. ;-)

Daniel Quinlan 06:25, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by Mohammed Atta,
Meaning the U.S. seems to be engaging in a trial. We'll have to see what happens with the military tribuals, I suppose. Daniel Quinlan 05:59, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)
but I have no problem with that change. As far as "neutral nation", the Taliban specifically said, not the U.S. and not the Taliban, so we should say that. You're right about the forestalling hostilities.
As to the characterization of Bush's rejection, I have lots of problems with this; the Taliban made a series of offers, all of which were rejected. Meanwhile Bush made a demand that essentially involved surrendering to an American occupation and ceding control of the country, and said it was "not open to negotiation". In other words, he made it basically impossible for the Taliban to avoid a conflict and still remain in power.
No, he only demanded inspections of (former) terrorist camps. Inspections do not mean giving over control of the country. The U.S. inspected Soviet disarmament and vice versa. The U.N. conducted inspections in Iraq for a while. Et cetera. It's nothing unusual. Daniel Quinlan 05:59, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)
Even the rather mild demand of evidence (which is normal for extradition - extradition without evidence is fairly unheard of) before giving up bin Laden was rejected. Your version of the text simply doesn't bring this out. Paying lip service to diplomacy is propaganda - I think in the interest of fairness we should be clear about this. Graft 02:06, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
There are reports [2] that U.S. had been attempting to negotiate with the Taliban to extradite bin Laden for years before 9/11, but the Taliban kept demanding more and more evidence — bear in mind that bin Laden was already implicated in the U.S. Embassy bombings, the U.S. had already provided more than enough evidence. Now, you can claim the U.S. should have let the Taliban "save face" somehow, but I think that is fairly unheard of: let the people supporting the terrorists that just killed 3000 of your citizens to save face, extradite to a Islamic (later, neutral) nation, when the crimes were all committed on U.S. soil (embassies and the WTC). It's not like the U.S. was negotiating a trade treaty, they were trying to get the Taliban, not exactly democracy or clear thinking in action, to turn over bin Laden and other Al-Qaida. Realistically, that was never going to happen. The Taliban barely even scratched the surface of the first demand, bin Laden. Daniel Quinlan 05:59, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)

Anyhow, "paying lip service to diplomacy" is your point of view, the current text is crystal clear that Bush turned down the offers. There is no need to rub in that point or imply that either side is to blame for the hostilities commencing, it's not an editorial, stick to facts about what happened. Daniel Quinlan 05:59, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I don't think the U.S. was interested in getting bin Laden turned over at all, since they could easily have negotiated that position if they had so desired. But this is conjecture, so it doesn't belong in the article. As to negotiating with the Taliban, I've read many contradictory claims, including that the Taliban had no truck with bin Laden, bin Laden was under house arrest, bin Laden was a strong influence on the Taliban, bin Laden was a "tolerated guest" of the Taliban, and that the Taliban attempted to assassinated bin Laden on at least one occassion. Anyway, I'm content to let the article stand, though I think it paints rather too kind a picture of Bush's diplomatic efforts. Graft 13:51, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think you guys are getting closer to a good version of the first few paragraphs. I just have one quick question. It says that moderates from the Taliban "allegedly" met US officials, but doesn't give any clue as to who "alleges" this. Where is this coming from? DanKeshet 18:27, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)

I found an article which had a few sources, but I can't find it again (Washington Post?). I'll try again later. Daniel Quinlan 20:34, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)
Cool. While we're at it maybe we could change "allegedly" to "reportedly" (once we say who reports it) or "according to ... reports", because allege has a particular negative connotation that I don't understand here. DanKeshet
Ah, yes, I even linked to it above, here's a slightly better link: http://www.chicagotribune.com/search/chi-0110290220oct29,0,4208843.story (original title: Diplomats Met With Taliban on Bin Laden | Some Contend U.S. Missed Its Chance) — I couldn't find it again because while it's a Washington Post story, it's not easily found on their site. Daniel Quinlan 22:16, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)
That article is interesting and relevant. But the text in our article refers to meetings in October, whereas the linked WPost article refers to a 3-year string of meetings "right up until September 11", but doesn't refer to any meetings afterward. I'm not saying I don't think those meetings happened, just that the linked article is about something different. Should we change our text, or was there another article? DanKeshet
You have a good point, but I do think the Washington Post article points out the need for several changes in this article:
  1. "the Taliban government in Afghanistan which allegedly provided support to al-Qaida and gave them safe haven" — I think it's clearly more than allegedly, especially with respect to safe haven.
  2. "Their initial response was to demand evidence of bin Laden's culpability in the September 11th attacks and to offer to try him in an Islamic court." — should be clearer that there was already ample evidence of bin Laden's culpability in previous attacks against the U.S. Also, "initial response" implies this is a new response. It was more like a repeat of their prior first response. Finally, "evidence" should be more like "more evidence".
Basically, I think it's important for the article to avoid implying that the situation with respect to trying to extradite bin Laden and get the Taliban to stop supporting Al-Qaida was a completely new initiative started the day after September 11th. It wasn't new and it wasn't just the United States. Daniel Quinlan 06:10, Oct 10, 2003 (UTC)
The relevant article is here, by John F. Burns of the new york times. Graft 15:19, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Is the invasion over?

The recent U.S. involvement in Iraq has been broken into two wiki-parts: 2003 invasion of Iraq and 2003 occupation of Iraq.

Is there a separate wiki-article for the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan? Or are current events of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan listed here?

To be specific, these news story [3] and [4] refer to deaths of a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan. Should reference to their deaths be placed in this article or a different article? Kingturtle 21:27, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

So why is Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan a big-I event but U.S. invasion of Afghanistan not? Is that for some "reason"? Hell the opponents (fundie Muslims) and outcome (breakup of the invading country into several states) will be the same in both cases, so that's one of many arguments for equal treatment.

Also were there any predicted effects of invading Afghanistan? In *either* case? Breakups of superpowers seem pretty important side effects so it's worth finding out if anyone predicted this...

I believe that characterising an allies contribution as only "moral support" because of the size of their deployed force sets a bad precedent. In this operation, as in others, several of the so-called allies had their special forces deployed on the ground and thus made a contrbution far greater than their numbers would suggest. Julianp 05:01, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties

I think it is to the shame of wikipedia that this article has a photo of a plane but none of a victim. Get-back-world-respect 11:25, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. It is tremendously POV to have illustration after illustration of soldiers and none of the casualties and destruction caused by the fighting. No one can claim that wars are this pretty and clean. 134.153.181.22 22:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the statements added by my american friend concerning the excessive use of AIP as a source in Marc W. Herold's dossier. I have had a through look at it and think that such an accusation is just a blatant lie in order to discredit his politically-charged findings. I suggest that every critic has a look at the report himself - for each casualty the source or sources are listed and AIP plays only a minor role. Besides, criticising the use of AIP implies that it is less "objective" then western mainstream media - and I think we all should know trustworthy they are. Propaganda model

Turrican

Lets look at the deleted statement, shall we?

Many people dispute Herold's estimates citing his heavy use of Afghan Islamic Press (the Taliban's official mouthpiece).

Well, many people who have looked into Herold's work have come up with criticisms. Would you deny this? And before you start on an on about warmonger this and baby killer that ............ just please spare me. Would you also deny that these critics of Herold question his use of the AIP? Would you yourself condiser the mouthpiece of the Taliban to be an objective source? There are also other criticims of Herolds work as well inlcuding double counting of casualties, as well as simple statistical errors that although Herold has been asked to, never adressed.

Would you like to see an example of Herold's impressive work?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/565otmps.asp?pg=2

Or how about the way Herold deals with people who dare to question his work.

http://angrycyclist.blogspot.com/2002_10_27_angrycyclist_archive.html#85630734

Anyone with eyes can see that Herold has a definite agenda, and it sure as shit aint the truth.

Whatevre the real number of collateral dead, it's still the most bloodless war in modern Afghan history. Perhaps I will mention that in my next edit? TDC 05:06, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)


My dear american friend and untiring crusader for "the truth"

I have just read the article at the weekly standard and I my opinion that those who deny his finding come from a certain political background has in now way been altered.

> Joshua Muravchik, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute,

[5] [6]

You can of course add a link to his criticism of Herold, but don't write "many people" and dont forget to add this persons association with the AEI so that other people can judge for themself if they should trust this source And as to the Weeky Standard itself [7].

It is in no way surprising that the prime voice of the neoconservatives doesn't want to hear anything about what you call collateral dead and what I call dead civilians. I have also read the Angry Cyclist Blog and don't think that such vulgar,racist "War with Islam / Islamofascists" trash should even be considered relevant when it comes to serious critic of Marc Herold's work.

You know there are probably still Nazis denying the Holocaust - but that doesn't make it true. The same goes for islamophobic, racist, neoconversatives who constantly deny even the existence of the victims of their neoimperial crusades.

Turrican

Let me see if I get this right, anyone who dares to question either the accuracy or the methodology of Herold’s findings must, by nature, be a neo-conservative warmonger? The analysis performed by Muravchik on the Chowkar-Karez incident has no credibility why exactly? Is it because Muravchik is wrong? It it because he did not point out the vast inconsistencies in Herold’s work? Or do you simply reject Muravchik comments because he is one of those dreaded Jewish neo-cons. Please be specific here, because if Muravchik's work is going to be reject or even frowned upon solely on ideological grounds, then we must too reject and/or frown upon Herold’s work on solely ideological grounds. Herold, after all, seems as agenda driven as anyone else in this whole debate, or do you reject this as well?.

The only reason I linked to Muravchik's article was because it was a good example of what is wrong not only with Herold’s findings, but also his attitude.

And although it would satisfy your urge to paint all those who reject Herold’s findings as part of the grand neo-con cabal, there are many individuals who have looked into Herold’s numbers and have problems with accuracy/methodology. Marc Cooper who writes for the LA Times as well as the Nation Magazine is very much on the left end of the spectrum, but he has criticized Herold’s work on the same grounds as Muravchik has. Same for Matt Welch, Hitchens, Renolds, Carl Conetta [8] etc ... etc .... etc.

So as you can see Herold does have critics, and they are many.

And just for the record, the Los Angeles Times put the number of collateral dead at 1,067 to 1,201.

On a side note, I find your bleeding heart pleas for recognition of the Afghani dead truly touching, but I wonder, do you read much Martin Amis?

I also like your comparison between those who disagree with Herold's findings and Holocaust deniers. Are you vapid that the only thing you can fall back on is comparisons to Nazi Germany?

That’s what people round my parts call some pussy ass weak sauce. TDC 15:40, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree with TDC - let's PLEASE refrain from ad hominem arguments. Herold has many critics, and they can't be roundly dismissed simply because they write from the AEI, which you (Turrican) do not like. Please keep your political agenda safely tucked away. That is NOT the purpose of Wikipedia.
Also, this is NOT Usenet, and I really tire of seeing you two (and others) go back and forth on the moral question of civilian casualties. Please do not snipe at each other because you disagree. Or find a nice IRC channel where you can hack it out. Graft 15:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Before I forget it : Graft, I think that the part of our discussion concerning the casualties was necessary and that we rather sticked to the point. I mean, what do you expect when people with such extreme political and philosophical differences clash ?

TDC : > or the methodology of Herold’s findings must, by nature, be a neo-conservative > warmonger? The analysis performed by Muravchik on the Chowkar-Karez incident > > has

I don't think so but in this case this is certainly true. Also, what exactly do you want to imply when you refer to my dislike of the dreaded jewish Neo-Cons ? That I am an Anti-Semite ? My reference to the Holocaust deniers was made because in both cases denial of ideologically motivated killings is used to whitewash a certain political movement. I have never heard of Martin Amis but considering that he was written a book on Stalinism and on the intellectual left you probably want to implicate that I wouldn't critisise Stalin and Mao as much as I would the americans. This shoe really doesn't fit. What I don't like is that while in Mao's and Stalin's Case most people know what they have done, the extent of american atrocities is neither widely known nor accepted. Have your ever read William Blum ?[9]

Turrican


Yes, I have read William Blum. I especial like the point he made about the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan where he described it as an honest attempt to shore up a popular and progressive people's government.

But who gives a shit, right? The article is much improved now. TDC 15:55, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Length and focus

The contributions by anonymous user 24.228.82.146 who seems to be solely interested in military subjects made this article 46 kilobytes long and gave a strong focus on military proceedings, which are not particularly important to the average reader. Could we condense this a bit? Get-back-world-respect 14:19, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mental Health Problems after Combat Duty in Iraq and Afghanistan

How do you think should we include the following article? Combat Duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mental Health Problems, and Barriers to Care [[User:Get-back-world-respect|Image:Abugitmo.jpg]] 17:05, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Post-Invasion Military Operations

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?

[edit] 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.

Turrican

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 ?


Turrican

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.

Turrican

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.

Turrican


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.

Turrican

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)

[edit] 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?

[edit] first to land in afgan

The norwegian special forces Fsk.

Well *someone* had to check to see if it was safe. The Norwegians just picked the short straw. ;) :P--KrossTalk 20:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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.

[edit] 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 propaganda or myths.'

It would be better to have some evidence than this claim-couter-claim I think.

Guinnog 00:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Points on the Name debate

A few points I feel should be mentioned.
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.

Nordenfeldt

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
  1. "NATO invasion of Afghanistan" is the technically correct term and should as such be used.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 Rurak 04:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
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 Sunborn 16:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree with the above stating "2001 invasion of Afghanistan" is most appropriate. --Zer0faults 17:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree with "2001 invasion of Afghanistan". Though "U.S.-led" is logically fine (just typographically hard to read). JackyR 12:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
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 Bonkers 09:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
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). Thbz 10:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
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. --Zer0faults 17:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The invasion was US-led and very few other countries participated. Later on other countries took the command of some forces. Añoranza 00:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
You can find the timeline online, the US and UK lead the assault and soon after numerous countries through NATO joined. --Zer0faults 00:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The UK had by far less troops, so the invasion was definitely US-led. Añoranza 22:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
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. --Zer0faults 10:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
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. Añoranza 01:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
"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 Gnome 23:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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. 70.48.12.70 01:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The link now works, so there is no need to worry. (RiseAgainst01 01:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Sources box

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, JackyR 21:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Citations needed for Human Rights section please. I removed 2 faulty links leaving 2 allegations without supporting evidence. --Zer0faults 17:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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. Añoranza 08:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

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 --Zer0faults 14:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
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. Añoranza 19:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
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)" --Zer0faults 13:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
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. Añoranza 11:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
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. --Zer0faults 11:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
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. --Zer0faults 11:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psychological Warfare

This section now needs sources, the one link to a Japanese news source has died and is no longer available. --Zer0faults 13:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title Change

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." --Northmeister 02:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur, that a good point, considering that the NA was involved in the fight. A bit more like a civil war. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 04:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
You are right about the NA (Northern Alliance), who welcomed America and helped in defeating the Taliban regime. --Northmeister 06:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
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 Swan 14:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
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. --Northmeister 14:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
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 Cudgel 16:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Please name one Northern Alliance leader who supports democracy. -- Geo Swan 02:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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 Devil 06:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


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.

This was more then just an invasion. --zero faults talk 16:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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 Devil 21:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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. --Northmeister 23:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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 Swan 02:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
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? --Northmeister 02:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Given that the current title has some grammar issues ("United States" isn't an adjective, for one), why not just move it to something like War in Afghanistan (2001) and avoid the issue altogether? Kirill Lokshin 13:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, as this is a NATO war, not just the U.S., shouldn't that be in the title?--Pharos 01:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Enduring Freedom

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 Lokshin 13:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree.--James Bond 13:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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 Lokshin 00:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Operation Enduring Freedom should be expanded, but not merged obviously. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree the article with the propaganda title should be made into a redirect. Añoranza 04:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
Please read what others write before you comment on it. Or don't you know what disambiguation means? Añoranza 04:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Another rude comment. I will not replying to you further here today because of this. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 04:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
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)

[edit] 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 Wicked 21:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I restored it. As the term is not neutral, it should not be used without comment or at least inverted commas. Añoranza 00:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
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 Lokshin 00:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
War of Northern Agression!! Seriously any problems with this term should be handled on the War on Terrorism page. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
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. Añoranza 04:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
SO put the inverted commas and remove the POV tag, if that is truely the entirety of your debate. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 04:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I will do that. Añoranza 04:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Its great when we can reach a compromise. Those POV tags were ugly. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 04:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New article

Large parts of the "Taliban insurgency" part moved to new article Taliban insurgency--TheFEARgod 11:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the removal of information from this article. Do we really need a new article? Dionyseus 20:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

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.--TheFEARgod 08:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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. Dionyseus 08:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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)--TheFEARgod 13:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

whoops the article and talk page names are different. Ok keep the text here but continue workin on new page Taliban insurgency (see also Iraqi insurgency)--TheFEARgod 13:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

What about this suggestion for organizing the article(s) on the most recent Afghan conflict?KarlXII 11:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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)


[edit] Denmark

Needs an update ...I'll try Medico80 07:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Northern Alliance

I found it here, [10], can we use it or does it not qualify for fair use? I cant really find any information on it. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops, seems like its already uploaded, Image:Flag of Afghanistan 1992.gif. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] name

why that name? 2001? and it continued beyond that year...--TheFEARgod 16:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

i've changed the name to get someone's attention regarding the issue --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removal of un-needed stuff

Removed... < This does not happen in the case of the 2003 invasion of Iraq> Do to its irrelevancy of the diplomatic solutions Drew1369 22:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nature of the coalition

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 peters 21:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Night 02:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)"

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!).

Difference: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2001_war_in_Afghanistan&diff=84997138&oldid=84961197

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.

Oh, and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan needs a flag.

--HanzoHattori 07:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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. --NYCJosh 17:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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. --HanzoHattori 23:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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. --NYCJosh 00:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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. --HanzoHattori 18:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


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.--NYCJosh 21:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] image

Don't we have any images more representative of the war than that strange black and white photo of US soldiers on horseback? yandman 13:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Beats me. I thought the same --HanzoHattori 00:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

If anyone objects switching to AfghUSmillitaryDOD.jpg (commons), speak now or forever hold your peace... yandman 08:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panjwaii

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 Commodore 22:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

All done.

[edit] 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

Would you vandalising this article at once, Mr. Warrior? --HanzoHattori 01:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You keep removing citations previously approved by the rest of the editors. THAT is vandalism. Warrior on Terrorism 15:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. What are you talking about? Show me (everyone), because now I say you are lieing.
The proof is here: [11] 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: [12] - 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. --HanzoHattori 01:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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 Terrorism 08:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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. --HanzoHattori 20:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you forgotten that the Taliban was the Government of Afghanistan, and that therefore some of them were civilians? Warrior on Terrorism 02:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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? --HanzoHattori 13:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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 Terrorism 20:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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. Shigernafy 07:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. They ruled the country, thus, they were the Government, legitimate or ilegitimate. Warrior on Terrorism 07:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh. So? Btw, the word is "government", Mr. Warrior on Terrorism|Warrior on Terrorism. --HanzoHattori 10:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
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.

Shigernafy 11:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

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 Terrorism 04:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

When either editor in a dispute removes a link to a respected source such as CBS News or CNN it constitutes vandalism. Please work out your differences through the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. DurovaCharge! 03:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italian contingent

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. --HanzoHattori 19:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The Italians are not fighting so your point is?.......

Actually, the Italians were involved in combat ops as part of OEF in 2003 and 2005. Chwyatt 10:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

Are there any maps of advances and campaigns? I'm kind of a visual person. 129.186.237.93 16:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time to unlock

User:Warrior on Terrorism was banned. --HanzoHattori 20:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Time to unlock SERIOUSLY

[edit] Canadian Involvement

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. Longbranch 00:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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? Chwyatt 14:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
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. Chwyatt 11:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
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-seven 18:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
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. (RiseAgainst01 00:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC))
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. (RiseAgainst01 01:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Added al-Qaeda Flag

I have added the al-Qaeda flag to the info box both on the combatant, and commander section. (RiseAgainst01 00:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Alphabetically Organizing Combatants

Yeah I Reorganized the combatants in alphabetical order. (RiseAgainst01 01:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC))
Instead of reorganizing the Commanders Alphabetically, but putting them in sequence order of there country in the Combatants list (RiseAgainst01 01:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC))
Which I just realized was Alphabetical order haha. (RiseAgainst01 01:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC))
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 ??? (RiseAgainst01 23:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC))

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. Chwyatt 20:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
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. Chwyatt 09:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copperchair sockpuppets

This page is a favorite of Copperchair (talk · contribs · logs · 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.

  1. Esaborio (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  2. Varese Sarabande (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  3. SPECTRE (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  4. Tony Camonte (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  5. The end is near (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  6. Don't fear the Reaper (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  7. Bad Night (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  8. Ossara (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  9. Warrior on Terrorism (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  10. Osaboramirez (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Thank you. TomTheHand 14:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flags on the front page

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. Chwyatt 20:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

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. Longbranch 04:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


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). Chwyatt 09:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


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?? CaptinJohn 12:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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. Chwyatt 14:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

69.138.42.59 04:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CIA

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. 216.67.155.40 03:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attack on afghanistan.... NOT an invasion

if it were an invasion then that would mean complete control of the Americans on the Afghans with their laws and basically i dont think that Islam will be wiped out of Afghanistan ... Afghanistan can not be invaded. This is a war and attacks from one country to the other not an invasion. Afghanistan canot be invaded .....http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/14/afghanistan/ the taliban were not even in full control they were just phsycotic people. this is just attacks from taliban and U.S soldiers not the afghan people itself.


[edit] 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 removed.

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 (2001–2006)

Thoughts? Chwyatt 11:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


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.

I completely agree with Chwyatt.Sijo Ripa 21:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Commander

Isn't the Canadian commander Rick Hillier now? Somone please answer my question. RiseAgainst01 22:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
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. Raoulduke47 20:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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.


[edit] 2006: NATO in southern Afghanistan – new article

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. Chwyatt 12:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. Publicus 19:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/a/r/Talk%7EWar_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29_c35c.html"

Static Wikipedia (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -

Static Wikipedia 2007 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -

Static Wikipedia 2006 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu

Static Wikipedia February 2008 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu