Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Elizabeth II

Should a monarch be listed as a commander despite the British Armed Forces being controlled de facto by the Prime Minister of the UK rather than the queen? Would it be advisable to remove her from the list or is her traditional role of commander in chief too important to ignore? (I am aware she has no input with regards to strategy). G. R. Allison (talk) 12:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This matter has already been discussed at length. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Rather than just simply stating that, as helpful as that is, could you elaborate please? For example, a link?G. R. Allison (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you might have noticed the prior discussion as it is right above here on this talk page; at #commanders. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Foot in mouth style, I apologise to you for this. I really should have noticed. Feel free to delete this section, sorry. G. R. Allison (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Background section is biased

The background section cites Rashid to suggest that U.S. intelligence supported the Taliban from 1994 to 1998. But it doesn't cite Rahid, it cites some guy who claims Rashid said this without providing a source. Shouldn't more evidence of this assistance be required for it to be included? Also, it says that this continued up till 2000, which is based on a single quote from a Congressman. How is that one quote remotely adequate to verify the accuracy of the charge?

Also, it says that the Pakistani diplomat indicated that the U.S. threatened military action if the Taliban did not agree to a plan to federalize Afghanistan. But the BBC article indicated that the threat was mainly over bin Laden and al-Qaeda. 69.133.126.117 (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we can trust Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed as a reliable source considering the US government also used him as a source. This article is not a trial so we typically only need to establish that a single source is reliable to justify inclusion in the article (assuming no other policies are broken). Are you alleging that a congressman is not a reliable source for actions of the US? Even if he were lying, we are allowed to publish allegations that have been widely reported on, as is the case here.

On Wikipedia, we try to cover things fairly with respect to their WP:WEIGHT and the article makes it clear that the main justification for the invasion was bin Laden. There are only two sentences addressing the federalization issue. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The source is Ahmed citing Rashid, but he doesn't say exactly what Rashid said. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources on this site, and a paragraph from an opinion piece from an obscure website doesn't cut it, quite frankly. You say that the allegations have been widely reported. Really? Can you give evidence from any mainstream sources suggesting that U.S. intelligence supported the Taliban from 1994 to 1998?

And on what planet is a couple of sentences uttered by a partisan congressman 10 years ago considered "confirmation" for anything? If there is actual evidence, detail the evidence.

The background section certainly does not make clear that the justification was bin Laden. It does not report at all the fact that the U.S. shot cruise missiles at bin Laden training camps in 1998 and that sanctions were slapped on the Taliban in 1999 to turn over bin Laden. It does not state that the cited Pakistani diplomat stated that bin Laden was the justification for the alleged threat issued in July 2001, instead it implied the federaliztion/pipeline project was the justification. 69.133.126.117 (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

What exactly does he say? Also, please cite a policy for "exceptional claims require exceptional sources on this site." The actual website the cite is on doesn't matter so long as we know who wrote it. Are you disputing the reliability of this source? Do you allege that it is not Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed who wrote that article? Are you saying that he is lying? What is your specific objection?

Regarding the federalization issue, I just noticed there were 4 cites for it, which as far as allegations goes, is enough. Are you disputing their reliability?

The background section is followed by a section titled #U.S. plans prior to September 11, 2001. We do not need to include an entire article in one section. Does this section not address the information you listed? If so, feel free to add it where appropriate. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see verifiability which explains this applies to "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources". Which would accurately describe the claim that U.S. intelligence supported the Taliban from 1994 to 1998 which is based on zero evidence besides this guy. If it's so impeccable, why can't anyone cite a single mainstream source that lays out evidence that it is true? Why has this not been in the Wikipedia for eight years until now? Why is one obscure person's opinion considered 100% factual? Why does it not mention the (well documented) role of the Pakistani ISI in helping the Taliban?

The federaliztion/pipeline issue is a sideshow to this particular article. What I was getting at was that the Pakistani diplomat explicitly mentioned bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and that is not mentioned here. 69.133.126.117 (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, it seems your argument is backed by policy. I don't know that anyone has made a real effort to find mainstream sources for this because until now it hasn't been disputed. I usually only check source on really outrageous claims and IMO the US supporting a regime that turns around and kicks it in the teeth is hardly surprising. Gimme a day to google this. If I can't find anything, we can go ahead and edit the section. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I edited the page to reflect the changes that were needed. Thank you. 69.133.126.117 (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. While I wouldn't go so far as to call the section "biased" I would say that undue weight has been placed on both the pipeline project and US negotiations with the Taliban. The way the section reads now is that the US supported the Taliban over oil which is not true, the US was interested in bringing peace to Afghanistan with a coalition government including the Taliban. I don't think that changes need be immediate but I'd like to see a proposed draft from the IP using editor or at least hear some concrete, referenced solutions to these problems before changing anything. May I suggest starting here? TomPointTwo (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Note of interest, from the New York Times, 9/26/01: "In the 1980s, the Reagan administration delivered several hundred Stingers to Afghan resistance groups, including the Taliban. The Central Intelligence Agency, despite strenuous efforts, was never able to recover more than a few of the missiles after the war ended, even with big cash rewards." (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/26/news/26iht-stinger_ed3_.html) Danieldis47 (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Main pic

The quality of this picture montage is horrible. --121.72.192.243 (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Someone should rework it. --Fuzz2 (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to replace it was the last main pic. The pixel quality is horrible, and in any case it's up for speedy deletion since it lacks source info. HonouraryMix (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Status of the Afghan Army

I returned this new section to the War in Afghanistan page, where it originally had been placed (now with a more descriptive title). As the US military strategy is predicated on a transition of responsibilities to the Afghan Army, the status of said army is a critical issue in the war and deserves attention as such. (Note: No explanation was given for removal of the section). Danieldis47 (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I moved it because that section seemed to deal more with the failings of the Afghan Army, rather than talking about their actual deployment. I agree that the status of the Afghan Army is a critical issue, however, I didn't think this section effectively dealt with what their current role--rather it seemed to be a list of their ongoing issues. Perhaps we could change the tone of the section to talk about what the Army is doing, size, deployment, etc--and move the various recruitment issues into the regular Afghan Army page? Publicus 22:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I see your points. A section that is meant to provide an overview of the Afghan army should indeed have more info about size, structure, deployment, current role, etc.

What I intended to add is a section more along the lines of the "Important Special Issues" that are now in the article, such as "Risk of a failed state," "Current Public Opinion" and "Human Rights abuses." The weighty issue here is: "Current US military policy is built around the training of, and transition to, the Afghan army -- but that Afghan army is (by the reliable accounts provided) severely dysfunctional. So how can the transition occur?

Yes, the text deals mostly with the failings of the Afghan army. I think one would be hard-pressed to find unbiased positive accounts of today's Afghan army.

I think the fuller overview of the Afghan army is best handled in a separate article, such as exists now.

Let me try to massage this a bit and post the attempt here for comment. And certainly, if anyone finds reliable alternative views on the current Afghan army, they should be included. Danieldis47 (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Below is a draft of section on the Afghan army -- all feedback welcome.

DRAFT

-- Capacity of the Afghan army --

The plan to transfer security responsibility to Afghan forces is the centerpiece of U.S. President Barack Obama's revised Afghanistan strategy. (http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Gates-Visits-Troops-in-Afghanistan-78851682.html) Current U.S. plans call for boosting the Afghan National Army to 134,000 soldiers by October, 2010. The army currently numbers about 95,000 troops. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ir2cRuoA8gnMPkSnCviB-GNx2YaQD9CBE7S80)

This increase in Afghan troops would allow the U.S. to begin withdrawing American forces in July, 2011, as now planned. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/02/AR2009120203472.html) The transfer of security responsibilities cannot happen unless the Afghan government and the coalition can recruit, train and retain soldiers. (http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Gates-Visits-Troops-in-Afghanistan-78851682.html)

At present, the Afghan National Army is plagued by inefficiency and endemic corruption.[210] U.S. training efforts have been drastically slowed by the corruption, widespread illiteracy, vanishing supplies, and lack of discipline.[211]

U.S. trainers report missing vehicles, weapons and other military equipment, and outright theft of fuel provided by the U.S.[212] Death threats have been leveled against U.S. officers who try to stop Afghan soldiers from stealing. Afghan soldiers often find improvised explosive devices and snip the command wires instead of marking them and waiting for U.S. forces to come to detonate them. The Americans say this just allows the insurgents to return and reconnect them.[212] U.S. trainers frequently must remove the cell phones of Afghan soldiers hours before a mission for fear that the operation will be compromised.[213] American trainers often spend large amounts of time verifying that Afghan rosters are accurate — that they are not padded with “ghosts” being “paid” by Afghan commanders who quietly collect the bogus wages.[214]

The Afghan Army has severely limited fighting capacity.[212] Even the best Afghan units lack training, discipline and adequate reinforcements. In one new unit in Baghlan Province, soldiers have been found cowering in ditches rather than fighting.[215] Some are suspected of collaborating with the Taliban against the Americans.[212] “They don’t have the basics, so they lay down,” said Capt. Michael Bell, who is one of a team of U.S. and Hungarian mentors tasked with training Afghan soldiers. “I ran around for an hour trying to get them to shoot, getting fired on. I couldn’t get them to shoot their weapons.”[212]

Desertion is also significant problem in the Afghan Army. One in every four combat soldiers quit the Afghan Army during the 12-month period ending in September, 2009, according to data from the U.S. Defense Department and the Inspector General for Reconstruction in Afghanistan.[216]

---

Danieldis47 (talk) 11:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks great, let's add it to the article. Publicus 15:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Will do -- Danieldis47

Merge CIA

Someone has created a page for the 2009 Attack on CIA base. This does not seem to be an independent topic. Its encyclopedic content should be at most a couple of sentences in this article. It should be merged in. --Bejnar (talk) 07:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that someone has created a new article Forward Operating Base Chapman attack, merged in 2009 attack on CIA base and expanded it beyond all encyclopedic scope. --Bejnar (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a pretty significant attack on the CIA by the Taliban/AQ. It should probably have it's own article, with a mention or a wikilink on this page. Publicus 18:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

And a damn good article at that! Grant bud (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Waziristan War

The campaignbox for the Waziristan War should certainly be included on this page; some of the combatants are identical, its a neighboring region, similar rationales for conflict, the list goes on. In fact, the conflicts could almost be merged on many levels. Not sure why an editor removed it, but it should definitely be included. Publicus 18:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Casualties in Afghanistan(Update)

http://www.icasualties.org/OEF/index.aspx 1597 forign soldiers killed in Afghanistan.965 killed were US, 249 killed were UK and 383 killed were others.. Total: 8,436+

---

9401+ wounded (US: 4786, UK: 3309, Others: 1306) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.131.120 (talk) 13:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Afghan security forces:
6,500+ killed
Northern Alliance:
200 killed
Coalition:
1,597 killed (US: 965, UK: 249, Other: 383)
1 POW (US)
9,401+ wounded (US: 4,786, UK: 3,309, Other: 1,306)
Contractors:
139 killed
10,569 wounded (to 2007/03)
Total: 8,436+ killed

---

Please add below information this in this article.article.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_security_forces_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan

Afghan security forces losses in other time periods

2010

In 2010, 22 policemen and 16 soldiers were reported killed.

• January 14, 2010 - A police officer was killed and six others were wounded Wednesday in a roadside bombing in Ghazni province.

• January 17, 2010 - Various taliban attacks in country killed 2 Afghan soldiers, 5 policemen and an Afghan district chief.

• January 18, 2010 - Two policeman killed in a taliban attack in Afghan capital, Kabul.

Afghan private security guard losses

• January 13, 2010 - An Afghan PMC killed by a gunfire during a protest.

• January 18, 2010 - An Afghan PMC killed in a taliban attack in Afghan capital, Kabul.

I don't think it's particularly important that our casualties figure be incremented every time a news report comes out regarding the death of a policeman or soldier. People understand that figures like this are always an estimate. It should probably only be updated if it's off by a hundred or so. It might be an important project for you, but other editors really don't feel a pressing need to do this. The protection was set for a week. You can fix it after then, probably. Otherwise, you might consider creating an account. Autoconfirmed users (users who have made more than 10 edits) can edit semi-protected articles such as this one. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 09:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Above figures are confermed by Press release of military and news media.Their names, house adress, photo and all other informations of above casualties are confermed.Even i also mension refrence of news.If you want to conferm those news then search that news incident on google with date.Mostly news which i mension in refrence here, those news mention in icasualties.org, and i read those from icasualities.http://www.icasualties.org/OEF/index.aspx.icasualties have full casualty data of coalatin casualty with name age, home adress, branch, etc etcI cant make any account and i cant edit page becuase my IP is blocked and eit button is removed from the articles which was edited by me.So i request to add above information in the articles which i mentioned.I have 2 users both blocked because as i first make my first user but at starting i doesnt use that user too much.I edit without using users.But one day i use my user and unfortunately maybe i violate wikipedia rules, so that wikipedia's user Nick-D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nick-D blocked my user.And after that i cant edit any of those articles which was mostly editted by mine.So i request other people to add information in those articles.Nick-D also semi-protect some of talk pages where i mostly request to other people to correct these, or these information.I want to apologise for my mistake when i mistakely done by my user.I dont know how to appeal of unblock and how to say sorry to him.Because my user blocked and their are thousands of options in unblock appeal page.I dont know what should i do i unblock appeal page.Wikipedia should be updated and become easier so everyone easily understand wikipedia features.

Please 2nd my request is to aplogise and please can you please request to Nick-D to remove semi-block on those artcles which mostly i edit and unblock my user and mercy on me by sharing information with me.If i am wrong and i write any wrong information then tell me what is right?Please.Give me one chane.Please.Please.I request to Nick-D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nick-D

Wikipedia have extremely strit rules like if your user blocked then no way to unblock because of thousands of options.And if your first user blocked you cant make any other user unless you unblock appeal for your first user Which is appro. immpossible.And if you make 2nd user then that user also blocked by saying that your user belong to that blocked user.In youtube, yahoo answer and all other big and femous websites there are strict rules but not extremely strict.I mean if your first user blocked on those websites you can make 2nd user easily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.163.14 (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know what the whole story here is. I suspect it's an issue with communication. I've sent a message to Nick-D, we'll see where that goes. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I talked to Nick-D. One of the big issues is that you were block evading. "Block evasion" is where you use a different account or an IP to continue editting while you are blocked. This is very bad. When you are blocked, you are not supposed to edit Wikipedia in any way (except your talk page) until the block expires. Anyway, regarding the unblock request, the explanation is on your user account talk page. I also sent a message to the admin who blocked your account. Hopefully we can get some dialog going here regarding your improper edits and maybe get your account unblocked. You should only edit Wikipedia with one account though, ever. Even if you get blocked. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I dont know how can i edit.As in my city there is a electric laodshedding problem.So whenever light returns i edit freely.I have only and only 1 broadband net.Maybe in my country Pakistan IP is changed everytime when you on the internet.But whenever i enter ny user i cant edit anything, if i log off from my user then even after log off i cant edit any thing on wikipedia.I can make 2nd account in same way which i explain above, I think so.

If their is an violation happen by my user then tell me, next time i doesnt violate that thing.As now i doesnt know why my usser blocked so please help.Guide me.Tell me rules.

I have been following this for a while. Let me try to explain what you should do:

1. STOP editing without being logged in! This actually means: At the moment, you can only edit your talk page User talk:Mujahid1947.
2. Declare that you will not add content to articles that is not based on reliable sources, and that the content you are adding will represent what the sources you are using actually say.
3. Declare that you will only use one account on Wikipedia, and that you will not edit without being logged in to that account in a deceptive way. If you happen to edit using your IP by mistake, because you have been logged off and did not notice, or forgot to log in, then make an edit with your account to clarify the situtation.
4. Declare all accounts that you have used on Wikipedia in the past on your user page. It seems that you have edited on Wikipedia before registering your account Mujahid1947 (talk · contribs). If you haven't used any account prior to the account Mujahid1947 (talk · contribs), please state how long you have been editing on Wikipedia without an account (approximately), and name some pages that you have edited during that time. If you have never edited Wikipedia before registering the account Mujahid1947 (talk · contribs), please state that you never did so.
5. Explain where you think you have made mistakes prior to the block of your account. Describe how you would work in the future to avoid similar mistakes.
6. If you have misunderstood messages that have been posted to your talk page, or that have been posted to talk pages of articles that you have edited, please explain how and why you have misunderstood them, if possible.
7. Make these statement on the talk page of User talk:Mujahid1947.

If your statements are convincing, it is possible that your block will be reviewed. I cannot promise anything, however, and will only take a favorable view on your request if your statement really are convincing.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Taliban Casualties

I edited it from the cited page please do not change i added the numbers multiple times and checked the new sources! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.148.234 (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

PS who ever was doing the count missed a lot of numbers for 2001, that is why there is such a increase in numbers! (129.21.148.234 (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC))

The count is wrong according to the list sourced! Anyway I also suggest not providing a count and just the link to the list, I suggest this because people are adding sources to the list of Taliban deaths all the time (Not just for 2010 I added more for 2009 and 2001 a while back) so instead of the confusion and author errors of addition just putting a link to the list would be enough what do you say? ? ? (129.21.70.171 (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

Important: commanders shortened

I shortened the commanders section of the infobox by either moving people to the ISAF command wikilink or creating new wikilinks to the various armed forces command structure. I left what seemed like the current people actually in charge on the ground. As new commanders move in (around annually) we could move the new commander into the infobox and the old commander into the relevant wikilink. This will keep the infobox briefer and more informative. Publicus 20:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 23:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it doesn't look reasonable to me. --Fuzz2 (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all things, the anti-coalition forces template features Taliban commanders or other leaders who have died or were captured, which is in sharp contrast to the coalition template that is - according to you - only supposed to feature current commanders. Then you've left out the commanders of major troop contributors, commanders with NATO affilation and the political deciders should be noted as well - for example, the President of the United States is also the commander-in-chief of the US armed forces.

I also disagree with the casualties template. It doesn't make sense to list two countries under "KIA" but five under "WIA".

Agreed, I made the change on casualties.Publicus 16:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've started moving the former insurgent commanders into the same format as the coalition commanders, for example IMU. Instead of linking to two deceased commanders and an incorrect link to the current commander, it's more helpful to just have a link to the relevant "command" section for the IMU page. Obviously, it is a little harder to get a solid sense of insurgent command and control, since their organizations are less well-known and not as formally structured as coalition forces.Publicus 19:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding NATO affiliation commanders, I don't think it's necessary to list every single NATO contributor to ISAF forces. That can easily be covered in the ISAF article, which can give a detailed description. Also, regarding civilian command--again it is not necessary (in an infobox) to get into the various military and/or civilian command structures. What is relevant (for the infobox) is to know what are the current commanders of forces on the ground. The infobox provides a very simple, brief overview of what's going on in the war. The previous version, prior to moving commanders and replacing with wikilinks, didn't make it clear just who was in charge. There was a variety of links to individuals, some of whom were in command, some of whom used to be in command, and some of whom were part of the overall military structure for a particular country. I think it is far more helpful to simply have the current commanders (for both sides when available) and links to the relevant military command structures. This is especially important for the coalition force commanders who rotate out about once every year.Publicus 19:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Since when do we delete things from the infobox because they're covered in another article? That's the whole point of the infobox. You're right, it's supposed to provide a summary of the war. That's why several specific top commanders are listed, so people don't have to look at other articles. This, on the other hand, only links to commanders of USCENTCOM, Chiefs of the Defence Staff in the UK, and the top commanders of the ISAF. I think it's a little too simple to sum up 'commanders' with, essentially, three people. Both current and past commanders are relevent in the infobox, this infobox lists no commanders -- it just links to lists of three high military commands.--Swarm^Talk 04:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The infobox was becoming unworkable and unhelpful--that's why old commanders were removed from the list. I completely agree that several top commanders should be listed, another editor removed the top commanders from the top contributing forces. Publicus 23:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Those should be added again. If I'd realized it wasn't you, I would have added them back long ago. Swarm^(Talk) 06:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

UK Command

Does really the UK have a separate commad for Afghanistan? I'd like to see some sources for that. ¨¨ victor falk ^talk 17:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

As I have understood, some US troops are under direct CENTCOM command while the remainder is under ISAF command together with all the other coalition forces. Now, I thought that included British forces as well. I haven't heard of any kind of indepedent British command. I'd be most for grateful for information pointing out such a thing. ^walk victor falk ^talk 01:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The British operate under ISAF, like everyone else (bar maybe half the Americans), but unlike anyone else the British have a seperate command (and operation for that matter) the operate within ISAF but in their own operation, 'Operation Herrick'. Op Herrick with it's own independent command, but still under ISAF itself.

May I show you these pages..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Herrick

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Herrick_order_of_battle

and ofcourse the men on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_of_the_Defence_Staff_(United_Kingdom)#Chiefs_of_the_Defence_Staff

I hope this response and these links answer your question. Flosssock1 (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It does. Thank you.^walk victor falk ^talk 20:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, Flosssock1 (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about military commanders in War articles at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 72#Commanders_in_War_articles if anyone cares to comment. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality rating

I am curious as why this is rated as Start class. If it was nominated for Featured Article status, why isn't it currently a A-class or GA-class? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marine79 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

First thing I spotted was the lead (or lede). The article lead is supposed to summarise the article in two or three paragraphs, and that is certainly not the case here lol.

:I think that there would be a few other changes to achieve A or GA but it has been assessed previously and did not seem to meet the B class ratings criteria.

As you can see there is a comment in the top box -

if you cannot see it click the "show" next to Military history WikiProject (Rated Start-Class) (show)

If you now clik on "edit" at the top of the page you can see there are comments which have been made and hidden by using the <!-- hide this comment --> tags.

It seems after reading these that the article should be at level B3, but will need some more investigation to discover why this is not showing if I am correct...Chaosdruid (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Crap ! lol - I should have read the reviews page first lmao - In future can editors who have reviewed post here as well please lolChaosdruid (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Uncited casualty figures removed

In this edit I've removed the casualty figures from the infobox which weren't supported by a reliable source. Many of these figures were referenced to other Wikipedia articles (Wikipedia is not a reliable source), others - such as that for the number of POWs - weren't supported by the citation provided and some were just plain unreferenced. Nick-D (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Those others articles are sub-articles of this article.Please add the figures because informatio here is totally un-understandable.Please add all the figures and make wikipedia easy.I mean remove those information which are just as a rough or remove those refrence which are not found or which are not correct.Dont remove correct and confermed data.

And please add the total of this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Afghan_security_forces_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan

I doesnt write total of that page becuse i am afriad that maybe you again block my user.

So please write total of that page.As i update the page from November 2009-Present so in 2010 i count the total.Below is the total of 2010.

In 2010, 27 policemen, 26 soldiers and 1 interperator killed while 3 policemen captured in 2010.

If you want to count then count yourself.I count several times and its correct.

Seeing as you say since it is wiki the sources are wrong well... the sources provided in the wiki article are all good sources, so I am going to add the estimated taliban body count! (129.21.148.234 (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC))

furthermore if you delete the estimated count again I will ask for a ban! I too have counted multiple times and checked the sources and it is correct!

(129.21.148.234 (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC))

What's with the edit war?

The citation for the coalition casualty count points to icasualties.org. The counts at that page are updated on a regular basis and have surpassed the 1,675 figure that the named editors keep putting back. Is the problem simply that the IP editors are not updating the retrieval date on the cite? Or is it something deeper -- that you don't consider that website a reliable source in the first place? In either case, you need to explain in more detail what's wrong with the changes before reverting them. Thundermaker (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The updates I'm reverting are being made by IP sock puppets of Gameboy1947 (talk · contribs) in an attempt to evade their indefinite block for copyright violations and misrepresenting sources. Please feel free to update the figures yourself, but be warned that Gameboy1947 will spam your talk page if he/she thinks that this is a way to evade the block. Nick-D (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, the details on the Gameboy1947 (talk · contribs) page definitely fill in the blanks on what's going on. If I understand the article's current status, it's only protected from IP/anonymous editors, so I'll go ahead and update the numbers this time. I would suggest that this talk page would be a reasonable place to request additional monthly updates, rather than my user talk page. Thundermaker (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The IP block expired 2 days ago, and so far we have 3 IP edits, all to numeric content, 2 of which were apparent disinformation. Interestingly, the one with accurate and referenced info came from an IP in Pakistan. If this trend of garbage from anonymous editors continues, I'm going to suggest/request indefinite protection of the article (but not the talk page). Thundermaker (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Gameboy1947 has to be the most stubbon, and stuipid, block evader I've encountered. Nick-D (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for 6 months. From looking at the article's history, almost all of the recent IP editing has been Gameboy1947 trying to evade their block or other editors vandalising the article. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Casualty figures include disease and non-battle-related injuries

Is it customary to include hospitalizations which are not battle-related in the infobox figures? The US document calls them "WIA not RTD" which I assume means "wounded in action not related to deployment"; the UK doc says "Disease or Non Battle Injury". For both US and UK they are currently included in our Coalition casualties in Afghanistan infobox totals. Thundermaker (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's debatable about whether or not it is appropriate, but I believe the precedent on Wikipedia is to include deaths from disease, etc in casualty estimates. Probably because the sources do it. World War I casualties includes deaths from the Spanish Flu. World War II casualties also includes deaths from disease. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Icasualties count of US wounded is 9,496 which is far higher than Defeance of Departement count.I think icausualties also count deseased soldiers.

http://icasualties.org/OEF/USCasualtiesByState.aspx

by that way both wounded figure counted by defence of departement are actually wounded in action.

Anyways please update the casualty figure.

1,689 killed (US: 1,022, UK: 275, Other: 392)

8,752+ wounded (US: 5,264, UK: 3,488,)

The USCasualtiesByState page has an obvious error, I could not figure out how to inform icasualties.org or I would have. If you look at the numbers you will see there is a "totals" line at the top and another one at the bottom which is exactly double. The top are presumably the correct totals, and they have been added together with the monthly totals a second time to produce the double bottom totals including 9,496. The correct number to use from that page would be 4,748, which is lower than the latest DOD number. Thundermaker (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are right.Icasualties count is wrong.And it is also old.It should be updated because now its March whereas the count on that page is last edited to January 2010 with only 1 wounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.164.79 (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

2010 peace talks

I have added some new content to section 10.1 "Peace Initiatives". In light of the new info and other factors, some of the old stuff needs cleanup.

1. (done) There is a referenced statement that the Taliban is undecided about their participation. Now that they are no longer undecided, I'm pretty sure the statement should be deleted completely rather than corrected to say they were undecided at a particular time in January. But what about the reference? It seems valuable as a resource for future research. Is there a good way to preserve the ref without any current content using it?
2. (done) The title of section 10, 2010: US offensive seems disjoint from the peace initiatives covered in section 10.1. The peace talks are an Afghan effort and not part of the military offensive (although diplomatic and military efforts are clearly related, they are not the same). Should we change the title to 2010: US military offensive and Afghan peace initiative? That's my best suggestion at the moment.
3. The intro is long and contains a lot of specific info from 2008-2010 which needs updating, maybe moving; for example the surge announcement 4 months ago should be updated to info about actual troop deployments since then.

Your suggestions and editing assistance are appreciated. Thundermaker (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Budrow21, 14 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In the first paragraph, "in response to both the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US" is not grammatically correct. The September 11th attacks consisted of 4 airplanes and 3 crashes (twin towers and pentagon). It does not make sense to say "both". Can someone remove the word both?

Budrow21 (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thundermaker (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Topic of this page

This talk page is supposed to be for discussion of the article and improvements to it. See WP:Talk for the official policy statement. It's not for discussion of the war in general, except as relates to the article.

Does anybody know of a template that we could put at the top of this talk page to remind people of this? Thundermaker (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody ever reads the templates at the top, they get spammed in general. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 15:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

UK troop deployment hits over 10,000

Article needs an up date. British troops in Afghanistan to increase to over 10,000. Recon.Army (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Any link to a source that shows that those troops were actually deployed? Plus, why don't you edit that yourself? --JokerXtreme (talk) 11:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well the source is dated from November 2009 and states those troops were to be deployed in December 2009 (next month). Its now April 2010. Recon.Army (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the figures with the latest data from the official ISAF web site (April 16), and the UK figure is still 9,500. Are there US and/or UK soldiers involved in the conflict which are not under ISAF authority and we should be counting separately? And we need a reference, using the Guardian's past expectation of present fact would be unencyclopedic. Thundermaker (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/11/british-troops-afghan-town-us This source again from a UK online news article states there are 10,000 UK troops in afghan. Source is dated march 2010. Recon.Army (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

10,000 UK troops in Helmand alone... That clearly contradicts the ISAF number. How do we handle this? It also throws the ISAF total into question. Thundermaker (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think ISAF doesn't include special forces. Most likely due to the fact such information is generally secret. However Gordan Brown openly admitted that including the 500 special forces in afghan the UK total with the additional 500 troops recently deployed was just over 10,000. My guess is that ISAF doesn't include special op forces. I think its best to stick with IASFs updated number. It will prevent other people say from Poland, Spain and other nations including their own source and own figure that contradicts IASF and we don't want a situation where these figures are spiraling out of control. I'm not really bothered, lets just keep it the way it is. Thanks for your time. Recon.Army (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I see the problem has worked itself out with the latest ISAF number (10,200). Thanks for your patience, Recon. Thundermaker (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see that ISAF can do something right! Even if it is a little late :) Recon.Army (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Article is too large!

The article is 190KB! That is extremely large. Something must be done... --JokerXtreme (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Something that comes to mind all the battles that are listed in the article that each have their own articles already. If we're going to be cutting, that's a good place to start I think. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't know where to start. This article is almost...frightening :S

Cut away! --JokerXtreme (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: It IS the longest war in US history, AND it is still going, as we write. This should probably be kept in mind if cuts are contemplated.

Thanks, Danieldis47 (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether it's longer than the Vietnam War depends on how you define the beginning and end of that conflict. But it is definitely in the same ballpark. And both are large, too. Vietnam is 163K. Thundermaker (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

We should have the average reader in mind. No one is going to read the whole article the way it is now. We should keep only the important stuff, shorten the lengths of the sections and move the rest into their own articles. That way, we will have an article that will not tire the reader, and if someone feels like he needs to know more about something, he can read some child articles. --JokerXtreme (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"No one is going to read the whole article the way it is now." -- Speak for yourself. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I see you took a 180 degrees turn. Your tone could be interpreted as slightly unfriendly too. So, does it matter if I ask you if you have actually read this article in its entirety? --JokerXtreme (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, have you guys read the to do list in the Vietnam talk page? The first thing in the list says with bold letters: "Start editing down the individual sections into seperate articles to reduce the size of this article!!!". I think that says it all. Also, take a look at the suggestions by admin Nick-D in the peer review: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Peer_review/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present). --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I should clarify my position on this. I don't have an objection to breaking up the article, but I don't see enough of a need to take on the task either. The way I am likely to use a large article like this is to load the page, search (in-browser) for a name tied to the event I'm interested in, then read that section and the references. Thundermaker (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are guidelines about this (Wikipedia:SIZERULE), that have the purpose of addressing many issues that arise from articles of this size. And they do exist for a reason. If there is consensus not to split, I won't insist, but I can't find many reasons that it should. --JokerXtreme (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I have some concerns about splits. The article is about an ongoing, unfolding war - not yet "history" with a clear beginning, middle, end, and hindsight-highlights. Large and a bit messy as it is, the current article is a useful one-stop-shop for people to peruse; to see context and scan and make connections (in a way that is much more difficult if they must read multiple related articles).

Perhaps another approach would be to edit down some of the lengthier sections. Danieldis47 (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what is implied by splitting. Reducing the size of sections by moving details to separate articles and leave only the important stuff here. --JokerXtreme (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. However, it is possible for a good writer/editor to significantly reduce the number of words used in, say, a paragraph -- with little (or no) loss of meaning or content. That's what I meant by "editing" -- not the splitting/removal of chunks of content. For example, pulling out a random section from the article: "During the early months of the war the U.S. military had a limited presence on the ground. The plan was that Special Forces, and intelligence officers with a military background, would serve as liaisons with Afghan militias opposed to the Taliban, would advance after the cohesiveness of the Taliban forces was disrupted by American air power." 56 words, I believe. So edit this down to: "The U.S. limited its ground presence at the war's start. Plans called for heavy American air bombardment, after which Special Forces and intelligence officers working with Afghan militia would move against the Taliban." 33 words, little content lost, no splits. Danieldis47 (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That would also address the other problem of the article, it being poorly written. So, yeah, whenever this is possible it would be nice to copy edit it. I don't think that it will reduce the size of the article to less than half its current size -which is what is needed here- but I assume we can try this for a start. --JokerXtreme (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Do we really need an RFC for this? RFC is part of the dispute resolution process, not a method for picking up editors to do work. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not using it for dispute resolution. I just want to invite more people to the conversation, to hear their opinions. Perhaps we should have a more general discussion at some village pump about large artices and what should be done. --JokerXtreme (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It is large but the wiki standard is 400K or smaller and break up only if not loading in a major browser which obviously isn't the case. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

400K is the limit that should not be crossed even in the worst case scenario. Read WP:SIZERULE. Also notice that this article ranks 151st in Special:Longpages. --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If it were to be broken up, the most straight forward way would be to break into two or more year ranges, say 2001-2006 amd 2007-present. 72.228.177.92 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC).

Something like that. Well, Danieldis47, above, proposed a way to handle this. We can do that for a start and then see what needs to be done. --JokerXtreme (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that a number of sections in the article are not date-specific and would not lend themselves to splits based on a timeline. Danieldis47 17:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Splitting it by date is a terrible idea. There isn't a single war article that simply suddenly stops at a particular year and summarizes the events of the next several years in a paragraph. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Article shortened, trick is move items to related articles and keep the meat and potatoes here. Publicus 16:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this, Publicus. You reduced the article's size from 195K to 185K. It's still probably too big, but it's hard to know which details are important before the war ends. Thundermaker (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Casualty figures from icasualties.org

Recently User:Kadrun has been changing the US fatality figures to reflect those who died "in and around" Afghanistan, and others are periodically changing them back to include all OEF casualties, which is a slightly higher number. I did some spot-checking to see which is better.

Lists are at [1] and [2].

• 10-03-2003 Kimbrough, Paul W. Lieutenant Colonel 44 416th Engineering Command, Team 28 U.S. Army Reserve Arkansas Little Rock Non-Hostile - Illness Incirlik Turkey

He died of an illness in Turkey, probably was assigned to OEF before he became ill. Many of these are counted as casualties, this one may have been left out becausehe died in Turkey.

• 9-28-2009 Shaw, Christopher D. Sergeant 1st Class 37 3rd Battalion, 1st Special Forces Group U.S. Army Illinois Markham Hostile - hostile fire Indanan town Philippines
• 9-28-2009 Martin III, Jack M. Staff Sergeant 26 3rd Battalion, 1st Special Forces Group U.S. Army Oklahoma Bethany Hostile - hostile fire Indanan town Philippines

Those two were shot by insurgents in the Philippines, which is part of OEF but not Afghanistan.

My conclusion -- the "in and around" number is a more accurate reflection of casualties of the War in Afghanistan. Thundermaker (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE ANYONE WHO CAN, UPDATE THE ARTICLE CASUALTIES; YOURE LACKING BY 85 COALITION DEATHS!!!! from 6th June ´10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.245.64.178 (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

UK Deployment Numbers Not Changed

The numbers for the deployed total of UK troops have not changed in the 'International Security Assistance Force' table or the ISAF page itself, they are still 9,500 and needs to be changed to 10,200. SuperDan89 (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Technically that's an issue for Template:ISAF_troop_deployment as opposed to War in Afghanistan (2001–present). There are other issues too, like the incorrect column header "Current Deployment (1,000 or less)". I'll see what I can do. Thundermaker (talk) 08:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Rolling Stone: The Runaway General

It seems the new Rolling Stone article is making some serious waves. McChrystal has been recalled to DC to explain his comments, again (the article itself describes a previous incident when he was told to keep a lower profile). It paints an interesting picture of McChrystal's 1-year stint in charge of the war:

• Insubordinate comments to the press
• Breakdown of coalition (allies pulling out)
• Last successful invading force was Ghengis Khan

and much more which would be more appropriate for McChrystal's BLP than this page. Thundermaker (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It's starting to hit the fan. McChrystal has been replaced by Petraeus. I changed the name, but I didn't add the story behind the change. If it results in a new strategy, it should eventually be included. For now I will wait and see. Thundermaker (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

He said a lot of stuff in that article, what got him in trouble? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the gist of Obama's comment announcing the change was that he wasn't being a team player. Thundermaker (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Longest War in U.S. History

Actually the Korean War is the longest running war in U.S. history. It began in June of 1950 and continues through the present day.

Seattle Nick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.28.80 (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps longest "active" war in US history. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

According to the Korean War article, an armistice was signed in 1953. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, although the Korean war never officially ended, it is generally recognized that the war ended in with the armistice. If Korea went to war again today, it would probably be recognized as the 'second Korean War' rather than the same war that took place in the fifties. Swarm^Talk 22:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It's silly to say the Korean War is the longest - everyone knows violent hostilities for the United States effectively ended in 1953. However, the Vietnam War was far longer than 103 months. The Department of Defense dates American involvement from November 1, 1955 until the fall of Saigon in 1975. Perhaps more accurately, the first American hostile casualty could be dated, depending on the method used, from 1945, 1954, 1956, 1957, or 1959. The last casualties were either in April or May of 1975. This brings the 1954 - 1975 total month count to 252, more than double the length of the Afghanistan War. [[3]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.232.79.75 (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Petraeus

It seems that Stanley Mcrystal is still on the "Leaders" section of the table.He was recently replaced with David Petraus so I think a change needs to be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlancer (talk • contribs) 19:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Petraeus hasn't been confirmed by Congress yet. It was already changed and then changed back. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Is Congressional approval required? This seems to clearly fall under the authority of the Commander in Chief. But I guess Congress doesn't declare wars anymore either, so who knows... Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Promotions to Major General (highest permanent rank in peacetime) or to positions that require a Lieutenant General or General are considered appointments (the rank is not permanent), and so require approval by the Senate. Probably something that dates back to colonial times - it's a wierd part of the system. Ravensfire (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know a general would need congressional approval to assume command, even it was to oversee a war, but in this case at least, congressional approval was certainly necessary for it to take effect. With regard to the original comment, Petraeus has been added now that he's been confirmed, but McChrystal was a previous commander and a major influence on this war, even if he only held command for a year. As such, he will remain in the infobox. Swarm^Talk 02:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't all the previous commanders be included then? (Gen. David Petraeus (before McChrystal), Gen. David McKiernan, Gen. David W. Barno). I'm probably missing some. It might be historically relevant to have the dates of command for each commander. We could just put their "start date" by their names. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, looks like many are already listed... Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's a link about Barno http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8246768/ - I'll add him. Will verify where Petraeus was before, too, and put him in again for his previous command. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, looks like Petraeus was the "regional commander" before: "McKiernan, an armor officer who led U.S. ground forces during the 2003 Iraq invasion, was viewed as somewhat cautious and conventionally minded, according to senior officials inside and outside the Pentagon. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander of U.S. forces in the region, has pressed aggressively to broaden the military's mission in Afghanistan and Iraq beyond killing the enemy to protecting the population, overseeing reconstruction projects and rebuilding local governance. Petraeus played a key role in the Obama administration's strategic review of the Afghanistan conflict and was involved in the decision to remove McKiernan, which Petraeus said in a statement he "fully supports."" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/11/AR2009051101864.html Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, recently I added as many commanders as I could, but if you know of any previous ones, by all means add them. For the most part, I tried to include the top commanders of the ISAF. I'm not sure if the dates are necessary, since many held the position for less than a year. Swarm^Talk 18:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

section on US planning to attack taleban before september 11

This section needs to be monitored closely. First off half of it is based of a statement by a "former" official who's country was a possible TARGET of due to the pakistani intelligence supporting the taleban monetarily and in training. Vice President Cheney even warned them they would bomb them to the dark ages if they didn't stop and begin cooperating. Heck, would we publish the claims by the iraqi "information minister" the "noone was in baghdad and all the soldiers were killing themselves? I think not. Did he present any proof? I saw none and his opinion on what the US was "probably" going to do is just that his opinion. I highly doubt we would be sharing classified intelligence info with a country that we are accusing of training the same people we are allegedly planning action against.. seems kinda silly to me.

2nd The United states has contingency plans against any number of possible threats to the united states at all times. The paragraph was missing the key part claimed that it was to take place after 3 years or so of negotiations (not an attack at that second or even in the next few months)and only IF the telaban refused to comply with the demands to release Bin Ladin.

Lets at least keep this NPOV and not start posting opinions as fact. just because someone suggests it "may" be so doesn't mean we publish it without more proof. -Tracer9999 (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The stuff you've deleted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)&diff=370501624&oldid=370475094 seems to be supported by the BBC News article that is being used as a source. The editor made it clear this is Mr. Naik's claim as to what happened, but it could have been worded a little better. Perhaps we can look for more sources that support Naik's allegations? Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is an article that confirms the attack was planned in advance, and approved on September 10, 2001, but it points out it was a three year plan that would gradually escalate to direct military intervention if all else failed: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/24/september11.usa2 Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, that's already in the article! Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I found a Time article that also supports these allegations and added that to the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You miss the point I think. Im not saying there was no contingency plan if the talevan refused to turn over a known terrorist they were harboring. I did not even remove that cite from the article... the bbc article is not citing any evidence but the word of a representative of a government who was a potential TARGET. he could have just as easily said we were collaborating with space aliens to attack the taliban.. he provided no evidence.. everything he said was circumstantial.. especially opinion like "the US will likely attack anyway regardless" -Tracer9999 (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's true that this is hearsay, but it's hearsay reported by a very reliable source - BBC News. And the person who is being quoted is a former high government official. As long as it's clear this is what Naik is claiming, we aren't misrepresenting the source. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but it sounds more like an issue of undue weight per WP:UNDUE. Anotherclown (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Not an "allegation" issue. The Guardian source fully supports a definite plan of US ultimatum leading to military attack (through proxy or direct). Not a "contingency" in the sense of "what would the US do if China invaded Alaska," but a plan to be immediately implemented, the plan including first threat of military attack to be followed by attack as necessary.

Also, the US attack plan was against the country of Afghanistan with the aim of installing a new government, removing Al Qaida, etc. It's a bit misleading to say it was just going to be an intervention against the Taleban regime.--NYCJosh (talk) 05:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

it stated the escalating methods of applying pressure would be applied. an attack was a contingency if the other steps failed. 1) demand 2) If demand is not met then destabilize the regime and if demand still not met and no other choice is present then after 3 years or so.. attack. The taliban turning over wanted terrorists could have prevented any attack. on a side note..seems like just about all your posts on wikipedia are US is the aggressor/bad guy/helper of isreal posts..you should try broadening your topics and turn off alex jones for a bit.. maybe talk about puppies or flowers for a bit.. thats one heck of a depressing edit history. there are other topics you know. -Tracer9999 (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Tracer, My point was that the US attack plan before 9/11 was not an "allegation." An editor seemed to suggest that we still should word it as an allegation because the US military has lots of contingency plans for all kinds of remote scenarios. To this I replied that this plan was a three point plan to be immediately implemented, starting with a US ultimatum backed by the threat of military force.

Since you don't know me, I don't appreciate your comments about my edit history in this context. For the record, I am neither a fan of Jones nor a staunch supporter of his approach to politics.--NYCJosh (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, I changed the heading to reflect the fact that the US attack plan was against Afghanistan, not just the Taleban. The US wanted to remove Osama and Al Qaida training camps, and the plan was not just about getting rid of the Taleban. Or to put it another way, if the Taleban had magically disappeared but Osama and Al Qaida training camps had remained, the US plan would still have been implemented given the stated aims of the US plan.

My change also made the heading more readable, succinct and consistent in length with other headings of the article (and headings of most other WP articles).--NYCJosh (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Can we please move War in Afghanistan, which already a disambiguation page, to War in Afghanistan (disambiguation), and make War in Afghanistan redirect to this article? Moving the disambig page to the new title will do no harm. For convenience's sake, for simplicity's sake! It's so annoying typing in "War in Afghanistan" to get the disambig page. If it's simply a redirect, that redirect can be changed incredibly easily in the future, but for now, for this occurring, ongoing event which is reported in the media every single day, and has been for the past nine years, it seems like a redirect to this article with a tag at the top would be a good move for convenience. I think that "War in Afghanistan" is probably most searched by people seeking the ongoing war, not people who would need a disambiguation page. The people who are looking for historical wars in Afghanistan would have the tag at the top (which already exists). Swarm^Talk 04:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Yes, admittedly there will be people looking for wars in Afghanistan from the past, but the majority will be looking for this article, given the fact it's in the news so much. As the proposer states, this would make it much more convinient for most people, and not a great deal more inconvinient for those looking for historic wars. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 18:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you just use one of the shorter redirects, if it's so annoying to type? like 2001 Afghan War. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Swarm^Talk 22:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggesting a Name change

I'm suggesting that this article be re-named, something like "War with Taliban" because this war is also being fought on the other side of the Durand Line in neighboring Pakistan. "Afghanistan" should not be in the title since that nation is not at war with NATO. When someone reads War in Afghanistan their first impression will be that NATO is at war with Afghanistan, however, that's not the case because NATO is actually training Afghan army and rebuilding their nation.--Jrkso (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

First let me say I'm not completely opposed to a name change. But I am going to make some arguments against it to balance what you said above.

• At the beginning of the war (US invasion), the Taliban was the government of Afghanistan.
• NATO does recognize the difference between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The rules for what NATO forces can do in Afghanistan are different from what they can do in Pakistan.
• The officially-recognized government of Afghanistan is not at war with NATO. However, one component of the outcome of this conflict is which organization retains control of the country. Taliban loyalists would say their nation is at war with NATO. Either way, the word Afghanistan in the title refers to a place, not a regime.

I realize the war has spilled over into Pakistan, and we should deal with that somehow. Your suggestion of changing the name of the article is one way. Or there could be a new article (if there isn't one already) about the spillover which is summarized in a section here. Thundermaker (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the decision should be made by the sources, and pretty much all of them refer to the entity described in this article as the "War in Afghanistan" AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I would stay with the current name, which is what it is commonly called. TFD (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with sticking with the current name as it's a common name for the war. Calling this the 'War with Taliban' also only reflects one side of the war - the Taliban (and their associated allies) obviously aren't at war with themselves. Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I dunno.. "War in Afghanistan" began in 1979 when Russia invaded. It continued with the civil war until Taliban took over and then this war began. It's just too confusing and a mess for everyone to follow. If one was to search it they will get results for all the previous wars included. How about NATO mission in Afghanistan? That makes sense because the Taliban were defeated and fled the country before the western forces arrived to rebuild the nation, and provide security until the Afghans can do it themselves. Many government agencies and news sources do use "NATO mission in Afghanistan" or "US mission in Afghanistan". I just wanto to give it a better meaningful name. I got 15,600,785 results for NATO mission in Afghanistan. NATO itself uses a similar name.[4], [5], [6] --Jrkso (talk) 07:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The initial US intervention wasn't conducted under the auspices of NATO and lots of the countries participating in operations at the moment aren't NATO members so that doesn't really work either. Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily - the Vietnam War is still listed under that title even though a lot of fighting took place in Laos and Cambodia. Pakistan is a similar case. Besides, that theater of the war already has its own page. I do think the title should be changed, maybe to Afghan War, as it's a more elegant name and one that the media seems to be using more frequently ([7], for example). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.216.64 (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

glorifying war

Today I came across the article and was actually shoked seeing the Image:Afghanistan war 2001 collage.jpg on the right side. It is showing the "great warriors" and the "great equipment" the western armies have. It does not show the opponents and, much more important, it does not show the real face of war. It does not show killed people and kids, destroyed buidlings aso. ... In my oppinion it shows how western propaganda did its work. A pity ...Sicherlich ^Post 11:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the current image can be improved (the fact that it only shows US troops when this is a very multi-national war is an obvious problem). What public domain image(s) do you suggest be used to replace it? Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not to much in the topic so I dont know the pictures which are available. But simple thing; if there is no picture which realy gives a NPOV-overview then there should be no picture - and my point is not that there are only us-soldiers; the point is that the war, as every war, is dirty; people dying and an neutral article should handle that at least equal to the soldiers in action; war is about killing and destroying...Sicherlich ^Post 11:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sicherlich. Collage biased. Why do not any of those who are fighting against NATO troops? there are no representatives of the Taliban and al-Qaida. One could add an Afghan army soldiers. In this type of collage is not necessary, as violating the basic principles of Wikipedia.Sentinel R (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The collage is 100% unacceptable. --Kuzwa (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

We're trying to find a good collage pix, problem is there isn't a lot of Taliban/insurgent images available for Wikipedia. See discussion above for more info. Publicus 15:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Not the Longest War in United States History

It clearly states in the Vietnam War article, with citation, that the Department of Defense considers November 1, 1955 the start of United States involvement in the Vietnam War. United States involvement ended in 1973. This is far longer than the current War in Afghanistan. I am removing the statement from the lead. Andy120290 (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

POV section on mineral reserves

Anyone else think this section is a little POV and speculative? Seems like it to me, but wanted to check before a rewrite/edit. Thx Publicus 22:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It is definitely speculative, but the speculation is sourced (as opposed to WP:OR). Yes please do re-word so it's NPOV. Thundermaker (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Before you ask for a rewrite of a section, you first need to explain what is POV and speculative about the section and reach consensus. Best wishes --ValenShephard 23:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the editor was speculating on the Pentagon's intent for releasing the mineral deposits saying that this information would influence public/business opinion into supporting further engagement in Afghanistan. Obviously, this intent would be open to interpretation since the actual reason may not be readily known--at least until the next round of disclosures from Wikileaks ;). Publicus 14:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It should be worded to make it clear that the cited bloggers were making that interpretation, not Wikipedia. Or if the bloggers are not notable, deleted. Jim Lobe has a page... Thundermaker (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiLeaks - wrong number of published documents (91,000 since at least 28.07.2010, not 75,000 - you can read that number also at WikiLeaks - source site).

I think there is an mistake. In external links it was posted that WikiLeaks published 75,000 documents. It was true about 25.07.2010, but since today (28.07.2010) over 91,000 documents were published in "Afghan War Diary 2004-2010" at WikiLeaks (it was also mentioned in that article). So please, check that number (it has been also updated on WikiLeaks). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.76.119.56 (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought they were withholding 15,000 documents according to news reports. My understanding was they have 91,000 documents but are withholding about 15,000 though I may be wrong..-Tracer9999 (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Horst Köhler

I suggest rephrasing or removing the sentence addressing Köhler's resignation in the first section for jumping to conclusions.

Horst Köhler's comments triggering his resignation were not explicitely adressing Afghanistan. He later claimed that his comments referred to piracy off the Somali coast. Opposition politicians and some of the press did tie those comment to ISAF, but that's just their interpretation, and frankly wouldn't make sense. It's true that this comments were made in Afghanistan, but IMHO explicitely linking Köhler's resignation to Germany's supposed commercial interests in far-away, poor, landlocked Afghanistan is either original research or a breach of POV.

see more details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_K%C3%B6hler#Resignation Non-German newspapers may tend to oversimplify the issue.

sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/world/europe/01germany.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,697785,00.html

JanvonBismarck (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The referenced NYT article supports the text. In light of the release of mineral data for Afghanistan (2 weeks after Köhler's comments), his assertion as originally interpreted by the press was dead-on correct. Germany has a huge interest in future trade with Afghanistan. But... he put his foot in his mount by saying so before the mineral news was officially released. He presumably resigned to protect what was left of the secret, and was probably pretty upset when it became public knowledge so soon thereafter. But that's speculation on my part.

There is a problem though. His resignation is only mentioned in the lead. If it's in the lead, it should be covered in more detail later in the article. Thundermaker (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The one who removed that reference was right. BTW the German president is just a ceremonial position, why would he know anything secret ? Plus, this geological news does sound like somebody is just making a point about the war, since most of that info was already known in the late 1990s, and no event I'm aware of justified such a media frenzy at that time. But you're right about the timing, it's weird. JanvonBismarck (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

INVASION

The soviets were invited into Afghanistan by the government of Afghanistan and yet the biased article repeatedly claims it was an "invasion". The US invaded Afghanistan and yet somehow this detail is ignored by this biased article. Don't the clowns in the US and england who butcher thsese articles realize they are the dullwitted willing victims of some of the most idiotic propaganda ever spewed. Rectify this silly mess at once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.122.231 (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, please be WP:civil.

Invasion is a military term, not a political one. It is used more than a dozen times in this article to refer to the US action in 2001. For example, "The United Nations did not authorize the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan" appears in the lead. Where would you like to see the word "invasion" used that it is not?

The Afghani government in 1979 was not widely recognized as legitimate, so their invitation to the Soviets is not meaningful. But that's really a subject for talk:Soviet war in Afghanistan. Thundermaker (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it was recognized. In any case the president did request Soviet assistance but they overthrew him, so that is probably an invasion. If you want to change that sources are required. Foreign intervention in 2001 was also an invasion. The term invasion is neutral, it may be right or wrong, legal or illegal. TFD (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

dubious India Times reference

This India Times article was used as a reference for the statement:

• The documents revealed that the US was giving vast sums of money to Pakistan to get into Afghanistan even as Pakistan used its spy agency, ISI, to scheme the death of American and Nato troops, allied Indian personnel, and sap US policy.

The article does make that claim (in a syntactically-incorrect sentence), but it doesn't pass a basic bullshit test. The Wikileaks documents are not about "vast sums of money"; they are reports from US troops on the ground. Chidanand Rajghatta probably did not read them before writing the piece but summarized other articles, which indicate that Pakistan has received a large amount of US aid and that some of the leaked documents allege ISI-Taliban connections.

I think US and British publication have written enough on the ISI-Taliban links in the leaked documents that we can say something about them. There is no need to use this grammatically- and factually-incorrect attack piece as a source. Thundermaker (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

US attack against Afghanistan planned before September 11

The title of this section is inaccurate. A more appropriate title would be "US attack against Taliban and Al-Qaeda planned before September 11" -- the Taliban regime was not recognized as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, and Al-Qaeda was not part of the Afghan government as well. From the body of the text of the section, it is clear that "Afghanistan" in general was not the target of any US attack--the leadership of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda were the targets--and the title should appropriately signify such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BasiLysim (talk • contribs) 15:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

So fix it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 15:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done BritishWatcher (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Although looking at it, it would probably be better if that section focused on US policy prior to 2001, so not just the fact they may have planned an attack. But i think the new title is more balanced and accurate than the original. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change. I did not make it right off, as I am trying not to be "heavy-handed", and would prefer to get others' POV on my comments before making any changes. Cheers. BasiLysim (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Should we include the Clinton-era missile attacks against aspirin factories / chem weapons plants (depending on who you believe)? I think they were part of the downward spiral of relations since the happy Mujaheddin vs. USSR days.

IMHO, a section called "US - Afghanistan relations prior to September 11" would be in order, and what's currently there should be the final subsection. Thundermaker (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a major expansion in an article that is already too big... AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. I'd certainly write it as a minor expansion, but things like that have the potential to snowball. Probably better to do it in a separate article from the beginning so we don't have painful split issues later. Thundermaker (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo associated with section "Consolidation: the taking of Kandahar"

Please change the caption "American Special Forces led by Hamid Karzai in Kandahar province" to, more accurately, read: "American Special Forces with Hamid Karzai in Kandahar province". The Special Forces team accompanied Karzai, and were in no way "led" by him. Their duty was to "facilitate" his insurgency with US assets; Karzai did not have operational control over the unit at all. This entire episode is covered in E. Blehm's book, The Only Thing Worth Dying For (Harper, 2010). —Preceding unsigned comment added by BasiLysim (talk • contribs) 17:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done well spotted BritishWatcher (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Legal basis for war

This section omits two important points:

1. There is clear evidence that the Taliban regime sanctioned the al-Qaeda 9/11 operation. For instance, the assassination of the Ahmed Shah Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance, was apparently orchestrated by al-Qaeda as an attempt to unravel the Alliance before the anticipated US reaction to the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban leaders knew the US had been courting the Alliance for some time, and would likely use them to take down the Taliban regime. It appears that this assassination was a quid pro quo for the Taliban's acquiescing to the 9/11 operation. If correct, then a legitimate argument can be made that the Taliban were complicit in the 9/11 attacks. (See, e.g., Wikipedia page on Massoud, section titled "Death": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Shah_Massoud.)

2. The Geneva Convention clearly states a series of requirements for identifying soldiers as members of an army (see Article 4, A, of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 12 August 1949 [a.k.a. the Third Geneva Convention]), none of which were met by the members of the Taliban. In fact, the dress of the Taliban combatants was civilian in character, which, under the Conventions, identifies them as "Unlawful Combatants." The Taliban had no official army, at least as recognized by the Geneva Convention, and thus their warriors do not receive protection under the Convention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BasiLysim (talk • contribs) 16:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There was information in article about point one, which appears to have been removed. Also removed was mention of the U. S. decision to remove the Taliban taken in the days preceding 911. Point two is included in the article. "The Bush administration...did not declare war, and labeled Taliban troops as supporters of terrorists rather than soldiers, denying them the protections of the Geneva Convention and due process of law. This position has been successfully challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court...." TFD (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

As written, the passage in the article gives the appearance that the determination was made arbitrarily by the Bush administration. This is not the case; the administration applied the rules set forth by the Geneva Convention, and this should be in the article. I am no apologist for Bush, but the statement in the article needs to be unbiased, and the presentation currently there is not. BasiLysim (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Mot sure why you think the sentence gives that appearance.--NYCJosh (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You must distinguish between the legality of the invasion and the legality of U. S. conduct during the war. And we cannot determine whether anything was legal, only what informed opinion was, which requires reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The statement "The Bush administration... did not declare war, and labeled Taliban troops as supporters of terrorists rather than soldiers, denying them the protections of the Geneva Convention and due process of law" is factually wrong. The statement should read, "The Bush Administration, based on Article 4, section A, of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 12 August 1949 (a.k.a. the Third Geneva Convention), which sets out the means for determining whether combatants are "lawful" or "unlawful", determined that the Taliban forces were "unlawful combatants" rather than soldiers, and denied them the protections of the Geneva Convention and due process of law." Here are many reliable sources for this; one is the following 2002 article by Michael C. Dorf, the then Vice Dean and Professor of Law at Columbia University: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020123.html. Another article, from the (U.S.) Air Force Law Review: http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3523669/Al-Qaeda-Taliban-unlawful-combatant.html. The bottom line is that this paragraph presents the position that the Bush Administration arbitrarily made its decision, and that is not the case. Another basic problem with this same sentence is "The Bush administration... did not declare war" -- in fact, per the US Constitution, the president nor his administration can declare war, that is a power of the US Congress. BasiLysim (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The section should mention that the ISAF initially operated and still operates under Ch. VII of the UN charter and that it is therefore legal, and binding for all other Member States —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.198.26 (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)