Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

How could the Northern Alliance invade their own country?

The article posits that Afghanistan was invaded. Technically the foreign powers chose to intervene on behalf of the insurgent party of a very, very long civil war. Labeling the 2001 action as a foreign invasion is non-factual and leading to a biased conclusion about intervening in an existing situation.

ANSWER: First, the Northern Alliance would not have succeeded in re-conquering the North, nor would the south been taken by President Karzai and Gul Agha Sherzai, had there been no overwhelming US air support, Special Forces, CIA operatives who bought the loyalty of various commanders who defected, a time-honoured Afghan tradition. For more on this see Sarah Chayes: the Punishment of Virtue. Second, what is "factual" is the motivation for the invasion of Afghanistan, which was due to the inability of the Taliban government to hand over Osama Bin Laden to US authorities, as outlined by President Bush in which he said: "The Taliban must act and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate." (http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/post911/attacks/afghanistan/metimes_taliban_defies_bush.htm) Third, if it was not an invasion, then wouldn't have been a steadily increasing occupying force of ISAF soldiers and the growing control over the country. --Finally, I am not against ISAF in Afghanistan, in fact I served there myself, but let's call it what it was: an invasion and occupation.

Casualties figures after 10 years

AFP: "Brown University researchers say at least 33,877 people -- foreign and Afghan troops, civilians, insurgents and others -- have died. Of those 1,788 US troops have been killed, and 14,342 wounded, according to the Pentagon." http://news.yahoo.com/obama-honors-afghanistan-war-dead-10-years-153541874.html Can somebody please add this in the correct spot. Thanks.--Jorge Koli (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Major Rewrite Needed

This article needs a major revision. There are POV issues, outdated information, factual inaccuracies and even conflicting information. Plus, it is very unweildy, hard to read and even harder to follow. I have tried to make a few corrections, but I think the article is beyond just a few corrections. Is there a way to put this article up for a major revision? 152.131.9.132 (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is an obvious POV problem. The photo collage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2001_War_in_Afghanistan_collage_3.jpg has 8 photos, 7 of which are from the point of view of one side of the conflict. The lead is entirely written from the point of view of the US.--75.83.69.196 (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I would say it's not the US POV but the POV of a segment of its population. Perhaps you mean the POV of the US Government. There are many voices in the US (and the world) against this war that don't have the slightest echo in this "article". It could have been written by the Pentagon Office for Propaganda. The mention of the "democratic" institutions and the "advances" of Afghanistan under duress are hard to swallow for me. I wonder how many people reads that without smiling. You end reading the article wondering why all the countries don't try to stage this kind of colonial war to improve their situation. The historic references are null, you could believe Afghanistan was born to this world the day of the ISAF invasion and that this war has no relationship at all with all the many colonial wars this poor country has withstood. The Russian invasion and the many British ones never happened in this incomplete Wikipedia world. The references about the Conservative American think tank program for Afghanistan shine because of their absence. The "enemy" has no logic, nor program: you could conclude that they act in this confusing way because they are evil, because they lack any reason. In some versions of the article, Taliban organizations invaded their own country, this sums up the jewel we have in front of us. Ciroa (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"Supported by" in infobox

Best to keep the "supported by" term out of the infobox. The infobox is used to summarize the main points of the article. Pakistan allowed (and allows) the US & ISAF to transport materiel through the country. Is this "support"? Or is PAK simply following international law WRT control of borders? That sort of issue can be explored in the article text. And editors will have opportunity to push their side of the WP:POLE. But the infobox needs to be concise and neutral. --S. Rich (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan actually gave military bases for the invasion. That (including this) is support and should be in the infobox. So there's no issue here about keeping the supported by term for Pakistan in case of 2001 invasion (keep in mind that I added it to the invasion part only) as that was not even removed by the editor who added it to the other side. The edit by JCAla was a POV edit and was already decided not to be added in the infobox at WP:NPOVN#Taliban. As for including the term "supported by" at all, see this example. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

In reviewing these articles, I see it is tough enough keeping the ledes NPOV, let alone the article text. IMHO, it is better to keep the "supported by" term out of the infoboxes and ledes. Inclusion simply invites controversy. The infobox should summarize key facts; accordingly, if there are extended and heated discussions about these "support" issues, we cannot say "supported by" is a key fact. Indeed, exactly what is "support": quiet moral support? cheering on from the side-lines? diplomatic support? permissive and passive base usage support? materiel or logistical support? active troop support? --S. Rich (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is difficult but then we can not WP:CENSOR because of that. If it was military troop support, the country would rather simply be added in the list. It was for supply line military bases etc. Now that fact is undisputed that Pakistan supported the 2001 invasion. So we can safely add that side. The part whether Pakistan is playing a so called double game now or who it supports now is the next separate issue which has had a month long debate and was finally decided on not keeping in the infobox. I've cited the consensus in my previous comment. I don't think this is contentious at all. By no way can it be added to the other side. And there has been no objection on adding at 2011 invasion which you removed to be on safe side. I think this is a simple keep. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with S. Rich. There is too much controversy surrounding this issue. So, as we concluded in the month-long discussion it is better to leave it out of the infobox alltogether. Yes, they let them use the bases BUT they also allowed Taliban leader Mullah Omar and others to seek safe refuge on their territory to regroup and rearm. A double-game is hard to put on one side of the infobox. Either it must be on both or on neither. JCAla (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The addition you made was about the this issue we just settled at NPOVN. The one I made was to the initial invasion which is a separate discussion somewhat related to that one. There is no disagreement on Pakistan's support to the invaders in this case and if any thing controversial is notable that belongs to the body. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

There is disagreement on Pakistan's role. JCAla (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

But there's no disagreement on the support it provided to the invasion. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said, it provided bases, air space, but - at the same time - it also provided refuge to Taliban leaders to regroup and rearm. So either it should be on both sides or no side of the infobox. JCAla (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Those allegations are for now, not for the 2011 invasion. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Mullah Omar and other leaders fled and found refuge in late 2001, regrouping and rearming from 2001-2003. JCAla (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Allegedly and with denial from Pakistani side which ends up on the same issue which was decided at NPOVN. But the support given to the invasion is not disputable. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

When at the same time the other side was being helped too, putting Pakistan on only one side of the infobox is factually difficult and even misleading. So as was decided on NPOV when there is so much controversy it is better to leave it out of the infobox alltogether. JCAla (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I just gave it a review, and didn't find the mention of Pakistani bases being given to US for the purpose of invasion where as I found the allegations on Pakistan are presented as facts. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Video of US troops urinating on Taliban fighters

FYI Video of US troops urinating on Taliban fighters is the title of a new article which may or may not be duplicating already existing content. Anyways, I'm guessing people who watch this page will know what to do with it. The article is ok but it certainly doesn't feel like this is an optimal choice of title... Pichpich (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Iranian participation

Currently source #2 claims that Iranian SF forces fought side by side with American SF forces during the invasion. Considering that the same source also claims that the American casulties of Op Eagle Claw were caused by an Iranian ambush, I'm going to go out on a limb here and just remove it as soon as I've finished writing this. Pavuvu (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Weasel Words in opening section

"In 2010, the War in Afghanistan became the United States' second longest continuous military conflict. Only the Vietnam War (1959–1975) lasted longer." This is just a blatant attempt to compare the WiA to vietnam. When in reality the longest armed conflict the US has been involved in was the Philippines that lasted from the late 1800's all the way into the 40's. It went hot and cold several times but hostilities remained constant. This paragraph should be updated.

Lets change it out. Also:

Weasel out image.

U.S. Marines in Southern Afghanistan-A ...(Special Operations Capable) ...

Please change the photo the green camuflage on desert palete looks very poor.

• 1. to evade an obligation, duty,
• 2. to use weasel words; be ambiguous; mislead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The photo op picture is weasel lame too. Why they walking by plain to sky terain with the hevy stuf ? In Background is a chopter, if landed closer to camera they will have shorter way. What is the sense to back pack mule having parked by truck to use ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Ahmad Zia Massoud.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ahmad Zia Massoud.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ahmad Zia Massoud.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Front lines? Territory under control?

Article suffers from a lack of information regarding who has control of what areas. It appears that the govt/NATO now only control most of Kabul, while most of the rest of the country is controlled by the Taliban. How true is this? How have the 'front lines' changed over the last 11 years? Perhaps some sort of map/graphic would be useful if there's one around (I can't find one, nor any info re areas controlled)? 82.44.28.101 (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)