Talk:Operation Moshtarak

Naming

I'm starting to see a few news articles referring to this as the Battle of Marja. This kind of title is normally preferred to an operation name, though it'll depend on what ends up being most commonly used and how narrow or wide the actual operation ends up being. Just something to keep in mind. Joshdboz (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed, but obviously we should wait until there's some sort of public consensus. Palm_Dogg (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

yea i would assume that it will be called the battle of marja from what im hearing in the press and security sources, though until the battle actually occurs the operation name should stay.XavierGreen (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Casualties

Do we have to add the casualties (such as 50 taliban deaths we see now) from preparation stage, which is not direct result of the operation? If we "have to include", we should add the number of KIA of coalitions as well. In my opinion, those casualties should be out from this article since the operation has not begun yet. Kadrun (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, unless all Coalition casualties in Helmand over the past month are added, this is over-inflation. Only five insurgents are confirmed dead in the operation thusfar. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason why coalition soldiers are "KIA" while Taliban insurgents are just "killed"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.71.216 (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe KIA, WIA, etc. apply to the formal military servicemen, and it look neat to write in short way since many things has to go into the box. Kadrun (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That is correct we use abbreviation such as KIA, WIA, MIA etc... for official military... insurgents are not military thus are not susceptible for the same things normal servicemen are. (USMCMIDN (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

Hey found a new source which explains how an estimated 100 Taliban have been killed. It is a neutral source. Please change! http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/item/about-100-taliban-fighters-killed-in-marja/day-3/ it is legit if you google it, more sources will show up. (USMCMIDN (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)) Also sadly 1 more US Marine was killed... Icasualties has that one. Please edit!

Denmark, Estonia and France

I've removed the flags of these 3 countries as the article makes no mention of the participation of Danish, Estonian or French forces in this operation.--Forward Unto Dawn 06:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Editors have added the sources. Kadrun (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

France is now confirmed as well. Kadrun (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Aslo Canada, Estonia and Denmark are involve in the Operation Moshtarak Der Kaisser 22:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Linking to AFP homepage is not good because the headline change. Dropping ref for French involvement limited to tens OMLT (Operational Mentor and Liaison Team) instructors in Kandak 31. [1][2] --KrebMarkt 13:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"worldwide view" nonsense

I'll all for having a neutral tone in the articles and representing a global perspective. HOWEVER, this is primarily a US/UK led offensive and certainly certain "perspectives" are going to be the easiest to report on. I think this tag on the article is unnecessary. Sometimes it is just impossible to include every possible "perspective" on something like this. Not only that, it is unnecessesary. If I read an article on China , I owuld imagine I would want a Chinese perspective; same goes for a US/UK led offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fshoutofdawater (talk • contribs) 17:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

What about an Afghan perspective? I wouldn't mind seeing some stuff in the article from the Afghan government etc.--Senor Freebie (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not think this article primarily deals with the United Kingdom. The lead and latest section certainlty do not. The background has a paragrph that is mostlu UK-related, but the rest is about Canada and the US. I do not feel the tag is neccessary. Jolly Ω Janner 21:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

To make this clear: I am Dutch, so bias from my side concerning the British, American, Canadian etc. role in the operation is not very likely. --JanDeFietser (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Also added some comments from the Taliban. Jolly Ω Janner 21:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Since no one has provided the rationale for the tag and we can't find the reason for its being there, I have removed it. If someone wants to put it back post the reasoning here. -- Love, Smurfy 00:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't want to remove it myself as I am only one opinion, but as you agree with me it is right for it to be removed and should at last be on the Main Page. Jolly Ω Janner 00:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Why are the Teleban an "insurgency" and not "freedom fighters"? A somewhat biased perspective? Danensis (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

   insurgency is a neutral term. Freedom fighters is a biased and terrorists would be biased.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.23.4 (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC) 

Merely the term "freedom fighters" for the Taliban seems rather biased (how free would you feel in a burqa, or decapitated?). --JanDeFietser (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Photos

I'm a Combat Camera Marine in Afghanistan, I can get photos for this article but I have to wait for them to be cleared and posted at the DoD server. Marine79 (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

O.K., take care! See also the new page Assault Breacher Vehicles that needs illustrations. --JanDeFietser (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

All the images I could find on the website are from the 9 February at the moment. Jolly Ω Janner 12:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete link

It says 31. # ^ ["Battle for town is a small step on the path to victory"]

But nothing happens when you click it. Of course the number could have changed by the time you read it. Art LaPella (talk) 07:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. Now the link is complete and working. --JanDeFietser (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

CH-147 Chinook

Please, do not remove the Canadian designation of the CH-47 Chinook. The Canadian Forces uses the official military designation of CH-147 Chinook. [3] Der Kaisser 16:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The variant that Canadian force uses in Afghanistan is CH-47D model. The one that Canadian forces call CH-147 is CH-47C. Kadrun (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Deaths

BBC is claiming three coalition soldiers have died: "Three Nato deaths related to Operation Moshtarak have so far been confirmed. On Saturday, a British soldier, Lance Sergeant David Greenhalgh of 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, died in an improvised explosive device (IED) attack, while a US soldier was killed by gunfire in Marjah. On Sunday, another service member was killed in an IED attack."[4]

But which service is the third one from? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Not related to the operation. Kadrun (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Tracking the casualties

Hey, I have been tracking the casualties, and these numbers are not just from single source but many. Kadrun (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I lost track of the wounded..... In addition, there's no official number for injured. Kadrun (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

February 13, 2010

• 1 British soldier was killed by IED, and 1 American was shot to death. It was confirmed by many news articles.
• CNN reported that there were at least 1 casualties due to RPG-7, and I was able to find a picture that shows one wounded soldier carried by medivac.
• First day enemy casualties was 20 killed and 11 captured. There were severely wounded among those captured Talibans.
• Total - UK: 1 KIA, US: 1 KIA, 1 WIA, Taliban: 20 killed, 11 captured.

February 14, 2010

• The news reported there were 7 civilian wounded.
• The news said that 1 ANA and 1 American was wounded.
• Missile accident happened. 2 missiles were fired, and 12 civilians were killed and 1 wounded.
• Taliban casualties increased to 27 killed, 5 wounded, and 11 captured. I'm not sure those 'wounded' are among the captured ones.
• Total - Afghan: 1 WIA, UK: 1 KIA, US: 1 KIA, 2 WIA, Taliban: 27 killed, 5 wounded, 11 captured. Civilian: 12 killed, 8 wounded.

February 15, 2010

• I heard some Taliban casualties, but no 'government official' has confirmed.
• There were reports that 2 Americans are wounded, and I also located pictures with wounded soldiers are carried into helicoptors.
• I see the article says 3 WIA for Afghanistan, but I haven't find any sources yet.
• Total - Afghan: 1 WIA, UK: 1 KIA, US: 1 KIA, 4 WIA, Taliban: 27 killed, 5 wounded, 11 captured. Civilians: 12 killed, 8 wounded.

Overall casualties(From starting to present))

This contain whole correct official information about casualties. As of Afghan and Nato official.

• http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100215/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan
• 1 US soldier killed, 0 wounded
• 1 UK soldier killed, 0 wounded
• 17 Civilians killed, 5 wounded(12 civilians killed on first day of mission by 2 rockets mistakely hit civiliann houses, 5 Killed today by an airstrike)
• 27 taliban killed(Afghan and Nato official)

Airstrike accident happened outside of the operation. Afghan official already announced that they killed another 5~12 Taliban insurgents in sunday. Please keep on the track. Kadrun (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Taliban casualties are not independently confirmed. It should be pointed out. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Who cares? As long as the west kicks butt and shows the Taliban who are in charge in Afghanistan I don't know why we concern ourselves with little things. The west regrets civilian casualties and does all it can to prevent them, but they have to fight this battle because we cannot let terrorists take over the world. I feel as sorry for the Afghan civilians as as anybody but defeating the Taliban is more important. If we don't sacrifice a few civilians, the Taliban will kill more in the long run and who knows? They may even kill the ones that the US killed. So their lives may not have been worth living any way. All I can say is - GO NATO - beat the last of this terrorist regime and destroy Al Qaeda! Wikipeacekeeper (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Worth noting the difference in opinion over the 12 civilian dead. Maj Gen Nick Carter, says the rocket hit the intended target, whilst Lt Gen Nick Parker (Two different officers, in the British army) says all civilian causalities are unacceptable. See here.

[5]

In addition to the casualties, noting the displacement of 1240 Afghan families into British/ANA controlled Lashkar Gah might be something to consider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkHorse01 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)