Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)

---

POV?

There is a collage of pictures as the main picture of this article. All of the pictures are of soilders from only one side of the war. Isn't that POV?

UPDATE- There are actually no pictures of the other side, just a video. Come on, that's very POV. Wouldn't it be reasonable to change some of them to Taliban pics?

/K —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.231.227 (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, highly POV. Not sure why the previous image was changed, this one doesn't have any Taliban or other militias--it doesn't even appear to have any forces mentioned aside from U.S. I'm going to put a generic Afghan image up and see what the editors think. Publicus 18:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Not so much "POV" as WP:Systemic bias, I think. You could probably argue that that's still fairly weighted due to the amount of coverage american soldiers get in comparision to Taliban "soldiers." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Denmark

I think it is a disgrace that a country that has lost so many and contributed so much compared to its size (Denmark) don't get a mention among the nations participating on the front page. Apparently it's more important how many soldiers a country sends, even though they might not be doing any fighting.

/Mike

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Civilian casualties only 10,000? Displaced = 0 ?

Hi there. The civilian casualties in Afghan war is only 10,000.Other tens of thousands counted as Taliban casualties, lol. I mean in 2001 over 20,000 civilians killed mostly in NATO carpet bombings.And from 2002-present over 10,000 civilians killed by both talibans and NATO.Total over 30,000 civilians killed. And over 5 millions displaced.119.152.82.197 (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)