Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)

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.

Killing of Osama bin Laden?

Does the killing of Osama bin Laden belong in the infobox's "status" section? It happened in Pakistan, rather than Afghanistan. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The operation was launched in Afghanistan and bin Laden was the perpetrator of 9/11, which led to the war.108.201.216.214 (talk) 09:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Typos

First paragraph, last sentence "andwas" appears as one word.

On Canada

So collingwood26, you have now made a number of edits here to delete or change Canadian involvement. What are your sources and how have these improved this article?Nickm57 (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't deleted anything, I only lowered Canada from being third from the top down several places. I think this is necessary to show other countries did more than Canada. Canada was present only from 2002-2011, and had a maximum deployment of around 2500. Several other countries have not only been there much longer such as Germany, Italy, France and Australia, but have also deployed more troops with France and Germany having deployed over 4000 respectively. To put Canada above these other countries makes it seem they did more in the war when the facts suggest otherwise.--Collingwood26 (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you please provide a reference to support your claim that Canada deployed more troops and did more fighting than Australia? The Australian contribution has maxed out at about 1,500 personnel and there was essentially no Australian presence in Afghanistan between 2002 and 2005. The Australian reconstruction/mentoring task force which has been in the country since 2006 has not undertaken a great deal of combat as it's been focused on engineering and training roles and Dutch and US units have played the main role in fighting the Taliban in its area of operations. Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure where you got that from? I don't recall ever saying "Australia did more fighting than Canada". I am talking about Germany, France and Italy mainly.--Collingwood26 (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

On the 29 May and 4 June ( and previously) you made edits removing Canada from this article, and you have also asserted "Australia sent more troops." You have written in your most recent edit summary that you have sources and suggested to another editor the matter be taken to the talk page. So... I think everyone is awaiting your sources. Nickm57 (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Never removed Canada from this article that is a blatent lie right there, I did however remove Canada from the 2001 invasion box as they only officially sent troops in early 2002, however I do acknowledge they sent several undercover special units in 2001. I never said "Australia deployed more troops" might want to read a bit more carefully, I said Germany and France sent more troops having over 4000 respectively. Only time I mentioned Australia was when I read out a list of countries that have been in Afghanistan longer than Canada. Why exactly do I need sources for what? Commonly known fact is that Canada was involved from 2002-2011, but to put Canada above Italy, France, Germany, and Australia is ignorant of their contribution which not only overall sent more troops but have been present much longer.--Collingwood26 (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep well - our edit summaries are there for all to judge I guess. So if Canada deployed more combat troops and suffered greater casualties it needs to go before Australia. We all seem in agreement on that. DoneNickm57 (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Canada

Several editors have undone my previous edits regarding the list of ISAF countries in Afghanistan, Canada currently has zero troops in Afghanistan compared to Australia who has over 1550. Please explain to me why a country with zero troops currently, should be above a country with well over a thousand troops in combat?--Collingwood26 (talk) 10:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Failure to respond will mean I stand corrected and will resume changes.--Collingwood26 (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see the above discussion. Your assertion about Canada is also not correct - there are are 950 Canadians still in Afghanistan conducting training tasks: [1]. The number of Australians in the country at the moment is actually 800, and as part of the "draw down" process most now rarely go far from their base: [2] [3]. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Quite biased there Nick, your link works against you, it quite clearly says 1550 stationed in Afghanistan, so I stand corrected. Canada on the other hand has zero troops in Afghanistan, unless you can provide links otherwise. If not then Australia will have to be put before Canada.--Collingwood26 (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

....Well have you found the links or not?..--Collingwood26 (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

That table on the Defence page is screwed up (the rows don't match for the Operation Slipper section) - you're right about that figure: my mistake. The Canadian Government website plainly states that it has 950 military personnel in Afghanistan. Anyway, as discussed above I don't accept your contention that countries should be listed in order of their current forces deployed, which seems non-sensical given that most countries are in the process of withdrawing most of their forces. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Military personnel can be misleading, for example whilst Australia has 1550 odd numbers I think a bit less then a thousand are actual troops, but I could be wrong on that number. Anyway Canada only has some trainers which are training the Afghan army, other than that I'd say the rest of the numbers are probably engineers and such. Let me just apologise Nick-D, not just for this but for any other time I may have pissed you off. I don't mean to, it's just that when I think I'm right I get a little ahead of myself. :P Maybe we can come up with something that fairly designates in what order countries should be listed in the infobox, as it seems to get edited and changed quite a lot. Thanks --Collingwood26 (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

War Crimes

Can someone please explain why the War crimes section is so one-sided? The Taliban and Al-Qaeda represent 8 out of 10 incidents, and have stated that deliberate targeting of civilians is part of their strategy. Yet they have a whopping two sentences devoted to them which vaguely states an overview, while the US who has had a handful of incidents from individual soldiers over 12 years has five paragraphs which detail every case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.164.254 (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

U.S. Navy Seals in Bin Laden raid dead

I believe that entire squad had died shortly after carrying out orders from higher command to carry out the raid on his compound. They were all killed in a chinook helicopter going down in the deserts of Afghanistan. It was a huge tragedy, please note this in the article unless you are just another bi-ist Wiki hack.