Talk:War in Afghanistan (2015–present)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject United States / September 11, 2001 (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject September 11, 2001 (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Terrorism (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Afghanistan (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon War in Afghanistan (2015–present) is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Central Asia (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon War in Afghanistan (2015–present) is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject International relations (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Expansion[edit]

I started it but there definitely is a lot of expansion needed, even though the war technically is only 20 days old as that is when Resolute Support began. @EkoGraf:, you closed the discussion on the other article, just pinging you so you know. - SantiLak (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Statistics[edit]

I did expand and add some of the statistics, but by now, they are at least 1-2 months outdated. Can someone PLEASE update the stats? I don't have all the resources, and I'm sure that newer figures have been released by now. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Map[edit]

Could there be a map similar to the one used for the yeas 2003-6, showing the territory currently controlled by the Taliban? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.246.133.221 (talk) 10:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

"NATO led the war"[edit]

I'm going to give myself the liberty of going on a sort of a rant against this misconception, which has spread across both this and the 01-14 articles. It may also help clear up the headnote disagreement. It is thoroughly misleading to say NATO led the war in Afghanistan. Let's take this chronologically. On Oct 7, 2001, the U.S. started Enduring Freedom, and it has waged destructive war throughout Afghanistan from that point onward. Don't believe it is as of now? Check the description of the SOF task force which I've added to this article. About Dec 20, 2001, the UK established a security assistance force, sometimes described as peacekeepers at the time, for Kabul, which later gained UN approval under the term 'ISAF'. In Aug 2003 NATO took command of that security assistance force for Kabul. Around about 2004 Op Enduring Freedom (Combined Joint Task Force 180) established regional commands to better carry out COIN operations around Afghanistan.

In December 2003, NATO's North Atlantic Council authorised the Supreme Allied Commander, General James Jones, to initiate the expansion of ISAF by taking over command of the German-led PRT in Kunduz. The other eight PRTs operating in Afghanistan in 2003 remained under the command of Operation Enduring Freedom, the continuing U.S.‑led military operation in Afghanistan. On 31 December 2003, the military component of the Kunduz PRT was placed under ISAF command as a pilot project and first step in the expansion of the mission. Six months later, NATO announced that it would establish four other provincial reconstruction teams in the north of the country: in Mazar-i-Sharif, Meymana, Feyzabad and Baghlan. After the completion of Stage 1 the ISAF's area of operations then covered some 3,600 square kilometres in the north and the mission was able to influence security in nine Northern provinces of the country. This was Regional Command North, run by a nation (Germany) which was prohibited from taking part in offensive operations or firing on the enemy once it began to move (Auerswald and Saideman, 2014, 148).

Meanwhile, in the other three Regional Commands in the country, U.S. Enduring Freedom counter-terrorist operations continued unabated. The first point where you might be able to argue that NATO became involved in warlike operations was when the Stage 2 expansion took place into RC West, finishing on 31 May 2006. RC West was assigned to Italy, which had less caveats than Germany, but still, it was the second-quietest sector of the country - deliberately, because the U.S. wanted to retain control over their CT operations and transfer control slowly so as to avoid embarrassing setbacks for their allies. While the U.S. retained control in RC South and East, they also continued to operate in the "NATO" RC North and RC West conducting counter-terrorist operations.

The U.S. transferred RC South to the Canadians/British/Dutch on 31 July 2006, and retained control over RC East throughout, but placed RC East, under a U.S. commander, under ISAF on 5 October 2006. Fighting had by this point started significantly in RC South, and NATO can be argued to be at war. But this was all in the presence of ongoing U.S. CT operations. Five months later, a British four-star (Richards) turned over command of ISAF to a U.S. four-star, and the U.S. ran ISAF from 2007-12. ISAF was technically directed by NATO, but nobody really can be expected to believe that David Petraeus was taking his commands from NATO? Obama was talking directly to Petraeus often!!

So it's not a clear picture. But this is essentially a war to deny al-Qaeda a haven in Afghanistan, with counter-terrorism tactics, and COIN if necessary. And that war was launched by and always directed by the U.S.. NATO happened to get into the fight here and there, relatively. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It could be said that there have always been two distinct, but related operations, one that was counter-terrorism focused led by the U.S. since the beginning of the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, and continued on after the new government came into power in Kabul; the other one being a "peacekeeping"/stability operation under later UN approved NATO operations which began in Kubal and slowly grew to other parts of Afghanistan. Therefore, could be argued to be two separate articles entirely! On for OEF-A, and another of ISAF (aren't those both already in existence?). And OEF-A would transition to Operation Freedom Sentinel (but be in the same article) and ISAF would transition to RS (but also be in the same article).
Clear as mud??
And this and the other articles about the U.S. War in Afghanistan would be synths of those to related but distinct operations?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Propose merger[edit]

Propose the merger of the article War in Afghanistan (2015–present) with War in Afghanistan (2001–present) and Resolute Support Mission for the following reasons:

  • The conflict is ongoing, the end of NATO operations under ISAF did not end this war either, only reduced the number of troops and changed the name of the mission. The fighting are the same, the western intervention in Afghanistan continues, then the conflict goes unchanged, according sources [1] [2] [3] ;
  • We can't have two "to present" articles about the same conflict: War in Afghanistan (2015–present) and War in Afghanistan (2001–present). This does not make sense. 152.250.110.79 (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Per arguments raised by nominator. StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support The war has continued, and there are still American and NATO forces present in conflict with the Taliban. Gazkthul (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd like to be clear I didn't support the creation of this article at first but when the consensus of a discussion on the other war's page was to split into two articles, I made this one, whatever the outcome is here I'm fine either way. - SantiLak (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The conflict has essentially continued and remained unchanged despite the change in name of the NATO mission --Ritsaiph (talk) 01:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)vs}}
  • No position I have changed my view of being fine either way whether this article is merged or not. If the decision is to not merge, then the article War in Afghanistan (2001–present) should be changed to 2001-2014. --Ritsaiph (talk) 11:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support 14 years for a contemporary war makes for a very long article, but the withdrawal of foreign troops used doesn't seem complete enough for an appropriate periodization. Thing is I don't know where to split it. Also, if merge is defeated, please change the title of the prior article to (2001-2014) or something. 209.6.166.24 (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Opposed The belligerents change heralds a new war.--Mohatatou (talk) 22:34, 25 August

2015 (UTC)

  • Opposed The article become too long if merged with War in Afghanistan (2001–present). The author is maintaing the quality, reliability of the contents and written the article with neutral point of view. As per the wikipedia policy merging must be avoided if " The resulting article is too long or "clunky" and if the articles are merged together It will be too long. See WP:MERGEREASONPriyadarshivishal23 (talk) 11:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)priyadarshivishal23
  • Opposed The two articles represent two separate phases of the conflict in Afghanistan which has been going on since 1978. As such, they should remain separate articles, just as each of the other phases of the conflict have their own articles. The same weak arguement used by the supporters of this merger based on the continuous nature of the conflict could be used to argue for the merger of all of those articles, since it could be argued that fighting has been continuous since April 27, 1978. I fail to see sufficient reason for a merger.I would also like to add that the only reason the 2001 conflict says to the present is because every time someone tries to change, another user reverts. The only thing "ridiculous" about the situation is the fact that people keep reverting anyone who tries to make the correction. Case in point, I will now attempt to rectify the situation yet again. Let's see how quickly it's reverted. Anasaitis (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
There sources supporting the idea that this is another war and that Western intervention finished? I think not. I can not see how one can speak in a different war if there is continuity in everything except one of the parties (NATO) has withdrawn most of the troops. Unless they is adopted a thesis that poses immense problems in terms of WP:NPOV: the country was invaded and Western intervention ended in 2014. Maybe too early to say whether War in Afghanistan (2015–present) really represents something new or not. It makes no sense to evoke the size of article to give an idea to the reader that in 2014 ended a war and in 2015 started another. As in other cases, what should be done is to create specialized articles, but must remain a generic. If this article intends to report on Taliban attacks, part of its content can be merged with Taliban insurgency (which is quite outdated). 200.153.241.94 (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

That is not the only thing that has changed. ISIL and its affiliated groups have joined the conflict. Furthermore, there is new support for the Taliban by foreigners and Pakistan role in the conflict has changed if the sources are to be believed. Anasaitis (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Its the same war being fought be the same men at the same locations. Just because the US Government is calling it a new war, doesn't mean it is a new war. Juno (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

That isn't the only reason that it is being called a new war. Some of the sides have changed, and ISIL has joined the fight as a new faction. Don't just assume that it's only called a new war because the U.S. says so. There are multiple reasons for it. Furthermore, as I mentioned above, technically Afghanistan has been in a state of constant warfare since 1978, and all the conflicts that have occurred in that time are considered seperate phases of the Civil War in Afghanistan. The U.S was involved in Afghanistan long before 9/11, as were many of the nation's that are currently involved. Technically speaking, these " wars" are all just different phases of the same conflict. Due to the ever-changing and complicated nature of the conflict, however, each of the phases has it's own separate article. This policy isn't new to this conflict. We used the same approach with the article on the conflict in Somalia. I see no reason to change that policy because of some similarities between two distinct phases of the conflict, for that is what they are. We need to stop looking at the recent confict in Afghanistan as a distinct war, and view it as simply the latest phases of a conflict that dates back to the Cold War. I think that is the mistake Juno and the others who are in favor of merging the two articles have made. Anasaitis (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Did ISIS enter the conflict on 01, January 2015? Because if they didn't the distinction still seems arbitrary. The primary players are still on the ground, pursuing the same primary means did not change when Washington claims that they changed. Juno (talk) 03:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and the Rolling Stones isn't exactly a reliable source. They aren't experts on political or military history. They are merely a magazine that discusses popular culture. They're also no strangers to exaggeration and fabrication, as their history can attest. The first two sources are more reliable, but It appears that whoever provides the links didn't properly link the third source, as I can't find it. Still, I don't think we should move the article based on just two reliable sources and two unreliable or inaccessible ones. Anasaitis (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure which sources you're referring to but RS has had reporters embedded in NATO Command. Does the NTY have any now? RS is the reason that General McChrystal isn't wearing a uniform any more. Where was the Washington Post on that? They fouled up the UVA story, but RS is a RS. Juno (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you should not reduce the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) to a mere "phase of the afghan civil war", because this conflict is embedded within a much larger context: the War on Terror. The afghan war began in 2001 on the pretext of fighting terrorism, but the United States still continue bombing and launching operations to combat terrorism in the country. Then how can you say that there is a different war? The U.S and NATO interests in Afghanistan has changed the 2014 to 2015? 177.68.222.63 (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Bingo. This is maybe a different campaign (probably the same campaign) inside of the WOT. Juno (talk) 03:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

If need be cite more sources to what is being said: [4], [5], [6] ... I understand that War in Afghanistan (2001-present) is a specific article for the Western intervention in Afghanistan. So now we have NATO providing training to Afghan forces fight the terrorists and the US making counter-terrorism operations, and this war is fits into the context of the War on Terror, then I believe that Western interest in the country is the same since 2001. The only thing that changed it was the removal of a large contingent of troops from Afghanistan and ISAF being replaced by the Resolute Support Mission; namely changed the strategy but the goal remains been the same since 2001. In addition, until now no one has presented reliable sources that support unquestionably so that in 2015 there is a "new phase of the afghan civil war" and that this "other war" began on 1 January 2015 as reported in the article... original research? 177.103.3.151 (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Map of the current situation[edit]

Just wanted to bring attention to the maps detailing the various factions and current territorial status in other articles, and was wondering if any user is experienced in making these? I am referring to the maps on these articles:

I'd thought it would be worthwhile, as Afghanistan is a fairly important theater of military operations in the world, and with the Taliban taking more territory in the country [1] [2], that it should be represented like in the articles above. --Ritsaiph (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ritsaiph: see template:Taliban insurgency detailed map.GreyShark (dibra) 06:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
GreyShark, thank you very much for helping make this map regarding the current conflict in Afghanistan :) I'm trying to figure out how to put the map into the info-box, like it is with the Syrian Civil War article for example. --Ritsaiph (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The thanks goes mainly to user:Banak and user:Pbfreespace3; me and user:MrPenguin20 also contributed.GreyShark (dibra) 10:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
You're overselling me and underselling MrPenguin20. Banak (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)