Talk:United States invasion of Afghanistan
![]() | United States invasion of Afghanistan has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: May 17, 2022. (Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, War in Afghanistan (2001–present), due to size or style considerations. |
![]() | On 10 July 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 7 external links on United States invasion of Afghanistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20021118162327/http://www.papillonsartpalace.com:80/massacre.htm to http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/massacre.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071215095339/http://www.hrw.org/reports98/afghan/Afrepor0-03.htm to http://www.hrw.org/reports98/afghan/Afrepor0-03.htm#P186_38364
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101202040816/http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,183885,00.html to http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,183885,00.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101110035824/http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/10/top2.htm to http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/10/top2.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110719082550/http://www.schoechi.de/crw/crw088e.html to http://www.schoechi.de/crw/crw088e.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051216152224/http://www.msnbc.com:80/news/664935.asp?cp1=1 to http://www.msnbc.com/news/664935.asp?cp1=1
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130117094334/http://articles.cnn.com/2002-03-14/us/ret.osama.whereabouts_1_mullah-mohammed-omar-taliban-leader-bin?_s=PM:US to http://articles.cnn.com/2002-03-14/us/ret.osama.whereabouts_1_mullah-mohammed-omar-taliban-leader-bin?_s=PM:US
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 6 external links on United States invasion of Afghanistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081102042606/http://www.hrw.org:80/reports98/afghan/Afrepor0-01.htm to http://www.hrw.org/reports98/afghan/Afrepor0-01.htm#P81_13959
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080311055230/http://archives.cnn.com:80/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/09/17/afghan.pakistan.0500/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/09/17/afghan.pakistan.0500/index.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130525104632/http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,188521,00.html to http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,188521,00.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930100844/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1001390-1,00.html to http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1001390-1,00.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071107053501/http://archives.cnn.com:80/2002/US/03/08/ret.war.facts/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/03/08/ret.war.facts/index.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090825115134/http://www.centcom.mil/en/countries/coalition/canada/ to http://www.centcom.mil/en/countries/coalition/canada/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on United States invasion of Afghanistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004221455/http://www.afghanistanjusticeproject.org/warcrimesandcrimesagainsthumanity19782001.pdf to http://www.afghanistanjusticeproject.org/warcrimesandcrimesagainsthumanity19782001.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101110035824/http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/10/top2.htm to http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/10/top2.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Is "Invasion" really the right word?
[edit]It seems to me that "Invasion" is being used a bit liberally and incorrectly several places in this article, but especially the title. The initial strikes on the Taliban were done by U.S. Army Special Forces units, in small numbers. That would not qualify as an invasion. After that, the U.S. partnered with the Afghanistan government and NATO forces to combat the Taliban. "Invasion" would be more accurate if the U.S. were fighting against Afghanistan itself, instead of allying with it.
It seems to me that by the definition of "invasion", two things are required: 1) a large force, and 2) being "unwelcome".
- Wiktionary definition of "invasion"
- Dictionary.com definition of "invasion"
- Oxford Dictionary definition of "invasion"
- Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of "invasion"
The referenced sources don't seem to support the use of "invasion" either. Perhaps my definition is a bit stricter, from being in the military.
Thoughts? Agree/Disagree?
- Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 07:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Many sources refer to the event as an invasion: Afghanistan: 16 years, thousands dead and no clear end in sight - CNN ("The United States first invaded Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, as part of Operation Enduring Freedom."), The Top 10 Mistakes Made in the Afghan War – Foreign Policy ("The United States invaded Afghanistan for one reason: to get Osama bin Laden and as many of his followers as possible."), Afghanistan profile - Timeline - BBC News ("US-led invasion"), WHY DID THE UNITED STATES INVADE AFGHANISTAN?, etc --177.138.183.96 (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- The Taliban was the government of Afghanistan at the time of the invasion. 2601:644:1:B7CB:5802:C4A6:C2C7:1815 (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on United States invasion of Afghanistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150302014738/http://www.cfr.org/afghanistan/us-war-afghanistan/p20018 to http://www.cfr.org/afghanistan/us-war-afghanistan/p20018
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927101915/http://www.cfr.org/publication/10551/ to http://www.cfr.org/publication/10551/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121007043712/http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/episodes/inside-the-taliban/ to http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/episodes/inside-the-taliban/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061001031543/http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/go0610.pdf to http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/go0610.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061001031543/http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/go0610.pdf to http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/go0610.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090115064058/http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/volumes/volume2/october_2004/10_04_1.html to http://www.army.mil/professionalWriting/volumes/volume2/october_2004/10_04_1.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040610170428/http://www.why-war.com/news/2003/10/29/alqaidam.html to http://www.why-war.com/news/2003/10/29/alqaidam.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080225062850/http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/isaf.cfm to http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/isaf.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
External links modified (January 2018)
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States invasion of Afghanistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160415094339/http://insnews.org/world/focus/1101/kabul.world.reaction.report1.htm to http://insnews.org/world/focus/1101/kabul.world.reaction.report1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Afghanistan WikiProject
[edit]This articles states it is in the WikiProject United States. Why is it not also in the WikiProject Afghanistan? Could someone add this article to the WikiProject Afghanistan? Stunts1990 (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Taliban did not control 90% of the country by 2001
[edit]By most accounts at the time the Taliban controlled 75% or less of Afghanistan. Your own map on the right illustrates not only less than 90%, but ongoing fighting with the Northern Alliance in most of the northern half of the country. This is not "control."
- I believe that the 90% figure is correct for 2001, as by then the Northern Alliance had been hemorrhaging territory for several years. Do you have any sources to the contrary?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Germany
[edit]Germany also send troops (KSK) to invade Afghanistan. They are fight in Tora Bora in December 2001 and they had operations in the near of Pakistan. SoldatAnthony (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Is Leigh Neville a reliable source?
[edit]The article contains a lot of references to this book:
- Neville, Leigh (2015). Special Forces in the War on Terror. Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1472807908.
I can't find any reviews of this book online, and Neville doesn't seem very qualified as a historian (publisher bio). I've found what I think are two errors in the book so far. Neville says that the first CIA team had 8 people, every other source says 10 (7 field agents and 3 helicopter crew). And Neville says that there was a heavy firefight on Objective Gecko with 30 "insurgents" killed. Other sources say there were no enemy on Gecko. Unless anyone objects, I'll probably start replacing the Neville book with other sources. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- I ended up keeping some citations to this book, it's widely used within Wikipedia so I don't it's appropriate for me as one editor to decide it's not good enough. As for the firefight on Gecko, General Franks said the same thing, maybe Neville was relying on his account. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know whether that author is a reliable source or if there were 30 Taliban KIA, but there was a firefight and several Delta soldiers were wounded. I don't know to what extent the real story ever came out because there was a lot of propaganda from both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyIP19216811 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:United States invasion of Afghanistan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ovinus (talk · contribs) 04:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
An impressive article to bring to GAN. I will probably make some hands-on tweaks (feel free to revert ones you disagree with). Do you intend on taking this to FAC? Ovinus (talk) 04:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you :) I may take to FAC eventually, but not anytime soon. --Cerebellum (talk) 08:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- :D Sorry about this, but I'll need to be off Wikipedia for a bit—probably a week. I'll get back to you once off-wiki stuff settles. Ovinus (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- No worries! --Cerebellum (talk) 08:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- :D Sorry about this, but I'll need to be off Wikipedia for a bit—probably a week. I'll get back to you once off-wiki stuff settles. Ovinus (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Alright, back. Main focuses will be NPOV, appropriate context, and summary style. Ovinus (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- "became the first phase of a 20-year long war in the country" – I'd just be direct and say "became the first phase of the 20-year-long War in Afghanistan" Ovinus (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Done --Cerebellum (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- "eventually succeeded in overthrowing the Afghan government in 2021" – Probably should state that the overthrow occurred quickly/immediately after the withdrawal of US troops Ovinus (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Changed to
In 2021, while international forces were withdrawing from the country, the Taliban succeeded in overthrowing the Afghan government and re-establishing their rule across Afghanistan.
- Changed to
- "warlord-ism" – Is this a common word? If not I'd rephrase it; if so I'd remove the hyphen Ovinus (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Changed to "warlord rule". --Cerebellum (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- "Hazara factions" – This word hasn't been introduced Ovinus (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Added
The Hazaras are a minority ethnic group adhering to Shia Islam and living in the mountains of central Afghanistan.
They're actually quite fascinating, when I was in Logar province neither the Taliban nor the Afghan army would go into Hazara areas - they keep to themselves and run a tight ship. Should I make the sentence a footnote or leave it in the main text? --Cerebellum (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)- You were deployed in Afghanistan? Wow. Yeah, I like the extra information but I would put it in a footnote (probs at the end of the sentence, since it's close enough to Hazara). Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes :) Changed to a footnote. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- You were deployed in Afghanistan? Wow. Yeah, I like the extra information but I would put it in a footnote (probs at the end of the sentence, since it's close enough to Hazara). Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Added
- I made a change giving context to bin Laden's return from Sudan (first sentence in Al-Qaeda). Please tweak/revert if it isn't supported by the source, but I thought it would help a reader who forgot about bin Laden's flee from Afghanistan. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Great, thank you! --Cerebellum (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- "One of bin Laden's strategic goals was to draw the US into a costly war in Afghanistan, so it could be defeated just as the Soviet Union had been" – To be clear, the cost of the war specifically would lead to defeat in Afghanistan?
Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- The source doesn't specify, it just says: "As a side effect of September 11, bin Laden hope to draw the United States into a long war in Afghanistan, where it would be defeated like the Soviet Union." --Cerebellum (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'd like a sentence at the beginning of Command structure that just states the countries involved. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Done --Cerebellum (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- "with a budget of $7 million" relevant? I haven't seen financial information up till here. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Removed. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- "with a Predator drone" A bit of context on the predator drone would be helpful. Why is its first deployment notable? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Done --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- "the men left the school, but Omar escaped" – If Omar was among the men, probably should use "and" Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Done --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- "They also began airdropping food and medical supplies" – To whom? Also, how relevant and/or unusual is this?
Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Added
to civilians in Northern Alliance-controlled territory
. I think it is unusual, it was a big initiative of Bush because Afghanistan was in a severe drought.
- Added
- Overall comment: There is a lot of detail on equipment, battalions, etc. I'll be honest: I rarely touch military articles and am not sure of the typical style. I'd imagine this article will be much more trafficked by people like me, so I'd strive for a more general audience if you do take it to FAC Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I think what really hurts readability is that I refer to the Special Forces teams by their numbers, e.g. ODA 555. I couldn’t think of a better way to do it :( But I understand that any reader's eyes will glaze over when they see the wall of acronyms and unit designations, it is definitely a problem and one of the reasons I am hesitant to take this to AFC. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Understood. I still think it's quite readable. Ovinus (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I think what really hurts readability is that I refer to the Special Forces teams by their numbers, e.g. ODA 555. I couldn’t think of a better way to do it :( But I understand that any reader's eyes will glaze over when they see the wall of acronyms and unit designations, it is definitely a problem and one of the reasons I am hesitant to take this to AFC. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- "known as Pinkies" Relevant? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Removed. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- "Emirati hunting camp" Forgive my ignorance—what is a hunting camp? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's a strange story, there is a rare bird called MacQueen's bustard in Afghanistan that is beloved by falcon hunters. Some sheikhs from the United Arab Emirates built the airstrip so that they could fly in on their private jets in order to hunt the birds. Let me know if I should include that info in the article. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- That is pretty strange... but that's kind of what I assume you meant by "hunting camp" (hunting animals) so I think it's fine.
- It's a strange story, there is a rare bird called MacQueen's bustard in Afghanistan that is beloved by falcon hunters. Some sheikhs from the United Arab Emirates built the airstrip so that they could fly in on their private jets in order to hunt the birds. Let me know if I should include that info in the article. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- "preparatory fires" Again, sorry if this is jargon. Does "preparatory" mean prophylactic, practice, something else? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Preparatory fires means bombing something before an attack in order to “soften up” the target, I agree that it is unnecessary jargon. How about
B-2 Spirit stealth bombers and AC-130 gunships bombed and strafed the site
.- Sounds good
- Preparatory fires means bombing something before an attack in order to “soften up” the target, I agree that it is unnecessary jargon. How about
- "Objective Gecko" is used before it is defined. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- "No casualties were suffered" I'd clarify "US casualties" Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- "The next day, the Pentagon showed the video footage from Objective Rhino at a press conference and distributed it to news organizations" Relevant because... it was the first public video of the operations? If so, I'd state that. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- I thought it was relevant because General Dailey had his men attack a worthless objective (worthless because he knew there were no enemy on the objective), just so he could film the mission and give it to reporters. The whole thing was for propaganda purposes, is there a better way I can convey that? Or am I already editorializing too much? --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ah okay.
- I thought it was relevant because General Dailey had his men attack a worthless objective (worthless because he knew there were no enemy on the objective), just so he could film the mission and give it to reporters. The whole thing was for propaganda purposes, is there a better way I can convey that? Or am I already editorializing too much? --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- "both objectives were empty" What does empty mean? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Changed to
neither objective had any Taliban on it
, hope that's better. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Changed to
- "Since intelligence prior to the missions had indicated that both objectives were empty, the mission primarily aimed to psychologically damage the Taliban" The second half of sentence can be removed, as it nearly duplicates the next sentence, and I think Dailey's quote is more compelling. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- "calling al-Qaeda and the Taliban criminals who were not proper Muslims" What does this mean? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- I checked the source, it just says
decrying the Taliban and Afghanistan as criminals who had ruined Afghanistan
, so I removed the part about them not being proper Muslims. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- I checked the source, it just says
- "an important hostage rescue mission" – I'd probably remove "important" unless it was a defining event of the operation, as it's slightly editorializing, and the reader can immediately see the significance with the next sentence. Up to you, though. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- "caused heavy Taliban casualties" Any estimates on the toll? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- The source does not give an estimate. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- "surprised everyone" Who is everyone? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Changed to "surprised the Americans". --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- "impromptu massed infantry assault" What does "massed" mean? Should it be "mass"? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- "Several nights later, beginning on October 16" I assume you mean November here Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- There's an image of the propaganda pamplets, but I don't see anything about them in-text. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Removed the image. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- "they assassinated his father" Is "assassination" appropriate here? (Was his father a high-level political figure) Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- The source says “assassinated”, so does our article Abdul Ahad Karzai. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- "The airlift is alleged to have evacuated up to five thousand people" – Is this figure controversial enough to say "alleged"? If so, I'd like in-text attribution Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, everything about the airlift is controversial, I added some specific views with attribution including the US government position that no such airlift took place. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Cool, and I like the additions.
- Yes, everything about the airlift is controversial, I added some specific views with attribution including the US government position that no such airlift took place. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- "opium plant" – Perhaps you could use "factory" or whatever term you think is most precise; I was confused for a moment because I thought they had some giant opium poppy :P Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Lol! Changed to "production facility". --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- "On the way to the target one Land Rover broke down due to an engine problem and was left behind with its crew (they were picked when the assault force exfilled)." Seems like excessive detail... Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Removed. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- "recovered Spann's body" On what date? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- 26 November, added to text. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- "86 Taliban survived" Out of how many? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- 1,000, added to text. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- "The revolt was the final combat in northern Afghanistan." Citation needed Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Could not find a source so I removed that sentence. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- "Dasht-i-Leili massacre" In the interest of NPOV, I'd put a quick sentence about the subsequent investigations into the massacre, or in Aftermath. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Done. Dostum, despite being responsible for that massacre, went on to become vice president of Afghanistan until he was accused of sodomizing a political rival with an assault rifle in 2017 and fled the country (source). --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oh gosh.
- Done. Dostum, despite being responsible for that massacre, went on to become vice president of Afghanistan until he was accused of sodomizing a political rival with an assault rifle in 2017 and fled the country (source). --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- "Using CIA cash" Is "cash" frequently used formally in this context? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Changed to "funds". --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- "They would also retreat to their base areas to sleep and break their fast each night, since the battle occurred during Ramadan, the month of fasting when Muslims do not eat or drink during the day." To be clear, the forces observed Ramadan despite their fighting? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, should I say that in the text? --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- No need; I was just quite surprised..
- Yes, should I say that in the text? --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- "Powell and Rumsfeld" Give Powell's title, first name, and link Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Done --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- "US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld aimed to carry out operations..." This should be moved before the Powell–Rumsfield debate Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Done --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- "Because the rise of the insurgency" What insurgency? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Linked Taliban insurgency. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- "invoking the memory of General George Marshall whilst talking of Afghan reconstruction" Somewhat flowery; I'd rephrase a bit. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Done --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Other stuff
[edit]- There is a sandwich issue at the beginning of Prelude. I'd suggest moving things a bit or removing the Ground Zero photo (I think most people reading this article will have seen it). Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Removed the Ground Zero photo. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Overall a pleasing and compelling article, even for someone who isn't into military conflicts. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Comment from the peanut gallery
[edit]One major aspect that I don't see covered here is the question as to whether the invasion of Afghanistan was legal according to the UN charter and international law. There are various sources that discuss it, for example:
- Juan, Michelle Ann U. (2002–2003). "Testing the Legality of the Attack on Afghanistan". Ateneo Law Journal. 47: 499.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: date format (link) - Quigley, John (2002–2003). "The Afghanistan War and Self-Defense". Valparaiso University Law Review. 37: 541.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: date format (link) - Williamson, Myra (2013). Terrorism, War and International Law: The Legality of the Use of Force Against Afghanistan in 2001. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 978-1-4094-9656-4.
(t · c) buidhe 04:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Buidhe makes an excellent point, thanks; completely forgot about the non-military aspect. A discussion on international reactions and legality is important for completeness, especially for a fairly massive event like this one. And as I alluded to above, I'd also like a bit more info in Casualties; where was the death toll highest? Ovinus (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you Buidhe for the comment and those sources. Ovinus, if you can give me the weekend to review the sources I will get the section added no later than Sunday. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Take as much time as you need! Ovinus (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Ovinus: @Buidhe: I took a stab at a legality section, let me know what you think. Tomorrow I will try to find more detailed information on casualties and/or war crimes, I know there is at least one account of the Northern Alliance beheading Taliban prisoners. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's pretty good, although a tad short. Buidhe, do you know if the invasion's illegality is a majority view? You could hatnote this section to Opposition to the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) which is largely about this same topic (although not the best article out there), and actually provides other pertinent topics to put elsewhere in Aftermath: International reactions, the reaction of the US public, and of Afghanis. My feeling is that the military coverage is excellent and complete; we just need more context on non-military aspects of the aftermath. Ovinus (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, done. Added a reactions section and expanded casualties. Most of the coverage of civilian casualties begins after the invasion, for example on December 23rd 65 tribal elders were killed in an airstrike while on their way to Karzai's inauguration, but the scope of this article ends on December 17th. Same with Afghan public opinion, there are anecdotal reports but I couldn't find any actual surveys before 2006. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- Looks pretty good, imo! I'll probably pass the review after a quick second pass of the article. Ovinus (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Alright, passing. Thank you for your excellent work on this important topic! :) Ovinus (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! You made my day :) --Cerebellum (talk) 08:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Alright, passing. Thank you for your excellent work on this important topic! :) Ovinus (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Looks pretty good, imo! I'll probably pass the review after a quick second pass of the article. Ovinus (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, done. Added a reactions section and expanded casualties. Most of the coverage of civilian casualties begins after the invasion, for example on December 23rd 65 tribal elders were killed in an airstrike while on their way to Karzai's inauguration, but the scope of this article ends on December 17th. Same with Afghan public opinion, there are anecdotal reports but I couldn't find any actual surveys before 2006. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's pretty good, although a tad short. Buidhe, do you know if the invasion's illegality is a majority view? You could hatnote this section to Opposition to the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) which is largely about this same topic (although not the best article out there), and actually provides other pertinent topics to put elsewhere in Aftermath: International reactions, the reaction of the US public, and of Afghanis. My feeling is that the military coverage is excellent and complete; we just need more context on non-military aspects of the aftermath. Ovinus (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Ovinus: @Buidhe: I took a stab at a legality section, let me know what you think. Tomorrow I will try to find more detailed information on casualties and/or war crimes, I know there is at least one account of the Northern Alliance beheading Taliban prisoners. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Take as much time as you need! Ovinus (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you Buidhe for the comment and those sources. Ovinus, if you can give me the weekend to review the sources I will get the section added no later than Sunday. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Requested move 10 July 2023
[edit]- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. There appears to be a consensus to keep the article at its current title. (closed by non-admin page mover) The Night Watch (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
United States invasion of Afghanistan → 2001 invasion of Afghanistan – Just like in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, not only the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, but other countries as well. Doesn’t matter if U.S. was the leader of the invasion, because it was also the leader of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Note. War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) is a separate article. Dekimasuよ! 14:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose: Two wrongs dont make a right
- So far in history, there has been only 1 American invasion war each for Afghanistan & Iraq. Therefore, the issue of dates do not arise as of yet.
- The proposed title goes against WP:PRECISE, and leaves the reader with impression that invasion came out of nowhere and obscure the identity of the invading power. It's like saying Russian invasion of Ukraine should be titled as "2022 invasion of Ukraine".
- An efficient, neutral and precise title mentions both the invading side and the invaded. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Also, Ukraine has only been invaded by Russia, which is why it keeps it's current name! WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Per WP:PRECISE and WP:CRITERIA. The article is specifically about the invasion, not the whole war. And the invasion was primarily a US venture primarily carried out by the US to achieve US goals (catching Osama bin Laden and bringing those responsible for the 9/11 attacks to justice.) Other countries only got seriously involved in the conflict from the year 2002 onwards. A title that clearly defines the identity of the invading power is the more natural, recognizable and precise title and the most consistent with similar articles. And I don't believe that minor contributions at this stage of the conflict by a small coalition of Anglosphere nations makes it any less of a US invasion considering that the primary stated goal of those countries was to "support their American allies and honoring their Article V NATO commitments." This changed later as the war dragged on and the goal shifted towards nation-building, but the invasion itself revolved around US short-term objectives. Fanatizka (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- However, the UK, Canada, Australia and the Northen Alliance, with the former 2 being NATO members, have also participated in the invasion, not only the rest of the war! WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- The Northern Alliance were Afghans, so they of course did not "invade" Afghanistan anymore than the Syrian rebels "invaded" Syria. And yes as mentioned a few other countries did assist the US in its invasion (with all combat operations being carried out by the US) doesn't change the fact that it was a US invasion. The invasion was a knee-jerk reaction to the 9/11 attacks (an attack on US soil) and revolved completely around the US. It wasn't like Iraq where you had months of WMD accusations or a "coalition of the willing" and it was not initially the goal to turn Afghanistan into a democracy like was the case with Iraq. Fanatizka (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- However, the UK, Canada, Australia and the Northen Alliance, with the former 2 being NATO members, have also participated in the invasion, not only the rest of the war! WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. The invasion was U.S. led. The current title is fine. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Change in U.S. policy section
[edit]"At the time the only collaboration with Massoud was..." Seems like it should say "abortive attempt to track" or at least link to Berntsen's page as the op only lasted a week. MyIP19216811 (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Should the result be changed after the 2021 developments?
[edit]The retreat of the United States' forces from Afghanistan and the toppling of its government by the Taliban in 2021 seem, to me, do indicate a Taliban victory. I get that this article refers to the invasion by the United States, not the War of Afghanistan itself, but since the fighting never really stopped and the Taliban accomplished its goals in the region, it seems weird to me to have the result denote an "American-led coalition Victory". MaquinaDeAnsiedade (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Warfare good articles
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- GA-Class Afghanistan articles
- Low-importance Afghanistan articles
- WikiProject Afghanistan articles
- GA-Class Australia articles
- Low-importance Australia articles
- WikiProject Australia articles
- GA-Class Canada-related articles
- Low-importance Canada-related articles
- All WikiProject Canada pages
- GA-Class Central Asia articles
- Low-importance Central Asia articles
- WikiProject Central Asia articles
- GA-Class Crime-related articles
- Low-importance Crime-related articles
- GA-Class Organized crime articles
- Low-importance Organized crime articles
- Organized crime task force articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- GA-Class International relations articles
- Low-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- GA-Class Islam-related articles
- Low-importance Islam-related articles
- GA-Class Salaf articles
- Unknown-importance Salaf articles
- Salaf task force articles
- GA-Class Sunni Islam articles
- Unknown-importance Sunni Islam articles
- Sunni Islam task force articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- GA-Class Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history articles
- Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force articles
- GA-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- GA-Class Canadian military history articles
- Canadian military history task force articles
- GA-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- GA-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- GA-Class South Asian military history articles
- South Asian military history task force articles
- GA-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- GA-Class Post-Cold War articles
- Post-Cold War task force articles
- GA-Class Terrorism articles
- Low-importance Terrorism articles
- WikiProject Terrorism articles
- GA-Class United Kingdom articles
- Low-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles
- GA-Class United States articles
- High-importance United States articles
- GA-Class United States articles of High-importance
- GA-Class September 11, 2001 articles
- Top-importance September 11, 2001 articles
- WikiProject September 11, 2001 articles
- GA-Class United States Government articles
- Mid-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- GA-Class United States History articles
- Mid-importance United States History articles
- WikiProject United States History articles
- WikiProject United States articles