Wikipedia

Talk:United States invasion of Afghanistan

(Redirected from Talk:2001 U.S. Attack on Afghanistan)
Latest comment: 1 month ago by Banedon in topic Why is Iran listed as a party in this war?
Learn more about this page
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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:

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)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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:

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)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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:

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)Reply

Is "Invasion" really the right word?

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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".

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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:

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)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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:

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)Reply

Afghanistan WikiProject

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)Reply

Taliban did not control 90% of the country by 2001

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)Reply

Germany

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)Reply

Is Leigh Neville a reliable source?

edit
Latest comment: 9 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago101 comments3 people in discussion
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)Reply

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)Reply

Thank you :) I may take to FAC eventually, but not anytime soon. --Cerebellum (talk) 08:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
: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)Reply
No worries! --Cerebellum (talk) 08:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Alright, back. Main focuses will be NPOV, appropriate context, and summary style. Ovinus (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

  • "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)Reply
      Done --Cerebellum (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • "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)Reply
    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.
  • "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)Reply
    Changed to "warlord rule". --Cerebellum (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • "Hazara factions" – This word hasn't been introduced Ovinus (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
    Yes :) Changed to a footnote. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • 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)Reply
    Great, thank you! --Cerebellum (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • "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)Reply

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)Reply

Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

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.

Other stuff

edit

Overall a pleasing and compelling article, even for someone who isn't into military conflicts. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

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:

(t · c) buidhe 04:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
Take as much time as you need! Ovinus (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Alright, passing. Thank you for your excellent work on this important topic! :) Ovinus (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thank you so much! You made my day :) --Cerebellum (talk) 08:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 10 July 2023

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments6 people in discussion
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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Change in U.S. policy section

edit
Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"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)Reply

Should the result be changed after the 2021 developments?

edit
Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)Reply

Why is Iran listed as a party in this war?

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments1 person in discussion

It's in the infobox, and I'm wondering why, since a CTRL + F search for "Iran" seems to return no relevant results. Banedon (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's been several hours with no answer on what should be a fairly-widely watched page, so I'm going to remove this. Banedon (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_invasion_of_Afghanistan&oldid=1256969136"