Talk:Operation Allies Refuge

Interaction with article 'Withdrawal of United States troops from Afghanistan (2020–2021)'

I've notified editors of Withdrawal of United States troops from Afghanistan (2020–2021) in regards to this page. My thinking is that this operation will eventually merit it's own article even if the current details and depth are limited as of this date. Especially because that page is specific to military operations (troops) while this is in regards to the civilian evacuation which now has it's own operation designation as of July 2021. _ morde _t ^.. 04:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Lede

Lede says "Operation Allies Refuge is an ongoing United States military operation to airlift selected at-risk Afghan civilians, particularly translators, U.S. embassy employees, and other prospective Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) applicants, from Afghanistan." Later on, in "Number of individuals", the article mention U.S. citizens. From this source, does Operation Allies Refuge include U.S. citizens, U.S. permananent residents? If so, change lede to "Operation Allies Refuge is an ongoing United States military operation to airlift selected U.S Citizens, U.S. permanent residents,at-risk Afghan civilians, particularly translators, U.S. embassy employees, and other prospective Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) applicants, from Afghanistan."? Manabimasu (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

AllProposed merge of Operation Pitting with Operation ies Refuge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge as the topics are distinct, independently notable and the text is long enough to support separate articles. Klbrain (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Should be one article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Possible, but couldn't be at either title.. 2021 Western evacuation from Afghanistan? Could include all NATO and other evac efforts; see https://www.facebook.com/keksifarm.hayday/posts/2953165958287297. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Why should it be the same article when they’re two completely different operations carried out by two different countries? TheArmchairSoldier (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Two different operations that started at different times, by different countries. Only similarity is the location of the evacs and and that both US and UK are NATO. It doesnt help that UK officials reportedly criticized the botched US evacuation. Just sounds like any attempt to merge the two into a super article is WP:SYNTH, or a derivative of it. Just keep the separate articles and limit bleed-over. Same reason Operation Okra and Operation Impact exist. They are different articles about separate military operations, but the topic and Area of operations are the same (war against ISIL). RopeTricks (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose too for the same reasons specified by User:RopeTricks. Operation Pitting as an article is substantial enough to stand on its own. If a combined article, such as the one proposed by User:Buckshot06 is made, I favour Operation Pitting having a section which summarises and links to the separate main article, Operation Pitting. TheArmchairSoldier (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose These are separate, though coordinated, national operations. Nick-D (talk) 03:51, 22 August (UTC)
• Oppose Definitely two separate operations. I would however back a new article for 2021 Western evacuation from Afghanistan. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support Merge, along with information from Fall of Kabul (2021)#Kabul Airport evacuations, into new article 2021 Afghan Evacuation or 2021 Kabul Airlift with separate sections for each operations. Sgnpkd (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • There is now an overall article titled 2021 evacuation from Afghanistan. Z22 (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose because these are two different operations in two different countries. --Neocon1 (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose No reason there shouldn't be separate articles on each operation as they're both distinct and separate. Bzth (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. One could create an "umbrella page", NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan, but it would include this page and a couple of other pages as sub-pages. My very best wishes (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I see strong opposition here but don't forget that the current airlift is a strong international coalition between the U.S. and other NATO forces. Without an umbrella article it would just fracture the information instead of keeping it in one place. Look at for example Operation Enduring Freedom (U.S.) and Operation Herrick (UK), both are separate because they're separate operations, BUT there is still the overall War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) article that deals with everything. That's what we need here. Allies Refuge and Pitting should remain separate, but there needs to be a dedicated article for example "2021 Kabul airlift" that deals with the event overall, including all the fleeing Afghans themselves. --Weaveravel (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Weaveravel I personally think that is a good idea. Feel free to start off that page. Not clear whether it should be at 2021 Western evacuation from Afghanistan which could then cover land escapes as well or NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan which would not cover countries like Sweden, Austria, Australia, NZ etc or 2021 Kabul airlift. J-Man11 should you wish to start 2021 Western evacuation of Afghanistan, I will overlook post-1900 activity because (a) your topic ban is not formally in place and (b) there's lots of people interested to supervise you. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
    • • • Buckshot06 Thanks, however I would strongly oppose calling it "Western". Western is not only vague but lots of non-West countries are also evacuating citizens (e.g. India, Indonesia). I guess it also would exclude the involvement of fleeing Afghans themselves. And yes you're right in saying that "NATO withdrawal" doesn't cover many countries (again, India and Indonesia are obvious examples). Not only that but there it could be confused with the NATO Resolute Support Mission which ended already. --Weaveravel (talk) 11:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
          • The intervention was Western, the military assistance was Western, the problem with the Taliban is a Western<-->Taliban encounter problem, the evac was brought on by the withdrawal of Western/NATO support etc etc etc. 'Western' or NATO should be in the title somehow. But the evacuation is now widespread and a version of your concerns was put forward by Nick-D at the main talk page. You will find now the article is at 2021 evacuation of Afghanistan. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
            • Thanks, it's a good article but I would strongly support moving it to something like Kabul airlift. (see Talk:2021 evacuation of Afghanistan) --Weaveravel (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
              • Korea, India, Singapore, Japan, and many other Asian countries involved in this operation, so it is not adequate to use word "Western" here. -- Wendylove (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

    Thanks for the offer, however 'modern combat and operations' isn't quite my thing. I appreciate the thought but I'll pass. J-Man11 (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The US and UK with many other NATO countries are involved in the evacuation effort and I would prefer Operation Allies Refuge and Operation Pitting are combined into an 2021 Kabul air lift article. To all intents and purposes, that is what it is. Stevo1000 (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support General Article While there are obvious specific differences between each country's efforts we are now creating more and more articles regarding foreign evacuations from the airport, with a new one for Operation Devi Shakti. At this point I think for the sake of simplicity, legibility, avoiding duplication, and lowering the risk of conflicting information there should be a general article regarding the evacuation as a whole that can provide specific information where specifically needed for individual countries. Apache287 (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment To those in favour of merging, have you read Operation Pitting? It's not unsubstantial or a stub. It's a lot of content to relegate to a section of a merged article, presumably at the expense of a lot of its detail. TheArmchairSoldier (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Each of the articles will be essential in the years to come for the study of both US and British military history, respectively. They are two separate, although coordinated, efforts within the scope of the 2021 evacuation from Afghanistan. Both missions served different interests, followed different timelines and resulted in the deployment of different assets. To me, this seems like a WW2 situation where British Operation Epsilon and American Operation Harborage were both aimed at capturing German scientists through different means, and thus get separate articles. Cheers! Double Plus Ungood (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose As they are different operations. Mottezen (talk) 05:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Two separate operations by different countries. GWA88 (talk) 09:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, Brits are Brits, Yankees are Yankees. --Kathy262 (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, There is Hindi operation for evacuation of its personnel, Operation Devi Shakti, but there is no talk whether to merge with this article. What I want to say is, Operation Pitting should be regarded as different and independent from Operation Allies Refuge -- Wendylove (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: No, there are separate operations from each other that a merger isn't necessary. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

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.

General, all-country update from Kabul dated Sunday Aug 22

Source:https://www.facebook.com/keksifarm.hayday/posts/2954658698138023. Let's get the data copied into a talk page so it's not forgotten/lost again.

• "The airport is reported as ‘safe’, now, with a firm perimeter defence, and Afghan, US, and British troops guarding all the entries. However, it’s getting ever harder to approach the airport (see the end of report why). Regarding involved forces and their operations:
  • Afghanistan

- 400-500 AIA and NDS commandos are still there holding the perimeter of the Kabul IAP. What happened with up to 50,000 other personnel of the two agencies, nor if anybody in the Washington DC might ever come to the idea to try saving them – is unknown.

• • Austria (this just ‘for the records’)

- Austrian Chancellor Kurz proudly announced he’s against taking in ‘any more’ Afghans… Instead, Austrian government is going to pay one of neighbouring states to take in the refugees…

• • Australia

- After growing pressure at home, the Australian PM ordered the RAAF into action. - 1 C-17A flight evacuated 26 on/around 17 August, another 76 were evacuated by a RAF (British) transport on Thursday, 19 August.

• • Bahrain

- Is permitting aircraft carrying evacuees to stop and refuel – and that’s it (I’m always flashed by the much-praised ‘Islamic solidarity’)

• • Belgium

- 2 C-130s and 1 A.400M (from Luxemburg) are involved; couldn’t find additional details right now.

• • Canada

- 2 C-17As involved since Thursday, 19 August.

• • Czech Republic: 3 flights by A.319s evacuated 170 Afghans that used to work with the Czech Army, and all of the embassy staff (most were picked out of Kabul by the Czech Army SF teams). No further action is planned.
  • Denmark

- 2 C-130Js are used to evacuate Danes and eligible Afghans to Islamabad, from there they’re flown to Denmakr by airliners chartered from Sweden, including SAS A.320NEOs registered as SE-ROG and SE-DYC, plus the DAT MD-83 OY-RUE. An SF detachment is involved, but I’m not sure if it’s still at Kabul IAP.

• • European Union: The usual lots of talking but, except for negotiations with ‘Taliban that are not recognised by the EU’, little action. The EU announced on Thursday, 19 August, that 100 EU staff and 400 Afghans working with the EU (and their families) had been evacuated, while 300 additional Afghans are still trying to leave. However, it also stated that it’s ‘mathematically impossible’ for the USA and allies to evacuate all the Afghan personnel that had worked for the foreign forces. Great to see the honourable politicians paid to plan and act came to the idea to think about this at all – and only now…
  • Finland: 2 C.295M transport aircraft and a squad of Utti Special Jaeger Rgt (SF), facilitating evacuation of Finnish nationals.
  • France: 1 A.400M and one C.130H-30 are evacuating people to Dhafra AB, in the UAE; from there, A.330s of the Air Force are evacuating to France. Like Italians and Spaniards (see below), French RAID SF unit evacuated over 240 people from different spots in Kabul of the last few days – until ordered to stop, by US commanders.
  • Germany 7 A.400Ms are involved; they have evacuated over 2,000 people by now; the KSK team and two H.145M helicopters at still at Kabul IAP, but in the light of US commanders prohibiting any ‘externals’ (at least until yesterday), they were standing idle for much of the last two days: first ops over Kabul were reportedly flown the last night. So far, at least two German citizens were shot and wounded during diverse of ‘external’ evacuation ops outside Kabul IAP.
  • Great Britain: Globemasters and Hercules of the RAF are involved, and evacuating via the UAE. Like the French, the 900 troops of the 2nd Para/16th Airborne Brigade were excelling at bringing additional evacuees to the Kabul IAP, until interrupted by US commanders, two days ago. London intends to evacuate 6,000-7,000 people, but no aid workers and none of 125 Afghan guards that used to protect its embassy (these were hired by a PMC).
  • Hungary - taking out own citizens, and might accept some Afghans that worked for its government over the time (details remain scarce)
  • India - Either on 16 or 17 August, 150-170 Indian nationals were escorted by the Taliban to Kabul IAP (yup, the embassy arranged this), and then flown out to Jamnagar and New Delhi by a C-17A of the Indian Air Force. Another 50 were flown out before the Taliban took over.
  • Indonesia - 1 B737 (A-7305) evacuated 33 people from Kabul on 18 August, including 26 Indonesian, 5 Philippino, and 2 Afghan nationals.
  • Italy - 4 C-130Js are evacuating to Kuwait, where 4 KC-767s are flying evacuees out to Italy. Italians have teams from the 1st Tuscania Airborne Regiment and the 7th Trentino Alto Adige Regiment (both Carabinieri). They might have some paratroopers of the Folore Division in situ, too, and they seem to have run several ‘externals’ outside the Kabul IAP, until stopped by US commanders. There are reasonably lot of photos showing them ‘all over thee place’. Nominally at least, the government in Roma plans to evacuate 2,500 Afghans that used to work for it. Over 1,000 Afghans were evacuated to Italy as of yesterday, another 211 arrived the last night.
  • Japan - 12 diplomatic personnel evacuated by foreign aircraft on Wednesday, 18 August.
  • Netherlands- 2 C-103H-30s and running one flight each – a day. Probably to the UAE. - 1 A.330M tanker evacuated about 180 from Islamabad, on 20 August; a C-17 flew out 86 yesterday, another 160 were flown out by an A.330M early this morning.
  • Poland - 3 C-130s involved, evacuating from Kabul to Uzbekistan; LOT airliners are flying people out (five sorties so far). BTW, some German media is using photos of Polish C-130s to ‘illustrate’ the Qatari deployment of US-made C-17s to fly the Taliban leadership from Doha to Qandahar….
  • Qatar: I love reporting about Qatari involvement, really – because it’s ‘murky waters’ all the way. Official statements say ‘continuing efforts to evacuate people from Afghanistan… additional flights schedule for the upcoming days’, and they have also shown one of C-17 – perhaps the same that brought the Taliban leadership to Qandahar? – picking up evacuees in such a well-organised fashion, that even Hollywood would have a problem to organise it that way. But, have no doubts: Biden is – endlessly – thankful for Qatar’s ‘help in Afghanistan’ and the mainstream media is full of reports about Qatar ‘housing thousands of evacuees (until they can enter a third country)’. Some of French commentators are ‘overwhelmed’ by the Qatari help, too. Makes me wonder how much did Doha pay for that (if it had to pay anything at all)…
  • Romania - 1 C-130 flight to Islamabad evacuated 2 Romanians, 1 British, 1 Bulgarian, and 1 US citizen. No new on 14 Romanians that were waiting to be evacuated as of Thursday. - 1 C-27J remains on hold for possible involvement.
  • Slovakia - 1 C-27J flew out 24 people on 19 August.
  • Slovenia - 5 Slovenes evacuated to Italy and France, also an Afghan translator that worked for them (was flown from Paris to Ljubljana by a Slovenian Falcon bizjet).
  • Spain - At least 3 A.400Ms are involved, and evacuating to Dubai in the UAE. For example, one transport with 110 Afghan refugees – including 36 that used to work for the US administration – arrived at Torrejon yesterday.

- Spain has two teams deployed at Kabul IAP: a squadron of EZAPAC (SF troops) and one from GEO (SWAT asset). They run several externals into Kabul over the last days – until stopped by US commanders, like everybody else. - Contrary to its troops, the government was a mess in regards of Afghanistan, initially, but now official Spain announced it is providing two additional military bases as transit stations for Afghan evacuees: Moron (de la Frontera) AB, near Seville, and Naval Air Station Rota, near Cadiz.

• • South Africa - Nothing. Indeed, one is left to wonder what’s going to happen with hundreds of South African private military contractors (PMCs), known to have been in the country only about a week ago…
  • Sweden - 2 C-130H/TP-85 transports involved.
  • Switzerland - 230 people evacuated by foreign aircraft: 40 Afghans that used to work for the embassy are going to be allowed into Switzerland.
  • Turkey - 3-4 A.400Ms and at least 1-2 C-130s involved- Turkish Army has 650 troops from the 2 Bolu Commando Brigade, 5 Hakkari Brigade, and some Gendarmes, reinforced by 120 Azerbijan Army troops, at Kabul IAP.
  • UAE - United Arab Emirates reportedly ‘facilitated’ the evacuation of 8,500 people from Afghanistan in the last week.
  • USA - Rear Admiral Peter Vasely is in overall command of the evacuation; Major-General Chris Donahue is in command of Kabul IAP- Ground units are including 2nd Bn/1st Marines, 1st Bn/8th Marines, 1st Combined Bn/194th Armour (Minn National Guard), 3rd BCT 82nd Airborne Division, and 4th Bn/31st Infantry 2nd BCT/10th Mountain Division. There is ever less to see of SF ops.

- Top cover provided by F/A-18E/Fs from USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) - After holding back everybody else for days, Vasely and Donahue have granted permission for an US external: yesterday, at least 96 Afghans were evacuated by CH-47 helicopters to Kabul IAP. - 2,500 US nationals were evacuated over the last six days, and then 3,800 over the last 24 hours. It remains unclear how many US citizens are still in the country, but plan is now to fly 5,000 Afghan nationals to the UAE, on temporary basis (for 10 days), of course.

• • After reviewing diverse videos of the last six days, my estimate is that about 30 people have been killed at or around Kabul IAP since evacuation began: 5-6 were shot, 7 crushed to death, up to 20 fell off USAF C-17As (not the usually reported ‘three’), or were overrun…
  • BTW, the worst is yet to come, then the Taliban have handed over the security of Kabul to Sirajuddin Haqqani (who barely survived COVID-19, back in July) and his ‘Haqqani Network: Haqqani was sought for by the USA as much as OBL, and nobody knows how many Afghans were killed by UCAV strikes at ‘Haqqani headquarters’ over the years…

Ah yes, and right on Haqqani’s heels, and in addition to the Taliban releasing thousands of the TTP from Afghan jails, another lovely piece of news is that the ‘Islamic State of Khorasan’ (IS-K or ISIS-K) – the Afghan branch of the Daesh – is active again: supposedly, it’s planning a terror attack on the Kabul IAP. Surely enough, the IS-K was smashed by the ‘non-fighting’ Afghan Army and the USA, back in 2019, and is it at war with the Taliban.." (Tom Cooper Facebook page)

• • • Rear Admiral Peter Vasely is Commander, US Forces Afghanistan Forward. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Why is this here?Yaakovaryeh (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Did you not read the discussion above? (1) Discussion over merging US, UK evac articles (2) discussion over necessity of adding other countries' efforts into a wider article on whole evacuation (3) necessity of *data* for said wider article (4) location of excellent source, though not up to WP:RS, by multiple published journalist/author Tom Cooper on Facebook (2 posts) (5) necessity of not losing the information so that it can be verified and added in time (6) data copied over to a talk page. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Conflation of "Operation Allies Refuge" with general evacuation

Operation Allies Refuge was originally "to support the relocation (flights) of interested and eligible Afghan nationals and their immediate families who supported the U.S. Government and applied for a Special Immigrant Visa (SIV)." However, since the Fall of Kabul, focus has shifted and the page has essentially become an article about the general US evacuation. The question is, has "Operation Allies Refuge" officially changed and expanded to include the general evacuation?

According to my Google search, the vast majority of the time "Operation Allies Refuge" is used to refer to the original operation to relocate Afghan nationals, and rarely used to refer to, or when discussing, the general evacuation. However, I did find several times where it does seem to be used to refer to general evacuation:

"Operation Allies Refuge is facilitating the quick, safe evacuation of U.S. citizens, Special Immigrant Visa applicants and other at-risk Afghans from Afghanistan."

"A U.S. Air Force C-17 Globemaster III, assigned to the 816th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron, flies to Hamid Karzai International Airport (HKIA), Afghanistan, in support of Operation Allies Refuge, Aug. 17, 2021. The Department of Defense is committed to supporting the U.S. State Department in the departure of U.S. and allied civilian personnel from Afghanistan, and to evacuate Afghan allies safely."

"U.S. Soldiers, assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division, arrive to provide security in support of Operation Allies Refuge at Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul" - Caption of image from Aug. 20 2021

This usage from the State Department Spokesperson may be indicative one way or the other, but not sure:

"...we have dramatically increased capacity over recent days. And this, of course, is capacity that is on top of Operation Allies Refuge, which we launched in the middle of last month to begin the airlift operation for a segment of the SIV population... mid-last month announced the launch of Operation Allies Refuge, and this was the effort to bring – actually bring to this country SIV applicants who had completed a certain stage of the security vetting process. That effort is now very much still underway, although in a different form..."

• Has the usage changed, either officially or colloquially?
• If only one of these is true, which should be followed?
• If the operation now includes the general evacuation, should there be an indication that it changed?
• If the general evacuation is not part of the operation, changes should be made?
  • Some possibilities may include: rename the article, create a new one, transfer content to Fall of Kabul (2021)#Kabul Airport evacuations, etc..

If creating a new article, it should probably be a general article on the Kabul Airport evacuations of all countries, or perhaps better yet, reactions to the fall of Kabul (which I've been considering anyway given how long the Fall of Kabul article is getting).Yaakovaryeh (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

No. A post on Twitter in the last few days indicated that the new, second, post-SIV operation was unnamed at the time. I may be able to find that again, but (a) would only prove a negative at the time; and (b) editors are being snippy about using Twitter as a reference. Secondly, Reactions to the 2021 Fall of Kabul has already been created, and has been nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2021 Fall of Kabul). Buckshot06 (talk) 04:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Of course a random post on Twitter is not a reliable source. Was is based on anything?Yaakovaryeh (talk) 05:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you fully understand. Journalists write stories, yes; but they also post on Twitter just like everyone else, and data comes out that way before they submit the stories to editors (who may or may not approve them for publishing). See for example Clarissa Ward, a CNN correspondent who tweeted from beside the runway three days ago "Soldiers by the runway at Kabul airport tell me that there are 10,000 people here processed and ready to go… but nowhere to fly them to because Qatar is refusing to accept more Afghans because they’ve reached capacity. “It’s abysmal… someone needs to step up.” [1]. Al Jazeera today indirectly confirmed the problems with backups in places like Qatar [2], as well as the Washington Post. So yes, very much so they can be "based on something." WP needs to at some point reevaluate its reliable sources rulings based upon the identity of some people posting on Twitter, who are the sources of the newspaper articles we accept as reliable sources (!!) Buckshot06 (talk) 05:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

There needs to be a dedicated article of the entire Kabul airport chaos

At the moment this information is in 2021 Taliban offensive but it's no longer part of the "offensive" stage since Taliban are in control for a week. Also the airlifts and the fleeing refugees to the airport, along with international peacekeepers, covers more than just the US. There needs to be an article dealing with this incident as a whole. --Weaveravel (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

You will see I have suggested 2021 Western evacuation from Afghanistan above and have copied in some relevant reports. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the article 2021 evacuation of Afghanistan is what you're looking for. 19:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)