Talk:September 2012 raid on Camp Bastion

Number of Attacks, and US Army Uniform Claim

I'm just gonna put this in here in case anyone is wondering. I was actually on the base when it happened as a member of MALS-16 FWD a unit which received combat citations during the battle, essentially the logistics group for 3rd Marine Air Wing in Afghanistan at the time. The Attack was carried out by 15 insurgents. Sources close to the actual date had it wrong, there was some people who suggested it was 19, but it wasn't. 3 groups of 5 men went around, one was injured.

Additionally, they weren't wearing US Army Uniforms. They were wearing the Army Pattern Camouflage, but the implication that they were disguised as soldiers is ridiculous, and the camouflage itself does not anything near a uniform make. They wore none of the insignias, they were not in anyway way shape or form in the grooming standards of the army. They all wore the same type of New Balance sneakers, which was interesting. You know they had beards and were carrying AK-47s, RPKs, RPG-7s and various Grenades and Pistols. So, no one was confusing the men who carried out the attack with friendlies, they made no effort to appear to me US Army Soldiers, they were just wearing camouflage in order to best conceal themselves in the fighting, as a best practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.67.49 (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Victory?

I notice in the infobox it says that it was a coalition "victory" because the attackers were almost all killed. However, weren't the attackers on a declared suicide mission? And, wasn't their objective to destroy as many planes as possible? If so, it appears that the attackers accomplished most of their objectives before they were killed as they desired and, therefore, it was a successful raid. Cla68 (talk) 08:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

There's a discussion of this at User talk:Amerijuanican#September 2012 Camp Bastion raid where I have raised concerns that the material they're edit warring in has no supporting references, and violates WP:NPOV. Describing this only as a "victory" for ISAF would require very strong sourcing, and none at all has been provided. Nick-D (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

G'day, in the absence of anything concrete, my opinion is that the best course of action is just to put "See Aftermath" or something similarly generic in the infobox without making a judgement about who "won" this engagement (I doubt if such a construct exists in modern long war campaigning, anyway...). Just my opinion. I'd encourage all parties to try to establish consensus either way before moving on as edit warring doesn't solve anything. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there are few if any sources which consider the result of this event in such simplistic terms as "X victory". At any rate it seems to me that many incidents defy being categorised in such terms anyway. Per the guidance at Template:Infobox military conflict "It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much." So given this it may be better just to stick to a summary of what happened and to let the readers decide the "result". Personally, unless there were a number of good quality sources provided to support the assertion of this being an "ISAF/NATO victory" I really don't think this should be claimed, and especially not on the basis of the personal assessment of an editor/s. In short I say back it up with references or leave it blank. Anotherclown (talk) 06:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

From what I've seen, this attack is regarded as having been something of a fiasco for the ISAF forces in all the reliable sources on it (hence two generals being sacked and a British parliamentary committee investigating it). I agree that victory/defeat is too simplistic, but the infobox should note that the Taliban scored a success. Nick-D (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Because they didn't score a success, their entire force was killed or captured and the only stated goals of the Taliban's raid weren't accomplished. I don't understand why it's so difficult to arrive at a consensus on this when even in the description it states the attackers were defeated after a number of hours of fighting. Amerijuanican (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Please provide sources which support the contention that the Taliban forces were not successful. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Amerijuanican, if the attackers were on a suicide mission, which it appears that they were, it isn't necessarily a "victory" that they're all killed. Their apparent objective was to destroy as many planes as possible, kill the Prince, and cause general mayhem. They were successful on two out of three, which means they were the ones who actually got the "victory." I was trying to compromise by simply putting, "All attackers killed or captured after accomplishing most of their objectives." Cla68 (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

We don't do WP:SYNTH here, we follow the reliable sources. In the absence of any sources saying this was a victory for either side, I removed the uncited section in the victory parameter. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, WP articles are generally full of synth, we just don't do anything about it unless editors complain. I thought I read somewhere that the Taliban had said their objectives were the three I listed above. If so, then they did accomplish most of their mission objectives. We really don't have a source listing the Taliban's stated objectives? Cla68 (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a classic case where "See Aftermath" should be used in the infobox. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The real story

It’s odd that this page has had two different versions of the story told. There is the narrative stated and then the one that involved contractors, MARSOC, and Danish SF. I distinctly remember Marine officers hiding under their desks crying while their side piece was trying to hide while we were clearing his quarters. 47.215.22.14 (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)