Talk:Task Force 373

Talk page startup

I have started this page so that Wikipedians can discuss how to improve and expand this article. I have also brought various headers to the page, copied from Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present). While I have tried to delete material that doesn't fit here, I may have not done a perfect job, so feel free to review and edit my work.

As more information comes to light regarding this brand new topic, I expect this article to become a rather hot issue. Let's stay calm and focused, edit only with facts that meet WP:RS requirements, and make this article a model example of Wikipedians working together to provide reliable information. Remember that as people use Google and other search engines to find out more on this topic, this article will be coming up very high on the list, so again, let's all put our best foot forward.

Please remember that this page is for discussing how to improve the main article, NOT our individual views on the subject. Again, this is not the place to blog. Thanks everyone. Jusdafax 22:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments

In reply to the comment below, the existence of TF 373 was not revealed in a Baltimore Reporter article, but rather in a 2007 article by William Arkin of the Washington Post. The Baltimore Reporter has simply performed a copy-paste operation. The original article has since been removed from the WashPo website.

http://www.baltimorereporter.com/?p=3737 http://kalag.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.69.129.1 (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I will try to be clearer - the current wikipedia article is misleading - it opens with the suggestion that TF373 was revealed by wikileaks and that leads to the impression of a cover op - black ops, ops outside of congressional knowledge etc. TF 373 was in the news (at least) in 2007 (I can see that at the Baltimore Reporter - if it was in the WP that makes there operations even more publicly disclosed). The wikipedia article needs to be rewritten to remove the suggestion that wikileaks revealed them - they did not. Wikileaks papers may divulge a greater knowledge of the TF 373 but it is common knowledge since 911 that the US has pursued a policy of leveraging special ops to tackle targets rather than lobbing tomahawk missiles at them. I have not seen any congressional outcry (yet) that the wikileaks papers involve operations hidden from them or the public. Wikipedia articles should not be pulled in by the thrust of the mainstream press (which has chosen to run the TF373 headlines in the search for readership) to create a headline. It should be factual. So I think a better approach is: history of why these task force are used (policy response to... advantage of boots on the ground... remember the criticism the USG received for not having field agents in the run up to 911); details of TF373 (size, ops, location, name of regiment etc), and then a section on the impact of the wikileaks reports (e.g. greater clarity of missions undertaken, success, collateral damage - note the WP article suggest low CD but that appears to be not the case in light of the wikileaks reports). Just trying to be constructive- I do appreciate I can find all these article on wikipedia.

My thoughts on expansing the article.

I think we should either wait for the media to report more and then add info, stating "according to so and so media, the task force does this and that."

Can we site the stuff in the wikileaks article (like saying, "according to this document, the group does this and that") or is that original research. I suppose the wikileaks stuff is a primary source, although just about anything is a primary source depending on waht you are studying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.222.2 (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The German Politics seems to know a little longer http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/16/141/1614125.pdf (German) ... it is from 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.43.162.54 (talk) 06:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Task Force 373 was discussed in a Baltimore Reporter article in MAR07 "Elite terrorist hunters in Iraq, with quotes from "military sources" which normally means DOD press briefings. the article specifically discusses the value of black ops and references a west point study. Wikileaks did not "reveal" this information. There are images of the TF on DOD websites

2. In the immediate aftermath of 911 there was widespread communication from the USG, DOD (e.g Rumsfeld) in the value of using special forces to pursue high value targets (Find, Fix, Track, Target, Engage, Evaluate). Wikileaks did not reveal this policy. The use of special forces to pursue specific targets was a direct result of the perceived floored logic of firing "$5 million dollar tomahawk missiles at caves" - something Clinton tried to during his Presidency and which subsequent policy makers sought to address using "SPECIAL OPS"

3. The lack of publicity about TF 373 or these types of operations reflects a lack of public interest in a war that they are disconnected to

4. I think a better approach would be to explain what they are, why they have been used, how they operate and then highlight that the wikileaks warlog revealed a greater clarity about the activities of this group (i.e. I "kill list" with thousands of targets, and apparently thousands of missions) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.17.26.214 (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The above mentioned statement of the German government, which is an answer to a parliamentary inquiry by a delegate of the German Bundestag from 10/2009, just states that

The Task Force 373 is part of national US-Forces in the scope of counterterrorism. The assignment consists of reconnaissance about and apprehension of persons who are affiliated to Al Qaida or the leadership of the Taliban.

--Gamgee (talk) 11:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Extrajudicial Killings

"The unit's operations have been reported to include assassination or extrajudicial killing missions". This statement may in fact be true. But... The mentioning of the perspective of a publication which would report the activities of Task Force 373 in such a biased way is not encyclopedic. An army unit in the field, in a war-zone, acting to kill enemy leaders is typically not acting extrajudicially. Extrajudicial killing implies action outside the law. These soldiers are engaging thier enemy. IMHO this statement should be removed as it may represent the facts (as published in a biased media outlet), but it represents a strongly prejudicial point of view. If I were a neo-nazi I could find a publication saying the holocaust didn't exist and then site that as a source. (For example: It has been reported that the holocaust did not happen.) But the truth is it is a generally accepted fact that the holocaust did happen and it is based on much unbiased primary source material. It can be generally accepted that Task force 373 targeted Taliban and Insurgent leaders for elimination, as we have primary source material vis-a-vis the now famous Wikileaks documents. But as Afganistan is a war-zone and the Taliban can be generally accepted as one of the forces involved in the conflict, it is generally considered a legitimate and legal action of warfare to shoot, blow-up and kill outright the leaders of any forces arrayed against the forces of Nato and the current Afgan regime of Karzai. Civilians killed collaterally are not typically killed illegally. Whether or not the Taliban leaders are surrounded by children, unarmed or armed is irrelevant to my point. Calling these killings extrajudicial implies that the war in Afganistan is an illegal war and this is not a generally accepted point of view. It is the point of view of certain minority forces who disapprove the war in general. Therefore to mention this "fact' is inherently biased. If a Talaban insurgent kills an unarmed US army supply officer, who is counting boxes in a warehouse in Kandahar, with a car bomb and kills 10 aid workers collaterally, is that an extrajudicial killing? On the flip-side if a US special forces soldier orders a 500 pound bomb dropped on a hut in a village because he suspects that an enemy is inside but instead he kills 12 children is that extrajudicial? Extrajudicial implies that the soldier was acting without the mandate of a legitimate government. For example: a mafia assassination in NYC is extrajudicial because it occurs contrary to the current laws of the city and state of New York and the United States. If an established court of the world, or a court in Afganistan, or a US court for that matter, established or even alleged the illegality of the task force's targeted killings than perhaps this mentioning of the fact of the reporting of these acts would be relevant to the current article. But it is simply the regurgitation of a particular newspaper's perspective on this war. I am not going to remove this sentence as I am personally biased against calling the heroic actions of this Task force "extrajudicial" but I urge an academic who understands my point to do so. A better sentence would be: "The unit's operation has been reported to include the targeted elimination of insurgent leadership" I could certainly find a source for that statement also and it would be less prejudicial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.2.62 (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Extrajudicial Killings Revisited

I did some more checking on this line in the article it as it turns out the words assassination or extrajudicial do not appear in the article cited as the source for this line. I perused the article in it's entirety and could not find the words used by Der Spiegel at all. Therefore this is not just a biased entry as I previously argued but also bad scholarship. The line that I found in the article that would be a better replacement for the line in question is: "Their mission is to deactivate top Taliban and terrorists by either killing or capturing them". This line is both reported by the publication and seems to be a more neutral recording of the facts. It also seems that it could be supported by the wikileaks documents. In my earlier entry I stated that I would not change the line due to my prejudice but upon checking the source material for this line I now feel clear in conscience to change this line. So I am now going to alter the line to read: "It has been reported that this unit's mission was to deactivate top Taliban and terrorists by either killing or capturing them." (George Alain Vitray (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC))

NOTHING TO DO WITH JSOC

This Task Force 373 has nothing to do with JSOC and its Tier 1 SMUs. 373 is NOT a successor to 121, 20, 145, and 6-26. There are no Delta Force, DEVGRU, Rangers, or any black side units in this, just as there was no personnel from the SF Groups in the JSOC task forces. It is just a designation for the Special Forces (Green Berets) units on the ground in Afghanistan probably supported by MARSOC...two units who do not work with JSOC that often.

So please stop including JSOC or SMU anywhere in this article, or I will just keep editing it out.

- D. 3rd Ranger Bn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.189.138 (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have external sources to verify your claims please add them. Per WP:OR Thanks, §hep^Talk 02:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

When YOU find any viable sources that say 373 is comprised of JSOC forces. Feel free to share it with me and everybody else on here. Until believe me when I tell you that 373 is NOT associated in any way with any JSOC forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.61.162 (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

cluster bombs

Apparantly the unit used cluster bombs, banned by international threaty (not signed by the USA though) in afghanistan, killing six children without killing the intended target. Given the circumstance I say this is notable since this is a good example for the brute force/casualty limit the unit/command is willing to accept for questionable results. http://www.bits.de/public/articles/db15-2010.htm - the source is german but I am sure if the author is contacted he can provide the war diary section he is referring to. 77.11.174.9 (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)