Wikipedia

Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)/Archive 4

< Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)
Latest comment: 18 years ago by 134.153.181.22 in topic Casualties
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Vote on best name

Everyone, I'm not even sure what the best name is, I'm just sure it's not the current one. :-) I hereby volunteer to move the article and handle the redirects (I've done it before) if a vote indicates another name has more support than the current name.

To vote, put your name in the list (triple tilde will do). If you have comments, please place them below. If you have another name to suggest, add it to the list, but please don't go crazy with it...

Question #1: which one (need to distinguish from other conflicts)

  • Coalition

(if you care between U.S.-led or U.S., indicate your preference) US-Led

Question #2: what was it?

Question #3: where?

Obviously, a few combinations won't work, but we can eliminate those pretty easily. An example (my preference too) would be "2001 Afghanistan War". — DQ

I'd go with "2001 US-led invasion of Afghanistan" for completeness, but then someone else will complain that the invasion wasn't what it was... ;-)
James F. 10:49, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I prefer it as it stands. Secretlondon 20:36, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)
I would contend the U.S. didn't invade - doesn't that involve putting troops on the ground? ;) Morwen 22:01, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
It's fine the way it stands. I will read a vote to change, as a vote for a parallel change to the Soviet invasion article for the sake of maintaining NPOV balance. ☮ Eclecticology 07:43, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The best word for this is "Incursion" , it has a lot of history in it's use as well. [gdewey}

Comments here

If I might insert a word of explanatiion here?

  • There seem to be three issues:
  • First, I am unfamiliar with the technicalities of redirecting. I was getting a lesson on it at Village Pump when you undid my move. I apologise if I inadvertantly made a mess.
I don't blame you — it's tricky to get a contentious article moved. Daniel Quinlan 09:34, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)
  • Second, I defend my renaming of the article. Both "attack" and "invasion" are politically loaded words, and IMHO do not accurately describe what took place. I freely admit by political bias here: I would call the article US-led liberation of Afghanistan, but that would be just as biased as "attack" (I might write such an article anyway). I think the title I chose is the least non-judgemental of the options so far.
I also agree. Vote! Daniel Quinlan 09:34, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)
  • Third, the article is full of tendentious and politically loaded phraseology, much of it is written in the present tense about things that happened a year ago, it is disorganised and poorly written in places, and there is far too much inessential detail for an encyclopaedia article. Nevertheless, I concede that my deletions may have been more sweeping than appropriate. When I feel calmer about the whole business I may have another go. Or maybe not :)
  • Adam 09:23, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Wikipedia has many examples of politically charged text (usually the negative type) and it is difficult to change some articles and it takes a lot, I repeat, a lot of effort and cooperation between people who disagree. Take, for example, the George W. Bush page which launches into a tedious discussion of the political nature of the family, Neal's S&L problem, etc. in paragraph 3. Yet, the John F. Kennedy page doesn't even mention that his farther, Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., was a powerful politician (Ambassador to England, SEC chairman), his brothers Ted Kennedy and Robert Kennedy, and other well-known relatives (I can't even name them all, Patrick Kennedy, William Kennedy Smith, ...). Anyway, take a deep breath, read up on NPOV, and start editing. Daniel Quinlan 09:34, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)

Opperation Infinate Justice just links here - any objection to me putting in something about it being the first name of the campaign, and the reasons for the change?2toise 09:26, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The operation names could probably stand a bit of work and clean-up, sure. Daniel Quinlan 09:34, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)


Robert Young Pelton here. I was in Sheberghan prison the dates that Jamie Doran mentions. I counted the dead bodies on a daily basis (I was staying 500 meters up the road from the prison) I took photographs and video (photos were supplied to Newsweek for their Convoy of Death article. The Red Cross was inside the prison treated wounded prisoners. Some members of a US Special Forces A team were also in the prison treating the wounded. They were photographed by myself. General Dostum issued a statement saying that around 250 prisoners had died dued to previous injuries, sickness and during the move from Kunduz to Sheberghan. Prisoners were put in containers because they drove through areas of active fighting and the Qali Jangi uprising was ongoing. I was also with Doran and he was doing a doco on Afghanistan. He then tried to push the idea of british SAS members (they were SBS) massacring prisoners which didnt fly, then the idea of Americans massacring taliban prisoners, which also didnt fly. So to salvage his footage he used interviews with unnamed, unidentifed afghans to invent his convoy of death story. A story which Newsweek then picked up without crediting Doran and ran without naming eye witnesses or sources. All I can say is that I was there, I took photos and videos and both Doran and Newsweek seem to think that their version can sell tickets/magazines. As I have said before if Dostum or the Americans wanted to kill talibs all they had to do was hit the comms button and order an airstrike.


Years later perhaps Mr. Pelton You remember that a CIA-agent shoot those days an interrogated prisoner what caused revolt, riots and escape-attempts where CIA-Agents fired into them.

Neutrality of article title

We need to separate the questions of what is most "accurate" title from:

  • what is the most popular
  • what is the least contentious

I propose that we build a consenus on the following criteria for an article title:

  1. It clearly refers to the topic
  2. It has a good chance of being call the same thing by historians in 10 or 20 years
  3. It gives neither side cause to complain that it gives partisan advantage to the other side.

Invasion

This means the entry of military forces, without permisson. If a battalion from El Salvador goes to California for a joint training exercise with the US military, that's not an invasion. If US troops go into Afghanistan to decimate the Taliban, that's an invasion.

Battle

Two sides fight against each other. Note that the bombing of Hiroshima was not a battle because it was all US offense with no Japanese counter-attack. The invasion of Grenada in 1983 involved battles, however.

War

This is a more elastic term, because there's no agreement on how many battles makes a war -- but there's an international flavor to this type of military conflict. I don't know if Israel and the PA are in a "war" (they're certainly "at each other's throats").

Some countries feel a need to "declare war" before waging it -- but no historian doubts that the US and South Vietnam fought a "war" with "North Vietnam".

Campaign

This is the easiest term to define, although it's not used much by civilians. It means "one country's activities in all or part of a war". The Tet Offensive was a campaign launched by North Vietnam. The US had campaigns going on in Northern Africa, parts of the Pacific and Far East, and all over Europe during WWII.

Ed Poor conclusion

We all know that US forces battled the Taliban. There were several battles, and many of us saw maps Taliban showing Taliban-held areas shrinking day by day. Some Taliban were captured, other killed, and a lot escaped to Pakistan. So, we all agree that BATTLES occurred over there.

The name of the region isn't in dispute either. We all call it Afghanistan.

The remaining question is whether the events there should be called a "war" or what? It really comes down to 2 points of view (POV):

  1. the US military waged a campaign in Afghanistan against the Taliban: this campaign amounts to an invasion, so call it the US invasion of Afghanistan
  2. the US military and the Taliban both battled each other in Afghanistan: these battles amount to a war, so call it the 2001 Afghan War or something similar.

It all comes down to what POV you want to emphasize: did the US do everything? Or did the US and Taliban both do something?

--Uncle Ed 17:49, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

First off, it's a very bad idea to vote on this until we've hashed out what we agree on and what we disagree on. Voting is not nearly as precise or powerful a tool as our normal modes of editing. If we have a long conversation and understand why we disagree, but still disagree, then we can vote to resolve the disagreement. But let's at least try to edit it through standard procedures.

I disagree in this case. It seems like we're settling into two possible names and I think this has been aided by the vote, "U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan" vs. "2001 Afghanistan War". If the results are not clear, we can try an additional vote. Daniel Quinlan 21:45, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with changing it to U.S.-led, because that's more accurate. But I think dropping the "US" from the title at all would be deliberately obfuscatory by hiding the agents of the action. Would we rename the analagous Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to "1980s War in Afghanistan"? I don't think we would, or should, and I don't see why this page is any different. DanKeshet

Boy, thats a good argument. Based on it I withdraw my questions on the neutrality of the term and would not oppose it elsewhere (Iraq for instance). But I do still question whether it is accurate in the particular case. Most of the fighting was done by native forces. Our role was pretty much airpower and a few special ops. Can that be accurately described as an invasion? Does calling it that mislead the reader? If I can be satisfied in that I would withdraw my opposition. Ark30inf 21:30, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I don't think the USSR operation and the US-led operation are analogous enough to justify giving them the same name. Daniel Quinlan 21:45, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)
Why not? DanKeshet

If the argument is made that "invasion" is a POV term per se, then we should never use it, and we should also speak of the "German military operations in Poland in 1939" etc. We couldn't pass judgement here on what is an evil "invasion" and what is a possibly good "military operation". But I think the word "invasion" is sufficiently neutral. It is possible to think that an invasion is justified, so the title of the article does not imply a condemnation of the U.S. action. --Wik 21:17, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)

Invasion is POV in that it connects the US-led operation with other invasions where the term "invasion" is commonly used, such as Germany invading Poland, Japan invading Manchuria, USSR invading Afghanistan, etc. The US-led operation differs in that it was a joint operation between the Northern Alliance and the US-led coalition. You could make the case that the US aided on one side of a civil war of a sort, but most of the territory was never held by the US. Compare to Manchuria, Poland, the USSR invasion. Invasion is both POV and inaccurate. Daniel Quinlan 21:45, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)
I don't see any objective difference at all. Invaders often have local allies, so what? The country was (and still is) controlled by the U.S., the same as, say, Norway was controlled by Germany in 1940-45. And the word invasion is commonly used in this case too; it has been used by mainstream news sources like BBC and CNN. --Wik 21:58, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)
Germany invaded Norway, but that was just one tiny bit of WWII, not the entire war. As far as the POV goes, it's pretty simple to see the difference:
  • U.S. invasion of Afghanistan - term used by opponents (or more biased terms)
  • U.S. liberation of Afghanistan - term used by proponents (or more biased terms)
Daniel Quinlan 23:08, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)
I don't see what the point is about it being a tiny bit of WWII. You say yourself: "Germany invaded Norway". Then why not "the U.S. invaded Afghanistan"? One's moral judgement about the two cases may differ, but that should be irrelevant for an objective description. "Invasion" is also used not only by neutral sources, but even by many proponents. It is not comparable to "liberation" which is inevitably POV. --Wik 23:27, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)
point 1: "Invasion" generally describes the act of invading. I think it is POV to characterize the US ousting of the Taliban as an invasion. Also, this page is about the war.
point 2: Note that we also say "Liberation of France" without feeling too bad about it. That's why proponents don't feel too disingenious when they say "Liberation of Afghanistan", drawing a comparison between the Taliban and other "invaders", such as the Nazis. It's also why opponents don't feel too disingenious when they say "Invasion of Afghanistan", drawing a comparison between the US and other "invaders", such as the Nazis. The difference is whether or not you think the US was justified. "2001 War in Afghanistan" makes no such judgement. Daniel Quinlan 23:59, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)
1) There wasn't much of a war. We don't speak of the "war in Grenada" either. Due to the inequality of the opponents, the result that the Taliban would be driven from power was never in doubt. 2) "Liberation of France" is more acceptable since in that case a previous foreign occupier was driven out, and thereafter the "invaders" left themselves. In Afghanistan a domestic government was overthrown and the invaders are still there after two years. You can't compare the Taliban with the Nazis except to say they were both the "bad guys", but that's POV. The Taliban were a domestic force, not invaders. --Wik 00:18, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)
Both the French and the people of Afghanistan had more liberty after either operation. However, I think saying it was a "Liberation" would be POV when naming the article. "Invasion" isn't even correct since the Northern Alliance led the invasion of Taliban-controlled areas. Invasion is also not entirely correct since the Taliban didn't even control all of Afghanistan when the war broke out (you might say "Liberation" is not correct for similar and related reasons). Grenada was an invasion, not a war, because it was a single operation. Boom, over. The name has nothing to do with equality of opponents (case in point, Normandy Invasion). Daniel Quinlan 00:41, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)
Whether the people of Afghanistan have more liberty now is of course highly debatable. I'm not convinced by the other points either. The Northern Alliance troops couldn't have done anything on their own. The Taliban controlled 95% of the country. The whole thing was pretty much "boom, over" too, except that Afghanistan is larger than Grenada. Not sure what your point is about the Normandy invasion. --Wik 02:00, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)
This is a good debate, now I am leaning back toward US-led military operations in Afghanistan since it is NPOV, accurate, and does not limit it to the actual date of 2001 (since operations continue). Wishy-washy aint I.Ark30inf 00:42, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Even the dictionary agrees that "Invasion" is a somewhat loaded word: 1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.. Yes, there are exceptions where it isn't (and that's why the definition says "especially" and not "always", such as the Invasion of Normandy), but it implies that the US intends to hold Afghanistan as the Soviets did, as Germany did Europe, as Japan did Asia, etc. Daniel Quinlan 00:41, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)

I said I wouldn't get involved in this again, but I can't help myself. There are two issues causing this deadlock.

  • The first is that people are trying to impose a World War II era vocabulary on 21st century events. Since the advent of modern stateless terrorist organisations, this vocabulary has become obselete. Words like "war" "invasion" and "battle" no longer mean what they once meant, and no longer apply to many conflict situations. To compare what the US did in Afghanistan with the Normandy landings is absurd and misleading. The technically correct term for this kind of event is "military operations."
  • The second is that we all have political agendas here, though some of us are reluctant to admit to them. I supported the liberation of Afghanistan, and I acknowledge that this view colours my view on matters of terminology. I know that most of you come from the American intellectual class and that most of you opposed the US attack / invasion / imperialist conquest / genocide (or whatever) of Afghanistan. We are not going to agree on this question, which is why we need to find the least politically loaded term we can. I submit, again, that this is "military operations."
  • Adam 00:56, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
We all have our opinions. I gladly admit that I opposed what I consider an imperialist conquest. But I'm not calling for using the term "imperialist conquest" here. I think "invasion" is a sufficiently neutral term. If we use it for other invasions, then we have to use it here too. It would be an undue euphemism to call the U.S. action a "military operation" and the German action in Poland an "invasion." If "invasion" is to be considered a loaded term, we would have to stop using it entirely. --Wik 02:00, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)
Careful! There are a lot of people from the European intellectual class too. Anyway, I hold that "2001 War in Afghanistan" is somewhat better and at least as neutral as "U.S.-led military operations in Afghanistan". It's shorter too. I might be able to wrap my head around "U.S.-led War in Afghanistan" since I doubt anyone would claim the Taliban was leading things at any point after hostilities broke out. Daniel Quinlan 01:34, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)

"US-led war" is an attempt at compromise that produces a meaningless phrase. If there was a "war" the US did'nt "lead" it, it "waged" it. I would much rather avoid the word "war", which is, as I said above, not applicable to what was really a counter-terrorist police action, though it had aspects of an Afghan civil war mixed up in it. But if we have to have "war" I will settle for "Afghanistan War of 2001". Adam 01:49, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

But the title, of course, is the least of this article's problems. It remains a morass of propaganda, irrelevant detail and out-of-date reportage, and it remains poorly structured and badly written. Adam 01:52, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well, it's an interesting view that one country should have the right to police the world according to its own rules. You may well argue that it was justified, but it's still an invasion. --Wik 02:06, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)

Folks, lets take this one thing at a time. Can we settle on a title thats NPOV and accurate even if its not our favorite?Ark30inf 02:08, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Indeed, and I think that title is "Afghanistan War 2001". It tells us where the event happened, it more-or-less tells what the event was, and it tells us when it happened. There will continue to be objections to "invasion", so this is the nearest to a consensus title we are likely to get. Adam
Cool, how about it all?Ark30inf 03:07, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
No, let's just fix a deadline for the vote, and then go by the majority. How about 24 hours from now? --Wik 03:12, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)
I was actually hoping there could be consensus. But I suppose thats a utopian dream.Ark30inf 03:19, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
We would have a consensus if only everyone would agree with me :) Adam
Afghanistan War 2001 does seem the better option - it isn't as simple as comparing it to other 'invasions', since the US led coalition does not even really control most areas of Afgh. There are so many other factions involved, and such a complex political and miltary landscape (conflict within the NA, warlords acting pretty much independently, other coalition actors etc) that to characterise it simply as a us led invasion seems too oversimplify.212.112.96.46 05:30, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

What we really need for the progress of why the US will not win the war in so-called Afghanistan is different meanings! The decisive step in the newest US-expeditionary war-tactic is to reduce the role of Hekmatiar in the Herat-throughpass to Kabul. He will not go away. And nevertheless Rumsfeld declared on C-span recently that his forces will extend the reign of US-military control beyond the Kabul aerea-borders.

Naming revisited

Allow me to summarize some of the issues raised to see if we can find a better name. My listing of the issues here does not mean that the issues themselves have not been disputed or that I don't dispute them.

  • "invasion" has POV connotations of aggression.
  • "invasion" is inaccurate, because the US' role was minor on the ground, major in the air.
  • Gives all agency to the US, whereas there were two sides fighting in the war.
  • Name obscures role played by non-US, US allied forces. (hence "U.S.-led")

Objections to other names (e.g. "2001 Afghanistan War", "War in Afghanistan") include:

  • Did not take place entirely in 2001.
  • Obscures role played by a major combatant (the US).
Doesn't it equally obscure the role played by Al-Qaida and the Taliban too? I have a hunch that second objection is primarily raised by people who want to highlight the role played by the US because of their views of the US. Daniel Quinlan 20:07, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)
No, by being the de facto government of Afghanistan, I consider the Taliban to be covered in the name "War in Afghanistan". DanKeshet 20:34, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)

Are there any names which answer all of these objections? Let me propose "US-Afghan War". (By analogy, the page Soviet invasion of Afghanistan could be renamed Soviet-Afghan War.) This addresses all the points I have summarized. Unfortunately, it suffers from another point:

  • Not widely used.

And I'm going to propose another vote block, with a twist: 1) instead of assuming the form of the title, we list the whole title. 2) we list the objections along with the titles. 3) we don't start voting until 48 hours after it's been posted, so we have a chance to list all the objections thoroughly. DanKeshet

Why? The current vote has produced two titles which happen to be the most popular ones:
I wish we could all come to agreement, but we seem to be locked, largely for reasons of POV, I'm afraid. Until people get over trying to push various points, I think we're going to be stuck here. If the only issue with the "2001" is that the war extended into 2002, then let's talk about fixing that. Daniel Quinlan 20:07, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)
Daniel, I don't consider us locked. We're taking part in a conversation, spread out over a few days and a few server outages. I actually think we're making progress; new names have been suggested. And at least I--and I hope others--understand people's objections and reasoning much better. There's no rush; better to get it done well then just be done with it. DanKeshet

No Consensus

The reason there is no consensus is because of a POV conflict.

Half of us feel that what the US did in Afghanistan, beginning in 2001, constitutes an illegitimate invasion. We want the word "invasion" in the title to reflect our POV: so that everyone knows it wasn't a "fair fight". That nasty bully George W. Bush just went in and smashed the sovereignty of an innocent country that was just minding its own business: a clear case of naked aggression,

The other half of us don't want the title to express this POV: we'd rather put it into the article itself, properly attributed. The motive for this can be either (a) because we disagree with the "evil aggressive" POV or (b) because we just want to keep POV out of article titles.

The only way this conflict (between Wikipedians) can be resolved is if there is some higher principle we can all agree on. --Uncle Ed 14:01, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ed, please. Claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is more POV is just petty. DanKeshet

Well, currently the article says in the first sentence that the Northern Alliance "invaded" Afghanistan. Perhaps a name change could alleviate such gross misunderstanding.--Pharos 03:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Extradition/Negotiations

Re: my recent edit/reversion: the taliban specifically offered to extradite to a "neutral nation, not the United States", not to an Islamic nation. See [1]. Also, regarding the final bit about moderates, their intent was BOTH to convince Omar AND to forestall U.S. hostilities, thus the particular choice of phrasing. If it is tortured, that can be ammended, but both need to be communicated. Finally, I don't know why we would want to leave out that Bush repeatedly refused negotiation or discussion, since this is a highly significant point demonstrating the extent to which he was willing to avoid military action in a controversial campaign. Graft 04:54, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Very well. I left in some of that, although I reworked it quite a bit. My explanation of the changes:

  • removed (i.e., not the United States) — redundant text, a bit too editorial comment-to-audience-ish
  • changed give up bin Laden to turn bin Laden over to the U.S. — I don't know, it just seemed like the first one implied he was going to be strung up without a trial (counter example: Mohammed Atta).
  • changed to forestall hostilities to and avoid the impending retaliation from the United States — I think it's necessary to make clear that hostilities had already begun, "forestall" is a bit on the wishful thinking side, "avoid" seems a lot more accurate.
  • changed last sentence to President Bush rejected these offers made by the Taliban as unacceptable and the administration stated that negotiation based on these offers was out of the question. — I looked at the several speeches made by Bush and some press conferences and this seemed more accurate of what was said and is still accurate about what happened. I left in your out of the question which you were so fond of. ;-)

Daniel Quinlan 06:25, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by Mohammed Atta,
Meaning the U.S. seems to be engaging in a trial. We'll have to see what happens with the military tribuals, I suppose. Daniel Quinlan 05:59, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)
but I have no problem with that change. As far as "neutral nation", the Taliban specifically said, not the U.S. and not the Taliban, so we should say that. You're right about the forestalling hostilities.
As to the characterization of Bush's rejection, I have lots of problems with this; the Taliban made a series of offers, all of which were rejected. Meanwhile Bush made a demand that essentially involved surrendering to an American occupation and ceding control of the country, and said it was "not open to negotiation". In other words, he made it basically impossible for the Taliban to avoid a conflict and still remain in power.
No, he only demanded inspections of (former) terrorist camps. Inspections do not mean giving over control of the country. The U.S. inspected Soviet disarmament and vice versa. The U.N. conducted inspections in Iraq for a while. Et cetera. It's nothing unusual. Daniel Quinlan 05:59, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)
Even the rather mild demand of evidence (which is normal for extradition - extradition without evidence is fairly unheard of) before giving up bin Laden was rejected. Your version of the text simply doesn't bring this out. Paying lip service to diplomacy is propaganda - I think in the interest of fairness we should be clear about this. Graft 02:06, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
There are reports www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/US_met_taliban.htm infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used that U.S. had been attempting to negotiate with the Taliban to extradite bin Laden for years before 9/11, but the Taliban kept demanding more and more evidence — bear in mind that bin Laden was already implicated in the U.S. Embassy bombings, the U.S. had already provided more than enough evidence. Now, you can claim the U.S. should have let the Taliban "save face" somehow, but I think that is fairly unheard of: let the people supporting the terrorists that just killed 3000 of your citizens to save face, extradite to a Islamic (later, neutral) nation, when the crimes were all committed on U.S. soil (embassies and the WTC). It's not like the U.S. was negotiating a trade treaty, they were trying to get the Taliban, not exactly democracy or clear thinking in action, to turn over bin Laden and other Al-Qaida. Realistically, that was never going to happen. The Taliban barely even scratched the surface of the first demand, bin Laden. Daniel Quinlan 05:59, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)

Anyhow, "paying lip service to diplomacy" is your point of view, the current text is crystal clear that Bush turned down the offers. There is no need to rub in that point or imply that either side is to blame for the hostilities commencing, it's not an editorial, stick to facts about what happened. Daniel Quinlan 05:59, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I don't think the U.S. was interested in getting bin Laden turned over at all, since they could easily have negotiated that position if they had so desired. But this is conjecture, so it doesn't belong in the article. As to negotiating with the Taliban, I've read many contradictory claims, including that the Taliban had no truck with bin Laden, bin Laden was under house arrest, bin Laden was a strong influence on the Taliban, bin Laden was a "tolerated guest" of the Taliban, and that the Taliban attempted to assassinated bin Laden on at least one occassion. Anyway, I'm content to let the article stand, though I think it paints rather too kind a picture of Bush's diplomatic efforts. Graft 13:51, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think you guys are getting closer to a good version of the first few paragraphs. I just have one quick question. It says that moderates from the Taliban "allegedly" met US officials, but doesn't give any clue as to who "alleges" this. Where is this coming from? DanKeshet 18:27, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)

I found an article which had a few sources, but I can't find it again (Washington Post?). I'll try again later. Daniel Quinlan 20:34, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)
Cool. While we're at it maybe we could change "allegedly" to "reportedly" (once we say who reports it) or "according to ... reports", because allege has a particular negative connotation that I don't understand here. DanKeshet
Ah, yes, I even linked to it above, here's a slightly better link: http://www.chicagotribune.com/search/chi-0110290220oct29,0,4208843.story (original title: Diplomats Met With Taliban on Bin Laden | Some Contend U.S. Missed Its Chance) — I couldn't find it again because while it's a Washington Post story, it's not easily found on their site. Daniel Quinlan 22:16, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)
That article is interesting and relevant. But the text in our article refers to meetings in October, whereas the linked WPost article refers to a 3-year string of meetings "right up until September 11", but doesn't refer to any meetings afterward. I'm not saying I don't think those meetings happened, just that the linked article is about something different. Should we change our text, or was there another article? DanKeshet
You have a good point, but I do think the Washington Post article points out the need for several changes in this article:
  1. "the Taliban government in Afghanistan which allegedly provided support to al-Qaida and gave them safe haven" — I think it's clearly more than allegedly, especially with respect to safe haven.
  2. "Their initial response was to demand evidence of bin Laden's culpability in the September 11th attacks and to offer to try him in an Islamic court." — should be clearer that there was already ample evidence of bin Laden's culpability in previous attacks against the U.S. Also, "initial response" implies this is a new response. It was more like a repeat of their prior first response. Finally, "evidence" should be more like "more evidence".
Basically, I think it's important for the article to avoid implying that the situation with respect to trying to extradite bin Laden and get the Taliban to stop supporting Al-Qaida was a completely new initiative started the day after September 11th. It wasn't new and it wasn't just the United States. Daniel Quinlan 06:10, Oct 10, 2003 (UTC)
The relevant article is here, by John F. Burns of the new york times. Graft 15:19, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Is the invasion over?

The recent U.S. involvement in Iraq has been broken into two wiki-parts: 2003 invasion of Iraq and 2003 occupation of Iraq.

Is there a separate wiki-article for the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan? Or are current events of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan listed here?

To be specific, these news story [2] and [3] refer to deaths of a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan. Should reference to their deaths be placed in this article or a different article? Kingturtle 21:27, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

So why is Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan a big-I event but U.S. invasion of Afghanistan not? Is that for some "reason"? Hell the opponents (fundie Muslims) and outcome (breakup of the invading country into several states) will be the same in both cases, so that's one of many arguments for equal treatment.

Also were there any predicted effects of invading Afghanistan? In *either* case? Breakups of superpowers seem pretty important side effects so it's worth finding out if anyone predicted this...

I believe that characterising an allies contribution as only "moral support" because of the size of their deployed force sets a bad precedent. In this operation, as in others, several of the so-called allies had their special forces deployed on the ground and thus made a contrbution far greater than their numbers would suggest. Julianp 05:01, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Casualties

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think it is to the shame of wikipedia that this article has a photo of a plane but none of a victim. Get-back-world-respect 11:25, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. It is tremendously POV to have illustration after illustration of soldiers and none of the casualties and destruction caused by the fighting. No one can claim that wars are this pretty and clean. 134.153.181.22 22:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the statements added by my american friend concerning the excessive use of AIP as a source in Marc W. Herold's dossier. I have had a through look at it and think that such an accusation is just a blatant lie in order to discredit his politically-charged findings. I suggest that every critic has a look at the report himself - for each casualty the source or sources are listed and AIP plays only a minor role. Besides, criticising the use of AIP implies that it is less "objective" then western mainstream media - and I think we all should know trustworthy they are. Propaganda model

Turrican

Lets look at the deleted statement, shall we?

Many people dispute Herold's estimates citing his heavy use of Afghan Islamic Press (the Taliban's official mouthpiece).

Well, many people who have looked into Herold's work have come up with criticisms. Would you deny this? And before you start on an on about warmonger this and baby killer that ............ just please spare me. Would you also deny that these critics of Herold question his use of the AIP? Would you yourself condiser the mouthpiece of the Taliban to be an objective source? There are also other criticims of Herolds work as well inlcuding double counting of casualties, as well as simple statistical errors that although Herold has been asked to, never adressed.

Would you like to see an example of Herold's impressive work?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/565otmps.asp?pg=2

Or how about the way Herold deals with people who dare to question his work.

http://angrycyclist.blogspot.com/2002_10_27_angrycyclist_archive.html#85630734

Anyone with eyes can see that Herold has a definite agenda, and it sure as shit aint the truth.

Whatevre the real number of collateral dead, it's still the most bloodless war in modern Afghan history. Perhaps I will mention that in my next edit? TDC 05:06, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)


My dear american friend and untiring crusader for "the truth"

I have just read the article at the weekly standard and I my opinion that those who deny his finding come from a certain political background has in now way been altered.

> Joshua Muravchik, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute,

[4] [5]

You can of course add a link to his criticism of Herold, but don't write "many people" and dont forget to add this persons association with the AEI so that other people can judge for themself if they should trust this source And as to the Weeky Standard itself [6].

It is in no way surprising that the prime voice of the neoconservatives doesn't want to hear anything about what you call collateral dead and what I call dead civilians. I have also read the Angry Cyclist Blog and don't think that such vulgar,racist "War with Islam / Islamofascists" trash should even be considered relevant when it comes to serious critic of Marc Herold's work.

You know there are probably still Nazis denying the Holocaust - but that doesn't make it true. The same goes for islamophobic, racist, neoconversatives who constantly deny even the existence of the victims of their neoimperial crusades.

Turrican

Let me see if I get this right, anyone who dares to question either the accuracy or the methodology of Herold’s findings must, by nature, be a neo-conservative warmonger? The analysis performed by Muravchik on the Chowkar-Karez incident has no credibility why exactly? Is it because Muravchik is wrong? It it because he did not point out the vast inconsistencies in Herold’s work? Or do you simply reject Muravchik comments because he is one of those dreaded Jewish neo-cons. Please be specific here, because if Muravchik's work is going to be reject or even frowned upon solely on ideological grounds, then we must too reject and/or frown upon Herold’s work on solely ideological grounds. Herold, after all, seems as agenda driven as anyone else in this whole debate, or do you reject this as well?.

The only reason I linked to Muravchik's article was because it was a good example of what is wrong not only with Herold’s findings, but also his attitude.

And although it would satisfy your urge to paint all those who reject Herold’s findings as part of the grand neo-con cabal, there are many individuals who have looked into Herold’s numbers and have problems with accuracy/methodology. Marc Cooper who writes for the LA Times as well as the Nation Magazine is very much on the left end of the spectrum, but he has criticized Herold’s work on the same grounds as Muravchik has. Same for Matt Welch, Hitchens, Renolds, Carl Conetta [7] etc ... etc .... etc.

So as you can see Herold does have critics, and they are many.

And just for the record, the Los Angeles Times put the number of collateral dead at 1,067 to 1,201.

On a side note, I find your bleeding heart pleas for recognition of the Afghani dead truly touching, but I wonder, do you read much Martin Amis?

I also like your comparison between those who disagree with Herold's findings and Holocaust deniers. Are you vapid that the only thing you can fall back on is comparisons to Nazi Germany?

That’s what people round my parts call some pussy ass weak sauce. TDC 15:40, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree with TDC - let's PLEASE refrain from ad hominem arguments. Herold has many critics, and they can't be roundly dismissed simply because they write from the AEI, which you (Turrican) do not like. Please keep your political agenda safely tucked away. That is NOT the purpose of Wikipedia.
Also, this is NOT Usenet, and I really tire of seeing you two (and others) go back and forth on the moral question of civilian casualties. Please do not snipe at each other because you disagree. Or find a nice IRC channel where you can hack it out. Graft 15:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Before I forget it : Graft, I think that the part of our discussion concerning the casualties was necessary and that we rather sticked to the point. I mean, what do you expect when people with such extreme political and philosophical differences clash ?

TDC : > or the methodology of Herold’s findings must, by nature, be a neo-conservative > warmonger? The analysis performed by Muravchik on the Chowkar-Karez incident > > has

I don't think so but in this case this is certainly true. Also, what exactly do you want to imply when you refer to my dislike of the dreaded jewish Neo-Cons ? That I am an Anti-Semite ? My reference to the Holocaust deniers was made because in both cases denial of ideologically motivated killings is used to whitewash a certain political movement. I have never heard of Martin Amis but considering that he was written a book on Stalinism and on the intellectual left you probably want to implicate that I wouldn't critisise Stalin and Mao as much as I would the americans. This shoe really doesn't fit. What I don't like is that while in Mao's and Stalin's Case most people know what they have done, the extent of american atrocities is neither widely known nor accepted. Have your ever read William Blum ?[8]

Turrican


Yes, I have read William Blum. I especial like the point he made about the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan where he described it as an honest attempt to shore up a popular and progressive people's government.

But who gives a shit, right? The article is much improved now. TDC 15:55, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Length and focus

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The contributions by anonymous user 24.228.82.146 who seems to be solely interested in military subjects made this article 46 kilobytes long and gave a strong focus on military proceedings, which are not particularly important to the average reader. Could we condense this a bit? Get-back-world-respect 14:19, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Mental Health Problems after Combat Duty in Iraq and Afghanistan

How do you think should we include the following article? Combat Duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mental Health Problems, and Barriers to Care User:Get-back-world-respectGet-back-world-respect]] 17:05, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest making a small blurb about PTSD and Afghanistan but most of the information should be routed to the PTSD artical. FLJuJitsu 08:19 15 Sept 07
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–2021)/Archive_4&oldid=1137307993"