Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Coalition Deaths - re recent edit

The dramatic drop in Wikipedia-reported total Coalition deaths from September to October 2008 raises the question of where we get our numbers. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

General Petreus?

I'm not sure how you spell it (Petraeus? Petreus? Putreas?) but I'm pretty sure he's the new head commander of the War in Afghanistan. Should we put him in? -Aashalom (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. He is not in charge of all operations in A'stan, most are run by ISAF/NATO, and even the majority of US operations in A’stan come under ISAF jurisdiction. But some seperate US ops run by CENTCOM continue, especially on the Pakistan border.

My view is that allied commanders should be limited to Afghan, CENTCOM and ISAF commanders. I don’t think Canadian CiCs should be included though (no disrespect to the Canadians). If you have Canadians, then you would have to have British commanders (then maybe Australian and Dutch). Most of the allied nations have come under OEF (and hence CENTCOM) command or ISAF command. Chwyatt (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

MY VIEW AS A CANADIAN, is that canadian commanders and any other darn commanders should be listed. If anyone would have suggested that americans be not included in the list it would have been seen as a scandal. In this case, Brig.-Gen. Jon Vance is a canadian commander in afghanistan no ifs or buts. If you don't want to include him or any other allies, then remove your entire american list and state joint task force, end of story. Patric (talk) 09:01, 06 March 2009(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.99.235 (talk)

I am puzzled by the inclusion of two American Presidents and two British Prime Ministers in the list of commanders. The US President is Commander in Chief but not commander in any direct military sense and the C in C of British forces is the Queen, not her Prime Minister. These people ought to be listed as Leaders if they appear at all, not mixed up with the Generals. Erwfaethlon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC).

US flag is missing from the list of belligerents

The US is involved. Yet neither its name or its flag appeared in the list of the section "Belligerents".

The icon of the flag of the US was added to the entry "Operation Enduring Freedom Allies", with the rationale that Operation Enduring Freedom is a US operation, US-named, US-initiated, US-led, US-controlled, and 85-95% US soldiers - with max 5-15% participation from other countries under US direction.

This was removed with the comment "OEF's symbol is not the flag of the United States" in [1], and then removed a second time.

As a compromise, I've added the United States to the list of belligerents. It clearly belongs there anyway. The US is by far the dominant military force in the war, having the most soldiers involved, some 33,000, the most actual combatants involved, the most military casualties, the most planes, the most helicopters, the most bombs, the biggest budget, etc.

Please note that no flag has been added back for "Operation Enduring Freedom Allies" which represents those countries that have participated as allies to the US's Operation Enduring Freedom.

Please note as well that for the article Iraq War, the United States is listed as a belligerent, accompanied with its flag icon, and that a separate entry is listed for "Other Coalition Forces". On that page, the United States' role in the war as a belligerent is not covered up behind a proxy such as "Operation Iraqi Freedom". OIF = US and OEF = US. Similarly, the Gulf War page shows the US as a belligerent, and, again, a separate entry "Other Coalition forces" is listed. Like "Operation Iraqi Freedom", "Operation Desert Storm" is not listed as the belligerent in place of the United States.

This compromise now makes this page consistent with those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.120.80 (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure why the US is listed as they are mentioned in the NATO/ISAF section.

Further more I am not sure why they are listed before the name of the operation itself.

If we are going to list one country then surely we need to list them all. FFMG (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

All the allied nations involved in this war have come under OEF or ISAF control, and there are two links to cover them. I prefer that, because if we single out Canada or Australia, then you have to have the Netherlands, then maybe France, Germany, Denmark etc etc etc. I agree, if you list one, you would have to list them all, as no one will agree on who is most significant. However, whilst ISAF is an international operation, led by an international organisation (NATO, with other partners), Operation Enduring Freedom (outside NATO control) is an American operation, that other nations happened to participate in.

Whilst the OEF Participants link would cover the US, the invasion of A’stan from 2001 was instigated by the US, strategy has been driven by the US and forces have been predominantly (up to 2006 at least) American.

The first commentator is wrong though on his/her numbers. From 2001-2002, the majority of forces have been American, but since the expansion of ISAF from 2003 onwards, most foreign forces have been non-Americans. In 2006, there were more Europeans and Canadians, than Americans. Now, with a recent expansion, the US currently is the largest contributor to OEF/ISAF (about 60% of foreign allied forces, 32,000 of 53,000), and about 40% Europeans, Canadians, Turkish, Australians and New Zealanders. It is difficult to separate the important contributions of say the Netherlands and the Canadians, but the US clearly stands out. So keep the US flag, imo. Chwyatt (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I am familiar with the point, and it has been made a few times in the past. Personally I don't think the flag should be there as it gives the impression that it is a US only war, (and everybody else is just playing in the sand). But I guess this is matter of opinion really, I wonder what the IP user thinks would happen if all the non US soldiers/contractors were to leave Afghanistan tomorrow.

The IP was just rather amusing with his/her reverts. He broke the 3RR, did a bit of IP hopping, fabricated some values out of thin air and then tried to ask demand that people to use the talk page when he, himself, was unable to do it. FFMG (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Chwyatt, agreed that the US clearly stands out and therefore its flag should appear.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.10.89 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 22 November 2008

Really? How so? FFMG (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I was looking for common ground, and agreeing with what Chwyatt wrote: "the US clearly stands out. So keep the US flag, imo."

I also very much agree with Chwyatt's statement that "Operation Enduring Freedom (outside NATO control) is an American operation, that other nations happened to participate in."

And Chwyatt's statement that "the invasion of A’stan from 2001 was instigated by the US, strategy has been driven by the US and forces have been predominantly (up to 2006 at least) American."

70.50.10.89 (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The numbers in the opening comment of this discussion are not wrong. If you read it again, the numbers and percentages were clearly given for OEF specifically, while in your comment you are referring to OEF/ISAF combined numbers. OEF is and has always been 85-95% US soldiers, and right now closer to 95%, if not higher. OEF is a US operation with some secondary partipation by other countries (max 5-15% ever and many of those on naval ships away from Afghanistan - and right now non-US involvement under OEF is probably closer to only 5%, if not less).

FFMG, personal attacks are not appropriate or constructive. Your accusation of fabricating some values out of thin air is completely unsubstantiated, and your accusation that the initiator of the discussion has not used the talk page is even more so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.10.89 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 22 November 2008

What personal attacks are you talking about?

The values you are/were using are wrong, you made changes _then_ used the talk page, (and demanded that others use it before changing the page). I think you are over using the word personal attack. FFMG (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain which values are wrong and how they are wrong? Please substantiate with some actual figures and links. 70.50.10.89 (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

How can I quote that your values are wrong? Normally it is the other way around. You make a claim and you prove to us that you are right, (or is it the same as your edits, we can only discuss them _after_ you make changes?).

But anyway, the fact that your values range from 85% to 95%, (quite a big difference in terms of men), indicate that you are guesstimating.

You also claim, The US is by far the dominant military force in the war, this is not quite true, the UK, German, French, Canadian, and so on, are not exactly toy soldiers.

But as I said bellow, those arguments have been raised before, (and frankly, most of the time better than that).

Again, my hope is that the reader can see past the, "my country is better than yours because the info box says so", and realise that the war is been fought by many countries together. FFMG (talk) 07:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

A range, 85%-95%, was given because because the composition of OEF constantly changes and has been different at different times. In January 2006, according to the US State Department, OEF involved "troops from over 20 nations, including about 19,000 U.S. forces and about 3,100 non-U.S. troops." That means that 86% of OEF was US troops in January 2006. That was before the shift of most of the non-US troops from OEF to ISAF (see ISAF timeline) and since then OEF's composition has become even more predominantly American. By January 2007, there were only some 1,000 non-US troops in OEF. OEF is a US operation that other nations happened to participate in.

Okay folks, I think I made a compromise. I fixed combatants, so now main forces are ISAF, Afghanistan, and OEF allies. United States, UK and Germany are included under ISAF, because these countries are greatest contributors. --Novis-M (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll ask, (before someone else does), but why those countries only? What about France, Canada, Italy, Netherlands, ... Romania. Why did you not include all the countries?

Thank you for the compromise you offered, but I would have really preferred some kind of discussion on the matter.

I don't understand what it is with this article, where people seem to make the changes they want and only then use the discussion page. FFMG (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thousands of people visit and update wiki, if everybody wanted to make the changes without discussion, wikipedia would collapse. Answers to questions - US, UK and Germany because they are greatest 3 contributors, and only 3 nations with contribution of troops more than 3,000. France, Canada, Italy, Netherlands, Romania, etc are under the ISAF link, we can't include all of them here. You're welcome, I did that so theres no confusion for readers, by that time, we can discuss what to do next. I think its good now. --Novis-M (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Novis-M, thank you for working to compromise as well. Agreed with you that the relative sizes of the contributions should be a key deciding factor. For example, just because Georgia has 1 token soldier involved, does not mean Georgia's flag should be listed. The US has 33,000 soldiers involved - that's over 4 times more than the second largest contributor, the UK, which has only some 8,000 soldiers. Germany is much farther behind the UK with just 3,000-something soldiers, and Germany's troops are not participating in any combat so don't exactly fit the description of belligerents.

I would suggest the US entry does not belong indented under NATO-ISAF for the following reasons:

- The US is also running Operation Enduring Freedom.

- The US has around 20,000 troops under OEF compared to about 13,000 to 14,000 under ISAF (33,000 total)

- The US started and finished its initial invasion of Afghanistan before ISAF was even formed.

Even then ISAF's mandate was limited to the small area around the city of Kabul. ISAF only started expanding out of Kabul about 3 years into the 7-year war.

Another point that should be noted is that most of the non-US troops in ISAF and OEF are not participating in actual combat. Of all the OEF/ISAF foreign troops that are taking any part in combat, the US probably accounts for 75-80% of them. If you define belligerents as combat participants, the US clearly stands out.

On that note, I can compromise with leaving the label "approximately 40 other countries" under NATO-ISAF, but putting "approximately 50 countries" under Operation Enduring Freedom Allies seems a bit much. Many of the "50" have had very minor, token roles and only for some brief period of time. I think having the link Operation Enduring Freedom Allies, which should really have the actual name of the article it links to (Participants in Operation Enduring Freedom), is already enough.

Also not sure about having the German flag there - they aren't participating in any combat - but can accept it as a compromise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.10.89 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 22 November 2008

Please sign your posts in future, (or even create an account if you can).

From experience I know that the info box often create little edit wars/edit arguments from time to time, so I am not even going to bother reverting your edits.

National pride oven erupts in the strangest of places, (does having a little flag first in the info box really make the US the only nation involved in the Afghanistan while others just sit and watch?)

I just hope that the reader can understand/see that the US flag is out of place, I hope the will uderstand that it was probably an edit mistake. And hopefully they will see in the article that many, (not just the 'top' 3 selected), nations are in that war. FFMG (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Compromise - I think that version I proposed was better, because United States forces are included in these two operations. However, wikipedia is not mine only - unfortunately :D but I agree with you guys, that the operation was launched by US and UK forces, without NATO. So I made hopefully last version :) --Novis-M (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think that is a fair compromise as well. I can live with that and will leave it as it stands now. 74.12.220.139 (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know there is some 50 nations taking part in Enduring Freedom. No matter how one looks at it, it is wrong to only mnetion the US and the UK. This is an account of history and we can't just simplify it like that. One has to look at amount of soldiers compared to population of the respective countries. Norway for instance is one of the largest contributors compared to it's population. Mortyman (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. US and UK flag is there because they launched the invasion. Today, all the forces are in ISAF or in Operation Enduring Freedom. --Novis-M (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Strengths section (troop numbers)

Novis-M, I agree with your updating of that box section, however I came across information today that clearly states that the US actually has 48,250 troops in Afghanistan since June 1: Congressional Research Services Report for Congress - U.S. Forces in Afghanistan - Updated July 15, 2008 also available here RS22633 - U.S. Forces in Afghanistan - July 15, 2008

The previously reported total of 33,000 is also clearly based on old information from April as shown here Congressional Research Services Report for Congress - U.S. Forces in Afghanistan - Updated May 9, 2008 and also reflected in Figure 6. on page 5 of Congressional Research Services Report for Congress - U.S. Forces in Afghanistan - Updated July 15, 2008

I wasn't too sure how to incorporate this information into your changes because I haven't been able to find any information on how the new 15,000 US troops have been divided between OEF and ISAF. But I think I've found a way: The non-US component of ISAF is fairly constant and verifiable so that is a known quantity. The total number of US troops is also a verifiable known quantity.

I think organizing it along that line also makes sense because the US troops that are nominally under ISAF are still actually militarily under the command of the US and not NATO-ISAF (ex. "In Kabul, Brig. Gen. Carlos Branco, a senior spokesman for the ISAF, said the Marines "answer to" ISAF but are under the "tactical control" of RC-South. He said ISAF was satisfied that this is the best arrangement to "coordinate and synchronize" combat operations."

The US government also seems to refer to all the US troops in Afghanistan, including the ones nominally in ISAF, as OEF in their reports (like the Congressional reports above and others). The US forces are now also all unified under one single US command, that of US general McKiernan:

This summer, McKiernan, a four-star army officer who leads the NATO force in Afghanistan, was given command of most of the 19,000 American troops who have operated separately. The NATO force had already included about 15,000 other Americans. American officials say they hope that the creation of a more unified command structure under McKiernan will improve the coordination of all forces in Afghanistan ...

There also seem to be many conflicting numbers on how the US troops are divided between OEF and ISAF (for example, in the quote above, it's more in OEF and fewer in ISAF). Listing the total figure for the US is easier than trying to futilely divide it between ISAF and OEF.

I'm open to other ways of organizing it, but I think it has to reflect the 48,250 figure to be accurate and informative. 74.12.220.139 (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the information, I like this co-operation :) Well I think we should put it back to my version, with the new numbers you foind. 48,250 troops total, from which 17,790 are in ISAF. So we should do it this way - 17,790 are in the ISAF and 30,460 are non-ISAF, because ISAF is really important, its not just like OEF. --Novis-M (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I find that there are just too many legitimate sources reporting otherwise to assume that the correct and up-to-date distribution of the 48,250 troops is really 17,790 in ISAF and 30,460 non-ISAF:

- "There are now some 70,000 Western forces in Afghanistan, including 32,000 U.S. forces -- 14,500 under NATO command and 17,500 under a U.S. command." November 22, 2008

- "This summer, McKiernan, a four-star army officer who leads the NATO force in Afghanistan, was given command of most of the 19,000 American troops who have operated separately. The NATO force had already included about 15,000 other Americans." October 17, 2008

- "The United States has about 33,000 troops in Afghanistan, about 13,000 of them in a 50,000-strong NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)."October 11, 2008

- "Under this new arrangement, the approximately 20,000 U.S. forces, operating as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, will come under the operational control of USFOR-A." October 07, 2008

- "Currently there are 33,000 US troops in Afghanistan, about 14,000 of them in a 53,000-strong NATO-led International Security Assistance Force." September 10, 2008

If you want to change it as you propose, go ahead, but, personally, I would wait at least until we come across at least one legitimate source that clearly states together in one place that the US has 48,250 troops in Afghanistan, X number of which are in OEF under US command and Y number of which are in ISAF under NATO (still really also under US command), and where X and Y actually do add up to 48,250.

I just don't think it should be the other way around, where we (Wikipedia) are the first to publish an erroneous or misleading information, and then legitimate sources - basing themselves on what they read here without checking for themselves - propagate the error, etc. The fact that there are already so many completely opposite distributions of US forces between OEF and ISAF being reported by legitimate sources shows how easily this could happen. The line between OEF and ISAF for US troops is not clear at all. 70.49.123.215 (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, theres many sources, new and old. You cannot tell exact number, because it changes every day. I would say, that the source saying that there are 48,250 troops is correct and new. Source saying that there are 17,790 US troops under ISAF command is new and correct too. So I think we can clearly say that theres 17,790 US troops under ISAF command, and 30,460 non-ISAF. I guess that numbers from many sources you cited are often rounded. We can put there numbers I just said (30,460 and 17,790) and put there the date of the sources. --Novis-M (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, 17,790 was in fact an old number from July ... I fixed it your way, but still think it would be better to simply list total US and total non-US ISAF: Less room for error, less room to mislead, and more accurate representation, imo. ISAF is now over 40% US-composed (and led by US command).

Oh well, compromise, compromise ;) 76.68.251.7 (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Somebody has adjusted the non-ISAF number to 48,250. According to the cited sources, 48,250 is the (June) total and 29,500 is (July) US-ISAF, if I had both numbers for the same date I could calculate the correct value. Thundermaker (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Public opinion

This article is getting huge. I copied and pasted the public opinion section onto a word document and that section alone was 10 pages long. So I have moved it to its own article. Introduction on that section and article could bee improved. Would also be useful to see international public opinion from 2001-2002 if those stats are out there. Chwyatt (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious you didn't care much for that section and just wanted to shunt it off. Your flippant summary for the section you got rid of was: "Naturally, the war has divided public opinion, inside the United States and outside, international public opinion largely more opposed to the war than amongst Americans." That quite clearly demonstrates that you aren't concerned with the quality of the Wikipedia article, but with keeping the page favorable to the war. Good faith cannot be assumed on that edit.

From Wikipedia policy:

In most cases, it is a violation of the neutral point of view to specifically break out a controversial section without leaving an adequate summary.

The moved material must be replaced with an adequate summary of that material.

If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others.

That is exactly what you've done, and continue to try to do.

If you were really concerned about the length, you wouldn't have insisted on repeating the list of ISAF countries and flags again when it's already in the box and on the main ISAF page.

As a compromise, I've shortened it a bit more but there should be some information shown on the latest public opinion. Please stop trying to remove or discredit all information that you find doesn't reflect your personal POV.

76.68.250.184 (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If I wanted to discredit something by removing it, I would have removed it from the new main article. Did I remove anything from the new main article? No I didn’t. In fact I wanted to see more stats, on opinion on the early phase of the war (2001-02). Nor was what I wrote ‘flippant’ (granted it was not well written, which I admitted). And it wasn't me that added the ISAF contributor flags. You don’t know anything about ‘my motivations’. You start guessing (wrongly) my motivations and insulting me, then talk about compromises!!! I make a habit of not making assumptions about people I don’t know, you shouldn’t either. Chwyatt (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• There's no point in having what's pretty much a copy of one article embedded in another, and WP policy is to create a fork where necessary. Public Opinion is only one aspect of the war and deserves its own article. On that basis I've taken out most of the repetitious material. andy (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You're highly selective in your attempts to shorten the article and remove redundancies. One of your first edits was to again re-insert the redundant line "The current ISAF force (6 October 2008) is made 50,700 military personnel." Do you realize that that fact appears 3 times in just the summary for ISAF? Is the list of nations and flags in the ISAF section not "pretty much a copy of one article embedded in another"? Why didn't you take out all the repetitious material there instead of reinserting redundancy so that it's stated 3 times in just that summary section and 4 times in the article. That's on top of the 3 times the 50,700 figure is listed in the main ISAF article. These claims of removing redundancy and shortening the article are simply not credible in the face of this heavily-biased selectiveness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.230.8 (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

List of coalition casualties

I noticed the number of deaths of US soldiers killed in Afghanistan is different on this page than the Coalition Casualties in Afghanistan. The list on that page seems more accurate because it does not to include US soldiers killed outside of Afghanistan when in operations in different countries. http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf The numbers on the two pages should be the same to avoid confusion. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

news media slant

• The Anglo-American news media has been largely supportive of the war since its inception. Within it, the war in Afghanistan has been colloquially labeled "the good war" and the term has been used by the BBC, The Economist, The Washington Post CNN, The New York Times, and The Times.

It's very clear that the Anglo-American news media is slanted in support of the war. Now, whether or not this is a 'good' or 'bad' thing is beside the point. Prehaps- as with the war against Nazi Germany- it's great that the media is on the side of democracy against the Taliban. Perhaps not, if the media is whitewashing anti-Muslim/pro-Christian imperialist agression. But either way, the article needs to admit that the slant exists as a matter of fact.

I strongly object to the term "Anglo American" news media. This is clearly a bias statement and should not be added to the main article. I would think any countries media that has forces on the ground in Afghanistan is hardly broadcasting propaganda and hate against them. I have removed the clearly offensive and biased comment. If people want to include a mention of the general media, INCLUDING propaganda put out by "Non Anglo America" media then a section on this subject would be informative. The current wording is simply unacceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Small point.

I don’t really want to get into an esoteric discussion of grammar, but these two corrections were both “picky” and wrong. Both sentences said exactly what they intended the way they were (and are again). “… it would not distinguish between al-Qaeda and nations that harbor them.” The policy was put in effect in the past, so “would not” is used. However, it is still in effect so the present tense is correctly used with “nations that harbor them”.

In the second case, “currently plans” expresses a vague intention. If that is the intention, we must hope that they are making plans and “… is currently planning…” is correct.--Another-sailor (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Novis-M revert of unsourced editations (revision 259780957)

Novis-M, I truly don't understand your revert of changes I did in good faith with valid sources referenced. Did you even check the source links? In fact, I followed your way of doing things and updated numbers for you for your way of structuring information.

I had argued for dividing troops numbers into US and non-US ISAF. You insisted on dividing US troop numbers into ISAF and non-ISAF. You decided that should be done by subtracting the number of US troops in ISAF from the total number from the Congressional reports. I stated my objections but tried to cooperate and went along with your way. If you don't remember, it's all on this page at #Strengths section (troop numbers) and #US flag is missing from the list of belligerents.

Not only did I go along with your way, but I've updated the numbers for you - again - and within your preferred structure and by your own method. I've brought more up-to-date figures to this page the last 3 times. If it weren't for my contributions, the article would still be using completely out-of-date figures from the spring.

If you're going to impose your way of doing things, if you're going to have country flags and troop numbers duplicated everywhere, at least keep it up to date. And why are you reverting it when someone takes the time to help you bring it up to date with the newer data from the very same sources and within your preferred way of doing things? 76.69.229.139 (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for the delay of my answer, I just read what you wrote. I really have no intend to revert any of your editations. The problem is, that everybody get suspicious when there is editation of non-user contributor. I reverted editations which were without sources, because many people here just added random numbers. If you have some source, feel free to update figures of the troops, I would be thankful for the help. I think we already talked about the ISAF and non-ISAF. We just cannot have US and non-US ISAF, because then some people would say they want British and non-ISAF British, etc. Two main official forces in the Afghanistan are ISAF, and Operation Enduring Freedom participants, so I think current version is correct. Understand that I'm just trying to do the same thing as you - improve the article and help wikipedia. --Novis-M (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

what about a section on economic background?

Although the white man is known for his altruism there sure are plenty of leftard analyses addressing the economic or geopolitical background of that another Capital-driven Imperialist war of aggression. Them I would like to hear on wikipedia as well as it is a nuissance to dig through all the proletarian and progressive blog forces of the world. I hope I'm not alone. Are there any w'pedians on the left?79.216.212.95 (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Award winning picture?

Possibly this picture somewhere?

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/upload/img_400/CAO3UP6P_20070314112440.jpg

Ryan, June

Probably not public domain and given the amount of PD images available, it would be hard to make a case of fair-use. Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 07:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else??

Public opinion

I have moved the protests section to a subsection of the "public opinion" section, because in my mind one is a subset of the other. The international reaction section also needs expansion to include at least something about how countries responded to the war. While I am aware of the "main" link which does include this information, I think we do need at least something here, because when I see "International Reactions", my personal interest (and I'm sure others as well) is more focused on how governments view the war, rather than the protests/public opinion side of things. Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 07:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Greg Mortensons journey

There is a guy namesd greg mortenson and he was climbing mountains in afganastan when he got lost. A village took him in and nursed him to health. he said i will build you guys a school. So he raised the money and did it the did it for other villages. Soon he built 200 schools then they bombed by afganastainians. I read about this in a book called three cups of tea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.72.3 (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Financial cost of War in Afghanistan

I noticed that there's no mention of the financial cost of the War in Afghanistan. There's a decent article about this for the Iraq War in case anyone's interested in adding this information to the War in Afghanistan article. Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War Dionyseus (talk) 08:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

paJDAS;jasjk;illion dollars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.45.111 (talk) 08:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of War Crimes by U.S. Special Forces - Convoy of Death

I was unable to post this information, because the article is locked: According to the documentary film Afghan Massacre - the Convoy of Death, Taliban fighters, some captured, but many of whom voluntarily surrendered in response to promises of release after disarmament, were loaded into shipping containers, where many of them died from thirst, suffocation and gunshots fired into the containers. After the surviving POWs were removed, the bodies were disposed of in mass graves, but those who were not dead were summarily executed. Eyewitnesses interviewed in the film place U.S. Special Forces personnel on the scene during the incident and during the disposal of the bodies. Many prisoners are still unaccounted for. 118.4.190.177 (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's another reference: U.N. investigates removal of evidence118.4.190.177 (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

references: 1 http://www.photius.com/rogue_nations/taliban.html "U.S. Soldiers Watched Massacre of Taliban - Filmmaker" 2 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/sep/14/afghanistan.lukeharding "Afghan Massacre Haunts Pentagon" 3 http://www.mcclatchydc.com/336/story/57649.html "As possible Afghan war-crimes evidence removed, U.S. silent"118.4.190.177 (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The killings were committed by the Northern Alliance, not the special forces. 69.133.126.117 (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Permanent war economy

I'm adding a link to article titled Permanent war economy to show how & why the wage system makes some people want war to "create jobs" making weapons & military (teaching war), which the Bible predicts someday will cease. Isaiah 2:4. Stars4change (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Back to the flags again!

Just saw that User:Vinn0r had added the Belgian flagicon to the list of Belligerents, when the actual page states: Please do not add any other countries .. I guess we need some sort of Guidance here as people are clearly ignoring this comment. Here is a suggestion Only add the flags of countries above a nominal number, e.g. 1000.. According to ISAF nations there should only be 10 flags in total.. Jez t e C 12:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Private Contractors

It sais 111 were killed, however in the article itself it seems only 23 of those killed were private security contractors, the others were not from security companies but from regular companies, I see they were engeneers, ect. These are not combatants, they are civilians. I think we should not include them in the casualties at the coalition side.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Several groups and individuals listed as belligerents are not involved in Afghanistan

I disagree that the Kashmiri separatists should be included as belligerents and commanders on this article. One could argue that Lashkar-e-Taiba might play a small support role to groups in Afghanistan (per the LeT article), but I have found no evidence cited to link Jaish-e-Mohammed and Hizbul Mujahideen. Nor should leaders of these groups (Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, Maulana Masood Azhar and Sayeed Salahudeen) be listed as commanders in the War in Afghanistan. They do not control any forces in the area.-RDavi404 (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Background

This war should be put in the context of the history of foreign intervention in Afganistan, with reference to its strategic importance. The role of the United States and its allies in creating Islamist groups to oppose the Communist government should be included.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is Belgium mentioned in the infobox?

Belgium is a relative small contibitor and should not be pointed out. --Lindberg (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There really should be just two flags/icons there: the US forces (57,000 troops - 68,000 by the end of the year) and the non-US ISAF forces (maybe 33,000 troops). The US makes up about two out of every three foreign troops there (63-68%) while all the other countries put together make up aboout one third of the foreign troops. Putting other flags than US and ISAF just opens up an endless can of worms.76.65.182.150 (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. Maybe US and the Great Britain then? But just remove small contibitors such as Belgium. --Lindberg (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I say we leave it there so they dont get all high and mighty about being against the war in Afghanistan well it is a fact they contributed so it shall stay. P.S. A soldier has just been captured in afghanisan we need to update this info ChesterTheWorm (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC) ChesterTheWorm

Traces of Depleted Uranium

This section seems like an advert and lack sources. Can someone who is stronger in the ways of Wikipedia validate that it complies with the guidelines? 71.207.111.103 (talk) 03:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That section has been removed. I have replaced it with a "Depleted Uranium Controversy" section which covers both sides of the issue (with sources) and does not mention that guy's video. Thundermaker (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Opium motivation in intro

At the end of the first paragraph, the article states "The war has a triple purpose" and lists 3 reasons, 2 of which are related to opium trafficking. AFAICT, this claim is unsourced. Was it something Bush said? Someone at the UN or ISAF? Assuming good faith, I'm not going to suggest that the list was made-up, but it's important to know who stated those reasons and when.

In the article's history, opium is not mentioned until early 2007 and is first listed as a reason for war on 6 August 2009. Thundermaker (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The claim was removed at 07:41, 27 August 2009. I guess it's a non-issue now. Thundermaker (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

British troops picture?

Britain is the second largest contributer to the war in Aghanistan. Yet there is not a single image of British troop in the whole article. Dispite the fact that there are many award winning ones. 94.170.21.124 (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Operation Khanjar and Operation Panther's Claw

This section is very mixed and confusing. Could it possibly be split into two sections? Thanks, Flosssock1 (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

commanders

Commanders (section one)

Neither Gordon Brown nor Tony Blair were/are 'commanders' the british armed forces swear allegience to their commander in chief and queen regnant elizabeth ii; she is the head od state. The prime minister is the proverbial first amongst equals. I'll leave a few days but i intend to remove brown/blair from that list unless theres significant disaproval. I'm also against the listing of presidents of the usa as commanders in the info boxes. I think most people would generally like to know who the most senior 'operational commanders' are rather than a bizarre list that includes a list of the operational and 'consitutional commanders'. Names like obama/brown/blair/bush don't add any real information to the article; therefore i propose changing 'commanders' to 'operational commanders' (or any other suggestion) and removing the heads of executive/state.Zaq12wsx (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Yes, I think that George Bush, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown should be removed. I think that, as Commander-in-chief of their armed forces, HM Queen Elizabeth II and President Barack Obama should be on the list. However I oppose your proposal to change 'Commanders' to 'Operational commanders'. We'll see if this gains anymore support. Flosssock1 (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC) I like that. Leave HM Queen Elizabeth II and Barrack Obama and remove others.-- Jonesy22 talk 07:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Per the infobox's template "For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended." Bush was a prominent and notable leader until recently so ommitting him would seem odd. I also assume the PMs had a much larger role than the Queen throughout the conflict. Template:Infobox military conflict The Korean War and Vietnam War are both examples of infoboxes with different presidents and commanders listed. Both are rated B class. You can also check out the infobozes in featured articles covering wars at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Showcase. (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Then we'll keep the PMs and Ps and throw in the Queen. I sure that would have to be the limit though. Flosssock1 (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC) The queen has absolutely NO role in the conduct of operations in Afghanistan. Her role as head of the armed forces is purely symbolic, so including her in the infobox would be rather bizarre. Users shouldn't forget that this article is about the war in Afghanistan, not about the symbolism used within the British government. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Well neither does Gordon Brown really, the cabinet does. Queen Elizabeth is commander-in-chief of a couple of other armed forces operating in Afghanistan. I think that at least while it is an active operation then she should be on the list. Especially as she is COMMANDER-in-chief. Flosssock1 (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Yes, there is a field for "commanders", but it is intended for leaders who can actually influence events, not to publicize the honorary title of a powerless monarch. The infobox is supposed to summarize the article, not to present other information which is irrelevant to the subject of the article. I don't know if Gordon Brown or George Bush should be included, but at least they are, or were, decision-makers and their policies determine how the war is conducted. That's more than can be said for Queen Elizabeth, because as far as the war in Afghanistan is concerned, British soldiers might just as well swear allegiance to Helen Mirren. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Well we'll leave it for now. But, my friend, you need to read up on the British Monarchy, HM does have power. To put it in a nut shell, she has the power to advise and, if needed, the power to decide. Flosssock1 (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC) A couple of editors (one registered, one anon) have insisted that the prime ministers of Canada and the UK be listed in the infobox as "Commanders" in the Afghan War. In doing so, they are inserting blatant falsehoods. In those countries, the prime minister has no - zero - official role in the military; at best, he or she is the chief advisor to the Commander-in-Chief, who, in both cases, is presently Queen Elizabeth II. The users insisting that this is incorrect should present their sources that claim the prime ministers of Canada and the UK are military commanders. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Gordon Brown/the Cabinet are not commanders in the sense that they give any orders/plan strategy etc. The chiefs of staff give their view of what they want to do and how they wish to achieve it and cabinet yea/nays those options purely from a financial point of view - nothing to do with strategy/command. The PM is not commander of UK forces - either lose that category or correct it to HMQ. I agree, Flosssock1 (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC) This is almost funny. So the PM "advises" the queen, who then decides how military operations are conducted?? That's not at all how it works. In the UK the armed forces take their orders from the government, which is headed by the PM. The cabinet decides when to go to war, and how the war should be prosecuted. In practice the military are given tactical command of operations, but the ultimate authority belongs to the elected government, not to the military leadership, and certainly not to the queen, who never interferes in military matters. During WWII, Churchill took a leading role in the conduct of the war, firing this or that general, and deciding which theatre should get priority. Many generals resented this, but they never questioned his authority. Nowadays, the same rules apply, and by reading between the lines, one can see that certain British officers are not happy about how the war is fought, that they would like more men and equipment, but not only are they not allowed to do anything about it, they are not even allowed to complain. It is evident that in the UK, and the other commonwealth realms, political control of the military is exercised by the elected government, and the title of commander in chief given to the queen is purely honorific. The burden of proof lies with those wanting to include queen Elizabeth in the infobox to show that she has a meaningful role in the war in Afghanistan. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC) No one said the 'PM advises the Queen'. And actually no, the Queen is head of the government. And no, the initial authority does, the ulimate authority lies with the cabinet. The cabinet and PM work for the government, which itself is headed by HM the Queen, who is also commander-in-chief of her armed forces. The direct/head British command in Afghanistan is, to a point, debatable. But the facts that HM the Queen is head of her government (above the PM) and that she is commander-in-chief of her armed forces puts her in a position of shall we say 'highest command' and for this reason she should be shown as the 'head/top commander' in the infobox. Flosssock1 (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Except the Queen makes no decisions about Afghanistan. She doesn't have any power to influence events, order offensives, and if she did these things there would be scandal. To describe her as a commander is a stretch. In the commonwealth executive power is vested in PM's under the Queen's figurehead. The infobox is misleading because the Queen is right next to Obama and Bush, people who actually do have control of the armed services.Tiberius Curtainsmith (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Instead of merely theorising (poorly, in my opinion), show some concrete sources that state the prime ministers of the UK and Candada are military commanders. For the other case: Constitution Act, 1867, s.III.15: "The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue to be vested in the Queen."[2] Monarchy's British website: "The Queen as Sovereign is Head of the Armed Forces... The Queen is the only person to declare war and peace."[3] The infobox section in question isn't titled "People with a meaningful role", it's "Commanders", so the burden of proving themselves correct actually rests with those who believe prime ministers are indeed commanders on par in their respective countries with the Presedent of the United States in his. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks Miesianiacal. I would also like to add to that, in reply of Tiberius's post; HM the Queen does not make a lot decisions about Afghanistan, but she does have the power to. Flosssock1 (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC) What do you mean the Queen 'does not make a lot of decisions' in Afghanistan? She doesn't make any decisions. From the wikitionary definition of commander "commander (plural: commanders) 1. One who exercises control and direction of a military or naval organization. 2. A naval officer whose rank is above that of a lieutenant commander and below that of captain. 3. One who exercises control and direction over a group of persons. 4. A designation or rank in certain non-military organizations such as NASA and various police forces." The Queen does not fit in with any of these designations. She certainly doesn't control and direct the military. Yes, by the letter of the law the Queen is the commander in chief. The British constitution is based on convention, many parts of it are essentially unwritten. Using the letter of the law distorts the actual political situation. The Queens powers only exist in theory, she can't actually do anything about Afghanistan. In accordance with convention the person who actually controls the military is the prime minister, he decides whether military action is taken and of what sort. Look up the article on British armed forces 'Consistent with longstanding constitutional convention, however, the Prime Minister holds de facto authority over the armed forces.' The inclusion of the Queen next to GWB and Obama is actively misleading, they actually took the decision to take military action. Which the Queen cannot do. Tiberius Curtainsmith (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC) What part of Commander-in-Chief do you think doesn't fit any of the above descriptions? This article, let alone its infobox, is not the place for the mechanics of constitutional monarchy and responsible government. The field's heading is "Commanders", and the evidence of prime ministers being military commanders has yet to be presented. In its absence, any claims of the head of the Cabinet being the head of the armed forces is what will be actively misleading. The Queen is the penultimate commander of Canadian and British militaries, and if anyone wants to find out how that works in detail, we've plenty of articles where that's covered already. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Yes. If we put the PM then we might aswell put the whole cabinet. And, for all the reasons stated, I think it's important for HM to be there. If anyone finds it misleading then they obviously don't know the facts, and yes, there are many articles here that can explain the details to those people. I understand your argument Tiberius, but I think it has been outweighed. Maybe you could compromise and argue to have the PM and HM the Queen on the list. But at the moment, I stand by mine and Miesianiacal's side of the argument. Flosssock1 (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC) For both World War I and World War II under the section in the info-box "Commanders" there is a link to a section called "Leaders and commanders", which lists heads of state, prime ministers and leading generals. Perhaps this article should do follow that example. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC) It's possible to do such a thing, but are there enough names to warrant an entirely new page? Maybe a section in this article would suffice? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC) This is all very well, but it is obvious that you are labouring under the delusion that the commanders in the infobox should be people who have a title of commander, rather than leaders who actually occupy that function. On the contrary, elementary logic, which is severly lacking in this discussion, would dictate that a person who is completely unconnected to the events described in the article should be left out. The claim that the queen might intervene in the war is irrelevant, because this article is concerned only with events that actually happened, not with idle speculation. The claim is highly dubious anyway, as ever since the Glorious revolution of 1688, Parliament has emerged as the dominant political force in British politics. On several occasions(Act of Settlement of 1701, Abdication Act of 1936) the parliament has demonstrated its constitutional ability to regulate the monarchy, making the claim that the queen is the ultimate authority equally dubious. In practice, given the balance of power in the British state, if the Queen tried to overrule the parliament, or the government, on Afghanistan or anything else, it would be tantamount to political suicide. On the other hand, just because the PM doesn't have a fancy title doesn't mean that he isn't the actual commander of the British armed forces, as Tiberius pointed out. As such, the case to include the queen is totally unconvincing, and it certainly doesn't outweigh common sense. First Miesianiacal claimed that the prime minister is just "the chief advisor to the Commander-in-Chief, who, in both cases, is presently Queen Elizabeth II", which is completely false. In reality, the opposite is true, and the Queen's title of commander in chief doesn't entail any actual responsability or obligation of leadership, and her only possibility to influence events is by advising the PM. I see also that two sources have been produced, but they don't prove anything, as neither mentions Afghanistan. All this monarchist POV is mingled with some particularly ignorant comments by Flossock1, who seems to believe that the British prime minister is not the head of his government, which is complete nonsense. As a democratically elected leader, the PM draws his legitimacy from the ballot, and not from the queen's appointment, which is merely a formality. As the leader of his party, he wields the most political clout in the cabinet, of which he is obviously also the leader(see Prime Minister of the United Kingdom). The queen is NOT the head of government, she is the head of state, which is not the same thing[4]. All this is not something mysterious or hard to understand, and I'm rather surprised that certain users are having difficulty grasping the difference between a titular commander and a real commander. As Tiberius said, to inclde QE2 alongside Obama, Bush or miltary commanders like General McChrystal is actively misleading, as it implies that she has the same responsabilites as these people. That this might be misleading is confimed by the fact that it encourages certain ignorant users to entertain foolish misonceptions such as "the queen has the power to make decisions on Afghanistan if she wants", whereas there is in fact absolutely zero chance of this happening. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Well, you're wrong on a number of counts, not the least of which is the misconception that prime ministers are popularly elected (is this why there's a desire to place them on the same level as presidents?). Nonetheless, the sources provided show the Queen is the ultimate commander of her armed forces. The arguments that attempt to prove otherwise rely merely on making appearance more important than fact; the Prime Minister looks like the commander because the actual commander normally follows his decisions. But that notion belies actual rank; the Prime Minister is always subordinate to the sovereign, who is the Commander-in-Chief, and is called such because she does retain the power to dismiss a PM's desires, and her signature is ultimately required to declare war and deploy troops. This isn’t mere ceremony; the balance of the system relies on it. But, as you say, these workings of constitutional monarchy are not mysterious or difficult to understand, so it should be no problem for readers to comprehend the role of the Queen as military commander. I think there's an openness to including both, so how about we work on that? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Well it says on the change in my pocket Elizabeth II D.G. Regina so perhaps we should include God as the ultimate commander-in-chief. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Does the constitution state God is the Commander-in-Chief? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC) (out) No, but the UK has an unwritten constitution which also forms the imperial law for many Commonwealth countries. But if the Queen rules by the grace of God and is Defender of the Faith and head of the established Church (at least in England and Wales) then God must be the ultimate commander-in-chief. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC) But there are no official documents. Flosssock1 (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC) I mentioned this somewhere else but the Vietnam and Korean War infoboxes are good examples of what it can look like with the chage of US presidency during the conflict. Also, "commander1/commander2/commander3 – optional – the commanders of the military forces involved. For battles, this should include army commanders (and other officers as necessary). For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended" per Template:Infobox military conflict/doc is still being ignored.Cptnono (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC) This debate is getting a little out of hand, and is adding very little to the article except causing an edit war. IMO it makes sense to include relevant Prime Ministers for commonwealth nations rather than the Queen. Of course some editors can make consistutional arguments that the Queen is the commander-in-chief (which are not wrong), but lets use some commonsense. The Queen does not make decisions to commit force etc, the government in these nations does. As the Prime Minister is the most prominent member of the government it makes sense to list them. To attempt to compare the US system of government (i.e. the constitutional position and responsibilities of the President) to the position of the Queen in Commonwealth nations seems a little pedantic and adds nothing. Anotherclown (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC) On the contrary, what's pedantic is the acrobatics of logic some editors are going through in order to prove without sources that prime ministers are military commanders. I already expressed my willingness to find some compromise that still sticks to the valid - and verifiably supported - facts, but none has been so far presented. The other option for those who insist on including prime ministers is to change the header for the infobox section. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Actually, you are the one accomplishing acrobatics of logic in order to impose your POV. Contrary to the false claims you have been making, the role of the queen in politics IS strictly ceremonial, as explained by the British Monarchy website: "As a constitutional monarch, Her Majesty does not 'rule' the country, but fulfils important ceremonial and formal roles with respect to Government."[5]. As for the ability to declare war, it is also purely ceremonial("this power can only be exercised on the advice of Ministers"), but more to the point, in the case of Afghanistan it is totally irrelevant, as the UK did not recognize the taliban as the legitimate government, so there was no need for a formal declaration of war. No one is denying that the queen is the formal head of the armed forces, but you have completely failed to prove that the queen has an active role in the war in Afghanistan, and for good reason: she hasn't. That is the only criteria for inclusion, if the article is supposed to make sense. In addition, there is absolutely no requirement to change the infobox header. It works perfectly well all over wikipedia, and in fact it worked very well here until you started interfering. It is intended to include all operational commanders in abroad sense, and not only leaders with a formal title of "commander". To believe that would be narrow-mindedly literal to the point of ridiculousness. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC) WP:OR and passive aggressive personal attacks won't hide the fact that there are still no sources confirming that the Canadian and British prime ministers are military commanders. The Queen is commander-in-chief for both countries. That is not WP:POV; it is a sound and sourced fact per WP:V, that, unlike your assertions, needs no additional rationalisation to appear true. The commander-in-chief is thus an apt addition to the commanders section of the infobox here, meaning I agree that the section header needs no changes. But then, it isn't I who insists on including non-commanders below it. Indeed, your own quote proves your claims to be false: the ministers, not being commanders, only advise the chief commander. Since when did advising the commander make commanders out of the advisors and a nothing out of the commander? "[Advice] does not mean that a minister can exercise a prerogative power, but rather the exercise of the prerogative is on the advice of these ministers... The royal prerogative remains with the Queen and the Governor-General, though the right to advise the Crown is diffused."[6] To claim the opposite would require a parallel belief that the President of the United States is no commander because he relies on advice from his Secretary of Defense and needs Congressional approval to deploy troops. So, is the presence of advisors really going to govern whether or not a commander-in-chief is listed in the infobox? I certainly hope not. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC) No, no, no, the US and British/Canadian political systems are completely different, and your comparisons are ludicrous and false. The main difference, among many others, is that contrary to the US president, "the British Sovereign no longer has a political or executive role"[7]. The source you have provided concerns a court ruling over the exercise of the royal prerogative in bestowing an honour to a Canadian citizen, and it is completely unrelated to the case in debate, which is the war in Afghanistan, in case you had forgotten. Significantly, the court concluded, contrary to the commentator's opinion which you have cited, that "the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada can exercise the Crown prerogative as well". However, more to the point, you have completely failed to prove how the royal prerogative has any connection to the war in Afghanistan, and on the face of it, you are once more trying to pollute the debate with irrelevant and misleading claims. You can go on pointlessly repeating that "prime ministers are not commanders" to your hearts content, but they are the ones giving orders to the military forces. For evidence see for example [8], [9], or [10]. A quick google search would turn up dozens more sources. For all purposes useful to this article, the act of giving orders to a military force makes them commanders, much more than any hereditary ceremonial position held by the queen. What's more, by overloading the infobox with US, British and Canadian commanders, you have made a thorough mess of it, and demonstrated that you don't understand how this normally useful device should be used. Maybe you should leave it to someone who does. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Still more pointless attacks, this time with a misunderstanding of your own logic. But, given that your beloved prime ministers are presently listed, one wonders why you are still complaining about them. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC) My point was not to over-emphasize the role of prime ministers, so much as to have the queen removed, as I can see no evidence that she plays an active role in the conflict. While she certainly has important functions within the countries of which she is the sovereign, this information does not belong in this article, whose scope is limited to the war in Afghanistan. As such, the infobox is intended to provide a brief, and if possible self-explanatory, summary of the article, so including the whole chain of command rather defeats its purpose. The question of pinpointing the political control of the military is to some extent insoluble, as that power is nowadays often diluted and delegated, even in the case of the United States. Moreover, it is often limited to strategic guidance. Therefore, both as a compromise and a means of trimming the infobox, I suggest that the commanders section should be restricted to military commanders "in the field", as their role is militarily the most significant. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Honestly, I agree that the list may have grown too long. However, I personally find it appropriate to show the higest commanders in the infobox for an overall war, whereas military officers closer to the field should be shown in infoboxes for specific battles. However, your proposal seems fair, and, for the sake of compromise, I'll remain open to it. I'd like to see what others have to say on the matter, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Break 1

Commanders (section two)

What a joke this discussion has become (as has the article, which, besides needing a heavy cleanup, is POV and unbalanced). A lot of this seems to be pro-war fans of their respective country's militaries or monarchies seeking to give undue weight to their country or monarchy through the inclusion of little flags and names in the infobox. At the moment there are 7 "commanders" listed for Canada and 10 for the US. That is completely undue weight. The US initiated and led the war (as "Operation Enduring Freedom"), has about 2 out of 3 of all the foreign troops in Afghanistan, and the commander of all the foreign troops in Afghanistan is a US commander. Canada has less than 3% of the foreign troops in Afghanistan, and was not even involved in the initial invasion. As such, Canada should not even be listed at all in the Commanders box. There are also 8 "commanders" listed for the UK, vs. 10 for the US. That too is undue weight. The UK has maybe 9% of the foreign troops in Afghanistan. If there are 10 commanders listed for the US, there should be at most 1 commander listed from the UK to respect that proportion. Maybe throw in one other only because the UK was involved with the US in its original invasion. The Queen should not be included in the infobox for that and many other reasons. As WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE indicates, information should be presented "in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." When you read news articles about the war, of the 8 UK "commanders" listed in the infobox, you saw Tony Blair and now see Gordon Brown mentioned in relation to the war most of the time. You will see Dannatt, Richards, Kemp mentioned once in a while. I have yet to see Queen Elizabeth mentioned, let alone in the role of commander. Including her in this infobox is simply not in any proportion to her "prevalence within the source material" that is used in coverage of the war or used in this article. --70.49.120.245 (talk) 05:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC) P.S. I've added David Petraeus, a key figure in this war, and Richard Meyers. The former is mentioned 3-4 times in this article, the latter is mentioned twice. Note, Queen Elizabeth is not mentioned anywhere in this article about the war in Afghanistan. Her inclusion in the infox is quite clearly undue weight. --70.49.120.245 (talk) 05:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Canada's role is significant as the third largest force fighting against the Pashtuns in the south of Afghanistan (which is where the war is). This is reflected by Canadian officers like Rick Hillier holding senior positions in ISAF and by heavy levels of casualties. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Hillier commanded ISAF for 6 months, and there have been a dozen ISAF commanders in all. Hillier may have been a prominent war figure within Canada, but less so internationally and in the overall war. Number of casualties is not really a measure of who is in command and making the overall decisions about the war. Commanders hardly ever die in battle. The commanders are primarily American. All foreign troops in Afghanistan obey and follow McChrystal's strategy. The whole world is waiting on what Obama is going to decide. These are the commanders of the war. --70.49.120.245 (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Anon- please read WP:AGF. The list of commanders, as it stands, is the product of an attempt to convey information in a consistent way rather than win a patriotic pissing contest. Canada was on the board because, as Four Deuces has already pointed out, it has the third-largest force in Afghanistan, and all Canadian commanders who've overseen the mission are listed just as all their British and US counterparts are. If there's to be some trimming of the commanders shown, please seek a consensus on the matter first. Further, there remains still absolutely zero reliable references to support the assertion that prime ministers are commanders, so please do not again remove sourced material. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Mesianical, please do not format my comments and my signature again. Also you write "there remains still absolutely zero reliable references to support the assertion that prime ministers are commanders," yet you just restored 3 prime ministers as commanders. You added back 8 names that are mentioned absolutely nowhere in this article about the war (Henault, Hillier, Natanczyck, Harper, Martin, Chretien, Boyce, Elizabeth), yet you deleted two that are mentioned multiple times in the article (Petraeus and Meyers). The commanders box should list only those that have been and are making signficant active decisions about the overall war: That includes George Bush and Tony Blair, but excludes the Queen. I have yet to see a news article mentioning the Queen making an active decision about the war. As per WP:UNDUE, the information presented in the infobox should be in "rough proportion to to their prevalence within the source material", that is, the coverage of the war. 70.49.120.245 (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Indent your comments properly, then; WP:TPG should help you. The PMs are indeed not commanders; they're only listed as a compromise, and are clearly placed as subordinates of the Commander-in-Chief, not as commanders themselves. If you read through the previous discussion, you'll see your other comments have already been addressed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 07:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC) I should also add my apologies for deleting the two US commanders you inserted into the infobox; that was merely my own carelessness. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 07:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Should be CENTCOM and ISAF commanders. Having Queen Elizabeth is frankly ridiculous Chwyatt (talk) 08:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC) So you favour removing George Bush and Barack Obama, then. Your opinion is duly noted. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 11:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Does the infobox really need Queen Elizabeth as a commander? I don't see how that makes sense as she has no real involvement with command in the war and is never mentioned in sources as having such involvement.G. R. Allison (talk) 08:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Freaking 40 coalition commanders? I mean seriously, Soviets at Eastern Front (World War II) have less than that and this conflict here is a minor skirmish compared to that one. Template:Infobox military conflict recommends upper limit of about seven per combatant column. Whatever criteria has been used here, it totally isn't sufficient and needs some serious upgrading, about 30 Coalition commanders should be thrown out to get this list into somewhat reasonable size. Also seeing Elizabeth II among commanders, twice by the way, is just humorous.--Staberinde (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC) So is seeing her prime ministers, then, too. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Oh god...here we go again. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC) My sentiments exactly. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC) What about the recent increase in commanders. Are the new ones needed? Flosssock1 (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Break 2

This discussion has gotten nowhere, while controversial, disputed, unsourced, possibly misleading and possibly synthesized information sits in the infobox. First of all, I think we can use common sense to decide that while the information is so heavily disputed, it should not be included in the article until a consensus is reached or until reliable sources can directly back the claim. The current sources I'm surprised no one has looked at other articles for an example. The reigning monarch of the UK is generally not included as a commander in British wars, be it the Seven Years' War, the American Revolutionary War, the Second Anglo-Mysore War, the Anglo-Persian War or the Falklands War. I know of one other article, Korean War, that lists the monarch and prime ministers in the same format as this article. Furthermore, prime ministers are generally not listed as commanders either, however exceptions to this occur slightly more frequently, as can be seen at Iraq War and Falklands War. That's just out there for reference, but it suggests that the monarch and prime minister are traditionally not recognized as military commanders. It should also be common sense that the issue is not whether or not the queen is the head of the armed forces at all, but whether or not she is an active military commander in the war -- a claim that is not supported by any reliable source. Even if she is constitutionally the head of the armed forces, claiming that that makes her a commander in the War in Afghanistan is synthesis. In short: There is no consensus or reliable source to support the disputed and controversial claim that the queen or prime ministers are military commanders. Until we get a reliable source or an expert familiar with the civilian government's role in the command of the British military, it is probably unwise to sustain those claims in the article (this obviously applies to Canada as well), so I'll take them down for now. I've left Bob Ainsworth (the British defense secretary) on the list, because based on this passage: "It is the Defence Council which has the power of command over the members of the armed forces and the power to make appointments within the armed forces." From source

Now briefly to the matter of the United States, which should be corrected right away. The president of the United States is a direct commander of the US military and clearly an active commander in the War in Afghanistan -- something that is massively covered in the media, thus easily verifiable. However, to say that the United States Secretary of Defense is a commander is a quite a stretch. The defense secretary is mainly an advisor to the president on military matters, and while he might relay orders to the military command and see that they're carried out, he doesn't hold any authority to command the military...so that should be removed from the commanders section.--Abusing (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Things are as they are now for consistency; if the PMs are to be listed, then the actual commander they advise must be listed, and thus the US commander must have his advisor(s) listed. This all, of course, stemmed from the insistance of some editors that prime ministers be included as commanders (which they obviously are not). I'd personally be happy to see both PMs and the monarch gone from the infobox. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand they're like that for consistency, but equivocating the queen's connection to the prime ministers and the president's connection to his advisors was probably a mistake in the first place. Anyway, I removed the queen and the PMs from the infobox, as well as the US Defense Secretary (the British Defense Secretary, on the other hand, does apparently have authority in military command. FYI, this is "Abusing" (name change). Stinging Swarm ^talk 03:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Strength: Taliban.

The current "Taliban: 7,000-11,000" ref is 404 (Yahoo news articles are deleted after a few days, so avoid Yahoo news as a ref). According to

• Entous, Adam; Steve Holland; Caren Bohan (2009-10-09). "Taliban growth weighs on Obama strategy review". Washington: Reuters. Retrieved 2009-10-10. U.S. intelligence assessment, showing the number of active fighters in the insurgency is now roughly 25,000

there are now roughly 25 000 active Taliban fighters. Agreement to updating using this active figure until a reliable estimate of non-active fighters (killed and those who've left the Taliban) can be added to it? -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-10-10t18:45z, -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-10-10t19:45z

Be sure to mention the source of the estimate in the text. US government information about the wars in the Middle East have proved unreliable. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the quote with the source's source okay? -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-10-10t19:45z

Sure. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

3 questions (school project)

I'm doing a school project on the NZ SAS in Afghanistan. Since you all know a lot more about the war and this article than I do, would you mind answering my questions?

1. Is the information in this article accurate, or is there an edit war going on? Why is it start-class?
2. Why is New Zealand not on the big list of troops when Georgia is, with one soldier? Has NZ withdrawn all troops already? Is there a separate article on ANZAC troops in this war, insignificant as we are?
3. What's the actual cause behind the war? I've gathered that it's counter-terrorism, but does drugs have to do with it?

Sorry... each question is multi-pronged. Thanks in advance anyway :)Š¡nglî§h §Þëªk£r ♫ (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Information in this article may be inaccurate or out of date. When using WP articles for research you should follow the external links to provide additiional information. and evaluate these sources for accuracy. The stated cause of the war is mentioned in the opening of the article. Whether that was the real reason or is still the reason is something you must decide for yourself. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks so much. Now to get to work... Š¡nglî§h §Þëªk£r ♫ (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is pretty devoid of New Zealand content I'm afraid. However, for info on Kiwi operations in Afghanistan you might start at: [11]. Good luck. Anotherclown (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :)... and I just read the part at the top of the page that says this is only for improving the article... oops, sorry for misusing this talk page. Š¡nglî§h §Þëªk£r ♫ (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

International reactions

Why is there no list of international reactions at the time of invasion? 83.108.203.102 (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Stronger focus on recent events?

I usually come to the Wiki when I want a no-BS assessment. I think the section on 2009+ doesn't really explain the difficulties the US is having. I tried to remedy this a bit by adding the "permanent presence" comment. I know we have a lot of experts watching the page. Would it be possible to expand that section a bit? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Supply lines

War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)#Supply_lines_to_Afghanistan could be expanded using information in this article Smartse (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

External Links are OUT OF CONTROL

Seriously. The list of external links here is absurd. It looks like everyone who published an article about the war has been given free reign to link it here. An editor who has invested some time on this article should jump in there and get slaphappy with the DELETE button. Ideally, there will be an 80% casualty rate for links listed there (pardon the silly analogy).
--K10wnsta (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This may be of interest: WP:External links. The link you just deleted was a dead link in any case. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Lots of recent edits and a factual accuracy tag

So I was on a trip for the last two days and I haven't had a chance to review every edit that's been made since then. Are there any other editors who have watchlisted this page that have reviewed them? Where did this factual accuracy dispute come from? There is no section on the talk page about it. I'm going to delete it in a little bit if there is no justification for it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

In relation to the third and fourth paragraphs of the introduction, what about Operation Herrick? Flosssock1 (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

According to that article, Operation Herrick is a part of ISAF, so it is indirectly mentioned. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, also, it would not be 'international'. I'll have a look into sources for those paragraphs. Flosssock1 (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Article Split

I think its about time that this article gets split. Previous sections of the war have been divided by 5 year periods more or less. I think its fair to say additionally that the war has entered into a new phase as of 2006 when the Taliban insurgency escalated.

I therefore propose that we split the article into two sections: 2001-2006 to cover the initial invasion, the warlord policy, Karzai's period as "mayor of Kabul" and the slow ISAF expansion and a second section, 2006-Present to cover the beginning and escalation of the Taliban insurgency and related events.

I think however that even a simple split won't be enough. Things such as "opposition to the war" and "Long Term military presence in Afghanistan" could be significantly shrunk and moved into a separate article, as its a bit long to go on the main page. Putting the invasion timeline and subsequent battles (mazar-e sharif, kunduz, etc) into a separate article from the 2002-2005 timeline might be worthwhile as well, and separate articles on all the battles are definitely warranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant bud (talk • contribs) 11:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article is getting long. But I think that is mostly a function of the war itself getting so long (as well as the need for some editing and summarizing to shorten the piece, where appropriate.) Splitting the article could limit the ability of readers to take in the full scope of the war and to move quickly -- up and down, when they choose -- from causes to effects, from current actions to precedents, from recent statements to contradictions or affirmations in previously stated policy.

I note that both World War II and our war in Vietnam are contained in single articles.

I think that if a longer, single Afghanistan War piece is well-organized and well-written, it will do the job best.

(User talk:Danieldis47) —Preceding undated comment added 14:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC).

Rather than splitting the article up, it would be better to focus on pulling out various sections into related articles. As an early comment noted, WWII a far longer and more complex war was covered in one article. Publicus 17:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Boyd Reimer

Greetings

Perhaps many of us would like to see this article subdivided because many of us agree with the policies of Wikipedia on article size, but the devil is in the details:

1. Maintain Fairness

For example, how can we divide it up in a way that is fair to all contributors? The manner in which it is divided up will probably reflect the biases of the person(s) or party who does the dividing. After it is divided up, some contributors are likely to feel as if their own contribution to the article have become less prominent.

Fairness is paramount in this process: particularly "fairness" in giving "fair" degrees of prominence and accessibility to all contributions.

Here is one possible solution: A great way to "equalize" the prominence/accessibility of every contribution is to use an Infobox in every related article. For every contribution that is relocated away from the main page, we could place an Infobox in that relocated page. This would help to reduce the hard feelings that many contributors are likely to feel when their contribution becomes less prominent in the process of reducing the size of the main page.

Infoboxes are always at the top (right) of the page, thus increasing accessibility and prominence.

I noticed that there is already a Template:Campaignbox 2001 war in Afghanistan and a Template:Campaignbox Afghanistan War attacks but they are not very prominent/accessible because the reader is forced to do two things to access the information in them: 1. Scroll down, 2. open the box

Here are some helpful links about Infoboxes: Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes), Help:Infobox, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes)

2. Retain context

Regardless of how an article is broken up, it is important to retain at least a section on the context. The context of any event is essential regardless of whether that event is a war or not. Otherwise how will the reader be able to gain understanding of the event?

3. Looking at other examples

By the way, I, too, noticed that the entry for World War II is in one piece, even though it was the largest global conflict in human history. I would suggest examining that article to see how they managed to keep it in one piece.

I see that they divided it up according to invasions: for example, Invasion of Normandy etc.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If the piece must be reduced, I would discourage a split into 5-year periods (for reasons expressed above). Instead: There is a great amount of detail in the article about each specific battle. Perhaps, in this main piece, each battle's description could be limited (a paragraph or so?) and greater detail provided in separate pages for each battle (or related battles in a single "campaign.") I note that, for the WWII article, "D-Day" -- the allied invasion of northern Europe -- is covered in one 6-line paragraph. The term "D-Day" then links to its own article. By way of contrast, in "War in Afghanistan," the "Taking of Kandahar" is described in 7 paragraphs and 28 total lines. User talk:Danieldis47

The problem is the war in Afghanistan is already divided into separate 5 year periods, with a specific main page. Afghanistan has been at war for the last 30 years, all with different phases, and I think its important that we keep the same formatting in this regard, as not to remove the context of the war (right down to the soviet invasion) This war currently is a subsection already of the major article (see Civil War in Afghanistan). At the very least I think we should move the 'invasion' of Afghanistan out of this article into a separate one, and the occupation (albeit one supported by the government), into another one, with of course notes on the context left in both articles. This will help guide people who are looking for military history and the invasion, and those who are looking to learn more about the present situation etc. Grant bud (talk) 09:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

To use the World War II example once again, the article is divided into separate fronts. As the main article is "Civil War in Afghanistan" dividing this into certain periods is probably the best way we can divide the main article up to prevent it from being too long. Grant bud (talk) 09:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the previous articles, and I don't think we need to split it just yet, until it can be incorporated better into the main article "Civil War in Afghanistan" and this requires a massive improvement of that page, particularly in terms of making it more similar to other articles about war such as World War 2. Once that has happened I think it would be fair to split this into an article titled "American invasion" or "NATO intervention" or "Foreign intervention" or something similar, as well as one for "Taliban insurgency (2003-Present)" or "NATO occupation" etc.

Proposal: Acknowledge that a split is needed eventually, but not until: 1..the main page Civil War in Afghanistan is improved to incorporate the main parts of this article 2. The current article is subdivided into smaller sections while retaining the context 3. Battles and campaigns discussed in these articles are given a proper page of their own

Opinions?

On a further note I have some proposed subdivisions, reducing the below sections to a paragraph or two and making a new page: 1. War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)#U.S._plans_prior_to_September_11.2C_2001 to US Involvement in Afghanistan prior to September 11th 2.War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)#September_11.2C_2001_attacks change to make smaller and more concise 3. War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)#2001:_Initial_attack to Initial phase in 2001 invasion of Afghanistan or something similiarly named to cover 1) the air campaign 2) the special forces 4. War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)#The_Battle_of_Mazar-i_Sharif becomes Battle of Mazar-i Sharif (2001) with appropriate disambiguation tag (leave current one at present side) 5. Basically everything after 2009 should be moved to separate articles. We don't need a big overview of supply lines on the main page but separate pages would be useful. Likewise with public opinion, civilian casualties, as these can be (and are) well covered in other articles, but keeping a paragraph to summarize is certainly warranted. In terms of the long term presence, as this is mostly speculation, I think it should get its own article with maybe some small mention in an info box but this is just my opinion. Human rights abuses should probably be shrunk and given its own page.

To be blunt, I think in keeping with other war articles, the main articles should be concerned more with the military history of the war, while the rest should be given smaller pages with the proper links to go to the appropriate page.Grant bud (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Grant bud (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all this great work on the article!

I still would argue against too much splitting of the article.

Unlike WW2, Afghanistan is an ongoing war. We don't yet know where the the middle is, let alone the end. We don't yet know which events are (or will be) the "highlights." We can't yet make informed choices about such things. And sections like "Public Opinion" are super-relevant because public opinion can, and is, effecting the decisions being made about the war in real-time, today.

All this is to say that I think it is more beneficial to readers to let the article be a bit long and a bit messy (but not TOO much so!) until later, when it can be better written -- as "history." Danieldis47 (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

On the topic of "fairness in article splitting," see this Wikipedia policy for this quote:

Main page: Wikipedia:Content forking § Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles

"... split can be performed in a POV way, for example by putting everything you don't like in a new article and then giving that article an un-common name, so obfuscating its whereabouts.

The NPOV way of splitting articles is explained in Wikipedia:Content forking: every main section of the article is reduced in size, keeping to the "space and balance" principle as explained above, and an equal number of sub-pages is created using a technique as explained in Wikipedia:Summary style."

Boyd Reimer (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)