Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)

---

Prior talk and Archives

• mostly about naming, at Talk:2001 U.S. Attack on Afghanistan and Talk:U.S. Attack on Afghanistan.
• /Archive 1 (incl. 2004 comments)
• /Archive 2
• /Archive 3

Public opinion section

As this article is getting a little long, do you think the Public Opinion section should be moved to a new article? Also missing is public opinion in 2001 (which I think would be useful, to see how opinion has changed). Chwyatt (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Picture

Possibly this picture somewhere?

[[2]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flosssock (talk • contribs) 20:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)