# Talk:United States invasion of Afghanistan

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 7 external links on United States invasion of Afghanistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20021118162327/http://www.papillonsartpalace.com:80/massacre.htm to http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/massacre.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071215095339/http://www.hrw.org/reports98/afghan/Afrepor0-03.htm to http://www.hrw.org/reports98/afghan/Afrepor0-03.htm#P186_38364
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101202040816/http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,183885,00.html to http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,183885,00.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101110035824/http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/10/top2.htm to http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/10/top2.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110719082550/http://www.schoechi.de/crw/crw088e.html to http://www.schoechi.de/crw/crw088e.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051216152224/http://www.msnbc.com:80/news/664935.asp?cp1=1 to http://www.msnbc.com/news/664935.asp?cp1=1
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130117094334/http://articles.cnn.com/2002-03-14/us/ret.osama.whereabouts_1_mullah-mohammed-omar-taliban-leader-bin?_s=PM:US to http://articles.cnn.com/2002-03-14/us/ret.osama.whereabouts_1_mullah-mohammed-omar-taliban-leader-bin?_s=PM:US
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 6 external links on United States invasion of Afghanistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081102042606/http://www.hrw.org:80/reports98/afghan/Afrepor0-01.htm to http://www.hrw.org/reports98/afghan/Afrepor0-01.htm#P81_13959
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080311055230/http://archives.cnn.com:80/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/09/17/afghan.pakistan.0500/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/09/17/afghan.pakistan.0500/index.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130525104632/http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,188521,00.html to http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,188521,00.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930100844/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1001390-1,00.html to http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1001390-1,00.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071107053501/http://archives.cnn.com:80/2002/US/03/08/ret.war.facts/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/03/08/ret.war.facts/index.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090825115134/http://www.centcom.mil/en/countries/coalition/canada/ to http://www.centcom.mil/en/countries/coalition/canada/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on United States invasion of Afghanistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004221455/http://www.afghanistanjusticeproject.org/warcrimesandcrimesagainsthumanity19782001.pdf to http://www.afghanistanjusticeproject.org/warcrimesandcrimesagainsthumanity19782001.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101110035824/http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/10/top2.htm to http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/10/top2.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that "Invasion" is being used a bit liberally and incorrectly several places in this article, but especially the title. The initial strikes on the Taliban were done by U.S. Army Special Forces units, in small numbers. That would not qualify as an invasion. After that, the U.S. partnered with the Afghanistan government and NATO forces to combat the Taliban. "Invasion" would be more accurate if the U.S. were fighting against Afghanistan itself, instead of allying with it.
It seems to me that by the definition of "invasion", two things are required: 1) a large force, and 2) being "unwelcome". 

Wiktionary definition of "invasion"
Dictionary.com definition of "invasion"
Oxford Dictionary definition of "invasion"
Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of "invasion"
The referenced sources don't seem to support the use of "invasion" either. Perhaps my definition is a bit stricter, from being in the military.
Thoughts? Agree/Disagree?
- Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 07:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Many sources refer to the event as an invasion: Afghanistan: 16 years, thousands dead and no clear end in sight - CNN ("The United States first invaded Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, as part of Operation Enduring Freedom."), The Top 10 Mistakes Made in the Afghan War – Foreign Policy ("The United States invaded Afghanistan for one reason: to get Osama bin Laden and as many of his followers as possible."), Afghanistan profile - Timeline - BBC News ("US-led invasion"), WHY DID THE UNITED STATES INVADE AFGHANISTAN?, etc --177.138.183.96 (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
The Taliban was the government of Afghanistan at the time of the invasion. 2601:644:1:B7CB:5802:C4A6:C2C7:1815 (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on United States invasion of Afghanistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150302014738/http://www.cfr.org/afghanistan/us-war-afghanistan/p20018 to http://www.cfr.org/afghanistan/us-war-afghanistan/p20018
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927101915/http://www.cfr.org/publication/10551/ to http://www.cfr.org/publication/10551/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121007043712/http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/episodes/inside-the-taliban/ to http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/episodes/inside-the-taliban/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061001031543/http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/go0610.pdf to http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/go0610.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061001031543/http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/go0610.pdf to http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/go0610.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090115064058/http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/volumes/volume2/october_2004/10_04_1.html to http://www.army.mil/professionalWriting/volumes/volume2/october_2004/10_04_1.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040610170428/http://www.why-war.com/news/2003/10/29/alqaidam.html to http://www.why-war.com/news/2003/10/29/alqaidam.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080225062850/http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/isaf.cfm to http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/isaf.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States invasion of Afghanistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160415094339/http://insnews.org/world/focus/1101/kabul.world.reaction.report1.htm to http://insnews.org/world/focus/1101/kabul.world.reaction.report1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This articles states it is in the WikiProject United States. Why is it not also in the WikiProject Afghanistan? Could someone add this article to the WikiProject Afghanistan? Stunts1990 (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

By most accounts at the time the Taliban controlled 75% or less of Afghanistan. Your own map on the right illustrates not only less than 90%, but ongoing fighting with the Northern Alliance in most of the northern half of the country. This is not "control."

I believe that the 90% figure is correct for 2001, as by then the Northern Alliance had been hemorrhaging territory for several years. Do you have any sources to the contrary?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Germany also send troops (KSK) to invade Afghanistan. They are fight in Tora Bora in December 2001 and they had operations in the near of Pakistan. SoldatAnthony (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The article contains a lot of references to this book:

Neville, Leigh (2015). Special Forces in the War on Terror. Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1472807908.
I can't find any reviews of this book online, and Neville doesn't seem very qualified as a historian (publisher bio). I've found what I think are two errors in the book so far. Neville says that the first CIA team had 8 people, every other source says 10 (7 field agents and 3 helicopter crew).  And Neville says that there was a heavy firefight on Objective Gecko with 30 "insurgents" killed. Other sources say there were no enemy on Gecko.  Unless anyone objects, I'll probably start replacing the Neville book with other sources. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I ended up keeping some citations to this book, it's widely used within Wikipedia so I don't it's appropriate for me as one editor to decide it's not good enough. As for the firefight on Gecko, General Franks said the same thing, maybe Neville was relying on his account. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't know whether that author is a reliable source or if there were 30 Taliban KIA, but there was a firefight and several Delta soldiers were wounded.  I don't know to what extent the real story ever came out because there was a lot of propaganda from both sides.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyIP19216811 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:United States invasion of Afghanistan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ovinus (talk · contribs) 04:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
An impressive article to bring to GAN. I will probably make some hands-on tweaks (feel free to revert ones you disagree with). Do you intend on taking this to FAC? Ovinus (talk) 04:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you :) I may take to FAC eventually, but not anytime soon. --Cerebellum (talk) 08:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
:D Sorry about this, but I'll need to be off Wikipedia for a bit—probably a week. I'll get back to you once off-wiki stuff settles. Ovinus (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
No worries! --Cerebellum (talk) 08:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Alright, back. Main focuses will be NPOV, appropriate context, and summary style. Ovinus (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

"became the first phase of a 20-year long war in the country" – I'd just be direct and say "became the first phase of the 20-year-long War in Afghanistan" Ovinus (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 Done --Cerebellum (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
"eventually succeeded in overthrowing the Afghan government in 2021" – Probably should state that the overthrow occurred quickly/immediately after the withdrawal of US troops Ovinus (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Changed to In 2021, while international forces were withdrawing from the country, the Taliban succeeded in overthrowing the Afghan government and re-establishing their rule across Afghanistan.
"warlord-ism" – Is this a common word? If not I'd rephrase it; if so I'd remove the hyphen Ovinus (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Changed to "warlord rule". --Cerebellum (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
"Hazara factions" – This word hasn't been introduced Ovinus (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Added The Hazaras are a minority ethnic group adhering to Shia Islam and living in the mountains of central Afghanistan. They're actually quite fascinating, when I was in Logar province neither the Taliban nor the Afghan army would go into Hazara areas - they keep to themselves and run a tight ship. Should I make the sentence a footnote or leave it in the main text? --Cerebellum (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
You were deployed in Afghanistan? Wow. Yeah, I like the extra information but I would put it in a footnote (probs at the end of the sentence, since it's close enough to Hazara). Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes :) Changed to a footnote. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I made a change giving context to bin Laden's return from Sudan (first sentence in Al-Qaeda). Please tweak/revert if it isn't supported by the source, but I thought it would help a reader who forgot about bin Laden's flee from Afghanistan. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Great, thank you! --Cerebellum (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
"One of bin Laden's strategic goals was to draw the US into a costly war in Afghanistan, so it could be defeated just as the Soviet Union had been" – To be clear, the cost of the war specifically would lead to defeat in Afghanistan?
Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The source doesn't specify, it just says: "As a side effect of September 11, bin Laden hope to draw the United States into a long war in Afghanistan, where it would be defeated like the Soviet Union." --Cerebellum (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I'd like a sentence at the beginning of Command structure that just states the countries involved. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 Done --Cerebellum (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
"with a budget of $7 million" relevant? I haven't seen financial information up till here. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Removed. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
"with a Predator drone" A bit of context on the predator drone would be helpful. Why is its first deployment notable? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 Done --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
"the men left the school, but Omar escaped" – If Omar was among the men, probably should use "and" Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 Done --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
"They also began airdropping food and medical supplies" – To whom? Also, how relevant and/or unusual is this?
Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Added to civilians in Northern Alliance-controlled territory. I think it is unusual, it was a big initiative of Bush because Afghanistan was in a severe drought.
Overall comment: There is a lot of detail on equipment, battalions, etc. I'll be honest: I rarely touch military articles and am not sure of the typical style. I'd imagine this article will be much more trafficked by people like me, so I'd strive for a more general audience if you do take it to FAC Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I think what really hurts readability is that I refer to the Special Forces teams by their numbers, e.g. ODA 555.  I couldn’t think of a better way to do it :( But I understand that any reader's eyes will glaze over when they see the wall of acronyms and unit designations, it is definitely a problem and one of the reasons I am hesitant to take this to AFC. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Understood. I still think it's quite readable. Ovinus (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
"known as Pinkies" Relevant? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Removed. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
"Emirati hunting camp" Forgive my ignorance—what is a hunting camp? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
It's a strange story, there is a rare bird called MacQueen's bustard in Afghanistan that is beloved by falcon hunters. Some sheikhs from the United Arab Emirates built the airstrip so that they could fly in on their private jets in order to hunt the birds. Let me know if I should include that info in the article. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
That is pretty strange... but that's kind of what I assume you meant by "hunting camp" (hunting animals) so I think it's fine.
"preparatory fires" Again, sorry if this is jargon. Does "preparatory" mean prophylactic, practice, something else? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Preparatory fires means bombing something before an attack in order to “soften up” the target, I agree that it is unnecessary jargon.  How about B-2 Spirit stealth bombers and AC-130 gunships bombed and strafed the site.
Sounds good
"Objective Gecko" is used before it is defined. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
"No casualties were suffered" I'd clarify "US casualties" Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
"The next day, the Pentagon showed the video footage from Objective Rhino at a press conference and distributed it to news organizations" Relevant because... it was the first public video of the operations? If so, I'd state that. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I thought it was relevant because General Dailey had his men attack a worthless objective (worthless because he knew there were no enemy on the objective), just so he could film the mission and give it to reporters. The whole thing was for propaganda purposes, is there a better way I can convey that? Or am I already editorializing too much? --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Ah okay.
"both objectives were empty" What does empty mean? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Changed to neither objective had any Taliban on it, hope that's better. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
"Since intelligence prior to the missions had indicated that both objectives were empty, the mission primarily aimed to psychologically damage the Taliban" The second half of sentence can be removed, as it nearly duplicates the next sentence, and I think Dailey's quote is more compelling. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
"calling al-Qaeda and the Taliban criminals who were not proper Muslims" What does this mean? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I checked the source, it just says decrying the Taliban and Afghanistan as criminals who had ruined Afghanistan, so I removed the part about them not being proper Muslims. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
"an important hostage rescue mission" – I'd probably remove "important" unless it was a defining event of the operation, as it's slightly editorializing, and the reader can immediately see the significance with the next sentence. Up to you, though. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
"caused heavy Taliban casualties" Any estimates on the toll? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The source does not give an estimate. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
"surprised everyone" Who is everyone? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Changed to "surprised the Americans". --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
"impromptu massed infantry assault" What does "massed" mean? Should it be "mass"? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
"Several nights later, beginning on October 16" I assume you mean November here Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
There's an image of the propaganda pamplets, but I don't see anything about them in-text. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Removed the image. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
"they assassinated his father" Is "assassination" appropriate here? (Was his father a high-level political figure) Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The source says “assassinated”, so does our article Abdul Ahad Karzai. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
"The airlift is alleged to have evacuated up to five thousand people" – Is this figure controversial enough to say "alleged"? If so, I'd like in-text attribution Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, everything about the airlift is controversial, I added some specific views with attribution including the US government position that no such airlift took place. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Cool, and I like the additions.
"opium plant" – Perhaps you could use "factory" or whatever term you think is most precise; I was confused for a moment because I thought they had some giant opium poppy :P Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Lol! Changed to "production facility". --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
"On the way to the target one Land Rover broke down due to an engine problem and was left behind with its crew (they were picked when the assault force exfilled)." Seems like excessive detail... Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Removed. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
"recovered Spann's body" On what date? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
26 November, added to text. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
"86 Taliban survived" Out of how many? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
1,000, added to text. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
"The revolt was the final combat in northern Afghanistan." Citation needed Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Could not find a source so I removed that sentence. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
"Dasht-i-Leili massacre" In the interest of NPOV, I'd put a quick sentence about the subsequent investigations into the massacre, or in Aftermath. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Done. Dostum, despite being responsible for that massacre, went on to become vice president of Afghanistan until he was accused of sodomizing a political rival with an assault rifle in 2017 and fled the country (source). --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Oh gosh.
"Using CIA cash" Is "cash" frequently used formally in this context? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Changed to "funds". --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
"They would also retreat to their base areas to sleep and break their fast each night, since the battle occurred during Ramadan, the month of fasting when Muslims do not eat or drink during the day." To be clear, the forces observed Ramadan despite their fighting? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, should I say that in the text? --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
No need; I was just quite surprised..
"Powell and Rumsfeld" Give Powell's title, first name, and link Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 Done --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
"US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld aimed to carry out operations..." This should be moved before the Powell–Rumsfield debate Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 Done --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
"Because the rise of the insurgency" What insurgency? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Linked Taliban insurgency. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
"invoking the memory of General George Marshall whilst talking of Afghan reconstruction" Somewhat flowery; I'd rephrase a bit. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 Done --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


### Other stuff
There is a sandwich issue at the beginning of Prelude. I'd suggest moving things a bit or removing the Ground Zero photo (I think most people reading this article will have seen it). Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Removed the Ground Zero photo. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Overall a pleasing and compelling article, even for someone who isn't into military conflicts. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


### Comment from the peanut gallery
One major aspect that I don't see covered here is the question as to whether the invasion of Afghanistan was legal according to the UN charter and international law. There are various sources that discuss it, for example:

Juan, Michelle Ann U. (2002–2003). "Testing the Legality of the Attack on Afghanistan". Ateneo Law Journal. 47: 499.{{cite journal}}:  CS1 maint: date format (link)
Quigley, John (2002–2003). "The Afghanistan War and Self-Defense". Valparaiso University Law Review. 37: 541.{{cite journal}}:  CS1 maint: date format (link)
Williamson, Myra (2013). Terrorism, War and International Law: The Legality of the Use of Force Against Afghanistan in 2001. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 978-1-4094-9656-4.
(t · c) buidhe 04:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe makes an excellent point, thanks; completely forgot about the non-military aspect. A discussion on international reactions and legality is important for completeness, especially for a fairly massive event like this one. And as I alluded to above, I'd also like a bit more info in Casualties; where was the death toll highest? Ovinus (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Buidhe for the comment and those sources. Ovinus, if you can give me the weekend to review the sources I will get the section added no later than Sunday. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Take as much time as you need! Ovinus (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@Ovinus: @Buidhe: I took a stab at a legality section, let me know what you think. Tomorrow I will try to find more detailed information on casualties and/or war crimes, I know there is at least one account of the Northern Alliance beheading Taliban prisoners. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
I think it's pretty good, although a tad short. Buidhe, do you know if the invasion's illegality is a majority view? You could hatnote this section to Opposition to the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) which is largely about this same topic (although not the best article out there), and actually provides other pertinent topics to put elsewhere in Aftermath: International reactions, the reaction of the US public, and of Afghanis. My feeling is that the military coverage is excellent and complete; we just need more context on non-military aspects of the aftermath. Ovinus (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Ok, done. Added a reactions section and expanded casualties. Most of the coverage of civilian casualties begins after the invasion, for example on December 23rd 65 tribal elders were killed in an airstrike while on their way to Karzai's inauguration, but the scope of this article ends on December 17th. Same with Afghan public opinion, there are anecdotal reports but I couldn't find any actual surveys before 2006. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Looks pretty good, imo! I'll probably pass the review after a quick second pass of the article. Ovinus (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Alright, passing. Thank you for your excellent work on this important topic! :) Ovinus (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much! You made my day :) --Cerebellum (talk) 08:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

"At the time the only collaboration with Massoud was..."  Seems like it should say "abortive attempt to track" or at least link to Berntsen's page as the op only lasted a week. MyIP19216811 (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The retreat of the United States' forces from Afghanistan and the toppling of its government by the Taliban in 2021 seem, to me, do indicate a Taliban victory. I get that this article refers to the invasion by the United States, not the War of Afghanistan itself, but since the fighting never really stopped and the Taliban accomplished its goals in the region, it seems weird to me to have the result denote an "American-led coalition Victory". MaquinaDeAnsiedade (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It's in the infobox, and I'm wondering why, since a CTRL + F search for "Iran" seems to return no relevant results. Banedon (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It's been several hours with no answer on what should be a fairly-widely watched page, so I'm going to remove this. Banedon (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The section on the battle mentions the two CIA Team Alpha members involved in the prison uprising as Mike Spann and Dave Olson citing Doug Stanton’s book Horse Soldiers. This book is widely known to have used pseudonyms extensively and is directly contradicted by multiple sources including Toby Harnden’s book First Casualty, Paul Yule’s documentary The House of War, and former Team Alpha members own recollection of events including Col. Justin Sapp’s appearance on the Team House podcast: all of which assert that the only two CIA officers located at Qala-i-Changi were Mike Spann and David Tyson. David Tyson has since retired from the CIA and has spoken extensively about his experiences as the only American witness to Mike Spann’s death. It seems a shame to have his actions attributed to a fictional CIA paramilitary officer named Dave Olson, when the case officer and linguist David Tyson performed so heroically under fire so as to be awarded the Distinguished Intelligence Cross. 24.24.203.60 (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not our job to pat Tyson on the back. It's our job to report what reliable sources say, and the main reliable source we have says Olson.  This is a recurring challenge across all of our articles when dealing with agencies that operate on a classified basis -- sometimes we're just not going to be able to include things because the sourcing just isn't going to be declassified for another 25 years.  As you saw on the Reddit thread that you made on this (which borders on inappropriate canvassing btw and definitely constitutes an unacceptable off-wiki personal attack), we do not have reliable sources saying that Olson was a pseudonym for Tyson; we also do not have one saying that Olson was a pseudonym at all. However you slice it, there's a gap in sourcing that is the missing link that you don't have -- the sources simply aren't there to say what you want to say. That's not "power tripping" -- you're just refusing to accept that our policies don't allow you to do the thing you want to do. Deal with it and move on.  ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed) I am not doing anything except trying to remedy an obvious error on the page. Sources should never be used to dictate facts and all source should be examined critically (especially when they are proven to have inaccurate or incomplete information). Virtually all of the relevant events recounted in the section being contested were caught on film by German journalists and presented in multiple documentaries: perhaps most famously in Paul Yule’s “The House of War”. By no means are these classified details obscured by the clandestine nature of the events: anyone can watch David Tyson himself call the US embassy in Uzbekistan on the German journalist’s satellite phone which in turn puts him in contact with the US military.
(Personal attack removed) 24.24.203.60 (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Why do you get to determine that Horse Soldiers is the “main reliable source” on the topic? Toby Harnden’s First Casualty is more recent, and more specifically about the Battle of Qala-i-Changi rather than Stanton’s book, which briefly touches on the events. There are literally dozens more thorough accounts of what happened November 25, 2001 other than Stanton’s book, including even other Wikipedia articles, which I realize aren’t reliable sources but if you notice each one does reference a reliable source that refutes Stanton’s very brief discussion of the events (Johnny Mike Spann’s page, the Battle of Qala-i-Changi’s page, John Walker Lindh’s page, to name a few). You are randomly choosing a source that is making a controversial claim against the vast preponderance of evidence. That is virtually antithetical to the purpose of an encyclopedia. 24.24.203.60 (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Your argument that "sources should never be used to dictate facts" is contradictory to our policy, which is that we rely on what is verifiable to reliable sources. Period. You seem to be irrationally opposed to this concept. That's fine, but it's not going to work on this project. Period. Now you're just resorting to more personal attacks, misrepresentations of others, and forum-shopping, while failing to address the core underlying issue -- which is that have self-admitted that you cannot produce even a single reliable source that makes the claim you want to make. I never said you couldn't use First Casualty -- I said that it doesn't support the claim you're trying to make, which is objectively true. Until you can provide direct sourcing that says Stanton is wrong, what you're trying to include is disallowed synthesis as I've repeatedly told you. There's literally nothing further to discuss. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I’m opposed to false information being represented as the truth and using flawed sources. At this point I think additional editors need to opine on this. There is a major issue if it is this difficult to remove information from an admittedly non-factual source (read Stanton’s own author’s note where he mentions he is attempting to capture the feeling of the events rather than the history as it happened). The main character of the book Horse Soldiers, Mitch Nelson, is a fictional character (which Stanton never explicitly mentions), on its own this should be enough to at least require additional sourcing when referencing Horse Soldiers. And there are literally dozens of other characters in the book that are conflations of several real people, pseudonyms, or entirely made up. An organization such as an encyclopedia would do well to treat all characters in Horse Soldiers as fictional/pseudonyms unless proven otherwise. I have presented source after source detailing the events in depth rather than the fleeting reference in Stanton’s retelling. Here is perhaps the most succinct and clear journalistic representations of the events in November 25, 2001. https://www.militarytimes.com/opinion/commentary/2021/10/17/first-casualty-tells-story-of-secret-cia-mission-in-afghanistan/
pay careful attention to the numbers of CIA officers in country in Afghanistan. All of whom are accounted for, which does not leave room for a fictional Dave Olson.
As an aside, the actual special forces operators involved in the events portrayed in Horse Soldiers have written their own book to correct the inaccuracies in Stanton’s book called Swords of Lightning coauthored by Mark Nutsch, Bob Pennington, and Jim deFelice. These men actually performed the actions ascribed to the fictional characters Mitch Nelson and Hal Spencer in Stanton’s book.
I feel like you could have gently guided me and helped me into making this edit properly instead of gatekeeping editing while also preventing someone from making an article better. Sorry for everyone. 24.24.203.60 (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I literally spent several days helping you understand the basics of our sourcing policies, which apparently worked because you ultimately realized you couldn't substantiate the claims you wanted to include due to a lack of sourcing. But instead of moving on, you've now apparently decided to go to war against our core content policies, canvas, and descend in to personal attacks both here and off-wiki. Yes, sorry for everyone.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)