Talk:Operation Enduring Freedom – Philippines

message: Again, I removed the POV flag from the template includer (Part of War on Terrorism). The flag is in the wrong place; the user who put it there argues that the term War on Terrorism is not a neutral term (the POV flag is already in place in the article concerned). Even if that were the case, it has no bearing on the neutrality of the statement "Part of the War on Terrorism", because it doesn't matter how you term the NATO anti-terror operations: Operation Enduring Freedom IS part of them. This has nothing to do with a personal point-of-view. Putting the flag there in the first place was a logical fallacy on part of the user who did so. Cheers, Something Wicked 21:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of POV flag 

message: Does anyone know the number of Filipinos who have died/are dying from this event. Why is there only 9 casualties. Based on the local media reports, the number of casualties should have reached at least above a hundred.23prootie 09:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should cite your source and change the number appropriately, I was under the impression the operation ended however. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualties

message: On November 20, 2005, a U.S. soldier accidentally drowned in the Republic of Seychelles while supporting the mission in the Philippines.
Names, other details?
Why Seychelles?
Thank You.
Hopiakuta 14:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarify? clarity? 

message: Are the New People's Army and Abu Sayyaf really "allies"? I am just asking because I had not heard that before and it seems kind of strange to me that a large Maoist guerrilla army bent on creating a Communist People's Republic in the Philippines would ally itself with a smaller conservative Islamist guerrilla army bent on creating an Islamic Republic. Can anyone clarify this for me? - Chris Gilmore
american troops are not in the philipines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.24.123 (talk) 04:24, June 9, 2007
:Let me amplify on that a bit.....
:Article XVIII, Section 25 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution says:
:
:So, in light of that, the question, "What are U.S. troops doing in the Philippines when the RP constitution prohibits their presence?" comes to mind.  The answer to that question, as far as I understand it, is that (contrary to the impression generated by reading this article) U.S. troops discussed in this article are/were, in a strictly legal sense,  not in the Philippines in support of any sort of operational mission.  Look back at the snippet from the RP constitution quoted above, and note the "... except under a treaty ..." exception.  One such treaty would be the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty (US-Philippines).  Article 2 of that treaty reads:
:
:The U.S. troops spoken of in this article were/are in the Philippines in support of the requirement in that treaty that, "the Parties separately and jointly by self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.", not to conduct any mission-oriented operational activities.
:Or at least that's my understanding. -- Boracay Bill 00:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allies??? 

message: Some guy's claiming that Japanese, Australian and New Zealander troops are in Mindanao. While I've seen the Australian foreign affairs site that no troops, 'cept equipment transfers are being done, I have not seen evidence that New Zealander troops are in Mindanao, better yet with Japanese forces due to Article 9. Ominae (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Help in policing this article

message: I'm not involved in the ongoing Reversion war regarding Japan and OEF.  However the question posed in the most recent reversion: "Removed. Where's the proof that Japan's involved? Last time I remembered, they had an Article 9." caused me to try to find an answer to that, with the following results:
*PRESS RELEASE, US Embassy in Japan, October 19, 2007: Use of Japanese Fuel Provided to Operation Enduring Freedom
*Article, Military connections website: Reservists deploying to Japan for Enduring Freedom
*Article, Japan Ministry of foreign Affairs, October 2005: Japan's Efforts based on Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law "... From this perspective, the Government of Japan has recently decided to extend the duration of the Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law, and to actively contribute to the international efforts for the prevention and eradication of international terrorism, by dispatching Maritime Self-Defense Force (MSDF) vessels to the Indian Ocean for refueling operations."
*U.S. Department of State web page: Operation Enduring Freedom Foreign Press Center Briefing by General Tommy Franks, Commanding General, U.S. Central Command, Washington, DC, April 11, 2002. "GEN. FRANKS: Let me talk to the latter part of your question first. The support by Japan causes us to count them among that number of very helpful coalition partners in this global war on terrorism. It has been important to our operations globally and will remain important to our operations in the future."
I stopped looking at that point. There's probably a lot of other stuff out there. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for help in clarifying it. However, I read all the stuff all over. Thanks for that. Now, I read it and saw that they were deployed to the Indian Ocean. Guess I forgot. I'll have to blame overtime with my studies in university. But unless they're some evidence like an article that Japanese fuel is being provided in OEF - Philippines, then there is no reason that it should be in the article. Even the part where Japanese troops are killed in Mindanao raised some irk in me. I'm a Filipino and I keep an eye on Japanese and international media 24/7 if time will allow it. Last time I read, Japanese troops are in UN-mandated peacekeeping missions overseas, not deployed for combat ops in Mindanao. Ominae (talk) 06:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I wish someone interested in this issue would put some of this in the article, rather than just adding flags. Chwyatt (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan and OEF 

message: To all wikipedians who edit this article:
The infobox is very misleading. Balikatan is just a military exercise. The infobox seems to portray it as a war. What's the point in Belligerents, Commanders, Strength and Casualties and losses? Let me clarify things. Though United States treats the NPA as terrorists, Philippines does not. Philippines recognizes NPA's rebellion as part of a civil war, not terrorism. Also, the US forces do not fight in the ongoing skirmishes. So how come the casualties included US deaths with most killed in accidents. Also, the continued fighting of AFP (Philippine military) with NPA, MILF and ASG are not part of Balikatan. These fights are part of a civil war (as for ASG, government termed it as part of criminality) and not Balikatan. Please fix these things up. eStaRapapax xapaparatse! exsatpaarpa!  10:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've temporarily commented it out since it really is getting out of hand. If anyone else has input on how to approach the issue of the infobox then please chime in. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Vietnam War is not very good example. Vietcong were not terrorists, they were authentic guerillas. They didn't widespresdly use terrorist tactics, I mean that their primary target was military, not civilians. It can be said that, on contrary, US forces targeted and harmed civilians more than Vietcong. You are confusing guerillas with terrorists and eqauting insurgency with terrorism. It is a forgivable mistake, since many insurgents did use, and do use today, terrorist tactics, such as IRA,ETA etc. However this doesn't mean that every insurgent is automatically terrorist, unless they use terrorist tactics (that means targeting primarily or heavily civilians). 85.97.3.178 (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Re Viet Cong and terrorist tactics, see e.g., , , , , , , ... Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's with the infobox? 

message: I believe that Operation Enduring Freedom is a conflict and that there must be an infobox. The Philippines (with assistance from Australia and the USA) are fighting terrorists such as al-Qaeda and Abu Sayyaf (i should know im from the Philippines). and yes 2/3 more US marines were killed in acton but just werent included in the infobox.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.180.86 (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: However, Article XVIII, Section 25 of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines specifies: "After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America concerning Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State." There being no treaty duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate relating to OEF-P, participation by U.S. troops is arguably barred by the RP constitution. My understanding is that a workaround for this is to regard the activities of U.S. troops in OEF-P essentially as providing training and conducting exercises, falling under Article II of the 1951 RP/US Mutual Defense Treaty ("In order more effectively to achieve the objective of this Treaty, the Parties separately and jointly by self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack."). RP and Australia have signed a "Status of Visiting Forces Agreement", but it has not been "duly concurred in by the Senate" (my understanding is that the agreement has not been submitted to the Senate by the Executive branch). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OEF-P is a conflict and there should be an info box 

message: How come it only has two sides? On the left, the Philippine government and the United States government are allies, so it makes sense to list them on one side. But on the other side there are Islamist terrorists and communists together, even though they are against each other. Is it possible to make it into three columns, and list each "camp" on its own, instead of grouping all the "bad guys" together? Thanks.--Goon Noot (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox is confusing... 

message: An IP editor has recently been editing this article to name Alexander_B._Yano, the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, as the commander of this United States Special Operations Command, Pacific operation.  For the moment, I've changed this to show only the U.S. commanders shown in the Operation Enduring Freedom article.  Id would probably be better to show a lower-level commander than the ones I have shown. It would probably be appropriate to show the commander of involved Filipino forces as well, and also the Australian commander if there are Australian forces involved. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox: Commanders 

message: For background see the preceding sections headed Infobox: Commanders and Tommy Franks.
The infobox is not about OEF-P, it is about a conflict in which RP forces are engaged and in which the US provides assistance and advice through OEF-P.  I've changed the infobox conflict name to reflect this. I've deleted the Philippine President's name as a commander in this conflict (seems a bit over the top). I've updated the U.S. Commanders names to the current US CENTCOM commanders (I've also similarly updated the Operation Enduring Freedom article).  Since the WP:LEDE lead section of this article asserts (without support) that there are about 500 U.S. troops, I've changed the unsupported (and earlier challenged with a  tag) infobox US Strength figure of 2,000 to read 500 instead—bringing that into agreement with the figure asserted without support in the lead. In the Belligerents section of the infobox, I've moved the U.S. below the Philippines and noted that the U.S. forces are in an advisory role. I've changed the info for the (unsupported) infobox casus parameter to appear as a note with the (supported) notes parameter. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I suspect that a lot of that material had been added by the IP vandal who's been targeting this and related articles. I'm still not convinced about this coming under the command of CENTCOM - both Globalsecurity.org and an article on the US Army's websites says that the operation is being run by the U.S. Pacific Command's Special Operations Command, Pacific. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be, I dunno. There must be a CCDR (I dislike that abbreviation, but I wasn't overly fond of "CINC" either, and I agree with Rumsfeld's objections to that term). From what I've seen, the CENTCOM commander is CCDR, but I could believe the the SOCOM commander as OEF-P CCDR. Since OEF-P is not really a combat operation, I could halfway believe the USPACOM commander as the responsible commander. However, it's not about what I can or cannot believe, it's about what is verifiably supportable.  This article is chock full of of unsupported assertions. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox changes 

message: AL-Queda's  involvment in Philippines war against abu-sayaf is false al-queda did not support The insurgents  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.151.53 (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:    Al- Queda 

message: I recently added a timeline of insurgent actions and casualties, only to have it deleted under the impression that this article isn't about the war.  If so, why do we have a military infobox, a list of combatants, and a timeline of American casualties?50.129.89.173 (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not being the editor who made the reversion, I cannot speak for said editor, that being said I am of the opinion that the reviewing editor removed the content as the larger insurgencies that have been occuring in the Nation-State of the Republic of the Philippines are not what the article is about. There are articles regarding those insurgencies, and perhaps that removed content should be added to one of those. This article is about the United States & Philippines joint anti-terrorist operations; this is the limit to its scope. Although it can be argued that it is related to some of those insurgencies, the scope of this article is within the context of the War on Terror, not within the context of the insurgencies. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Yes, my view was that this article is about the US military deployment to the country, which has been almost entirely focused on training and other non-combat activities, and not the war itself. Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: War?

message: For those who are interested... In the December 2013 Tip of the Spear publication from USSOCOM there's an article on page 38 titled "SOF history: Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines" written by the USSOCOM History & Research Office. It might help expand the article.—  dainomite   13:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Article on US SOF participation

message: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/enduring-freedom-philippines.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20121014192713/http://www.ndu.edu/press/operation-enduring-freedom-philippines.html
02:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I highly suspect the section "Moro reactions" was written by MILF sympathizers. A number of dubious points are being pushed with dubious sources (opinion ed pieces??) to push an anti - American agenda (e.g. " putting a decisive halt to American plans for its Asia military "pivot" in the Philippines."). Much of what is said is also largely irrelevant or lacks a neutral, balanced tone. Attempts are also made to paint the Moro cause as heroic. I ask for a rewrite with objectively verifiable claims or purging the section altogether.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arquenevis (talk • contribs) 14:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, the policy on WP:RS and WP:SPAM prevents self-published material from being referenced, as they are not reliable sources. -- Callinus (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  This same statement that was placed in "Moro reactions" before it was removed (User Callinus was absolutely correct to remove it due to the bias, and non-reliable, partisan sources) is strategically placed in the Spratly Islands and related pages to push a pro-China agenda along with the anti-American bias by criticizing the Philippines. Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moro Reactions Section: Pushing an Agenda 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Operation Enduring Freedom – Philippines. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=7672
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110414122848/http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/dates/2002/oct/02/mark-wayne-jackson/ to http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/dates/2002/oct/02/mark-wayne-jackson/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604024945/http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/10/02/philippines.blast/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/10/02/philippines.blast/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080907131520/http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080907-159154/Palace-GIs-all-look-alike to http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080907-159154/Palace-GIs-all-look-alike
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This edit caught my eye. I looked into it a bit, and it appears to be a s,all correction to an assertion which is in incorrect in other ways. I've tried to fix it, and this is my attempt to explain my fix.
The edit changed an assertion that the CIA had sent paramilitary officers from their Special Activities Division (SOD) to the Philippines hunt down and kill terrorist leaders "by 2014" to say "in 2002". That is supported by a dead link cite. The cited source is a 2002 newspaper article which had two pages -- page one can be seen here; I have not been able to find page two. Page one reports on CIA using drone strikes to target terrorist leaders and on procedures being streamlined to provide rapid action to green-light such strikes.
That earlier wikilink to the SOD redirects here to the Special Activities Center (SOC) article, which says that the SOC was established in 2015, and that the paramilitary operations of CIA centralized in 1962 in the Special Operations Division, the predecessor of SAC. For a bit more background, see this outside article, which speaks of a paramilitary entity with its own fleet of armed drones. This 2015 article speaks of a drone strike in the Philippines, coordination between the military and the CIA, and the possibility of CIA operators being on the ground in the Philippines working with the military.
With that as background, I've edited this bit of the article here. Please improve as appropriate. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the edit should be reverted in its entirety per WP:BRD. It cites Truthout, which may not be a reliable source, although it claims to be a news organization, but it also clearly states that it has a political slant. In the Timeline of American casualties section, it makes modifications without any reliable source for the change. It also entirely removes the Balikatan training exercises.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 04:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  OEF-P, CIA, 2002 vs. 2014 

message: [January 15, 200 This edit] caught my eye. After looking at the article, I've made some changes [ here. This is an explanation of my reasons for these c changes.
# viewpoint. The article title, Operation Enduring Freedom – Philippines is from the viewpoint of the forces conducting that operation. The infobox parameter territory is set to, "Failure of the militants to establish a provincial IS territory (wilayat)";That seems to describe the viewpoint of the forces against which the operation is directed. A change from \\falure to to prevention of bight have fixed that, but I saw other problems.
#  usage docs for the territory parameter don't fit with the usage here. The action, result and status don't seem to fit either. I've removed the parameter definition, but see further belos.
# IS and wilayat were terms in that removed definition that were not not completely clear to me. The firsst is apparently short for Islamic State and the second is, I'm guessing, related to Wilayah. I found the same terrminology used in the Siege of Marawi article. It seems also to be related to the term wilayah
# 14 January 2002 came into the article as a specific star date for OEF-P  with this unsourced and unexplained change. I've changed it back to January 2002 and cited a supporting source.
This video, titled SOCPAC JTF 510 is linked by the source I've added to support the change in the start date. Early in the video, the mission of OEF=P is stated. I've echoed that mission statement in the article, citing the news source which links the video. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start date, etc. 

message: Islamic Jihad is a disambiguation page, and this edit Tagged the wikilink to it here with . None of the alternatives listed there seemed to fit so, since OEF-P was a part of Operation Enduring Freedom, I looked at that article. The  infobox there has a combatant2= section titled "In the Philippines:", which lists the following:
*  Abu Sayyaf (from 2001)
*  Jemaah Islamiyah (from 2001)
* Former
**  Moro Islamic Liberation Front (until 2012)
The combatant2= parts of these two infoboxes should be reconciled. It looks to me as if this article might list just the three organizations named there, possibly with a breakddown under some of those giving more detail -- if the body of this article contains cite-supported info about that.  Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I was considering disambiguating the link to the umbrella term Jihadism, which I just added to the dab page Islamic Jihad. But listing the specific groups matching the list at Operation Enduring Freedom seems like the better choice. —ShelfSkewed Talk 20:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic Jihad and ''combatant2=''