This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Apr 22/06 casualties listed under March. Also all ranks are abrieviated for said event except Bombadier...changed to keep consistant. Motorfix 17:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
No Mention of why we went into Afghanistan. This is more a timeline of events. This could do with a proper intro.
Motorfix 19:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
According to this article all Canadians have done since March 2006 is get injured and killed. Leave it to CBC to focus on body counts (and Tim Hortons in theatre). How about some information on what Canadian soldiers are actually doing? -- M4-10 22:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
President Karzai's recent visit should be mentioned somewhere.
Does anyone know what the Canadian military's total expenditure has been so far in Afghanistan ever since 2001? A number and a source would be appreciated. I tried to find it myself, but couldn't find any specific numbers. Perhaps it should even be something to add to the article.
I'm going to move from a list to a table, to explore in more detail each death and circumstance. -b 18:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Mmmkay, so I've created a sandbox for this article (as opposed to creating a third on my userpage) to experiment with the idea of a table.
Canada's role in the invasion of Afghanistan/Sandbox, based roughly on a CBC idea.
[1] Thoughts?
-b
07:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Motorfix 03:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
An inquiry into his death was recently concluded [2], and while we have to wait for the results, shouldn't it still be included? Also, and this is ignorance, isn't an accidental discharge considered friendly fire? -b 19:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
"Since February 2002, 139 Canadian soldiers have died in the war in Afghanistan or in support of the war. Of these, 117 were due to hostile circumstances, including 84 due to improvised explosive devices (IED) or landmines, 22 due to rocket-propelled grenade, small arms or mortar fire, 11 due to suicide bomb attacks, and one died falling from a high ground position on a cliff during a combat operation that involved firefight. An additional 22 soldiers have died in accidents or other non-combat circumstances; 6 due to "friendly fire", 6 in vehicle accidents, two in an accidental helicopter crash, 2 from accidental falls, 2 from accidental gunshots, 1 suicide death and 3 unspecified non-combat-related deaths including 1 at a support base in the Persian Gulf. Canada has suffered the third-highest absolute number of deaths of any nation among the foreign military participants."
This does not add up please fix it. k thx bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.15.64 ( talk) 07:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I have added info on our diplomatic history a bit. Worthwile, or not? Motorfix 22:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Current gov. website with info on all Missions and deployments.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1703 Motorfix 23:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Might it be worthwile to list units and military organization of Canadian Forces in Afghanistan? Perhaps on a seperate page? Motorfix 16:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Slightly different focus here... the article refers to the Canadian tanks as Leopard Battle Tanks. This is correct, though I didn't see it specify which model of Leopard (unless I missed that part). I believe we currently have Leopard C2's there do we not? The model is a somewhat important distinction in my opinion given that the original Leopard debuted in the mid 1960's, and the version we are using now is much more advanced. Canuckman55 ( talk) 02:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Canuckman55
As above, the title of this article is completely outdated. It definitely needs a new title. Suggestions? -b 03:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I looked this article up because I'm currently undecided about Canada's role in Afghanistan, and wanted to learn more. However, the article is extremely vague, and details the mechanics of Canada's involvement, more than the reasons for it/arguments supporting/condemning it. A brief disection of our 3 missions there would be great, too. "Defending our national interests?" That's rather vague, and really not helpful. What are our national interests, and why? What will be the reprecussions for having those interests, and who in Parliament supports them? Those sorts of things seem far more important and encyclopedic than a list of the casualties, which, to be honest, is cluttering to the article. Perhaps a seperate article, "Canadian Casualties in Afghanistan" should be made, since there's really no point to listing off each individual who has died in the confrontation; as thoughtful as it is, in the long run, I find it irrelevant.
-Jackmont, Aug 10
How about "Canadian military operations in Afghanistan"? Or does that ignore our diplomatic and aid accomplishments? Should the article include the latter? If not, then would this be a better title? Michael Dorosh 05:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Ordinary Person ( talk) 03:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This entire Canada in Afghanistan article smells of bias and I return to suggest changes to be made after I do some more research. Jack Layton doesn't represent the anti-war movement in this country. He's just one voice.--Apples99 05:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
PM Harper and Defense Minister O'Connor should be mentioned in the 2006-2007 commitments, just as Graham Martin Chretien were when they were in office, previously in the page. This article is biased, support for Afghan mission has been 50/50 for almost all of Harpers leadership time in the PM's office, even if some liberals have flip flopped and turned on a mission they started. As for polls, Harper is crushing liberal leader Dion, and all the opposition parties are pissing themselves over an election. They cry on tv every day that they don't want one. I suggest the people who have worked on this article look for the facts of this soon. I don't want to have to take a weed wacker to this thing. And since I have not got around to learning how to show proof (links etc.) I hope someone can take care of this. If not, I'll be back, all knowledged up. Show your wikisense and fix it yourself, I ain't your daddy. Don't make me take you over my knee.
Also, someone may want to mention the tanks sent, and the new money (2007) being given to Afghanistan. I would do it right now, but like I said, still need me some computer book learnins. Jeremy99 13:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
This article is incredibly biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.191.53 ( talk) 09:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
This article is an anti-war diatribe masquerading as objective commentary. The author is clearly against Canada's involvement in Afghanistan, and tries to represent it as near-universal public opinion. The author ignores the purpose of the mission and the reconstruction work that goes on only because of the security shield that Canada helps to create there.
The author clearly has bought into the notion that Canada's is an invading army, ignoring the fact that it is overwhelmingly welcomed not only by the government of Afghanistan but by a large majority of its people. What the author has not recognized is that the Taliban are an invading irregular army, brutal and retrograde, and the purpose of Canada's presence in Afghanistan is to engage the invader and allow Afghanistan's own native institutions to be established and stabilized, eventually assuming the responsibility for maintaining their own sovereignty. The very fact that the Taliban continue to attack should be a clue to the author that they are not a benign and misunderstood adversary of Afghanistan; they can put their weapons down any time they wish.
At a minimum the article should be re-labeled as an anti-war piece, so that its bias is well understood from the title onward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.234.69 ( talk) 23:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Why are there so few links to this page throughout Wikipedia? All the Afghan war templates link to the article on "Canada" which seems idiotic - can we not change them to link to this article instead?
There have been a lot of allegations of torture in Canada's mission in Afghanistan and the related cover-ups by the government, some references to this should be on the main page. Jermdeeks 18:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
not really, I was reading in the Toronto Sun yesterday that the Corrections Canada officers were told by two inmates they were abused (not tortured) and there was an investigation, and there was no evidence to support the claims. That is as far as it goes, it is simply a political pawn for the opposition parties to try to draw a connection between Harper administration and Abu Graihb.
-- Jadger 08:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
"On October 28, 2006, anti-war groups from across Canada organised rallies in 40 cities and towns. Themes of the demonstrations included demands that the troops be brought home from Afghanistan and demands that the mission of the Canadian Forces in that country shift from a combat role to a peace keeping and humanitarian presence. Participation varied from city to city, with some demonstrations attracting a handful of people, and others attracting several hundred. Canoe News article about Oct. 28th, 2006 Peace Protests reference link has been removed. needs reference 65.95.139.186 01:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the CBC story on the subject, but It doesn't seem to include crowd estimates... I'll dig around a bit tomorrow over my morning coffee Mike McGregor (Can) 07:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
What would you guys think of some sort of table showing a timeline of when the specific units were deployed? I was thinking either by battalions or brigade group. Mike McGregor (Can) 01:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Could someone add citations to the section referencing Canada's role in October 2001 (including JTF2 and Cretien's announcement). I presume this information is correct, but I'm having a hell of a time finding any sources on Google. 70.79.152.96 ( talk) 01:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Was Harper the opposition leader in 2001/2002?
What was the position of the Reform/Conservative party at the time regarding deployment of Canadian troops to Afghanistan?
i deleted this disgusting comment
And I am going to repeat it, because you have no right to hide or cover it up.
The fact is that what Canadians need to know is that as part of bringing stability to Afghanistan that our military is helping the Afghan people partake in traditional activies which Canadians find disgusting and even illegal - such as organized dog fighting. I for one find it disgusting that the expenditure of my tax dollars and the deaths of dozens of Canadian soldiers is helping to allow Afghans to conduct and enjoy such a terrible activity such as dog fighting.
If you think I'm making this up, you simply have to look here:
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=afghanistan+%22dog+fighting%22&meta= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.243.145 ( talk) 03:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Major Fletcher commanded C company of the PPCLI battlegroup and serves in Edmonton. He is clearly a PPCLI officer. Capt Derek x from Saskatchewan was an infantry platoon commander as a lieutenant with the same battalion in April 2006, according to press reports,attended McGill in Montreal which has noted his award, and serves in the West. He also has to be a Patricia, although it is less clear what he was doing in Afghanistan in Sept 2006, when the RCR had already taken over - perhaps he volunteered to stay on for a while as LO to the Americans.Too bad no one can confirm this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.119.194 ( talk) 03:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
There are two Canadian winners of Medal of valour decorations, whose regiment is not mentioned. This is because (!) no one knows, which is indeed shameful or (2) because they are/were with Special Forces, whose secrecy was recently ridiculed by Gen. McNeill who sees no need for it and thinks that Canadian accomplishments whould be noted. If a Canadian receives an honour, it is in order to publicise his deed. It is preposterous to make an award, issue a press release, but then say it is secret!!! Please, for someone who is no longer subject to the childish constraints of DND, please indicate the Regiments or Branch that these obviously heroic officers belong to. 24.201.119.194 ( talk) 01:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The title of this article should not include invasion since NATO is not a invading or occupational force and is their on request of the Afghan government. Rather it should read Canada's role in Afghanistan, which would make the title more accurate and less biased. Darkfire123 ( talk) 01:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The DOD page for Afghanistan Casualties includes Cpl. Downey, as do most media sources. That's good enough for me. I'm going to go ahead and add it so that the numbers match up to our sources. If there's any disagreement, please post your rational here and feel free to alter the article. Mike McGregor (Can) ( talk) 17:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The last ref in the last row of this table is to an item about Mike Frastacky, not about the deaths of the women listed in the last row of the table.
Please check this and fix. I'm not going to edit this in case I mess up the table format. Wanderer57 ( talk) 18:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sherurcij, I just added a comment to the discussion regarding the title. I feel that the US military photo that you added to the public opinion section has nothing to do with the section. It tells the reader nothing about public opinion in Canada. The only way in which it could be related to public opinion is to try to sway it, as in military propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.222.8 ( talk) 20:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Canadian national abducted last month Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 18:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The image File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 15:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I just added a sub-section for the charges against Capt. Semrau. Please edit it for POV mercilessly. Any feedback or changes are more then welcome. Mike McGregor (Can) ( talk) 06:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
the #4 in the reference list is broken, it goes to a non-article page in CBC.ca The correct link is here:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/09/15/tanks-afghanistan.html
I have no idea on how to edit a ref-list, though I'll look for that. If someone can change it before I do, you get a cookie.
I've put a POV tag on the Cost of the war section. This section reports in exhaustive detail various accusations, theories and beliefs of those opposed to the war without providing much by way of substantiation. In general, the citation will only link to articles claiming various costs/violations/etc, but without source material. At the same time, the actual expense amounts reported by the government itself are downplayed, though they are the only official statistics available. Even with POV issues resolved, this is a decidedly unencyclopaedic section (it appears to have been created piecemeal) that needs a great deal of work. Geoff NoNick ( talk)
Why does this article need so much coverage of the anti-war movement? Far too much emphasis is placed on perceieved government mismanagament. This article needs to be overhauled to become more objective. This article also features 3 anti-war images! Outnumbering all other types of images. Why?
Also why does it need pages upon pages of financing the war? One or two paragraphs on the cost of the war is fine. Lack of transparency section should be removed.
If this information is accurate (even though written is a very biased fashion) it can be made into a seperate article. This article is about the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. But it reads like it is an anti-war rant.
Do we really need 3/4 of the article lamenting about how bad the mission is? It is deceptive, at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.69.137 ( talk) 23:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
This article also features 3 anti-war images! Outnumbering all other types of images.
It just seems odd after checking the Iraq War (2003) article. A war which is vastly more unpopular than the Afghanistan Mission (esp in global opinion). That article only contains small portion of information of anti-war demonstrations (although it does link to a separate article which contains much more detailed). Does this Canadian article about Afghanistan need all that info about each individual protest marches? I don't think so. Perhaps a separate article entitled "Controversy in the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan" should be created to handle the immense detail of the sections of 'opposition to the war, lack of transparency' and run off costs'". The finance problems of the war seems too large. and subsection of run-off is a little much for an article about the invasion. This page just seems like a mess. It could be cleaned up with a separate article. "Criticism of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan" or "Controversies surrounding the Canadian Afghan Mission". Your Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.69.137 ( talk) 17:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
[4] Mike McGregor (Can) ( talk) 04:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
For example, there doesn't seem to be any mention of the big prison break that occurred in Kandahar that Canadian troops were called to, or of Canadian troops fighting again for the same ground. 74.12.220.35 ( talk) 07:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
can the list of anti-war protests be made more concise? the listing of them all can be a little misleading. the city of Toronto is 2.5 million people, but the largest protest there was not even close to 1000 people, but by listing all the protests by those same people it aims to make it sound more widespread than it actually is. Do we really need a list of every single protest that has gone on since the invasion? can we not sum up that whole section by saying there have been a number of small anti-war protests in major cities accross Canada, all featuring a turnout of less than 1000 protesters
67.220.47.150 ( talk) 17:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
References
Should the newly-added "Current Strategy" section exist? It seems to be mostly a straight copy-and-paste regurgitation of the Canadian government's website. Is Wikipedia supposed to be an outlet to distribute state-issued communications? The only difference is the addition of Capitalized Names that were created and added for the priorities, and doing that seems to constitute synthesis and original research WP:No original research.
76.65.180.95 ( talk) 03:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The statement "the Canadian request for more troops was granted when 800 U.S soldiers arrived" is unsourced and unverifiable. That unsourced statement was replaced with information that is directly and accurately supported by the cited source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.220.52 ( talk) 23:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I've been bold and forked the financial cost of the war; it was giving WP:UNDUE to this article, and clogging up the page which is already heavily over-saturated with information and numbers. I'm never in favour of removing information, so I've simply moved it to Financial cost of Canada's role in the invasion of Afghanistan. Feel free to argue about the name, or more importantly, to help FORK out other large parts of this article that deserve/belong in separate articles. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 16:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Is anyone up for adding a bit of info about the latest developments around Richard Colvin's recent testimony to the House Committee? Mike McGregor (Can) ( talk) 18:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I want to add a table listing the commanders of JTFA but I do not have a complete list. Can anyone fill in the blanks?
October 2001-April 2002 Commodore Jean-Pierre Thiffault
April 2002-Nov 2002 Brigadier-General Michel Gauthier
Nov 2002-May 2003 Brigadier-General Angus Watt
May 2003-Aug 2003 Brigadier-General Dennis Tabbernor
Nov 2006-July 2007 Maj.-Gen Tim Grant
July 2007-May 2008 Brigadier-General Guy Laroche
May 2008-Feb 2009 Brigadier-General Denis Thompson
Feb 2009-Nov 2009 Brigadier-General Jonathan Vance
Nov 2009-May 2010 Brigadier-General Daniel Ménard acting Colonel Simon Hetherington
June 2010-August 2010 Brigadier-General Jonathan Vance
Sept 2010-Present Brigadier-General Dean J. Milner
--
jfry3 (
talk)
02:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I notice that the totals in the fatalities section often fall behind the totals on the Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan and Coalition casualties in Afghanistanpages because editors often forget to visit and update this page as a new fatality occurs. It sort of causes a problem where the three pages tracking these totals contradict each other. Would there be any objections to removing the military fatality totals completely from this page and just leaving the links to the other two pages and the civilian fatality table? Mike McGregor (Can) ( talk) 20:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering why the CH-47 is in the equipment list, when they wont be delivered to the CF until after the 2011 departure? Every other item on that list, so far as I can tell, is currently in use in Afghanistan. ( MH ( talk) 01:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC))
Under the list of equipment used there is both "IAI Heron - new/leased" and "Leopard 2 - leased and new". 'New/leased' and 'leased and new' seem to be the same thing and I'd normally fix it in a heartbeat, but I'm not 100% that they don't have subtly different meanings. Can someone who knows what they're talking about back me up/correct me? Asplod McGunpowders ( talk) 00:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Canada's role in the Afghanistan War. 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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Canada's role in the Afghanistan War. 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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Canada's role in the Afghanistan War. 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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Canada's role in the Afghanistan War. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Canada's role in the War in 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.financialpost.com/m/story.html?id=1431276{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/vital/v2/docs/jtfa-foia/jtf-afg-foi-afg-eng.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.givegirlsachance.org/michael_frastacky.htmWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Canada's role in the War in 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060725/afghanistan_tmurder_060725/20060725{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070523/helicopter_pilot_070523/20070523?hub=TopStories{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090106/soldier_hearing_090106/20090106?hub=TopStories{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=3118When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The labeling of rotations and operations by DND is a bit confusing, and consequently an error has crept into the article.
Op ATHENA did not end in 2005 but seems to have been merely interrupted. Op ARCHER came into effect On 7 Oct 2004 and, under its umbrella, a Theatre Activation Team, the PRT, and 700 other troops from CFB Petawawa moved to Kandahar from late 2005 to early 2006. More troops arrived in February 2006, including the brigade headquarters. However, when the Canadians operating under Op ARCHER came under command of ISAF in July 2006, "the operation name was returned to Op ATHENA, although the rotation numbers carried on from Op ARCHER." The references I have seen on DND bulletins thereafter have called the Canadian operation in Kandahar from 2006 to 2011 as "Op ATHENA, PHASE 2."
Op ARCHER continued but was now comprised only the staff officers at the Combined Security Transition Command - Afghanistan (CSTC-A) in Kabul.
This does take some mental gymnastics to sort out and this change in naming of operations was rarely referred to.
The source of all this is a bulletin from DND's Directorate of History & Heritage entitled "Details/Information for Canadian Forces (CF) Operation ARCHER" [1].
As a result of all of the above, a number of significant changes have to be made to the present original version of this page.
Bfowler613 ( talk) 18:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)bfowler613
I took a stab at rewriting this. Quite new around here, so feedback welcome. Also not sure how the Medak pocket incident ties into the rest of the section / article, it felt a bit non sequitur to begin with and not sure I did much here to make a clearer connection. Razvan ( talk) 20:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Apr 22/06 casualties listed under March. Also all ranks are abrieviated for said event except Bombadier...changed to keep consistant. Motorfix 17:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
No Mention of why we went into Afghanistan. This is more a timeline of events. This could do with a proper intro.
Motorfix 19:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
According to this article all Canadians have done since March 2006 is get injured and killed. Leave it to CBC to focus on body counts (and Tim Hortons in theatre). How about some information on what Canadian soldiers are actually doing? -- M4-10 22:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
President Karzai's recent visit should be mentioned somewhere.
Does anyone know what the Canadian military's total expenditure has been so far in Afghanistan ever since 2001? A number and a source would be appreciated. I tried to find it myself, but couldn't find any specific numbers. Perhaps it should even be something to add to the article.
I'm going to move from a list to a table, to explore in more detail each death and circumstance. -b 18:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Mmmkay, so I've created a sandbox for this article (as opposed to creating a third on my userpage) to experiment with the idea of a table.
Canada's role in the invasion of Afghanistan/Sandbox, based roughly on a CBC idea.
[1] Thoughts?
-b
07:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Motorfix 03:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
An inquiry into his death was recently concluded [2], and while we have to wait for the results, shouldn't it still be included? Also, and this is ignorance, isn't an accidental discharge considered friendly fire? -b 19:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
"Since February 2002, 139 Canadian soldiers have died in the war in Afghanistan or in support of the war. Of these, 117 were due to hostile circumstances, including 84 due to improvised explosive devices (IED) or landmines, 22 due to rocket-propelled grenade, small arms or mortar fire, 11 due to suicide bomb attacks, and one died falling from a high ground position on a cliff during a combat operation that involved firefight. An additional 22 soldiers have died in accidents or other non-combat circumstances; 6 due to "friendly fire", 6 in vehicle accidents, two in an accidental helicopter crash, 2 from accidental falls, 2 from accidental gunshots, 1 suicide death and 3 unspecified non-combat-related deaths including 1 at a support base in the Persian Gulf. Canada has suffered the third-highest absolute number of deaths of any nation among the foreign military participants."
This does not add up please fix it. k thx bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.15.64 ( talk) 07:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I have added info on our diplomatic history a bit. Worthwile, or not? Motorfix 22:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Current gov. website with info on all Missions and deployments.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1703 Motorfix 23:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Might it be worthwile to list units and military organization of Canadian Forces in Afghanistan? Perhaps on a seperate page? Motorfix 16:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Slightly different focus here... the article refers to the Canadian tanks as Leopard Battle Tanks. This is correct, though I didn't see it specify which model of Leopard (unless I missed that part). I believe we currently have Leopard C2's there do we not? The model is a somewhat important distinction in my opinion given that the original Leopard debuted in the mid 1960's, and the version we are using now is much more advanced. Canuckman55 ( talk) 02:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Canuckman55
As above, the title of this article is completely outdated. It definitely needs a new title. Suggestions? -b 03:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I looked this article up because I'm currently undecided about Canada's role in Afghanistan, and wanted to learn more. However, the article is extremely vague, and details the mechanics of Canada's involvement, more than the reasons for it/arguments supporting/condemning it. A brief disection of our 3 missions there would be great, too. "Defending our national interests?" That's rather vague, and really not helpful. What are our national interests, and why? What will be the reprecussions for having those interests, and who in Parliament supports them? Those sorts of things seem far more important and encyclopedic than a list of the casualties, which, to be honest, is cluttering to the article. Perhaps a seperate article, "Canadian Casualties in Afghanistan" should be made, since there's really no point to listing off each individual who has died in the confrontation; as thoughtful as it is, in the long run, I find it irrelevant.
-Jackmont, Aug 10
How about "Canadian military operations in Afghanistan"? Or does that ignore our diplomatic and aid accomplishments? Should the article include the latter? If not, then would this be a better title? Michael Dorosh 05:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Ordinary Person ( talk) 03:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This entire Canada in Afghanistan article smells of bias and I return to suggest changes to be made after I do some more research. Jack Layton doesn't represent the anti-war movement in this country. He's just one voice.--Apples99 05:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
PM Harper and Defense Minister O'Connor should be mentioned in the 2006-2007 commitments, just as Graham Martin Chretien were when they were in office, previously in the page. This article is biased, support for Afghan mission has been 50/50 for almost all of Harpers leadership time in the PM's office, even if some liberals have flip flopped and turned on a mission they started. As for polls, Harper is crushing liberal leader Dion, and all the opposition parties are pissing themselves over an election. They cry on tv every day that they don't want one. I suggest the people who have worked on this article look for the facts of this soon. I don't want to have to take a weed wacker to this thing. And since I have not got around to learning how to show proof (links etc.) I hope someone can take care of this. If not, I'll be back, all knowledged up. Show your wikisense and fix it yourself, I ain't your daddy. Don't make me take you over my knee.
Also, someone may want to mention the tanks sent, and the new money (2007) being given to Afghanistan. I would do it right now, but like I said, still need me some computer book learnins. Jeremy99 13:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
This article is incredibly biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.191.53 ( talk) 09:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
This article is an anti-war diatribe masquerading as objective commentary. The author is clearly against Canada's involvement in Afghanistan, and tries to represent it as near-universal public opinion. The author ignores the purpose of the mission and the reconstruction work that goes on only because of the security shield that Canada helps to create there.
The author clearly has bought into the notion that Canada's is an invading army, ignoring the fact that it is overwhelmingly welcomed not only by the government of Afghanistan but by a large majority of its people. What the author has not recognized is that the Taliban are an invading irregular army, brutal and retrograde, and the purpose of Canada's presence in Afghanistan is to engage the invader and allow Afghanistan's own native institutions to be established and stabilized, eventually assuming the responsibility for maintaining their own sovereignty. The very fact that the Taliban continue to attack should be a clue to the author that they are not a benign and misunderstood adversary of Afghanistan; they can put their weapons down any time they wish.
At a minimum the article should be re-labeled as an anti-war piece, so that its bias is well understood from the title onward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.234.69 ( talk) 23:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Why are there so few links to this page throughout Wikipedia? All the Afghan war templates link to the article on "Canada" which seems idiotic - can we not change them to link to this article instead?
There have been a lot of allegations of torture in Canada's mission in Afghanistan and the related cover-ups by the government, some references to this should be on the main page. Jermdeeks 18:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
not really, I was reading in the Toronto Sun yesterday that the Corrections Canada officers were told by two inmates they were abused (not tortured) and there was an investigation, and there was no evidence to support the claims. That is as far as it goes, it is simply a political pawn for the opposition parties to try to draw a connection between Harper administration and Abu Graihb.
-- Jadger 08:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
"On October 28, 2006, anti-war groups from across Canada organised rallies in 40 cities and towns. Themes of the demonstrations included demands that the troops be brought home from Afghanistan and demands that the mission of the Canadian Forces in that country shift from a combat role to a peace keeping and humanitarian presence. Participation varied from city to city, with some demonstrations attracting a handful of people, and others attracting several hundred. Canoe News article about Oct. 28th, 2006 Peace Protests reference link has been removed. needs reference 65.95.139.186 01:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the CBC story on the subject, but It doesn't seem to include crowd estimates... I'll dig around a bit tomorrow over my morning coffee Mike McGregor (Can) 07:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
What would you guys think of some sort of table showing a timeline of when the specific units were deployed? I was thinking either by battalions or brigade group. Mike McGregor (Can) 01:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Could someone add citations to the section referencing Canada's role in October 2001 (including JTF2 and Cretien's announcement). I presume this information is correct, but I'm having a hell of a time finding any sources on Google. 70.79.152.96 ( talk) 01:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Was Harper the opposition leader in 2001/2002?
What was the position of the Reform/Conservative party at the time regarding deployment of Canadian troops to Afghanistan?
i deleted this disgusting comment
And I am going to repeat it, because you have no right to hide or cover it up.
The fact is that what Canadians need to know is that as part of bringing stability to Afghanistan that our military is helping the Afghan people partake in traditional activies which Canadians find disgusting and even illegal - such as organized dog fighting. I for one find it disgusting that the expenditure of my tax dollars and the deaths of dozens of Canadian soldiers is helping to allow Afghans to conduct and enjoy such a terrible activity such as dog fighting.
If you think I'm making this up, you simply have to look here:
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=afghanistan+%22dog+fighting%22&meta= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.243.145 ( talk) 03:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Major Fletcher commanded C company of the PPCLI battlegroup and serves in Edmonton. He is clearly a PPCLI officer. Capt Derek x from Saskatchewan was an infantry platoon commander as a lieutenant with the same battalion in April 2006, according to press reports,attended McGill in Montreal which has noted his award, and serves in the West. He also has to be a Patricia, although it is less clear what he was doing in Afghanistan in Sept 2006, when the RCR had already taken over - perhaps he volunteered to stay on for a while as LO to the Americans.Too bad no one can confirm this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.119.194 ( talk) 03:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
There are two Canadian winners of Medal of valour decorations, whose regiment is not mentioned. This is because (!) no one knows, which is indeed shameful or (2) because they are/were with Special Forces, whose secrecy was recently ridiculed by Gen. McNeill who sees no need for it and thinks that Canadian accomplishments whould be noted. If a Canadian receives an honour, it is in order to publicise his deed. It is preposterous to make an award, issue a press release, but then say it is secret!!! Please, for someone who is no longer subject to the childish constraints of DND, please indicate the Regiments or Branch that these obviously heroic officers belong to. 24.201.119.194 ( talk) 01:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The title of this article should not include invasion since NATO is not a invading or occupational force and is their on request of the Afghan government. Rather it should read Canada's role in Afghanistan, which would make the title more accurate and less biased. Darkfire123 ( talk) 01:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The DOD page for Afghanistan Casualties includes Cpl. Downey, as do most media sources. That's good enough for me. I'm going to go ahead and add it so that the numbers match up to our sources. If there's any disagreement, please post your rational here and feel free to alter the article. Mike McGregor (Can) ( talk) 17:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The last ref in the last row of this table is to an item about Mike Frastacky, not about the deaths of the women listed in the last row of the table.
Please check this and fix. I'm not going to edit this in case I mess up the table format. Wanderer57 ( talk) 18:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sherurcij, I just added a comment to the discussion regarding the title. I feel that the US military photo that you added to the public opinion section has nothing to do with the section. It tells the reader nothing about public opinion in Canada. The only way in which it could be related to public opinion is to try to sway it, as in military propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.222.8 ( talk) 20:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Canadian national abducted last month Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 18:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The image File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 15:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I just added a sub-section for the charges against Capt. Semrau. Please edit it for POV mercilessly. Any feedback or changes are more then welcome. Mike McGregor (Can) ( talk) 06:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
the #4 in the reference list is broken, it goes to a non-article page in CBC.ca The correct link is here:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/09/15/tanks-afghanistan.html
I have no idea on how to edit a ref-list, though I'll look for that. If someone can change it before I do, you get a cookie.
I've put a POV tag on the Cost of the war section. This section reports in exhaustive detail various accusations, theories and beliefs of those opposed to the war without providing much by way of substantiation. In general, the citation will only link to articles claiming various costs/violations/etc, but without source material. At the same time, the actual expense amounts reported by the government itself are downplayed, though they are the only official statistics available. Even with POV issues resolved, this is a decidedly unencyclopaedic section (it appears to have been created piecemeal) that needs a great deal of work. Geoff NoNick ( talk)
Why does this article need so much coverage of the anti-war movement? Far too much emphasis is placed on perceieved government mismanagament. This article needs to be overhauled to become more objective. This article also features 3 anti-war images! Outnumbering all other types of images. Why?
Also why does it need pages upon pages of financing the war? One or two paragraphs on the cost of the war is fine. Lack of transparency section should be removed.
If this information is accurate (even though written is a very biased fashion) it can be made into a seperate article. This article is about the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. But it reads like it is an anti-war rant.
Do we really need 3/4 of the article lamenting about how bad the mission is? It is deceptive, at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.69.137 ( talk) 23:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
This article also features 3 anti-war images! Outnumbering all other types of images.
It just seems odd after checking the Iraq War (2003) article. A war which is vastly more unpopular than the Afghanistan Mission (esp in global opinion). That article only contains small portion of information of anti-war demonstrations (although it does link to a separate article which contains much more detailed). Does this Canadian article about Afghanistan need all that info about each individual protest marches? I don't think so. Perhaps a separate article entitled "Controversy in the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan" should be created to handle the immense detail of the sections of 'opposition to the war, lack of transparency' and run off costs'". The finance problems of the war seems too large. and subsection of run-off is a little much for an article about the invasion. This page just seems like a mess. It could be cleaned up with a separate article. "Criticism of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan" or "Controversies surrounding the Canadian Afghan Mission". Your Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.69.137 ( talk) 17:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
[4] Mike McGregor (Can) ( talk) 04:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
For example, there doesn't seem to be any mention of the big prison break that occurred in Kandahar that Canadian troops were called to, or of Canadian troops fighting again for the same ground. 74.12.220.35 ( talk) 07:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
can the list of anti-war protests be made more concise? the listing of them all can be a little misleading. the city of Toronto is 2.5 million people, but the largest protest there was not even close to 1000 people, but by listing all the protests by those same people it aims to make it sound more widespread than it actually is. Do we really need a list of every single protest that has gone on since the invasion? can we not sum up that whole section by saying there have been a number of small anti-war protests in major cities accross Canada, all featuring a turnout of less than 1000 protesters
67.220.47.150 ( talk) 17:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
References
Should the newly-added "Current Strategy" section exist? It seems to be mostly a straight copy-and-paste regurgitation of the Canadian government's website. Is Wikipedia supposed to be an outlet to distribute state-issued communications? The only difference is the addition of Capitalized Names that were created and added for the priorities, and doing that seems to constitute synthesis and original research WP:No original research.
76.65.180.95 ( talk) 03:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The statement "the Canadian request for more troops was granted when 800 U.S soldiers arrived" is unsourced and unverifiable. That unsourced statement was replaced with information that is directly and accurately supported by the cited source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.220.52 ( talk) 23:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I've been bold and forked the financial cost of the war; it was giving WP:UNDUE to this article, and clogging up the page which is already heavily over-saturated with information and numbers. I'm never in favour of removing information, so I've simply moved it to Financial cost of Canada's role in the invasion of Afghanistan. Feel free to argue about the name, or more importantly, to help FORK out other large parts of this article that deserve/belong in separate articles. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 16:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Is anyone up for adding a bit of info about the latest developments around Richard Colvin's recent testimony to the House Committee? Mike McGregor (Can) ( talk) 18:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I want to add a table listing the commanders of JTFA but I do not have a complete list. Can anyone fill in the blanks?
October 2001-April 2002 Commodore Jean-Pierre Thiffault
April 2002-Nov 2002 Brigadier-General Michel Gauthier
Nov 2002-May 2003 Brigadier-General Angus Watt
May 2003-Aug 2003 Brigadier-General Dennis Tabbernor
Nov 2006-July 2007 Maj.-Gen Tim Grant
July 2007-May 2008 Brigadier-General Guy Laroche
May 2008-Feb 2009 Brigadier-General Denis Thompson
Feb 2009-Nov 2009 Brigadier-General Jonathan Vance
Nov 2009-May 2010 Brigadier-General Daniel Ménard acting Colonel Simon Hetherington
June 2010-August 2010 Brigadier-General Jonathan Vance
Sept 2010-Present Brigadier-General Dean J. Milner
--
jfry3 (
talk)
02:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I notice that the totals in the fatalities section often fall behind the totals on the Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan and Coalition casualties in Afghanistanpages because editors often forget to visit and update this page as a new fatality occurs. It sort of causes a problem where the three pages tracking these totals contradict each other. Would there be any objections to removing the military fatality totals completely from this page and just leaving the links to the other two pages and the civilian fatality table? Mike McGregor (Can) ( talk) 20:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering why the CH-47 is in the equipment list, when they wont be delivered to the CF until after the 2011 departure? Every other item on that list, so far as I can tell, is currently in use in Afghanistan. ( MH ( talk) 01:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC))
Under the list of equipment used there is both "IAI Heron - new/leased" and "Leopard 2 - leased and new". 'New/leased' and 'leased and new' seem to be the same thing and I'd normally fix it in a heartbeat, but I'm not 100% that they don't have subtly different meanings. Can someone who knows what they're talking about back me up/correct me? Asplod McGunpowders ( talk) 00:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Canada's role in the Afghanistan War. 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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Canada's role in the Afghanistan War. 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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Canada's role in the Afghanistan War. 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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Canada's role in the Afghanistan War. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Canada's role in the War in 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.financialpost.com/m/story.html?id=1431276{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/vital/v2/docs/jtfa-foia/jtf-afg-foi-afg-eng.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.givegirlsachance.org/michael_frastacky.htmWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Canada's role in the War in 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060725/afghanistan_tmurder_060725/20060725{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070523/helicopter_pilot_070523/20070523?hub=TopStories{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090106/soldier_hearing_090106/20090106?hub=TopStories{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=3118When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The labeling of rotations and operations by DND is a bit confusing, and consequently an error has crept into the article.
Op ATHENA did not end in 2005 but seems to have been merely interrupted. Op ARCHER came into effect On 7 Oct 2004 and, under its umbrella, a Theatre Activation Team, the PRT, and 700 other troops from CFB Petawawa moved to Kandahar from late 2005 to early 2006. More troops arrived in February 2006, including the brigade headquarters. However, when the Canadians operating under Op ARCHER came under command of ISAF in July 2006, "the operation name was returned to Op ATHENA, although the rotation numbers carried on from Op ARCHER." The references I have seen on DND bulletins thereafter have called the Canadian operation in Kandahar from 2006 to 2011 as "Op ATHENA, PHASE 2."
Op ARCHER continued but was now comprised only the staff officers at the Combined Security Transition Command - Afghanistan (CSTC-A) in Kabul.
This does take some mental gymnastics to sort out and this change in naming of operations was rarely referred to.
The source of all this is a bulletin from DND's Directorate of History & Heritage entitled "Details/Information for Canadian Forces (CF) Operation ARCHER" [1].
As a result of all of the above, a number of significant changes have to be made to the present original version of this page.
Bfowler613 ( talk) 18:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)bfowler613
I took a stab at rewriting this. Quite new around here, so feedback welcome. Also not sure how the Medak pocket incident ties into the rest of the section / article, it felt a bit non sequitur to begin with and not sure I did much here to make a clearer connection. Razvan ( talk) 20:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)