This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Enduring Freedom – Philippines article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This Â
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As "War on terror" obviously is a propaganda term it cannot stay without quotation marks and a comment. Removing NPOV tags is against wikipedia policy. Añoranza 09:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, where are the sources for this article? - -- 23prootie
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)
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)
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)
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
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.
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.
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)
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:
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)
I also came across
and some other stuff. The closest connection between Japan and OEF-P which I saw was in
and other similar pages reporting deployment of U.S. forces based in Japan to OEF-P and
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)
Have you never heard of terrorist attacks during a civil war? If the Philipines considers the NPA not to be terrorists, it does not matter. The New Peoples Army uses terrorist tactics which makes them terrorists despite what you or anyone else thinks. As for the war classification, an insurgency is a war. The only difference is that one or both sides uses terrorist tactics. The Vietnam War for example, NATO fought the Vietcong terrorist group, despite the Vietcong being terrorists/insurgents and not regualr NVA troops, the conflict is still considered a war. The Philipine/American war would be another example of an insurgency descibed as a type of war. -- Az81964444 ( talk) 03:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I've just removed Franks from the commander field of the infobox as he did not command this operation. He was in charge of Central Command, not Operation Enduring Freedom, and the Philippines is within Pacific Command. A google search of 'Tommy Franks Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines' doesn't provide any evidence that he commanded this operation. Nick Dowling ( talk) 07:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
“ | In a sign of the key role for special ops forces in Operation Enduring Freedom, Gen. Charles Holland has been designated the top operational commander for parts of the action inside Afghanistan. The unusual arrangement means that instead of answering to Gen. Tommy Franks–the commander of Central Command, who is running the overall campaign–Holland will report directly to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush. "We're talking about very narrow, surgical things," says a military official. "It's a direct conduit to the president." | †|
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 {{ fact}} 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)
I've just removed the casualty figures again. I have two big problems with these numbers:
As such, it seems to be original research to both try and calculate the number of casualties and attribute them to this US military operation. Nick-D ( talk) 07:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Listen, you totaly messed up the article, this operation is not exclusivly a US operation. Yes it was started by the US but the Philippines military IS ALSO INVOLVED in this operation. And one of the stated goals of the operation are THE ELIMINATION of the terrorist organisations in the southern Philippines, and that's what the military is doing. The US military advisors are supporting the Philippines military so they can destroy the Abu Sayef and the others. Thus Philippines military is the one taking the lead in the fighting. It's supported by the US military but primarily fought by the Philippines military. As for the casualty figures we can at least leave the numbers and say they are based on multiple news sources. There is already a precedent for this with the 2007 Lebanon conflict and the Waziristan war. Please discuss this before reverting again. We have been using these kind of casualty numbers for over two years now and nobody except you has had a problem with this. BobaFett85 ( talk) 09:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I never said that OEFP is the name of this war, but this war has become part of the OEFP and the War on terrorism, just like the Civil war in Somalia has become part of OEF Horn of Africa and the War on terrorism. The numbers have been updated by me recently and before that by other users based on news reports. At the very least we can put a tag of sources needed and not just dismiss it offhand. BobaFett85 ( talk) 23:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
A few days ago, I think it was yesterday actually, the news report I read said the two U.S. troops killed on the 29th were not Seabees but U.S. Army troops on a supply convoy mission, they were origionally thought to be seabeas but in the article it clearly says they were not. I will check this again before making changes.--Az81964444 (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I have read them, the first reference is the earlier news report which states that Seabees were killed, the second says U.S. Army troops were killed. On CNN it said origionally the U.S. casualties were thought to be Navy personnel, later they confirmed U.S. Army soldiers. A one Major Bradley Gordon also confirmed that the casualties were army not navy, they were members of the 600 man advisor force sent in the beginning of the war. I dont deny what the first reference says, the problem with the first reference is that it is wrong, a report written by a journalist before he had all of the questions answered. This is very typical in the news world, often reporters make reports and publish them as soon as the information comes in, despite whether they know all of the inf or not.
Please see CNNs version of the story which lists the names of the disceased and the fact that they were members of the U.S. Special Forces. I would reference it myself but honestly I dont know how so maybe you can do it as you offered in your reply, thank you.
The beginning of CNNs story:
SEATTLE, Washington (CNN) -- Two U.S. Army Special Forces soldiers were killed by a homemade bomb while supporting anti-terror operations on an island in the southern Philippines, Army officials said Thursday.
Staff Sgt. Jack M. Martin III, left, and Sgt. 1st Class Christopher D. Shaw were killed Tuesday. 1 of 2 Sgt. 1st Class Christopher D. Shaw, 37, and Staff Sgt. Jack M. Martin III, 26, died after a bomb exploded Tuesday near their Humvee on the island of Jolo, said Lt. Col. David King.
After looking at your page, it would appear you are/were a member of the U.S. military. If so, let me thank you kindly for servicing our great nation. Have a pleasant evening. :>) -- Az81964444 ( talk) 02:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
-- Az81964444 ( talk) 02:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I am glad you have examined the situation further, once again I thank you for your military service.:>)-- Az81964444 ( talk) 21:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
I ended up taking the insurgent incident and placed it on the insurgency in the Philippines page. Thanks for the clarification. 50.129.89.173 ( talk) 13:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
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.—  dain omite  13:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/enduring-freedom-philippines.htm
02:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Biased sources
http://warontherocks.com/2015/03/the-bush-wars-ellis-on-america-fighting-in-the-philippines/
http://warontherocks.com/2014/06/the-end-of-an-era-in-the-philippines/
http://warontherocks.com/2014/11/special-warfare-the-missing-middle-in-u-s-coercive-options/
http://warontherocks.com/2014/08/a-closer-look-at-terrorism-in-southeast-asia/
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)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
[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.
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)
Islamic Jihad is a disambiguation page, and this edit Tagged the wikilink to it here with {{ dn}}. 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 military conflict}} infobox there has a combatant2= section titled "In the Philippines:", which lists the following:
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Enduring Freedom – Philippines article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This Â
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As "War on terror" obviously is a propaganda term it cannot stay without quotation marks and a comment. Removing NPOV tags is against wikipedia policy. Añoranza 09:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, where are the sources for this article? - -- 23prootie
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)
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)
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)
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
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.
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.
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)
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:
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)
I also came across
and some other stuff. The closest connection between Japan and OEF-P which I saw was in
and other similar pages reporting deployment of U.S. forces based in Japan to OEF-P and
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)
Have you never heard of terrorist attacks during a civil war? If the Philipines considers the NPA not to be terrorists, it does not matter. The New Peoples Army uses terrorist tactics which makes them terrorists despite what you or anyone else thinks. As for the war classification, an insurgency is a war. The only difference is that one or both sides uses terrorist tactics. The Vietnam War for example, NATO fought the Vietcong terrorist group, despite the Vietcong being terrorists/insurgents and not regualr NVA troops, the conflict is still considered a war. The Philipine/American war would be another example of an insurgency descibed as a type of war. -- Az81964444 ( talk) 03:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I've just removed Franks from the commander field of the infobox as he did not command this operation. He was in charge of Central Command, not Operation Enduring Freedom, and the Philippines is within Pacific Command. A google search of 'Tommy Franks Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines' doesn't provide any evidence that he commanded this operation. Nick Dowling ( talk) 07:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
“ | In a sign of the key role for special ops forces in Operation Enduring Freedom, Gen. Charles Holland has been designated the top operational commander for parts of the action inside Afghanistan. The unusual arrangement means that instead of answering to Gen. Tommy Franks–the commander of Central Command, who is running the overall campaign–Holland will report directly to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush. "We're talking about very narrow, surgical things," says a military official. "It's a direct conduit to the president." | †|
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 {{ fact}} 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)
I've just removed the casualty figures again. I have two big problems with these numbers:
As such, it seems to be original research to both try and calculate the number of casualties and attribute them to this US military operation. Nick-D ( talk) 07:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Listen, you totaly messed up the article, this operation is not exclusivly a US operation. Yes it was started by the US but the Philippines military IS ALSO INVOLVED in this operation. And one of the stated goals of the operation are THE ELIMINATION of the terrorist organisations in the southern Philippines, and that's what the military is doing. The US military advisors are supporting the Philippines military so they can destroy the Abu Sayef and the others. Thus Philippines military is the one taking the lead in the fighting. It's supported by the US military but primarily fought by the Philippines military. As for the casualty figures we can at least leave the numbers and say they are based on multiple news sources. There is already a precedent for this with the 2007 Lebanon conflict and the Waziristan war. Please discuss this before reverting again. We have been using these kind of casualty numbers for over two years now and nobody except you has had a problem with this. BobaFett85 ( talk) 09:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I never said that OEFP is the name of this war, but this war has become part of the OEFP and the War on terrorism, just like the Civil war in Somalia has become part of OEF Horn of Africa and the War on terrorism. The numbers have been updated by me recently and before that by other users based on news reports. At the very least we can put a tag of sources needed and not just dismiss it offhand. BobaFett85 ( talk) 23:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
A few days ago, I think it was yesterday actually, the news report I read said the two U.S. troops killed on the 29th were not Seabees but U.S. Army troops on a supply convoy mission, they were origionally thought to be seabeas but in the article it clearly says they were not. I will check this again before making changes.--Az81964444 (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I have read them, the first reference is the earlier news report which states that Seabees were killed, the second says U.S. Army troops were killed. On CNN it said origionally the U.S. casualties were thought to be Navy personnel, later they confirmed U.S. Army soldiers. A one Major Bradley Gordon also confirmed that the casualties were army not navy, they were members of the 600 man advisor force sent in the beginning of the war. I dont deny what the first reference says, the problem with the first reference is that it is wrong, a report written by a journalist before he had all of the questions answered. This is very typical in the news world, often reporters make reports and publish them as soon as the information comes in, despite whether they know all of the inf or not.
Please see CNNs version of the story which lists the names of the disceased and the fact that they were members of the U.S. Special Forces. I would reference it myself but honestly I dont know how so maybe you can do it as you offered in your reply, thank you.
The beginning of CNNs story:
SEATTLE, Washington (CNN) -- Two U.S. Army Special Forces soldiers were killed by a homemade bomb while supporting anti-terror operations on an island in the southern Philippines, Army officials said Thursday.
Staff Sgt. Jack M. Martin III, left, and Sgt. 1st Class Christopher D. Shaw were killed Tuesday. 1 of 2 Sgt. 1st Class Christopher D. Shaw, 37, and Staff Sgt. Jack M. Martin III, 26, died after a bomb exploded Tuesday near their Humvee on the island of Jolo, said Lt. Col. David King.
After looking at your page, it would appear you are/were a member of the U.S. military. If so, let me thank you kindly for servicing our great nation. Have a pleasant evening. :>) -- Az81964444 ( talk) 02:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
-- Az81964444 ( talk) 02:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I am glad you have examined the situation further, once again I thank you for your military service.:>)-- Az81964444 ( talk) 21:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
I ended up taking the insurgent incident and placed it on the insurgency in the Philippines page. Thanks for the clarification. 50.129.89.173 ( talk) 13:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
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.—  dain omite  13:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/enduring-freedom-philippines.htm
02:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Biased sources
http://warontherocks.com/2015/03/the-bush-wars-ellis-on-america-fighting-in-the-philippines/
http://warontherocks.com/2014/06/the-end-of-an-era-in-the-philippines/
http://warontherocks.com/2014/11/special-warfare-the-missing-middle-in-u-s-coercive-options/
http://warontherocks.com/2014/08/a-closer-look-at-terrorism-in-southeast-asia/
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)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
[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.
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)
Islamic Jihad is a disambiguation page, and this edit Tagged the wikilink to it here with {{ dn}}. 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 military conflict}} infobox there has a combatant2= section titled "In the Philippines:", which lists the following:
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)