This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The 1,500+ number of Taliban killed creates some POV issues. First, it is unsourced. Second, media has reported dozens of civilians dead, which I am sure the coalition says they are Taliban. -- TheFEARgod ( Ч) 12:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I have put references for the coalition casualties, I have even put the number of killed British troops during the 2006-07 Taliban takeover even if this article was created with the purpos of talking about the coalition operations to retake the province, but as for the 1,500 taliban number, that is just a best estimate based on the reports on icasualties. Most probably a big number of those killed ARE civilians but there is no evidance. I mean c'mon, 1 coalition soldier killed and in contrast 100-200 Taliban killed, like that could happen what are tehy Terminators, but this is how it stands. Top Gun —Preceding comment was added at 16:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I agree with you Raoulduke47. It started in june 2006. And as for the 1,500 number it's not stated as that number on icasualties, but there is the archive of reports and is about 1,500 in those reports. I will add in the infobox that the 1,500 is a NATO claim. Top Gun —Preceding comment was added at 04:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
A map of the location of these operations, Coalition locations (i.e. where are the British operating, where are the Marines operating), major Taliban attacks, etc would definitely make it easier to see the ebb and flow of the campaign. Lawrencema ( talk) 00:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The entire article seems like a US Marine section. This is a NATO operation with participant forces, no reason not to break down those forces, but it remains a NATO and Afghan Army operation, it is not an operation with interests that bias towards any single nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.113.249.107 ( talk) 07:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
...gives the impression that, whilst the US Marines are a useful addition, all subsequent ops were either under US Marine control (which is not the case), that they were central to all subsequent ops within this section (again not so), or are now the largest force (again not so). The US Marines are a very useful and important addition the this part of A’stan. But having the US Marines in this section's title gives an unbalanced impression that every sub point is a US Marine led one. The US Marines are important reinforcements, but they don’t signify any change in strategic or military policy. Chwyatt ( talk) 10:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
First of, you have totaly removed the section on the Taliban spring offensive, it has been notable this year because of the higher rate of Coalition deaths per mnth than in Iraq. So I will return that section to the article. Second, we are not going to be slicing up the article so much. Before we had two distinct phases when NATO outposts were under siege in 2006, and when NATO counter-attacked in 2007, so this should be only a third phase. Not a third (Deployment of U.S. Marines) and a fourth (Continued fighting in north Helmand). Continued fighting in north Helmand? What's up with that, it sounds like the fighting is over in the south but is still continuing in the north of the province, while the Taliban are still active preaty much in the south. OK, I admit the "War of attrition" name for the phase was probably not the best one (although it represents the situation like it is). But in any case this should be presented as one and not two phases. Because to me it looks like each year the situation changes. So the Marines have arrived but that is only one of several mayor activities this year, it doesn't deserve that much attention to be just one phase in the campaign. Guyver85 ( talk) 18:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Changed the title from "Deployment of U.S. Marines" to "2008 U.S Marine reinforcements to Garmsir" for a few reasons. First, the date provides a quick idea of the timeline. This Escalation section was getting too large, and with the current 2009 Marine operation there, it will be confusing for readers. Second, after reading everyone's arguments, I do feel that the word "reinforcement" will immediately clue the average reader that the Marines aren't the only force there, and that they were sent there to temporarily augment the NATO forces there. Third, "to Garmsir" reveals that this was not an increase in Marines everywhere, but that the Marines supported NATO effots in Garmsir and did not suddenly operate everywhere in Helmand.
Added extra information regarding the 24th MEU's deployment, in particular the Battalion Landing Team's experience there. Explained the "bitter resistance" a bit better, I feel. I ended the section with their total deployment length (130 days) to ensure there is no mistake that the Marines left the region.
Added ongoing operation. Should this have its own section? It IS a significant phase of the campaign... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ouketi.ego ( talk • contribs) 00:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
There are press reports of Australians in blue sword, with mention of some casualties though these may have been from an operation in uruzgan. However their involvement is not mentioned here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.162.58 ( talk) 00:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Media releases re. Australian participation during Blue Sword: http://www.defence.gov.au/media/departmentaltpl.cfm?CurrentId=9029 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-04-25/aussie-troops-strike-taliban-heartland-80-dead/1662552
In May 2011, Australians again returned to Kajaki to look for drugs http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=12101 http://images.defence.gov.au/fotoweb/Grid.fwx?position=25&archiveid=5003&columns=4&rows=2&sorting=ModifiedTimeAsc&search=11120044 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.64.220 ( talk) 04:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The Georgians deployed some 926 combat troops to Helmand and are allready in action. Hence I suggest to put them into the section of participitating ISAF forces of the campaign. TheMightyGeneral ( talk) 07:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The 1,500+ number of Taliban killed creates some POV issues. First, it is unsourced. Second, media has reported dozens of civilians dead, which I am sure the coalition says they are Taliban. -- TheFEARgod ( Ч) 12:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I have put references for the coalition casualties, I have even put the number of killed British troops during the 2006-07 Taliban takeover even if this article was created with the purpos of talking about the coalition operations to retake the province, but as for the 1,500 taliban number, that is just a best estimate based on the reports on icasualties. Most probably a big number of those killed ARE civilians but there is no evidance. I mean c'mon, 1 coalition soldier killed and in contrast 100-200 Taliban killed, like that could happen what are tehy Terminators, but this is how it stands. Top Gun —Preceding comment was added at 16:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I agree with you Raoulduke47. It started in june 2006. And as for the 1,500 number it's not stated as that number on icasualties, but there is the archive of reports and is about 1,500 in those reports. I will add in the infobox that the 1,500 is a NATO claim. Top Gun —Preceding comment was added at 04:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
A map of the location of these operations, Coalition locations (i.e. where are the British operating, where are the Marines operating), major Taliban attacks, etc would definitely make it easier to see the ebb and flow of the campaign. Lawrencema ( talk) 00:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The entire article seems like a US Marine section. This is a NATO operation with participant forces, no reason not to break down those forces, but it remains a NATO and Afghan Army operation, it is not an operation with interests that bias towards any single nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.113.249.107 ( talk) 07:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
...gives the impression that, whilst the US Marines are a useful addition, all subsequent ops were either under US Marine control (which is not the case), that they were central to all subsequent ops within this section (again not so), or are now the largest force (again not so). The US Marines are a very useful and important addition the this part of A’stan. But having the US Marines in this section's title gives an unbalanced impression that every sub point is a US Marine led one. The US Marines are important reinforcements, but they don’t signify any change in strategic or military policy. Chwyatt ( talk) 10:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
First of, you have totaly removed the section on the Taliban spring offensive, it has been notable this year because of the higher rate of Coalition deaths per mnth than in Iraq. So I will return that section to the article. Second, we are not going to be slicing up the article so much. Before we had two distinct phases when NATO outposts were under siege in 2006, and when NATO counter-attacked in 2007, so this should be only a third phase. Not a third (Deployment of U.S. Marines) and a fourth (Continued fighting in north Helmand). Continued fighting in north Helmand? What's up with that, it sounds like the fighting is over in the south but is still continuing in the north of the province, while the Taliban are still active preaty much in the south. OK, I admit the "War of attrition" name for the phase was probably not the best one (although it represents the situation like it is). But in any case this should be presented as one and not two phases. Because to me it looks like each year the situation changes. So the Marines have arrived but that is only one of several mayor activities this year, it doesn't deserve that much attention to be just one phase in the campaign. Guyver85 ( talk) 18:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Changed the title from "Deployment of U.S. Marines" to "2008 U.S Marine reinforcements to Garmsir" for a few reasons. First, the date provides a quick idea of the timeline. This Escalation section was getting too large, and with the current 2009 Marine operation there, it will be confusing for readers. Second, after reading everyone's arguments, I do feel that the word "reinforcement" will immediately clue the average reader that the Marines aren't the only force there, and that they were sent there to temporarily augment the NATO forces there. Third, "to Garmsir" reveals that this was not an increase in Marines everywhere, but that the Marines supported NATO effots in Garmsir and did not suddenly operate everywhere in Helmand.
Added extra information regarding the 24th MEU's deployment, in particular the Battalion Landing Team's experience there. Explained the "bitter resistance" a bit better, I feel. I ended the section with their total deployment length (130 days) to ensure there is no mistake that the Marines left the region.
Added ongoing operation. Should this have its own section? It IS a significant phase of the campaign... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ouketi.ego ( talk • contribs) 00:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
There are press reports of Australians in blue sword, with mention of some casualties though these may have been from an operation in uruzgan. However their involvement is not mentioned here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.162.58 ( talk) 00:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Media releases re. Australian participation during Blue Sword: http://www.defence.gov.au/media/departmentaltpl.cfm?CurrentId=9029 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-04-25/aussie-troops-strike-taliban-heartland-80-dead/1662552
In May 2011, Australians again returned to Kajaki to look for drugs http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=12101 http://images.defence.gov.au/fotoweb/Grid.fwx?position=25&archiveid=5003&columns=4&rows=2&sorting=ModifiedTimeAsc&search=11120044 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.64.220 ( talk) 04:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The Georgians deployed some 926 combat troops to Helmand and are allready in action. Hence I suggest to put them into the section of participitating ISAF forces of the campaign. TheMightyGeneral ( talk) 07:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)