Talk:Canada in the War in Afghanistan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled comment from 23 May 2006[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Untitled discussion from 16 July 2006[edit]

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)[reply]

OPSEC might preclude some info, but I agree with the sentiment that the "article" is really just an unveiled mortality count.Michael Dorosh 00:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main problem is with sentences like "Canadian forces undertake Operation Harpoon as part of Operation Anaconda in the Shah-i-Kot Valley.", and they just wikilink to the actual in-depth articles. It would be nice to have a one-paragraphy summary of what each operation was inside this article, so the reader has a clear idea. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 01:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed this as well. The article is our role in the invasion, but it doesn't discuss our role in detail. It is more a timeline of events. I'll see if I can work on this a bit.Motorfix 15:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we need Timeline of the Canadian forces in Afganistan, or something, and this article properly cleaned up? It's horrible right now. -b 18:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sept/23/06[edit]

President Karzai's recent visit should be mentioned somewhere.

Expenditure for Afghanistan[edit]

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 doubt you'll find it. The mission cost was brought up recently by politicians but there were major disagreements over what should be included. --M4-10 18:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fatalities[edit]

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)[reply]

Perhaps start a new page? List of Canadians killed? Motorfix 03:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of Canadians killed in Afganistan or List of Canadian Fatalities in Afganistan? -b 03:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either one would be a candidate for deletion. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of lists." The article as is seems very unencyclopedic and a list would be moreso. I had a listing of fatal casualties at Crescent Heights High School that was removed for the same reason - basically, it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I'd even be in favour of deleting the names altogether, not only is it morbid, but it actually seems disrespectful given that the only information in this article has to do with who died and not with what the soldiers are accomplishing over there.Michael Dorosh 03:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Michael. We do not have to mention name for name every soldier killed. Each death is it's own tragedy, but can you picture what the US Invasion of Iraq page would look like if they named each loss? Even the timeline of events doesn't say much. I'd love to edit or help, but alas, as the father of two busy boys...I barely have time for a game of combat mission these days! Motorfix 04:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten the page and done a quick bit of research on the various missions - will need fleshing out and corrections, but it is a start. The info on fatalities does not belong in the main text and so I've moved some of it to the fatality listing. I won't ask you for a Combat Mission setup then, either. ;-) Michael Dorosh 04:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, for the record. Good start Michael. By the way, what's with the title of the article? The invasion was so 2001. --M4-10 00:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Don't know what is up with the title, was set up this way. We could change it if we wanted.Michael Dorosh 04:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

I think it looks very good, and the thought occurred to me as well the info might be better presented as a table. I'm still unsure that the casualties should receive so much focus. They deserve a mention but may not be encyclopedic per WP standards. For now, I would say go ahead and complete the table - it's very nicely done. I suppose if there are objections to it we can discuss at that time and cross the bridge when we come to it. If the information really is seen to be encylopedic, the table offers a much better and accessible format. At some point we may want to include a column for photographs, as well.Michael Dorosh 13:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless anyone has any problems, I'll be moving it from the sandbox to the article sometime tomorrow. -b 03:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit uneasy about the latest entry. "Accidental discharge" makes it sound like he himself was at fault - not a great way to remember him. The correct term, "negligent discharge", makes it sound even worse. I think it would be closer to the truth to just say "non-combat death" or "accidental death" as it requires the least explanation.Michael Dorosh 03:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See comments in your sandbox talk page regarding a suggested place to move it and some minor adjustments.Cheers,

Motorfix 03:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Private Costall, friendly fire[edit]

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)[reply]

Wasn't aware of Costall. No we should not wait for the results, that is speculation. Also, An accidental discharge is not "friendly fire", I raised this subject a few days ago in your sandbox. See also negligent discharge.Michael Dorosh 20:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"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)[reply]

Political Aspect[edit]

I have added info on our diplomatic history a bit. Worthwile, or not? Motorfix 22:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Good work today. Michael Dorosh 23:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Material[edit]

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)[reply]

Units[edit]

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)[reply]

The units change every 6 months, and every regular force infantry, armour, and field artillery unit has or will get a go. --M4-10 19:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As well, individual augmentees from reserve units get mentioned frequently in the news, which is no doubt confusing to most of the public - for example, a fellow from the Loyal Edmonton Regiment was seriously injured today in the G-Wagen accident that unfortunately killed another soldier. (I see CTV has referred to it as the "Royal Edmonton Regiment"). There would be no way to track which reserve units were contributing; my own unit has deployed about two dozen soldiers alone. Should they be mentioned? I don't believe there is any publicly available information on which unit has reservists deployed though I do understand they are over there serving directly with PPCLI, RCR, etc. I realize the press is publishing the names of units as is the official Army website so security is not an issue, but is it really encyclopedic to keep a running tally even of just the major units involved? It seems like a lot of extraneous detail which is being done in lieu of substantial information relating to the mission itself.Michael Dorosh 19:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. -b 23:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be interesting to see a streamlined list of the Battle Groups organized according to their change of command dates. MC —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marccote (talk • contribs) 16:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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[reply]

Name change[edit]

As above, the title of this article is completely outdated. It definitely needs a new title. Suggestions? -b 03:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


For/Against arguments?[edit]

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

While I agree about the casualty list and strongly agree that we should have more information about what has and what is happening there, I disagree about for/against arguments, as they are unencyclopedic. "Canada's role in the invasion of Afghanistan" (an awful title) is just one major part of larger Liberal and Conservative foreign policy regarding the Middle East and the War on Terrorism and the foreign policy considerations are beyond the scope of this article. --M4-10 05:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Our role as editors is not to advocate a political position but to report facts in as balanced a manner as possible and allow the reader to interpret them for themselves. The article should not betray any one side - see WP:NPOV.Michael Dorosh 05:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Title[edit]

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)[reply]

I don't think there is a good answer for this, but one option is to get rid of this page and simply have fleshed out pages for Op Apollo, Op Athena, and OP Archer, with each explicitly linking to the Op before and after it. Each operation has been reasonably distinct in intent, disposition, and mission area. Your suggestion is acceptable as a minimum, interim solution. "The Invasion of Afghanistan" may have been obvious in 2002, but Afghanistan has been invaded what, dozens of times? --M4-10 07:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has been refered to a few times as the "Canadian Mission in Afganistan" by the media. Perhaps something like this? It would be nice to keep this article as a hybrid of military, diplomatic and aid work. -b 15:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Canada's role in ISAF"? I know the content within is not strictly ISAF but we can make those sections clear and it is a more natural link from ISAF. --M4-10 18:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Military Operations. role in the invasion of Afghanistan is clearly POV. --Deenoe 01:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see this article reflect the military, diplomatic, aid and rebuilding roles that Canada is engaged in, so I think any name change should leave room for that. how about just "Canada's role in Afghanistan" or "Canada's role in Afghanistan since 2002"?. Mike McGregor (Can) 02:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I agree with Military Operations. role in the invasion of Afghanistan is clearly POV. "
I would not consider the title POV: the term invasion is used by military historians and commentators in a neutral way. Calling the invasion of Normandy "The Invasion of Normandy" does not imply disapproval of the invasion of Normandy, and theoretically, calling the invasion of Afghanistan what it is should also not imply a lack of neutrality.
On the other hand, I think the title should be changed because it is clear that the article now deals with events that occurred many years after the invasion was completed. An article on the involvement of Canadians in the invasion of Afghanistan would come to an end at events in early 2002.

Ordinary Person (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bias?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. <<<
bingo!
There is way too much Anti-War commentary in this article! Hardly objective. More emphasis should be placed on reconstruction! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.69.137 (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

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?

Be wp:bold and do it; sign your talk posts, too. Annihilatron (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Torture Allegations[edit]

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)[reply]

you are seriously mistaken, the Canadian soldiers never tortured anyone. What is being stated in the media is that, a highly dubious agency is claiming the captured enemy combatants were being handed over to local Afghanistani forces, that MIGHT possibly torture them. There has never been an actual documented instance of torture.
--Jadger 18:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hence "allegations". I came to this page for an unbiased, complete overview of what is in the news on the daily basis but found nothing on the topic. This issue should be documented somewhere on Wikipedia to provide knowledge on it, no? Jermdeeks 20:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reference rot[edit]

"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)[reply]

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 coffeeMike McGregor (Can) 07:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[3] Mike McGregor (Can) 18:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

timeline of unit deployments?[edit]

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)[reply]

If there is a similar timeline regarding the Brit and USA deployments in other articles, then it makes sense to me; but if it's just done here and nowhere else, it seems to me to be too introspective. Mr.grantevans2 12:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

What was the position of the Conservatives re: deployment of troops in 2001/2002?[edit]

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?

Dogfighting in Afghanistan: Canada's miliary should be proud[edit]

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)[reply]

Boo-hoo - human lives are more important than dogs, don't you think? I love how some oppose Canada's participation by crying that we are imposing our values on them, while others cry that we aren't imposing them enough! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.224.84 (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 28/2008[edit]

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)[reply]

March 18/2008[edit]

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)[reply]

Invasion should be dropped from the title.[edit]

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)[reply]

Yeah, the Soviets were also requested to enter by the Afghan government. Doesn't make it any less of an invasion. The term is neutral and applicable. Sherurcij (Because you can't fight terror by spreading fear) 01:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True however the article talks more about Canada's role in Afghanistan, not Canada's involvement in the invasion itself. If it was about Canada's role in the invasion of Afghanistan then their should be no mention of events post 2002. Darkfire123 (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "Soviet Invasion" lasted for ten years, even after all their troops were in the country, it was still referred to as the "Invasion" simply because foreign troops were stationed in a battlezone in the country. Sherurcij (Because you can't fight terror by spreading fear) 03:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of this article is talking about Canada's role in Afghanistan, not it's role in the invasion way back in 2001-2002. A better title could even be Canada's involvement in the war in Afghanistan. By doing so the title allows a broader view of the overall picture. Take for example if I were to read a article titled 'US designs new jet fuel' but only the first paragraph is about the fuel and the rest is about a new aerodynamic design for airplanes how narrowing the title itself is. Darkfire123 (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Despite what J. Sherurcij says, invasion is hardly a neutral term. In fact, its stated that Canada's role in the invasion was very minimal, at the very beginning of the article. This article isn't about their role in the invasion at all, and what is currently going on is not an invasion, as the territory is already "in theory" under the control of the coalition. Its now more of an 'occupation' if you're against it or a 'reconstruction mission' if you're not, but its not an invaiosn.
I agree with Sherurcij, the term invasion in the title is acceptable. I'm actually the editor that changed the beginning of the article to state that "Canada did not have a significant role in the first few months of the invasion of Afghanistan that began on October 7, 2001". Notice that it states "in the first few months of". In other words, Canada did not play a large role in the initial invasion, but does have a role in what could rightfully be called the continuing invasion. Perhaps the territory is already "in theory" under the control of the coalition, but reports show that in practice, 75% of the country is out of the control of the coalition. Occupation is a valid term as well, and you could say that the military coalition is occupying 25% of the country and continues to be trying to gain control of the other 75%. It's both an ongoing invasion and partial occupation. 74.12.222.8 (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

accounted for Camp Mirage death (out of country death).[edit]

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)[reply]

Non-military deaths table[edit]

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)[reply]

Fixed. 74.12.222.8 (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo in Public Opinion Section[edit]

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)[reply]

Not all photos are specific to their section, often a photo such as this (A Canadian soldier packing supplies for an aid mission to Afghanistan) clearly "belong in this article", but not necessarily "in a particular section" - so they simply get placed in a section otherwise unillustrated. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 20:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have now put it under "Opposition to war". Again that seems to be completely the wrong place to put this. I'm sure it's not your intention, but it simply reeks of military propaganda (the photo itself, its source, and the sections in which it's being placed). If anything, the "Opposition to war" section should have pictures of protests or pictures of bombings, destroyed buildings, or casualties. Funny how the US military doesn't make those kinds of pictures available, isn't it? Guess they filter those out and only make available "suitable" imagery that supports their "objectives". On the site where you get these pictures from it says "The Defense Visual Information (DVI) Directorate develops policy, guidelines, procedures and programs that support Department of Defense (DoD) objectives" ...
What's more, reading the caption, it's not even donations from Canada, but donations from the United States. And it's "Camp Eggers" in Kabul, not Kandahar where the majority of Canada's military efforts are.
Listen, I really don't think we need a second US-military-provided propaganda photo on this page (I think you added the first as well), but if you really insist on keeping this picture from The Directorate, at least move it to the more appropriate and related section for it on this page, "Other missions". I've placed it just above "Other missions" for now because of formatting. 74.12.222.8 (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really "propaganda", though it is a "feel good" photo, but I think the debate raging at Operation Red Wing probably solidifies the fact I'm not in the habit of "making the Coalition look good" (I'm getting legal, death and other threats, for insisting on including the photograph of the dead US soldiers). If you have a Public Domain photo of protests and such, please add it. I'm in favour of as many illustrations as possible - this one happens to be Public Domain and not untrue, so is included. But I'm fine with it in the "Other missions" section of the article - quite alright by me. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 21:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I took a look at that page and added in a Keep on the Commons WikiMedia discussion page as my 2 cents. 70.49.120.170 (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnappings of Canadians[edit]

Canadian national abducted last month Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 18:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg[edit]

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

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

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)[reply]

murder charges[edit]

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)[reply]

Section was re-added, apparently it had been blanked. Not too sure why. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference List[edit]

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.

Fixed, thanks. I'll take that cookie now ;) Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 23:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV: Cost of the war[edit]

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)

It seems to be a properly cited list of what certain organizations believe to be the cost of the war. I'm not sure POV is the right tag here, since the government isn't going to release cost information for the Afgan mission. I don't think it seriously violates POV, but parts of it could be rewritten as many of the presented quotes aren't related to the actual 'cost' of the war, rather, the quotes are related to the "public opinion of the cost of the war".
1. It's not really a war. Technically, its a mission. But this isn't too important.
My major suggestion would to add the rewrite tag as well; the cost section should only contain official resources and be NPOV. The rest of the stuff should be given its own subsection called "public reaction to cost of the Afghanistan mission" or something. I'm tired and I hope an editor will be WP:BOLD and do the tedious work to separate out the official costs vs the estimated costs + public reactions.
Annihilatron (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The POV tag was intended more specifically for the Repeated cost overruns sub-section rather than the Financial cost section - though both need considerable rewriting which is why I included the tag at the top of the whole section. I'll change the Cost of the war tag to "clean-up" and move "POV" to Repeated cost overruns (a subsection header that is, itself, POV). I may become WP:BOLD enough to do it myself, but I want to know the extent of opposition I'll be up against. Geoff NoNick (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Geoff. This work is the result of my efforts to add information about the costs of this war that had been completely lacking from the article, so please understand if I'm a little concerned about your intention to subject it to "considerable rewriting". That said, I am thankful that you chose to start a discussion rather than just start making extensive changes.
I see that you've actually put the POV tag to not just "Repeated cost overruns", but also "Concerns about the costs of the war". I've read over your comments carefully and looked over the sections again, but so far, like Annihilatron, I don't think that your POV tags are justified.
You suggest that the subsection header "Repeated cost overruns" is itself POV, but I don't see how. There have been repeated cost overruns. It seems to me that that's a fact, not a point of view, and the section carefully details how the cost projection figures publicly announced by the government have indeed repeatedly been ratcheted up. As Annihilatron observed, only properly cited material was used.
Likewise, it's a fact that there are significant concerns in Canada about the costs of the war in Afghanistan. That section details some of the concerns, again using only properly cited material. To downplay the fact that those concerns exist or to not mention them anywhere seems to be adopting a POV.
Hi Annihilatron. You wrote "the cost section should only contain official resources". Some of the government figures are estimates, some of the government figures are projections, some of the government figures include this but not that, and some of the government figures are disputed, whether by the opposition parties, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or non-governmental organizations or academics. None of the figures have been audited by the Auditor-General. So I feel the different competing cost estimates and projections that are out there should be presented, otherwise we are only presenting the current government's point of view, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia.
Anyway, I have been meaning to update this section with info that came out later, so I'll try to get to it sometime this week.74.12.221.199 (talk) 05:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My use of the word 'official' was a little too high up. Reliable sources would have been better at the time. Agree with cleanup of cost section (it seems very, very long somehow), disagree with POV for repeated cost overrun (seems more like it just needs cleanup too). A cost overrun is 'not' good to begin with, and I'm not sure what you would be trying to accomplish with the POV tag there. It seems very comprehensive and focused on the numbers; if the numbers don't portray a good image, is that a writer's fault?
Concerns section seems anti-war, but I'm not sure what a POV tag there can do either; it might have to do with the fact that about 6 paragraphs were written off of three sources (the fact that CBC and Ottawa Citizen wrote about the Rideau study doesn't merit them as additional sources). Essentially, there's the Dalhousie analysis, the Rideau analysis, and the comment by the retired Colonel. I would say its probably given undue weight, it could be made more concise, but its not POV issue since you've got two studies and a quote from an ex-military there. It also has commentary from within the Canadian Forces as well, which provides the other side of it.
How much more NPOV can you get with this topic? if the issue is bad, nobody is really going to say that the cost is 'okay'. Not even the government. I'd recommend re-balancing and concise-enizing more than anything.Annihilatron (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-War Bias[edit]

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)[reply]

This article also features 3 anti-war images! Outnumbering all other types of images.

We've been trying to find good images of the Canadian troops in the war, but Canadian government photos aren't Public Domain, so they're a bit rarer - I added one myself (and was blasted for being "pro-war", ironically). But I think it might be wise to create a spin-off Canadian opposition to the Invasion of Afghanistan to make sure we can stay neutral in both articles. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 23:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its not so much a anti-war bias so much as a lack of pro-war resources. Not even the government is for the war, really - they don't release press reports saying that everything's okay, they don't release their images, and they don't release their numbers. The most pro-war resources you will find related to this article is random 'Good Jobs' from the press, America, and the Can Government. Also, the cost section is already under review for giving undue weight to the sources in certain sections. Annihilatron (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that this war or mission has been and is highly controversial with Canadians. This is indisputable. For the first poster above to want that fact to be hidden or downplayed in this article is POV. His suggestion to round up and move the information onto another page was clearly made with the intent to make that information less visible.
The majority of Canadians have been and remain opposed to the mission. This is a fact. In poll after poll for the past few years, 55-60% of Canadians are opposed and around 30-40% support. There are 3 times more Canadians strongly opposed to the war (27%) than strongly support it (9%).
For the article to be NPOV, it should reflect that current reality fairly. If the page misleadingly presents things as if support were equal to opposition, then it is no longer NPOV, but biased. Worse, if the page has all opposition deliberately shunted off to another page with all signs of Canadian opposition shrunk down to one link, that is even more POV.
As far as 3 anti-war images: There are 3 anti-war images and 2 military images (both care of the US military). That's a a ratio of 60% anti-war images and 40% military images. That neutrally reflects the 60% Canadian opposition to war and 40% support. If you want to add another military image, that would make it 50-50, but support in Canada is not 50-50, it's 60-40 against.
It is also completely wrong to say that 3/4 of the article laments how bad the mission is. The section "Opposition to war" actually only accounts for about one tenth of the article. The public opinion section is an inherently neutral section: it gives both public opinion for the mission and public opinion against it.
76.65.181.151 (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think it's clear that your goal is to remove all signs of criticism or controversy from this page, to round them all up and deport them off to a separate page where they'll be kept out of sight and out of mind. But the reality is that Canada's involvement in this war mission is very controversial and has long been unpopular with the majority of Canadians. This controversy and criticism is therefore inherent to any article like this on Canada's involvement in the war. You should not be trying to hide or downplay this reality to try to shape the page's presentation to your POV. If you're seeking a more exclusive focus on the military details of the mission, you have plenty of that on the pages Operation Apollo, Operation Anaconda, Operation Harpoon, Operation Athena, Operation Archer, Operation Mountain Thrust, Operation Medusa, Operation Falcon Summit, Operation Mountain Fury, Operation ALTAIR, etc.
The Iraq war article is not comparable because 1) it covers a completely different war with a completely different set of issues and controversies, because 2) that article has to touch on all of the many topics of that war as a whole, and because 3) its organisation is completely different as a result of those great differences. This article, on the other hand, deals only with Canada's involvement in the war in Afghanistan. For Iraq, the controversies focused on have been WMDs, Valerie Plame, Mission Accomplished, Abu Graib, Falluja, the shoe incident, etc. so that article has to touch on all of those high-profile controversies on top of more basic issues such as cost, lack of transparency, and public opinion. For Canada's involvement in the war in Afghanistan, the concerns and criticisms have focused more on the cost of the war (the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report, a report that was requested by the opposition parties), the cost overruns (key criticism of opposition parties), the lack of transparency (a key point of the Manley Panel for example), the effect on the military, Canadian public opinion, etc.
74.12.220.35 (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


just a link for later reference[edit]

[4] Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 04:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not much there for developments after 2006[edit]

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)[reply]

can we make the protests section a little more concise?[edit]

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)[reply]

The information isn't inherently bad just because it's exhaustively complete - as long as it lists the sizes of the protests I think the information is WP-able. That being said, it probably could do to move the bulk of the Opposition, Public Opinion, and Cost of the War sections into anther article; none of these really have anything to do with "Canada's role in the invasion of Afghanistan". Maybe summarize them briefly here and move the rest into "Public debate on Canada's involvement in Afghanistan"? Geoff NoNick (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Canada's role in the war in Afghanistan is extremely controversial with Canadians (majority oppose), among Canada's political parties (3 out of 5 parties - representing 1 in 3 Canadians - officially oppose), and even in military circles significant concerns have been voiced. For this article to be NPOV, it should properly reflect that reality and debate. As such, the opposition, the public opinion, and the cost concerns are front and central to any article about Canada's role in the war in Afghanistan. Seeking to downplay the reality of all the controversy and concerns that surround Canada's role in Afghanistan, by shunting all signs of it off to another page and reducing it to a few summary lines, is POV.
(As a side point, the original poster claimed that the largest protest in Toronto was "not even close to 1000 people", when the article informs us that in March last year, 3,000 people demonstrated at Queen's Park.[1] He then goes on to ask "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". As his comment inadvertently makes clear, yes we really do need a list of every single protest and it has to be "exhaustively complete" precisely because, otherwise, so many POV pushers, more concerned about downplaying reality than conveying it, would very quickly minimize it all down to "small anti-war protests" "all featuring a turnout of less than 1000 protesters", and other more-moderately-POV editors would uncritically go right along without bothering to check.)
74.12.222.137 (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well then we both agree that the information is WP-able. But the question is whether it should be completely annotated in the article on "Canada's role in the invasion of Afghanistan", or if it should instead be briefly addressed here and more completely expanded on in a separate article on the debate over Canada's role. Public opinion in Canada isn't directly related to Canada's role in the invasion - at least not the extent that it now occupies in this article (about 50% of the content and growing). At the very least we should consider a rename of this article to something more general. How about Canada in the Afghan conflict? Geoff NoNick (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Protesters seek end to Afghan combat mission

The newly-added "Current Strategy" section[edit]

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)[reply]

The section is essentially a straight copy-and-paste from the government website, and the government website is subject to copyright. Removing the newly-added section as per WP:COPY.
74.12.221.148 (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, as a compromise to you I've placed the copy-pasted text in quotation marks and italics. I really don't think the section should be there, though. The Wikipedia encyclopedia should not be exploited as a transmission outlet for government PR and talking points. That's what government websites (like the one where the text was copied-and-paste from) are for.
76.69.229.162 (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've paraphrased the military's stated priorities so as not to require extensive block quotation and to provide for additional information (if anyone has any to add). While I appreciate your concern about remaining critically-minded towards any source of information (whether it be a government or opposition lobby group), we can't simply ignore what the military itself has said it's trying to do in Afghanistan. To do so would demonstrate a significant anti-authority POV. Any analysis of Canada's role in Afghanistan (and that is what this article is about) is going to have to address Canada's stated goals, even if only to determine whether those goals are realistic and/or achieved. Geoff NoNick (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced statement[edit]

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)[reply]

Forking cost[edit]

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)[reply]

Detainee scandal needs an update[edit]

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)[reply]

Commander joint task force Afghanistan[edit]

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)[reply]

Fatalities section[edit]

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)[reply]

CH-47 in equipment list[edit]

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))[reply]

The CH-47 were transferred from the US to the Canadian Forces in 2008 and have been operational in Afghanistan ever since. One was involved in a "hard landing" incident recently.  CET  ♔  01:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Equipment List Formatting[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Scope of Op ARCHER[edit]

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[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/od-bdo/asia/ARCHER-eng.asp

"Canadian experience in nation-building and sector reform" section and encyclopedic tone[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canada_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan&oldid=1195305656"