Talk:Operation Red Wings/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Previous discussions without headers

The following article provides more description of the events during and after Operation Red Wing: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-enseal0201,0,4864775.story?coll=ny-linews-headlines 205.241.62.209 07:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Reference from the SITE Institute: http://siteinstitute.org/bin/articles.cgi?ID=news108205&Category=news&Subcategory=0 205.241.62.209 08:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional background information can be found here: http://wwwc.house.gov/timbishop/pdf/R109-107.pdf 205.241.62.209 08:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Two more links to initial reporting on the events: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/07/mil-050702-26bce106.htm and http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/07/mil-050704-27bce49f.htm 205.241.62.209 08:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Killed In Action (KIA):

Reconnaissance Unit • Petty Officer 2nd Class (SEAL) Matthew G. Axelson - SEAL Delivery Vehicle Team ONE • Petty Officer 2nd Class (SEAL) Danny P. Dietz - SEAL Delivery Vehicle Team TWO • Lieutenant Michael P. Murphy - SEAL Delivery Vehicle Team ONE

Quick Reaction Force / Night Stalkers • Chief Petty Officer (SEAL) Jacques J. Fontan - SEAL Team TEN • Staff Sergeant Shamus O. Goare - 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) • Chief Warrant Officer Corey J. Goodnature - 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) • Senior Chief Petty Officer (SEAL) Daniel R. Healy - SEAL Delivery Vehicle Team ONE • Sergeant Kip A. Jacoby - 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) • Lieutenant Commander Erik S. Kristensen - SEAL Team TEN • Petty Officer 1st Class (SEAL) Jeffrey A. Lucas - SEAL Team TEN • Lieutenant Michael M. McGreevy Jr. - SEAL Team TEN • Sergeant 1st Class Marcus V. Muralles - 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) • Petty Officer 2nd Class (SEAL) Eric Shane Patton - SEAL Delivery Vehicle Team ONE • Master Sergeant James W. Ponder III - 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) • Major Stephen C. Reich - 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) • Sergeant 1st Class Michael L. Russell - 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) • Chief Warrant Officer Chris J. Scherkenbach - 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) • Petty Officer 2nd Class (SEAL) James Suh - SEAL Delivery Vehicle Team ONE • Petty Officer 1st Class (SEAL) Jeffrey S. Taylor - SEAL Team TEN 205.241.62.209 08:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Stars and Stripes articles: http://stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=39001&archive=true http://stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=29380&archive=true http://stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=29339&archive=true http://stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=29316&archive=true http://stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=29273&archive=true 205.241.62.209 10:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

BIAS

The article has been worded/spun to make the event look better than it actually was. Quite simply the mission was a total stuff-up! Yet the article is slanted in a way that glorifies the whole thing as if it were one of those Hollywood-style "Successful Failures". That particular approach to writing articles such as this doesn't belong in Encyclopaedias. I personally do not think this article is objective. It seems to me that it has been written by someone who is a Special Operations Commando fanboy or Wannabe living in a fantasy world. I say to that person or persons that it's okay to like that sort of thing but keep in mind that your beliefs about what happened are not the truth (the big picture ie. Mission failed either because of poor planning or something else) of what happened. Sure you can cite articles that display the courage of the personel involved, but you're missing the big picture; Operation Red Wing was total failure, that incurred heavy casualties. Forget about putting in the article that the SEALS took on the whole world and died a hero's death. There's no information about flaws in planning or any other tidbit that would make the article in my view more neutral. Instead it seems that certain editors are taking the time to protect this article, whose standard and tone reads more like American Propaganda than what is really appropriate for an Encyclopaedia. 121.218.136.200 (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

While it was a total failure and mistakes were made, you cannot deny that 4 men taking on some 140-200 Taliban fighters with only 11 ammunition clips apiece and killing 80-160 men before losing their lives is quite amazing. Let alone the three who died fighting alongside Luttrell were mortally wounded yet still refused to gave up. Axelson was shot in the head, consequently losing about 1/4 of his brain matter yet continued to fight until the bitter end when an RPG finally took him out. Dietz was shot twice in the neck and once in the stomach but was shooting his weapon until he was shot in the face and died in the arms of Luttrell. Murphy chose to try to save Marcus in sacrifice of his life by moving into open terrain to make a call. He then proceeded to move into a strictly offensive position where he faced certain death and had no protection. He was not killed until 4 Taliban fighters riddled his body with bullets from point blank range. While the loss of the 16 members in the Heli was tragic and unessecary, don't diminish the extreme courage displayed by that SEAL team of 4 facing 35-1 odds. The mission failed because the Team was scared of being tried of murder of "unarmed civilians' and being vilified in the press. They at first were going to kill the men who eventually gave them away but then Murphy let them know if they did this their actions would serve as propaganda for the enemy. Airiox (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


The SEAL team was outnumbered roughly 175 to 4. After analyzing the casulaties, that equates to over 25 kills per SEAL. Stating these as facts isn't glamorizing anything, albeit that they are simply that; facts. How would that make someone a fanboy to state mere facts. Maybe what we're lacking here is exactly what sentences you think are "Biased." As for flaws in the planning that you stated would deem the article more neutral, none really exist besides the goatherders being released decision. Point being, the real meat of the conflict arises during the running battle. It's quite clear that these men protected each other on that mountain. And it's difficult to argue it a spuff up, when the SEAL team's plan B resulted in killing 75% of their enemy's fighting force and lasting for over 2 hours in broad daylight. I don't understand why stating the specifics of this would be a galmorization and bias story telling. Is the story of firefighters going back up the towers on 9/11 to do their job a biased story telling, or was that just a "successful failure" in action? Have you even read Luttrell's book, which is the only primary source of what occured that day? I would understand your reasoning if the Taliban walked alover them with minimal casulaties and called it a day. However, the SEAL ethos of protection and teamwork is what really makes this conflict special. Which is why it has garnered the awards, the publicity and the movie deal it has; right or wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hog44 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


As most military veterans know, it is common for an operation to take on a whole new meaning or focus during execution. There are too many external factors affecting the outcome of any operation to judge it's "success criteria" based solely on factors considered during the planning process. Therefore, considering Op Redwing to be a "total stuff-up" is only accurate based on the criteria provided in the vacuum of the planning process prior to the operation. In order to judge the operation as a whole after it's execution you must consider all factors. Tactically, was this a failure? Ahmad Shah was not captured. However, what were the 2nd and 3rd order of effects derived from this operation? Did Shah have to change his tactics? Were some of his most important leaders killed? Did we gain valuable intelligence while the Ranger and Infantry BN's were sweeping through the Korengal Valley during the weeks after June 28th? Did we disrupt the TB or AQ networks during the many engagements from AH-64's and A-10's during the weeks following? Can we rule out this operation as a contributing factor to Ahmad Shah's eventual death? No, we can't. On an entirely different level, what propaganda gains were made by our enemies when they were able to bloody some of our most elite fighters? And on the contrary, what benefit did the allies gain from a demonstration of such true acts of courage and bravado on the part of the very same elite fighters? Having such staunch examples of bravery historically motivates soldiers and has the power to influence the masses. The bottom line is that 4 guys were confronted with a bad situation and made a decision based on the information they had at the time. Hundreds came running to help them, knowing the danger, and in the process, 16 more brave men were killed. Through the heroics of those directly involved, Op Redwing became something much more than what was originally planned. To base the success of this mission, or the "bias" of an article on the "kill/capture" criteria in a mission statement created before the fact is both ignorant and irresponsible. --Jabrcr05 (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree with the first comment, while the second one is simply re-producing the faults of the original text. How can you say with such certainty (for example) that a man with "1/4 of his brain matter taken out" was still fighting? The first thing you should do is forget about your personal opinion and allegiance(s) and put yourself in the place of combatants of both sides. Think that you are a Taliban who is trying to be as unbiased as possible and then write it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.83.219.247 (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"Red Wing" versus "Redwing"

According to the title of a newly released book about this operation written by the sole survivor himself, Marcus Luttrel, the operation apparently is called "Redwing."

Link to Amazon.com's book listing.

"Redwing" is the proper name of the operation. In the LT Michael P. Murphy's summary of action on the medal of honor website, the operation is referred to as "Redwing" not "Red Wing", this should be changed throughout. (Guidence (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC))
LT Murphy's Medal of Honor - Summary of Action

movie

They should make a movie on this operation to honour those who fallen --Jonybond 14:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Result

The result was that the operation failed. The body count is immaterial. The operation's stated objectives...were not met. SpartanSWAT10 (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The operation should have been scrubbed immediately but thats being an armchair quarterback - the operation was a total failure however successful in the defeat (technically) of scores of Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters and sympathizers. Mcase07 (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Strength vs. Casualties and losses on the American side

Re: Infobox data. If the American strength consisted of only four Navy SEALs, how come they have 19 KIA and 1 WIA? Needs work, needs work. — • Kurt Guirnela • ‡ Feedback 12:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Kurt; Please reread that the subsequent rescue operation that was attached to the designator REDWING caused the loss of 16 flight operators on an MH-47 Chinook. Total Operational losses of 19 KIA, 1 Wounded.Mcase07 (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my bad wiki skills but he is referring to the box on the right that states 4 Seals vs 200 bad guys but elsewhere in the article 16 guys have died. Which is impossible if there was only 4. The reality is that the 'battle' was 4 vs 200 whilst the immediate rescue was 16 vs Unknown. (Unknown because lots of the 200 died whilst 3 of the 4 died and just as the other 16 turn up, so more TB probably turned up to replace the losses to the 200.

I suppose the box should read at least 20. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.221.24.7 (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Call Signs

Can anyone confirm that the designator for the lead of the SEALs was SPARTAN 01? Mcase07 (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


Yes, it was definitely SPARTAN. Not positive about 01 but that sounds right. --Jabrcr05 (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"1 Chinook helicopter shot down"

Is there any precedent or other justification for including the helicopter shot down as a "Causalities and losses"? (Guidence (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

more equipment losses: Battle of Kursk, Battle of Najaf (2007), 2008 Turkish incursion into northern Iraq --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You have found 4 whole articles with equipment losses, I can find quadruple that without. There is no consensus for including this. You're the only one who wants to add it. 98.220.177.162 (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. so what? there's no rule that denies that type of inclusion. Casualties and losses: losses include equipment. Also, enough with that stupid "consensus" argument: this is not a controversial issue. Avoid earning a block because of such a trivial matter. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. also, there is no consensus for not having that --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. the article has other more important issues according to the 3 tags on top--TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
There is ABSOLUTELY no consensus ANYWHERE on wikipedia for including vehicles in the casualties and losses section of these articles. Simply because you found four whole pages with it does not make a consensus, or a precedent. A quick look through the many, many, many other articles show that the great majority do not list vehicles and only list personnel losses. If you think the "consensus" argument is nonsense, then you're editing on the wrong project. Wikipedia has, as one of it's foundations, a consensus building effort. You are the ONLY editor who wants to include a helicopter on the infobox. I don't care what the other "more important issues" listed on the page are. Those are meant to GUIDE not GOVERN editors. You say this is not a controversial topic, and you may be right. That does not mean it's not open to debate or discussion. You however refuse to engage in any intelligent discourse on the matter, choosing instead of begin and continue in an edit war, then issue ridiculous warnings threatening a block. Surely you know that any block of me for edit warring would result in YOU also being blocked for the same action. Don't try that nonsense with me. Additionally, calling my argument "stupid" can also be construed as (and has in the past been) a personal attack. So lets take a tabulation here....edit warring, personal attacks and editing against consensus. Your track record for editing does not seem to be too good here. Perhaps you should take a break and refelct on the true mission of wikipedia and realize that you won't always get your way and that sometimes editors will remove things that you post. 98.220.177.162 (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
again, there's no rule (as of my knowledge) that prohibits that. To check that, you could take the discussion here and involve multiple comments--TheFEARgod (Ч) 08:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, there's no precedent which makes it common practice. YOU could take the discussion there, since you're the only one who wants to include it and multiple users have deleted it. 98.220.177.162 (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
It's a good, common (as I proved), unprohibited and unharmful practice. When you find a rule that prohibits that I will be the first to remove it (and who's gonna remove it from the Battle of Berlin?). Your problem with that and edit warring (yes, you first removed) is becoming more and more funny. Also, it reminds me of loss minimising and censorship. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I wish I viewed the world through your rose colored glasses. Yeah, I removed it first, you then began an edit war by reinserting rather than discussing here as WP:BRD dictates. "Loss minimizing and censorship" now you're grasping for theories that you clearly know nothing about. It's not minimizing anything by removing something from the infobox that is contained elsewhere in the article...or have you even read that far? You need to get over yourself like I reccomended earlier and learn that sometimes, people are going to remove things that you post. 98.220.177.162 (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course people will remove...if that's without good argumentation like in your case it should be reverted. It's better to have unharmful sourced info than not have it. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


Approximately 130-140 killed Taliban

What is the source of 130-140 Taliban insurgents being killed? I've heard similar numbers from numerous individuals, but the only source I can find says an estimated 35, though it's a bit old. I came here from the Last stand page which said only 2 Taliban insurgents died in this incident, until I updated it to say 35 based on that source. Abeall (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In the book, Luttrell is told by the villagers that 'in the battle' a certain number of TB died. I don't recall the figure though. I suspect the best source of this info is that +/- whatever radio intercepts the US govt has.

I don't have the book anymore to check. But it was a big (100-150) figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.221.24.7 (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the casualty number from the prose text during today's clean-up, better to not have a casualty count than to have a grossly inaccurate one. Let's see if we can find any supporting evidence from reliable sources? Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 00:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I have Luttrell's book and he says that he observed around 100 being killed by his team and then was told by local villagers that another 30 or so were killed by airstrikes around the time of Luttrell's rescue. I don't have the page number handy, but Luttrell's book is a reliable source for the number. If you want to, just put "estimated" with the number and explain why in the footnote. Cla68 (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Photo

Every battle has a photo of dead soldiers if it's available, hell the Holocaust article has some truly disturbing images, can I ask why this is a special circumstance? Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 01:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are two where there are definitely images available of dead combatants, but they are not included in the articles: Battle of Mogadishu (1993) and Battle of Manila (1945). In fact, I looked at 50 random articles in Category:Battles by war, and not one that had images included images of the dead, either military or civilian, from either side of the conflict. I don't edit a lot in the area of miliary history, however, so perhaps it would be good to get opinions from editors in the Military History wikiproject, who will be much more familiar with usual practices in such articles. Risker (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
There was only a single photograph taken during the Battle of Mogadishu, as I understand it, and it did not contain any dead soldiers -- do you know something otherwise about Public Domain images from the battle that newspapers and books do not? Also, see Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy#Images_depicting_death for discussion on the subject. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 02:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Given the fact that there are two images in our own article on the Battle of Mogadishu that were taken during the battle, I think it's pretty obvious that there was more than one image taken. In fact, I recall seeing images of bodies contemporaneous to the battle. I believe you have already gotten your answer at the image use policy: that each image should be discussed specific to its use on each article for which it is proposed, and that no general rule exists. In this case, I do not see that this image adds anything to the article; we have a list of the dead, nobody is suggesting they aren't dead, and having screenshots of the dead bodies of some of the dead doesn't assist in the understanding of the subject in any way. Risker (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Not only is File:Black Hawk Down Rangers under fire October 3, 1993.jpg the only image we have of the battle in that article, but it clearly states that it is the only photograph of the battle. Again, I don't know what tricks you're playing at, but you're factually inaccurate and making false claims. The reason there are no images of bodies from that battle is because there were none. Look at many of the other battles linked in this discussion for evidence we don't refuse to show bodies because it might insult surviving family members. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 09:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I just looked at the actual image and don't see a problem with it. The real problem is whether the source is reliable or not. In my opinion, including the photo in this and related articles is fine, but the image caption needs to say something like, "Photos of what as-Sahab claims to be the bodies of the three dead SEALs from the patrol" or something like that with a footnote giving a longer explanation. Cla68 (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The photo in question is here, by the way. Luttrell, in his books, said that his comrades were shot repeatedly at close range in the face either before or shortly after they died. Cla68 (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
No objection to the pic from me on its own. I think deleting, or preventing, pix of dead risks absence of important information. Can you feature an article on the Holocaust without dead? Or the "Blackhawk Down" story? Or (I haven't looked at it) Bataan Death March? Most of the pages I've looked at are dealing with other issues & there's only so much room (really) for pix without turning the page into a photo gallery. How important is the death to the page? How important is showing it to understanding the issue? Unless it's fairly critical, leave it out. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 07:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you hit on one of the problems here. Right now there isn't much room in the article for more pictures. If this article were greatly expanded, the picture would fit in better and wouldn't look so much like someone was trying to force it in there just to make people look at it. Like I said, I have Luttrell's book but I just don't have time right now to work on explanding this article. Cla68 (talk) 08:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd love to see it expanded, if you wanted to take a week and we can collaborate on it, mixing sources from both Lutrell and the insurgents, hopefully bring it to a neutral middle-ground and add a lot of detail to it. Next week is my last week before Christmas break -- so how about we both (all) spend the next week expanding it as much as possible? I was mostly just worried because I spent ~5 hours fixing the deplorable state of Taliban treatment of women ("forced to wear the burqa" instead of "required to wear the burqa", etc) only to have it all reverted by a bunch of "omg towelhead sympathiser!" article-stalkers. I've got no problem telling the truth, I just prefer to avoid words like "Crusader" or "Terrorist" in an encyclopaedia :P Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 08:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I just don't have time right now. I understand why the collaboration is necessary, because if you just add the Taliban side of this battle, other editors are going strenuously object. Both sides need to be added at the same time. I suggest that you either buy a used copy of Luttrell's book on the Internet, should cost less than $10, or else, if you can only give the Taliban side, try to do it in a way that won't get reverted right away, such as by saying things like, "The Taliban stated...", "The Afghan Taliban fighters claimed...", etc. Within the next couple of months I'll try to come back and add Luttrell's side. Cla68 (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure scanning in a photo from a book (re. Operation Red Wing) and then claiming it to be in the public domain because it was created by a government employee is correct. After all this is a scan or a photo of the work and thus THAT image is not in the public domain but belongs to the authors or owners of that particular image file and they would have to approve the photo or scan to be used in the public domain. So unless it was released by the DoD or the original creator of the work I suggest you remove it as it clearly violated copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.34.105 (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you're referring to the map, not the dead soldiers, right? Just don't want to be confused. Assuming you're referring to the map, the United States does not recognise scanning a 2D work as adding any new copyright - only the original holder is still protected - and thus Luttrell has no copyright on the map - it was made by a US Soldier in commission of his duties. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 13:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes the map, actually my dear the trouble with most people on the internet is that they seem to have a better understanding of the laws than the reality of the real world. Enough of that image has been altered and changed that it is considered to be under the copyright protection of the USA. You are of course more than welcome to find the original yourself and then post it wherever you like if you can find it. If you take a full-on straight photo of the Mona Lisa your picture is not entitled to copyright protection - however if you angle the camera for example of make some changes to the image you capture it is now considered copyright protected. How do you know that picture was not drawn when he was out of the Navy or was re-drawn based on another map? Luttrell is not a soldier but a sailor but that would require knowing the topic a little better. This image is copyrighted by the authors and Marcus Luttrell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.34.105 (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You'll be surprised at my credentials in the matter, but no, the image is not copyrighted by either the authors nor Luttrell. No part of the image has been altered (except a slight cropping by myself, but that doesn't affect copyright), and you can tell it's not a recreation based on its description in the book. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 19:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You dont seem to be too bright as you clearly have no idea regarding copyright. You are one of the reasons wikipedia is being rejected by a growing number of publishers and institutions. Your caption is also wrong for the map. Maybe you should join the military as you have the significant trademarks of a wannabe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.34.105 (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A week ago this very article led to me being called a terrorist-loving hater of freedom, now I'm a military wannabe? Sheesh, things change so fast. I assure you I am correct in regards to both International and American copyright law - if you do not believe me, I encourage you to open a Request for Comment or invite uninvolved administrators (from Commons or WP) to explain the issue to you. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 18:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I retract my wannabe remark - that was personal. I apologize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.34.105 (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I hope this comment does not get rejected as 'general discussion' but as an anti-Taliban Brit Muslim, I'd like to say that I think this is a fair, well written article. Thanks to those of you who have put the time and effort in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.138.98.253 (talk) 10:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Number of militants fighting

Lutrell says he saw his friends kill a hundred Taliban members, while TIME Magazine says there were "as many as" 20 militants fighting them. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 08:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't check, but I assume that the Time report was made before Luttrell's book was published. Here's an excerpt from Luttrell, p. 211, about the numbers:

"I fixed my Mark 12 in firing position, pulled my head back a few inches, and looked up the hill. Lined along the top were between eighty and a hundred heavily armed Taliban warriors."

On page 213 he says, "Every time we cleared that ridge above us, if filled up again. It was as if they had reinforcements somewhere over the ridge." Cla68 (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Useful links to mine for details

note that some details should be put into the servicemen's personal biographies, not this account of the battle Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 09:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Qari Ismail

Removed this line:

Qari Ismail was later stated to have been the one to have shot down the helicopter.[1]

This is the quote:, "It was in Nuristan where the Taliban commander Qari Ismail and his men in June 2006 shot down a US Chinook chopper, killing 16 Americans." Operation Red Wing was in 2005 not 2006. -- Esemono (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:List of Coalition aircraft losses in Afghanistan for that, the Pakistan Tribune got the year wrong, saying 2006 where they meant 2005. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 09:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Which is why I got a better ref -- Esemono (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but now we've lost the name of the militant accused of shooting down the helicopter.Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 23:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
If they can't get the date right, how will they get the name right? -- Esemono (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath and question

I'm not comfortable with the introduction of "was a failed counter-insurgent mission, it seems too US-centric, since the mission was essentially a small team being landed to kidnap or kill a foreign agent. But that obviously sounds biased the other direction -- so I need help coming up with a neutral way to describe it. Also, any chance we could get a photograph of that statue? Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 23:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The Guardians photo from cupertinoveteransmemorial.org but you'd have to ask for copyrights and such. -- Esemono (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll eMail Cupertino asking for a Creative Commons release, thanks Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 04:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Counter-insurgent strikes me as an accurate description of this mission. The mission was to observe or kill a prominent figure in the Taliban, which is fighting the recognized government of Afghanistan. 31 December 2008

NPOV

Just one glance at this article and I can tell the American who wrote this wants to perpetuate the "US Pyrrhic Victory" mantra rather than objectively calling this operation for what it is; a failure. This is one of the worst, least objective articles that I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Unfortunately when one attempts to remedy this, the same author keeps reverting back to the biased POV that it is at present. The article is filled with too much information which gives me the impression that some American is deliberately trying to spin this operation as some kind of success, when if you look at it objectively it wasn't. This article needs massive simplification and objectivity. 143.238.64.121 (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

If you give specific examples of lines or sections that are biased, and a short explanation of why they're biased, then things might be correctable. General complaints seem unlikely to go anywhere. Artificialintel (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Arguing about Pyrrhic victory or defeat is subjective and ultimately unproductive. I removed this POV analysis and left the objective results (US casualties, temporary withdrawal of Shah's group) that are indisputable. We may interpret these facts differently but there is little dispute about what actually happened, AFAIK. I took down the POV dispute sign that presumably pertains to this. Please correct me if I am wrong. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Our personal POVs of the situation are not taken into account by Wikipedia. What we do we edit per what the sources say. And the sources at hand termed it as a Temporary U.S. Pyrrhic victory and long-term insurgent victory. MikeyTMNT (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
How relevant is it to the article that we know each soldier's age and hometown. Its just not necessary, how many other articles on military operations even list the names of those killed, let alone their ranks ages and birthplaces. This is a Wikipedia article not a memorial to the fallen of only one side. Wozrop (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Discrepancies should be mentioned?

In the Army Times article about the surviving SEAL, Luttrell (Reference no. 6) it is mentioned in the section entitled ‘I would have killed them’ that Murphy's father claims that Luttrell told him a different story about the decision whether or not to kill the goatherds. He is quoted as saying Luttrell told him that Murphy made a firm decision as commanding officer to let the men go, and did not put it to a vote. It's also mentioned by Lt Ruh that such a vote was unheard of, in his experience. Since the only source we have for the moment of decision is Luttrell's account, shouldn't it be mentioned that that account has been called into question?

I'm aware this is a sensitive article from a glance at the archives, and I am not wishing to impugn Luttrell or anyone else. Because of this, and since I'm not a 'real' (ie, named) Wikipedian, I thought I'd bring it up here, rather than edit the article. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.234.50 (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

agreed joepaT 03:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

as-Sahab

Several items in the article are attributed to as-Sahab - a media outlet of an extremist group. According to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Extremist_and_fringe_sources extremist sources should not be used in articles that are not about the extremists themselves. Shouldn't these items attributed to as Sahab then be removed in following with that guideline? SJSA 09:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

as a media outlet of an extremist group, as-Sahab has been surprisingly honest in their accounts. If/When they contradict more 'official' sources and inquiries, then the official version of events is given (if possible, with a "as-Sahab disputed the claim, suggesting..."), but where there is no contradiction and the stories mesh together, there is no reason to remove half an account. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 14:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The standard would seem to be verifiability not truth. SJSA 11:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Another user is now attempting to remove these videos. I can't say I disagree with him, as these particular videos show no explicit links to this particular operation and are from an inherently untrustworthy source. SJSA 05:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Three Dead Navy SEALs in Operation Redwing.PNG

Removing "Three_Dead_Navy_SEALs_in_Operation_Redwing.PNG", it has been deleted from Commons by Bastique because: Request by family members to remove. Do not restore. -- 16:13, 12 February 2009

File background[2]:

  • 16:02, 12 February 2009 Bastique deleted "File:Three Dead Navy SEALs in Operation Redwing.PNG" ‎ (Request by family members to remove. Do not restore)
  • 18:57, 5 February 2009 Abigor restored "File:Three Dead Navy SEALs in Operation Redwing.PNG" ‎ (10 revisions and 1 file restored: You cannot identify the people on the votes. and there are in scope)
  • 00:30, 10 January 2009 Yann deleted "File:Three Dead Navy SEALs in Operation Redwing.PNG" ‎ (as per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people: unreasonably intrude into the subject's private or family life)
  • 08:53, 11 December 2008 Yann restored "File:Three Dead Navy SEALs in Operation Redwing.PNG" ‎ (2 revisions and 1 file restored: "Out of project scope" is not a valid reason to delete this file)
  • 23:31, 10 December 2008 Maxim deleted "File:Three Dead Navy SEALs in Operation Redwing.PNG" ‎ (Out of project scope: adds nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject)

Videos

Hacketta seems to object to the videos presence because, "Having supported the operation to search and resuce [sic] these men, I have removed the video. Furthermore, I was at Asadbad PRT [Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) Asadabad????] and we removed each of these videos as they came up for sale or found them." Sherurcij has since reverted the video erasure. So just to clear up any misunderstanding Hacketta what is your objection to the videos? Do you claim that they are fraudulent? Do you claim you purchased all copies thus own the copyright? Please respond -- Esemono (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

unnecesary videos

i removed the videos simply because they add nothing to the article and fall more along the lines of propaganda than reliable info.(how terrorist video of terrorist examining stolen items adds anything to the article beats me.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.206.123.207 (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If they were Fox News videos of the United States examining hard drives seized from militant forces, nobody would suggest this. I'm reinstating the videos as their removal is pure POV. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 19:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
no, there is no pov in deleting the aforementioned videos. just look at them, they make the article look like slop and add absolutely nothing to the article. in fact, the videos themselves are highly pov. my motives arent political or ideological, im just trying to clean up the article..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.206.123.207 (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
What do they say that is POV? Can you explain this a bit further? Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 21:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
what makes them pov is the fact that they were made for propaganda purposes by terrorist and have no real informational value. besides that, the videos add nothing to the article and make it look sloppy which is warrant enough for removal.68.206.123.207 (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
alright how about a compromise. the recent addition of the plaque picture was a good improvement in terms of pictures ,but needs to be shrunk just a little bit to fit better in my opinion. about the videos anyway, i think that 1 (one) video kept would be alright.(maybe put it in a material losses section???)68.206.123.207 (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

just delete the videos already...

lets get right to the point. the videos add absolutely nothing to the article, make it look sloppy, and come from unverifiable sources. ther is absolutely no pov in removing the videos,on the contrary keeping the videos indicates pov. perhaps replacing them with some decent pictures that add to the article(not the aforementioned dead body pics) would be nice. and if none can be found, we should just keep the picture of the seals and the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.206.123.207 (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If they were Fox News videos of the United States examining hard drives seized from militant forces, nobody would suggest this. I'm reinstating the videos as their removal is pure POV. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 00:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
You're honestly comparing an obvious terrorist propaganda video (by "terrorist" I mean actual people deserving of the word, not some freedom-fighting group protecting their homeland) to Fox News? You, sir, should not be commenting on, or editing, Wikipedia articles. Perhaps it would do you some good to look up some of the things that Shah and men like him are doing in Afghanistan - it's quite obvious that they're hell bent on keeping their country in ruins regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the Americans being in Afghanistan. Part of the reason Luttrell was given shelter was because the local tribesmen understood this in a sense, and risked their lives accordingly. Fox News is less propaganda driven than Al Jazeera, which is probably the only reputable Arabic news outlet; and here you're comparing Fox News to a terrorist organization. By the way - going on articles and attempting to "level the playing field" by adding to articles that are negative towards Christianity (your edits to Christian Terrorism, Polygamy in Christianty, etc.) and other "Western" ideologies really betrays your function here. People shouldn't be editing on Wikipedia because they have an axe to grind but because they have unbiased, well researched, knowledge to impart. It's not a place to "slant" things towards an ideology. 24.187.189.69 (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Firefight section

I'm removing the citation from the statement, "Unable to verify any hostile intent from the herders..": West, Diane (August 17, 2007). "Death by rules of engagement"

This article is an op/ed piece and as such should not be used as a source for a factual statement. The article does quote from Lutrell's book, but the citation should source the book directly rather than point to an article which is self-identified as opinion. If anyone objects to this, I suggest they cite the relevant text from Lutrell's book in this section and create another section for "Controversies Arising from Operation Redwing". 65.30.180.228 (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've had this article on my watchlist for several months now since the edit war took place over the photos of the dead SEALs. I observed the recent edit war over the Taliban videos without intervening, because, in my opinion, the article is neutrally written. The Taliban propaganda videos do look a little out of place, but I don't think it's a big deal. They probably should be labeled something along the lines of, "Taliban video of captured US equipment being examined" or something along those lines to put the source in perspective. Otherwise, I don't think there are major issues with this article at this time. Cla68 (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

We should add info from Victory Point

This article relies too much on the Luttrell (Patrick Robinson, the ghostwriter) book, which concentrates on his battle and flight, but doesn't really cover the mission well or the after action learnings. Leatherneck Magazine reviewed a new book, Victory Point, which presents a much more comprehensive view of the overall operation:

http://www.mca-marines.org/leatherneck/bookreview/victory-point-operations-red-wings-and-whalers-marine-corps%E2%80%99-battle-freedom-

Agreed. Especially as regards the size of force that ambushed the SEALs. Luttrell's initial after-action report indicates a force of '20-35' fighters, while the initial intelligence assessment specifies 'up to 20' fighters. Other, later intelligence assessments indicate an initial force of 8-10 men, with one or more PK machine guns, one or more RPGs, numerous AK-47s, and two video cameras. The information is in the book 'Victory Point', some of which is summarized on the website www.victorypoint.info. I remember Luttrell's Navy Cross citation also states they were were ambushed by about 20 men, but I can't seem to find my source for that part.

Waceaquinas (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I could not agree more. Marcus Luttrell is glorified by most people and the fact that he lied to profit off of the death of brave men should be noted publicly. There are numerous credible sources that have evidence to suggest the ambush team was no larger than 20 men and yet the fan boys delete anything with reference to less than 50. I have lost count of the amount of times factual information about Luttrell, his book, and Op redwings that has been deleted by people who wish to see Luttrell praised a hero instead of the war profittier he has become. This is why the entire Navy SEAL and speacial forces community have publicly shunned him and he is no longer welcome amongst there cirlces SteveJanes704 (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not go with the initial after action report of 20-35 fighters? 50+ is obviously unrealistic as no intelligence suggests such a thing, however I feel 8-10 is unrealistic as well. I understand the idea is there was overwhelming firepower, but these are guys that are trained for over 2 years before being sent into combat. I'm having trouble believing 8-10 third world insurgents could kill three Navy SEALs and severely injure another.

Also, regarding SteveJane704's comments, the guy may have exaggerated and the book may contain a few other inaccuracies, but he wrote it to honor those brave men who died. The implication that his intention was to "profit off the death of brave men" is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.255.2 (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The guy changed his story and lied to everyone, and is now making a movie about it starring Marky Mark, and you don't think he lied for profit????? WAKE UP MAN21:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.66.191.164 (talk)

No. I don't think he lied for profit. He's actually a respected individual in the special operations community, contrary to what SteveJane704 suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.255.2 (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that making accurate observations is almost impossible by those participating in combat, and this has been he case at least since Ancient Greece. Being gravely mistaken and deliberately lying are two very different things indeed. /BP 78.70.77.35 (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Entirely too much credence is being paid to Ed Darack's work. It should be mentioned, yes, but entirely too many people are pretending that it is the last word on the operation and that any information different from what is contained in Victory Point must be wrong. 74.134.160.246 (talk) 08:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Moving the Page... Annnd then BACK Again (Doh!) :(

I'm 'moving the page' (renaming the article) to bring it in line with the accepted/official title of the operation. --Chachap (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Uhmmm, sorry. I pooched the hell out of that 'page move'. I read down though the 'history', after the fact, that the accurate name of the operation is "Red Wings", (for the Detroit Red Wings hockey team; reference history at 21 June 2010). I had taken my action based on the published subtitle of the Marcus Luttrell book, 'Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10', which apparently is NOT accurate; had also checked here on the 'Discuss' page, but found nothing to the contrary. I apologize for the error, and hope that this caused little inconvenience for other users -- Changes have been REVERTED.

--Chachap (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Your reference is to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Red_Wings&diff=prev&oldid=369429334
revision 369429334 167.7.127.186 (talk) Edit summary: In the book Victory Point, author Ed Darack describes the fact that this operation--named after the Detroit Red Wings--has been variously misnamed by the popular media.
I find it unlikely that Luttrell, the only surviving SEAL in the operation, would let that slip for two republishings of his book in paperback. I think we should use the most commonly used name (I believe that would be Redwing) until the official name is better corroborated. To start off, it would be nice to have the relevant text from Ed Darack's Victory Point on this talk page. --Anthonzi (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The operation was planned by the 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment. The operation consisted of elements from a number of services, including Navy SEALs. The Marines planned the overall operation (the SEALs planed their part of it), and they named it. Naming information is found on Author Ed Darack's site for Victory Point here:
http://www.darack.com/sawtalosar/
(scroll down to where it says "THE NAME")
There is a scan of a list of hockey team names from which Red Wings was chosen, found here-
http://www.darack.com/sawtalosar/seiffert-list.php
A book published by the Naval Institute Press, Seal of Honor, published after Victory Point, also uses the correct operation name, Operation Red Wings.

It is likely that this detail was lost during the interviews that Luttrell did with Patrick Robinson. Patrick Robinson wrote Lone Survivor, based on his interviews with Luttrell.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.31.34.10 (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It's Op. "RED WINGS" not Redwing(s)

Ed Darack's book 'Victory Point: Operations Red Wings and Whalers - the Marine Corps' Battle for Freedom in Afghanistan' (2009) explains that the operation's name was "Red Wings" and not "Redwing." Red Wings was named after the Detroit Red Wings hockey team. The battalion that named it, the 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, followed its sister battalion (3rd Battalion of the 3rd Marine Regiment), which preceded them in their Afghan Deployment, in naming operations after sports teams. The original operation (called "Stars") was to be carried out by the 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines. One of the assistant operations officers was tasked by the battalion's primary operations officer to create a list of hockey team names to be chosen from. All of this is documented, and a scan of the list is available on Victory Point's web site. A subsequent book (came out after Lone Survivor and Victory Point), published by the U.S. Naval Institute, uses the correct name as well, Red Wings. The confusion in this likely came from Lone Survivor not being written by Marcus Luttrell, but by Patrick Robinson.

"Capture or kill"

The article repeats the claim from Lone Survivor that the 4-man SEAL element were on a mission to "capture or kill" a taliban leader. One of the many problems with this is that the Navy says they were on a reconnaissance mission. This is also supported by Ed Darack's Victory Point. During the Vietnam War, SEALs executed hundreds of "snatch and grab" operations, capturing VC personnel for interrogation, in squads or platoons, never to my knowledge in 4-man teams. 4-man teams did recces. I don't think that has changed. K380 (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

If the sources differ, then it's fine to say both, as in, "The Navy says the team was on a recon mission, but Marcus Luttrell in his book says they were to capture or kill the Taliban leader." or something like that. Cla68 (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC
How is it fine to say both? K380 is exactly correct in that it was a reconnaissance mission that they were on. If you read the book he cites, Victory Point, you see that during the initial portion of the operation, the four were to watch and positively identify Shah and his men. During subsequent phases they would possibly augment a much larger force of SEALs who were to, with a company of U.S. Marines, surround the compound and either capture or kill Shah and his men. However, they were there to surveil and report back, not to kill or capture. Lone Survivor, from which most of this Wikipedia article was taken, was written not by Marcus Luttrell, but by Patrick Robinson. There are numerous exaggerations and quite a bit left out. The U.S. Military never sends a team so small for a kill/capture. This only happens in Hollywood or in video games.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/books/09seal.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patrick-robinson/emlone-survivorem-the-sto_b_444843.html

(the name of the operation used in Lone Survivor, "Redwing" is not even correct).

I get a laugh every time I see someone claiming that Redwing or Red Wing is not the correct name of the mission. Newsflash: THE NAVY ITSELF CALLS IT REDWING, NOT RED WINGS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.118 (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It was a Marine Corps mission not a Navy mission, the correct name is Red Wings. Preceded by Operation Oilers and followed by Operation Whalers, all hockey teams. Whalers was the last operation named after a hockey team because it was decided the missions would begin having Afghan names from theat point on.

http://www.marcusluttrell.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=96&Itemid=219

It says on Luttrell's website that they (SEAL element) were to gather intelligence with op RW. I guess that pretty much confirms it beyond doubt, "kill or capture" has to have been something the ghostwriter made up. K380 (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I just finished reading Lone Survivor and it was very clear to me that it was a recon mission. I have no idea what you guys read, I don't even remember any part of the book where it was unclear. The book says it was a recon mission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorFriend (talk • contribs) 15:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

And here we go with more nonsensical claims about how Ed Darack is the one, and only, unimpeachable source that is absolutely right on every single aspect of this mission, even if his information completely conflicts with that of the man who actually survived the damn thing. The deference being paid Darack is completely ludicrous. In the film "Lone Survivor", the SEALs even take a veiled shot at him by scoffing at the claim there are only ten Taliban warriors in the village under surveillance. Such a rejoinder is perhaps necessary to deflate the insane notion that every single piece of information on this op somehow has to be checked against Darack's book to be considered factual. Ed Darack is one source among many. Simply stating that "well [X] isn't true because Victory Point claims otherwise" is absolutely preposterous, but not nearly as preposterous as people on the Wikipedia talk page pretending they have definitive knowledge as to how Navy SEALs operate.74.134.145.218 (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Page numbers needed

For verifiability, page numbers to books, such as Victory Point, should be provided for the statements they support. If anyone has questions about how to do this you can ask on my talk page. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Number of Local Fighters

We all know there is much controversy surrounding how many pro-Taliban fighters the SEALs faced, and we have an edit war going on still. Claims range from 8 to 100 and the fact that the lowest estimate is 8 to 10 does not mean that only that specific estimate should be plainly stated on the article. I'm not an experienced editor at all, but is there not a policy for this sort of issue? Can we not put "8 to 100 fighters (disputed)" or, like some articles of larger wars, list the multiple estimates and their sources? In any case, maybe this article should be semi-protected. Leave your personal feelings or opinions about Luttrell out of this. Dietcoketm (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Dubious content

I happened to see this diff, and noticed that the wording "no more than 8-10 heavily armed enemy fighters" seemed clumsy. Looking to check the cited sources, I discovered that one is not previewable and the other is a dead link. Some googling led me to this Summary of Action related to the MOH citation for Lt. Murphy. That report says, "A fierce firefight erupted between the four SEALs and a much larger enemy force of more than 50 anti-coalition militia." Looking at the article history, I see that this edit changed the numbering from "roughly 150-200" to "no more than 8-10". I've added a {{dubious}} tag to the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and tagged this for NPOV until this can be hashed out. There appears to be an over reliance on the Darack source without mentioning that the actual number is disputed. We should at least include the range of opinions. SeaphotoTalk 18:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

In Luttrell's own official after-action report filed with his superiors after his rescue, he estimated the size of the Taliban force to be around 20–35. Initial intel estimates estimated approximately 10 to 20. Official media reports from the military estimated the size of the Taliban force to be around 20 as well, while in the Medal of Honor citation for LT Michael P. Murphy, the Navy cited 30–40 enemies. http://www.navy.mil/moh/mpmurphy/oc.html In the Summary of Action related to the same MOH, the Navy cites an "enemy force of more than 50 anti-coalition militia". http://www.navy.mil/moh/mpmurphy/soa.html In his book, Victory Point: Operations Red Wings and Whalers – the Marine Corps' Battle for Freedom in Afghanistan, military journalist Ed Darack cites a military intelligence report stating the strength of the Taliban force to be 8–10, compared to the more than 200 claimed by Patrick Robinson in Lone Survivor. The military intelligence estimate cited by Darack is based on research sourced from intelligence reports, including aerial and eye-witness studies of the battlefield after the fact, including the men sent in to rescue Luttrell, as well as HUMINT from Afghan intelligence.

This part is un-deniable: Among Shah's group were two men who each carried, in addition to a weapon, a video camera. Two videos of the ambush were made--one that was used as a propaganda video, showing footage of the ambush and then the weapons and gear pillaged from the SEALs, and another that was never released, or at least not broadly released (not on the internet, at least that I know of). I was able to get the second video; both were authenticated by the military--even without that nod, their authenticity is obvious. Number of men under his command represents the "currency" of the insurgent or terrorist--the more fighters, the "wealthier" the commander, especially if evidence of these numbers are distributed on the internet and other media. Osama bin Laden was known to hire 'extras' for videos produced of him milling about to project that he maintained direct control over a much larger personal force than he actually did. While none of the fighters on Shah's videos were ever considered 'extras'--it was an actual ambush--the highest number of men that can be counted at any one time (including videographers) is six. There was a reason Ahmad Shah had not one, but two videographers with him, and that reason was to show his "wealth" as a terrorist, to ensure that all in his team were documented doing what they did. But even without the videos, the military established the number at 8 to 10--based on analysis of a type of signals intelligence gathering during and immediately after the ambush, as well as human intelligence gathered in Pakistan. I don't discuss in detail this intel, because it is sensitive (the way the signals intelligence was gathered), and also, with regard to the human intelligence gathered in Pakistan, the collections involved special operations units. The number in Shah's group seems to be a big issue with some individuals. I think that the narrative of a four-man Navy SEAL team being deployed to take on a group of hundreds under the leadership of the right-hand man of the world's most wanted individual has all the makings of an edge-of-your-seat military action thriller. But it doesn't happen in reality. And it certainly wasn't the case in Red Wings. http://www.darack.com/sawtalosar96.54.181.40 (talk) 23:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is a copy of the video. [blacklisted link->liveleak(dot)com/view?i=c62091316c] At no time do I see anywhere near 100 fighters? Anyone who further disputes the obvious fact that a 4 man SEAL team was engaged by a small 8-10 man unit armed with heavy weapons (PKM, And RPG's) from high ground, and very unsurprisingly, quickly overwhelmed, is letting their emotions get in the way of fact's. No matter how good any Tier 1 group is, if you get ambushed and pinned down by a superior force, with superior weapons, from a superior position, your fucked. Just like these guys were. 96.54.181.40 (talk) 23:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that the references do not all agree with another, it is best to give the range estimates, in my humble opinion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As I pointed out on another talk page, almost all of the comment above the one written by RightCowLeftCoast has been plagiarized. There are multiple references concerning the number of fighters that do not agree with each other. Thus acting as if the word of Ed Darack is the gospel truth on the matter is wholly inappropriate. The Navy has its numbers and Darack has his numbers. This matter is disputed, yet various individuals persist in pretending that everything Ed Darack says has been verified as the truth and Luttrell has been proven a liar. That is simply not the case. Matter of factly calling a section "Erroneous and Exaggerated Information" as if the matter is settled and beyond dispute and Luttrell has been judged wrong is, again, inappropriate. This is doubly true when discussing the case of the vote that was supposedly held to determine whether to execute the goatherds that stumbled upon the SEAL's position. That matter has nothing to do with the number of enemy troops encountered, thus there is no way its truthfulness can be judged by looking at videos, topographical maps, satellite photos etc. The only person who knows exactly what happened is Luttrell, and he says a vote was taken. Obviously the controversy should be discussed, but placing it in a section that is partially titled "Erroneous information" means that the author is judging Luttrell to be a liar when there is simply no way such a judgment can be fairly made. Aside from these fundamental issues of truth, the criticism section has multiple reference problems as well. The most obvious problem, and this can be found in the entry for Lone Survivoralso, is the fact that someone is taking information from one source, Ed Darack's book, and pretending that it is more than one source by citing various websites that mention that particular book. I suspect this is being done to give the impression that there is an overwhelming critical consensus regarding the veracity of Luttrell's claims, when in fact the questions are coming almost entirely from one person, Ed Darack. So, for instance, we have the spectacle of Ed Darack's book, Ed Darack's website(which does nothing more than detail the information in his book)an article written by Ed Darack(which is based upon the information in his book)and reviews of Ed Darack's book by other individuals all being given as sources for a particular piece of information. The author of this entry is pretending that multiple sources that all derive their information from THE SAME EXACT SOURCE can somehow corroborate each other. You can't use a website, run by Darack, that is little more than words excerpted from Ed Darack's book to corroborate Ed Darack's book, nor can you use a blog that is, admittedly, based upon the work of Ed Darack to verify the veracity of Ed Darack's claims. It is quite simply amazing that someone actually believes that such a tactic is acceptable in an encyclopedia. "Ed Darack must be right" Why? "Because Ed Darack says so". It is simply amazing that this is being allowed. And if you doubt me, you can see this type of dishonest reference-padding in the very first sentence of this entry. There are five sources provided to support the statement that Operation Red Wing is the incorrect name of the operation in question. The first three sources are all from Ed Darack and ARE ALL based upon information that is found in Ed Darack's book. The last two sources are blogs(a category of source that shouldn't be used in the first place) that get their information directly from, yes, that's right, Ed Darack's book. This type of blatantly dishonest reference padding is contained within this entry, the entry for Luttrell himself(or at least it was until I deleted it) and the entry for Luttrell's book Lone Survivor. INFORMATION TAKEN FROM ED DARACK'S BOOK IS ONE SOURCE, NOT FIVE. 74.134.160.246 (talk) 08:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Before I begin my comment proper concerning the dispute surrounding the number of men involved in the ambush of the SEALs, I would like to note that the video to which I link in my comment does contain graphic, close-up footage of the dead bodies of Danny Dietz, Michael Murphy and Matthew Axelson. If that bothers you, you definitely don't want to watch more than the first thirty seconds of that video. I followed this link, [blacklisted link->liveleak(dot)com/view?i=c62091316c], previously provided in an above comment, and I must say, after watching it, that any claims it is possible to count the number of men who participated in the actual ambush is, in a word, bullshit(excuse my language). Furthermore, the above commenter claims the "US military" has asserted only 8-10 men were present, as if the US Navy has never stated, on multiple occasions, that there were 35-40 men present. The video is a little over 30 minutes long, and a grand total of thirty seconds, THIRTY SECONDS, is devoted to the actual firefight involving the original four-man SEAL team. During that time, it is literally impossible to count anyone(except the person holding the camera)because the camera is being jostled so violently that one sees almost exclusively the tops of trees. Anyone claiming he can count a discreet number of fighters in that video, while the firefight is occurring, is, for lack of a better word, a liar. As mentioned by the above commenter, there is a portion, approximately a second long, in which one can count perhaps four men, not counting the cameraman, walking up a slope. Trying to use that one frame as your indisputable evidence(while at the same time using it to smear other commenters as blinded by emotion) there were only 8-10 Taliban fighters is, frankly, hilarious. Cockily asserting that such footage makes it "obvious" the SEALs were ambushed by a small 8-10 man unit is patently absurd, and that is probably being way too charitable. Moreover, when discussing the number of men on the video, the above commenter, who seems to either be Ed Darack or someone who is extensively plagiarizing him, fails entirely to take into account the number of men that may have been killed by the SEALs. Obviously a propaganda video produced by the Taliban is not going to show dead Taliban fighters. Other than the very poorly filmed firefight "footage", the video contains graphic shots(you've been warned) of the dead bodies of Danny Dietz(who can be identified by his abdominal tattoos), Michael Murphy(who is easily identifiable by the FDNY patch he wore on his uniform) and Matthew Axelson. The footage of the Taliban fighters examining the bodies consists of more of the same horrible camera work; one rarely sees more than an arm or a foot of the fighters while they are examining the corpses. Again, to claim this video can be used to make accurate counts of the number of Taliban present is unreasonable in the extreme. While the corpses are being examined, you never see more than the area immediately around the fallen SEALs. Evidently the above commenter would have us believe it is standard practice to have everyone cram into the frame so that an accurate count can be made. The same can be said of the footage of a few men sitting in a hut examining the equipment that has been taken off the SEALs(including Danny Dietz's Navy ID). Why is the above commenter so quick to assume that the number of people sitting in a very small hut is necessarily the same amount of people who participated in the ambush? The remaining 2/3s of the video has absolutely nothing to do with Operation Red Wings whatsoever. If you can stomach the sight of dead sailors, you may want to watch the video for yourself. In my estimation, the bold assertion that one can definitively state not only the number, but the weapons and tactics(how tactics can be discerned by looking at shaky footage of treetops and feet is anyone's guess) used by the Taliban, simply by watching the linked video, and its incredibly horrendous camera-work, is such total fucking nonsense that it should be called out for the complete and utter pack of lies and wild speculation that it is. I will close by noting that Michael Murphy's father has called Ed Darack a liar who has smeared the SEALs of Operation Red Wings in order to make the Marines look good by comparison. 74.134.145.218 (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

No Source that indicated 8-10 fighters

There is no reliable source that list 70-100 enemy fighters, and the sources listed beside those figures reference Ed Darack's info and this info clearly contradicts the 70-100 figure. How can this statement "70-100" be included beside a source that says otherwise???96.54.181.40 (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the 70-100 should be taken out for the reasons you listed, but I think it's worth including several possibilities for the number of Taliban fighters as. However logical Darack's argument is, it's still an educated guess. For the sake of providing information, Luttrell's AAR numbers could be included as well as Michael Murphy's official MOH citation. The former claims it was 20-35 fighters, the latter claims it was 30-40 fighters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.255.2 (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

For the love of God, can we please quit pretending that everything contained within the entries on Luttrell, Lone Survivor and Operation Red Wings has to be vetted by Ed Darack? I have yet to see any persuasive argument as to why Ed Darack should be considered the gospel truth on this matter, which is how some people, particularly those smearing Luttrell, are treating his work. Darack's work should not be given such unequal weight and the notion that because something is different than "Ed Darack's info" it therefore must be wrong is total horseshit.74.134.160.246 (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

There's no source that indicates 8-10 fighters. Any initial intelligence estimate is just that, an estimate, and has no direct bearing on the numbers that actually participated in the ambush. Estimating based on what is in frame in various random pictures or videos is non-authoritative to say the least, only depicting what is in frame and only at the moment or moments shown. Ed Darack's 'Afghan Math' is based ENTIRELY on conflation and conjecture (see http://www.darack.com/sawtalosar/ where he directly describes his own fallacious analysis). Therefore, the number '8-10' should be removed from this article and I will do so unless a reliable, primary, non-speculative source is provided by the claimants.64.102.249.13 (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Section needs to be retitled immediately

Currently, an entire section of the horrendously written and poorly sourced criticism contained within this entry is entitled "Erroneous and Exaggerated Information". Such a title is wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The number of fighters present is hotly disputed and there is simply no way the controversy over whether the supposed vote occurred is ever going to be resolved unless Luttrell takes the unlikely action of changing the story he has been sticking with for the better part of a decade. Therefore a section title that clearly and unabashedly states that Luttrell's information is either wrong or exaggerated involves a judgment that an unbiased encyclopedia simply has no business making. If one reads the comments on the talk page, one will be able to tell immediately that the person who wrote(poorly)that criticism section has no problem calling Luttrell a "liar" and a "war profiteer". That bias has clearly bled over into the entry, and it needs to be fixed, immediately. Personally, the comments regarding Luttrell that are present on these talk pages(and the Marcus Luttrell and Lone Survivor talk pages) are probably the most biased I have seen on Wikipedia and some of them border on defamatory.74.134.160.246 (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

This page has the longest section titles I have ever seen on Wikipedia. They should probably all be shortened, or perhaps the sections split up more so the title is just "XYZ" instead of "XYZ' and 'ABC". The particular section IP 74 .134 mentions here could be re-titled to "Controversy" or "Enemy numbers controversy". 220 of Borg 12:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Navy Ratings

At the time of the operation, 2005, SEALs still maintained the original occupational ratings (ie: hospital man HM, quartermaster QM, gunner's mate GM, etc.). But in 2006, the navy created the Special Warfare Operator (SO) and Special Warfare Boat Operator (SB) ratings, as an established occupation to pursue, and SEALs and SWCCs no longer maintained their original rating. The new rating was applied retroactively to all current and former NSW members by 2007. Many sources supporting this and related articles are from 2006 and hence, SEALs are referred to in those articles by their former ratings. This is now incorrect and needs to be adjusted. See United_States_Navy_SEALs#Special_Warfare_Ratings. - thewolfchild 23:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

As Dietz died before this occurred, it would seem odd to retroactively change his rating. During his service, the Navy used the old rating system. An encyclopedia should therefore use that system rather than changing it. Changing Dietz's rating would be somewhat similar to changing the entry on Commodore Perry, for instance, because the Navy no longer has such a rank. During his lifetime, Dietz never had a Special Operator rating, and thus an encyclopedia should not refer to him in such a manner.74.134.160.246 (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Aftermath, and repercussions

This entire section is heavily biased in favor of Shah and what he gained, his propaganda videos, and losses suffered to the U.S. It mentions Whalers, but makes no mention of its overwhelming success, including the devastation of Shah's cell, their retreat, or the September election that Shah failed to prevent. Instead, in a thoroughly transparent non sequitur, it mentions PTSD in relation to Whalers, presumably the only negative the biased author could come up with.

I will update this section if no one can logically argue why it should remain as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzeaux (talk • contribs) 06:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Result Section is False and must be updated

This section needs to be re-written. The description of a 'Temporary U.S. Pyrrhic Victory' is nonsensical and unsubstantiated. The description of a 'Long-term insurgent victory' is fantastical and completely unfounded as Shah's forces were eliminated less than 6 weeks later (See: Operation Whalers), and which belies the notion of 'long-term'.

Moreover, 2/4 citations for this claim are link-dead, and the other 2 are Ed Darack, who alone cannot be considered a primary or authoritative source for these conclusions.

Lastly, while numerous sources agree that Operation Red Wings was compromised and the SR team was neutralized by the terrorists, they unambiguously confirm that intelligence gained from it directly augmented subsequent Coalition ops. They also confirm that insurgent tactics changed as a direct result of contact with the SR team, and that change ultimately benefited the Coalition.

If anything, Red Wings is a temporary, 'Pyrrhic' victory for the insurgents (who suffered untold losses, the definition of 'Pyrrhic') but an obvious strategic defeat.

I will update this section unless someone can reasonably argue otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzeaux (talk • contribs) 14:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. JOttawa16 (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Correct Ammount Of Soldiers (USA)

So, It really annoys me that everyone thinks 4 survivors took on (What we think) to be 100's of enemy froces, when in reality in Operation Red Wings there at least around 6, if im correct, if Im wrong can someone quote the information for me? I cant find it. TheAsianGamerHD (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect geography

In the section "Afghans who aided Luttrell", the geography of the ridge and adjacent valleys is incorrect. The Korengal is to the WEST of Sawtalo Sar and Shuryek is to the EAST. Chichal is also in the Korengal at the high end of the east slope of that valley. The article appears to correct this discrepancy in the sentence which follows but the initial description of the area is incorrect. MGRS map can be provided, if needed, to validate this correction.

Also, the supposition that the Korengal would have been universally hostile to Luttrell is almost definitely correct. The following year, during my tour in the Korengal, the local population was almost universally hostile and aggressive. For more first hand account information from that area in 2006, see the Afghan War series by James F. Christ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B129:B105:DCF4:C3AF:AFA0:AAD2 (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2014

Please expand the section "Afghans who aided Luttrell". I would even suggest renaming it to "Gulab and the Afghans who aided Luttrell".

When Gulab took Luttrell into his home, they tended to his wounds, gave him new clothes, and fed him. When Ahmed Shah found out Gulab was harboring Luttrell, he offered Luttrell $80,000 and a house in Pakistan in exchange for Luttrell. When Gulab refused, the Taliban made death threats to him and his family. Gulab moved Luttrell to a hiding place in the woods and prepared for a Taliban attack which never came.

In response to continual death threats by the Taliban, Gulab moved with his family to Asadabad. The Taliban burned down Gulab's village home and his lumber business, and killed one of his cousins (source: http://lastbesthope.sayanythingblog.com/2014/01/13/lone-survivor-a-movie-with-a-different-kinda-hero-meet-mohammad-gulab/)

Since then, Luttrell has arranged for Gulab to visit him in the US. The two men have become close friends and Gulab occasionally flies from Afghanistan to Luttrell's family’s ranch in Texas to visit.

Sources: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-an-afghan-and-a-navy-seal-became-brothers/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-an-afghan-and-a-navy-seal-became-brothers/ http://geekstumbles.com/funny/uber-humor/former-navy-seal-marcus-luttrell-with-his-friend-mohammad-gulab-the-pashtun-village-chief-that-saved-him-from-the-taliban/

As of Nov 2013, Gulab is living in California with his wife and 10 kids, assisted by Luttrell and the publishers/producer of the books/movie Lone Survivor. Luttrell is also trying to help Gulab and his family get green cards on basis of political asylum. (source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/08/the-afghan-village-that-saved-navy-seal-marcus-luttrell.html)

Sharthap (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. These requests work best if you can give the actual wikitext that you want added to the article. Since this has been sitting around for almost a month now, I'm guessing that the many editors that police these requests are unsure, as I am, what exactly you want. A "please change X to Y" in the form of "please add <pre>This wikitext</pre> starting on line ## and here are my independent reliable sources" then we can probably get what you want added pretty quickly. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 16:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Combatants

The article tells that only 12 SEALs participate , what about the crew of the second MH47 ? I mean the SEALs aboard and what about the two Blackhawks ? Won't they also carried other SEALs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.239.46.2 (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

At least 23 SEALs participated in the mission — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.239.46.2 (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

MH47 crew

Why there were eight aircrews aboard ? The standard crew is five ( pilot , co- pilot , two door gunners and a crew chief ) , for what there were additional three crew members ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.239.46.2 (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

M4A1

The article mentions that Shah men took three M4s , while as I understood the team carried two M4s and two MK12s snipers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.239.46.2 (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Successful?

In what way was the "goal of the operation [was] partially achieved"? It seems to have been little short of an unmitigated disaster.Royalcourtier (talk)! — Preceding undated comment added 06:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right. It was a disaster. I changed the text to say it was not successful. Sardaka (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Rules of Engagement

The rules of engagement seemed to provide for civilians to be released. That is not reflected in the movie. More importantly, does that suggest that if the captives were not combatants, they would have been killed? That would be a war crime. What did the ROE actually provide?Royalcourtier (talk) 06:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The movie does in fact state what the rules of engagement are, therefore your statement is factually incorrect. Furthermore, what do any of your questions have to do with improving the entry?74.134.145.218 (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Only 12 SEALs ?!

The Seals troop is about 40 man strong , why there were only 12 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.77.55.74 (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Attribution

Materials regarding the sculpture copied from W. Stanley Proctor in Wikipedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Operation Red Wings

Cyberbot II has detected links on Operation Red Wings which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://g.co/maps/uwqk3
    Triggered by (?<!-)\bg\.co\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 07:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Operation Red Wings

Cyberbot II has detected links on Operation Red Wings which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://g.co/maps/uwqk3
    Triggered by (?<!-)\bg\.co\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Operation Red Wings

Cyberbot II has detected links on Operation Red Wings which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://g.co/maps/uwqk3
    Triggered by (?<!-)\bg\.co\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 14:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"Temporary Insurgent Victory"? Laughable

Three weeks after the events of "Operation Red Wings" another operation named "Whalers" took place. This operation completely destroyed Shah's troops and forced the remaining to withdraw into Pakistan. This of course is considered an undisputed victory for American forces.

I ask, how can a three week capture of land, constitute a "long-term Insurgent victory"? It can't.

This needs to be said, the anti-American bias is clearly present in this article, notably in the "legacy" portion. An entire paragraph is devoted to the spoils of war Shah's men obtained. Yet no mention of the successful American operation "Whalers" which led to his forces demise only 3 weeks later. A single sentence mentioning PTSD is all the American forces are given. Laughable

Please remedy this, and do it with honesty. The legacy of this battle needs to be fairly represented, and at this point in time, it is skewed.

Clearly this was a a Temporary Short-term Insurgent Victory, and a long-term American victory — Preceding unsigned comment added by C0kemusheen (talk • contribs) 06:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

That's clearly an insurgent victory. Mention of short or long term is irrelevant. In fact, we should remove that whole notion of who won in infoboxes. Lesviolonsdautomne (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Red_Wings/Archive_1&oldid=1189182830"