Talk:Operation Moshtarak/Archive 1

Archive 1

Naming

I'm starting to see a few news articles referring to this as the Battle of Marja. This kind of title is normally preferred to an operation name, though it'll depend on what ends up being most commonly used and how narrow or wide the actual operation ends up being. Just something to keep in mind. Joshdboz (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed, but obviously we should wait until there's some sort of public consensus. Palm_Dogg (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

yea i would assume that it will be called the battle of marja from what im hearing in the press and security sources, though until the battle actually occurs the operation name should stay.XavierGreen (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I heard only Operation Moshtarak --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Casualties

Do we have to add the casualties (such as 50 taliban deaths we see now) from preparation stage, which is not direct result of the operation? If we "have to include", we should add the number of KIA of coalitions as well. In my opinion, those casualties should be out from this article since the operation has not begun yet. Kadrun (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, unless all Coalition casualties in Helmand over the past month are added, this is over-inflation. Only five insurgents are confirmed dead in the operation thusfar. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason why coalition soldiers are "KIA" while Taliban insurgents are just "killed"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.71.216 (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe KIA, WIA, etc. apply to the formal military servicemen, and it look neat to write in short way since many things has to go into the box. Kadrun (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That is correct we use abbreviation such as KIA, WIA, MIA etc... for official military... insurgents are not military thus are not susceptible for the same things normal servicemen are. (USMCMIDN (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

Hey found a new source which explains how an estimated 100 Taliban have been killed. It is a neutral source. Please change! http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/item/about-100-taliban-fighters-killed-in-marja/day-3/ it is legit if you google it, more sources will show up. (USMCMIDN (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)) Also sadly 1 more US Marine was killed... Icasualties has that one. Please edit!

according to www.icasualties.org there are now 2 UK soldiers KIA: Dave greenhalgh (02-13) and Guy Mellors (02-15). Also 3 US soldiers are killed till now, the latest one on 02-16, check http://www.icasualties.org/OEF/Fatalities.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.195.192.61 (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Denmark, Estonia and France

I've removed the flags of these 3 countries as the article makes no mention of the participation of Danish, Estonian or French forces in this operation.--Forward Unto Dawn 06:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Editors have added the sources. Kadrun (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

France is now confirmed as well. Kadrun (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Aslo Canada, Estonia and Denmark are involve in the Operation Moshtarak Der Kaisser 22:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Linking to AFP homepage is not good because the headline change. Dropping ref for French involvement limited to tens OMLT (Operational Mentor and Liaison Team) instructors in Kandak 31. [1][2] --KrebMarkt 13:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is nobody editing the casualties? There are now 4 British soldiers killed and 5 or 6 American soldiers, it's all combined it icasualties.org and there are sources to diverse newssites. There must be enough people he can edit this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.195.192.61 (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"worldwide view" nonsense

I'll all for having a neutral tone in the articles and representing a global perspective. HOWEVER, this is primarily a US/UK led offensive and certainly certain "perspectives" are going to be the easiest to report on. I think this tag on the article is unnecessary. Sometimes it is just impossible to include every possible "perspective" on something like this. Not only that, it is unnecessesary. If I read an article on China , I owuld imagine I would want a Chinese perspective; same goes for a US/UK led offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fshoutofdawater (talk • contribs) 17:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

What about an Afghan perspective? I wouldn't mind seeing some stuff in the article from the Afghan government etc.--Senor Freebie (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not think this article primarily deals with the United Kingdom. The lead and latest section certainlty do not. The background has a paragrph that is mostlu UK-related, but the rest is about Canada and the US. I do not feel the tag is neccessary. Jolly Ω Janner 21:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

To make this clear: I am Dutch, so bias from my side concerning the British, American, Canadian etc. role in the operation is not very likely. --JanDeFietser (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Also added some comments from the Taliban. Jolly Ω Janner 21:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Since no one has provided the rationale for the tag and we can't find the reason for its being there, I have removed it. If someone wants to put it back post the reasoning here. -- Love, Smurfy 00:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't want to remove it myself as I am only one opinion, but as you agree with me it is right for it to be removed and should at last be on the Main Page. Jolly Ω Janner 00:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Why are the Teleban an "insurgency" and not "freedom fighters"? A somewhat biased perspective? Danensis (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

   insurgency is a neutral term. Freedom fighters is a biased and terrorists would be biased.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.23.4 (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC) 

Merely the term "freedom fighters" for the Taliban seems rather biased (how free would you feel in a burqa, or decapitated?). --JanDeFietser (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Photos

I'm a Combat Camera Marine in Afghanistan, I can get photos for this article but I have to wait for them to be cleared and posted at the DoD server. Marine79 (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

O.K., take care! See also the new page Assault Breacher Vehicles that needs illustrations. --JanDeFietser (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

All the images I could find on the website are from the 9 February at the moment. Jolly Ω Janner 12:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The photo of the article is false, because it shows Marines near Marja 4 days before the Operation Moshtarak startet. Choose a later one from Wikimedia Commons. --The real Marcoman (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete link

It says 31. # ^ ["Battle for town is a small step on the path to victory"]

But nothing happens when you click it. Of course the number could have changed by the time you read it. Art LaPella (talk) 07:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. Now the link is complete and working. --JanDeFietser (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

CH-147 Chinook

Please, do not remove the Canadian designation of the CH-47 Chinook. The Canadian Forces uses the official military designation of CH-147 Chinook. [3] Der Kaisser 16:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The variant that Canadian force uses in Afghanistan is CH-47D model. The one that Canadian forces call CH-147 is CH-47C. Kadrun (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Deaths

BBC is claiming three coalition soldiers have died: "Three Nato deaths related to Operation Moshtarak have so far been confirmed. On Saturday, a British soldier, Lance Sergeant David Greenhalgh of 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, died in an improvised explosive device (IED) attack, while a US soldier was killed by gunfire in Marjah. On Sunday, another service member was killed in an IED attack."[4]

But which service is the third one from? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Not related to the operation. Kadrun (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Tracking the casualties

Hey, I have been tracking the casualties, and these numbers are not just from single source but many. Kadrun (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I lost track of the wounded..... In addition, there's no official number for injured. Kadrun (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

February 13, 2010

• 1 British soldier was killed by IED, and 1 American was shot to death. It was confirmed by many news articles.
• CNN reported that there were at least 1 casualties due to RPG-7, and I was able to find a picture that shows one wounded soldier carried by medivac.
• First day enemy casualties was 20 killed and 11 captured. There were severely wounded among those captured Talibans.
• Total - UK: 1 KIA, US: 1 KIA, 1 WIA, Taliban: 20 killed, 11 captured.

February 14, 2010

• The news reported there were 7 civilian wounded.
• The news said that 1 ANA and 1 American was wounded.
• Missile accident happened. 2 missiles were fired, and 12 civilians were killed and 1 wounded.
• Taliban casualties increased to 27 killed, 5 wounded, and 11 captured. I'm not sure those 'wounded' are among the captured ones.
• Total - Afghan: 1 WIA, UK: 1 KIA, US: 1 KIA, 2 WIA, Taliban: 27 killed, 5 wounded, 11 captured. Civilian: 12 killed, 8 wounded.

February 15, 2010

• I heard some Taliban casualties, but no 'government official' has confirmed.
• There were reports that 2 Americans are wounded, and I also located pictures with wounded soldiers are carried into helicoptors.
• I see the article says 3 WIA for Afghanistan, but I haven't find any sources yet.
• Total - Afghan: 1 WIA, UK: 1 KIA, US: 1 KIA, 4 WIA, Taliban: 27 killed, 5 wounded, 11 captured. Civilians: 12 killed, 8 wounded.

Overall casualties(From starting to present))

This contain whole correct official information about casualties. As of Afghan and Nato official.

• http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100215/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan
• 1 US soldier killed, 0 wounded
• 1 UK soldier killed, 0 wounded
• 17 Civilians killed, 5 wounded(12 civilians killed on first day of mission by 2 rockets mistakely hit civiliann houses, 5 Killed today by an airstrike)
• 27 taliban killed(Afghan and Nato official)

Airstrike accident happened outside of the operation. Afghan official already announced that they killed another 5~12 Taliban insurgents in sunday. Please keep on the track. Kadrun (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Taliban casualties are not independently confirmed. It should be pointed out. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Worth noting the difference in opinion over the 12 civilian dead. Maj Gen Nick Carter, says the rocket hit the intended target, whilst Lt Gen Nick Parker (Two different officers, in the British army) says all civilian causalities are unacceptable. See here.

[5]

I have posted an update about the casualties further at the top of this page, could someone please edit the main article with the latest info! Thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.195.192.61 (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the casualties, noting the displacement of 1240 Afghan families into British/ANA controlled Lashkar Gah might be something to consider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkHorse01 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8522761.stm

UK soldier killed, (18th Feb) 1st Battalion Coltstream guards. Killed during clearing operation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkHorse01 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Casualties for US

They are wrong just because the US suffered casualties during the conflict, in Helmand, or near the Op does not mean they occurred during the op... we have forces sitting in Helmand province that are USMC and USArmy not participating in the operation. So i am going to change the KIA for US to 5. According to Icasualties a neutral and confirmed source for wiki 5 US Serviceman were killed in Marjah not 8. 1 was near the others were killed in Helmand. I know Marjah is in Helmand but any Marine killed in Helmand does not mean they were klled in the operation. http://www.icasualties.org/OEF/Nationality.aspx?hndQry=US —Preceding unsigned comment added by USMCMIDN (talk • contribs) 00:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"we have forces sitting in Helmand province" - I frankly admit not knowing that the English Wikipedia had forces anywhere. --JanDeFietser (talk) 10:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Whenever there is a report, it says the casualty was either related or not related to the operation (uploaders obviously check this from more than 1 sources), and the number has been confirmed by the offical now is 2 Afghan, 3 British, and 10 Americans. Kadrun (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

this is the Operation Moshtarak, death not involving the operation should not be placed here. Furthermore Icasualties an official site states of 5 US KIA in Marjah during this time period. Once again please do not add deaths from aroun the operation because they should not be put here. (USMCMIDN (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC))

I just looked at your source and I highly doubt that source is correct... Looking at the geographical region of Afghanistan the 2 places that the USArmy soldiers were killed in (outside of Helmand) and the USMC were killed in (Marjah) gives me the conclusion that your source is counting from a casualty list like Icasualties but instead of sorting through where they were killed listing them all as killed in the operation when indeed they were not! The source is wrong. I also confirmend my theory with other sources like Icasualties and they build up my conclusion more, if you can provide another source where it explains that 10 US Servicemen were killed in Operation Moshtarak (I would like it to say 10 were killed in the operation as clear as day) I will lay off this subject but until then I am certain the source is wrong! (USMCMIDN (talk) 06:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC))

Timeline of battle - Nothing since the 15th?

Shouldn't we add a few notes about what has happened since the 15th? Or, if nothing has happened since, (maybe the battle is officially over), we should add a note about it. FFMG (talk) 08:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Be patient, or feel free to add information yourself --JanDeFietser (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The battle is not over but Coalition and the ANA have released little to no information on what is really going on. We keep on hearing about new vehicles used and new tactics and such along with more coalition casualties but we hear of no more Taliban casualties and troop movements. Can we really assume since the 15-17th there has been no more Taliban casualties but we keep taking casualties? No! Information is just limited since the fighting is still going on. OPSEC my friend! (USMCMIDN (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC))

I was wondering about that myself, but I figured it was due to little being released by the Military. Since this isn't my forte', I simply watch the page to keep an eye on this article to patrol against vandals and WikiTaliban members. --Hourick (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

So I would just like people to keep an eye out on more articles about Taliban casualties, Civi casualties, EPWs, US, UK, and ANA KIA, WIA etc... Also keep an eye out for battle plans but this may be hard to come by because of the ongoing operation. Please keep sources neutral and fair. (USMCMIDN (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC))

On the morning of February 25, 2010, an Australian newspaper reported the rising of the Afghan government flag in Marja. I will see if I can fill in the present "information gap" over the last 10 days. --JanDeFietser (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You will find some interesting articles on the UK Ministry of Defence News Website here[6] that will give some background information related to the battle, including ANA and Afghan Police activities, such as these[7], as well as confirmation of British Casualties, such as Lance Sergeant David "Davey" Walker, of 1st Battalion Scots Guards[8] and Lieutenant Douglas Dalzell of 1st Battalion Coldstream Guards who was killed, by an IED, in Babaji on Thursday 18 February 2010[9] serving as part of Combined Force Nahr-e Saraj (South) [formerly known as Battle Group (Babaji)] and was operating as part of Operation MOSHTARAK. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Should this article about a visit by Hamid Karzai to the battlezone be added to the timeline? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CeeWhy2 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Canada's Role

Hello everyone. I’d like to clarify Canada’s role in the operation which may also shed light on other relevant matters here, such as timelines. My son is serving there with the 3rd Battalion Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry (3 PPCLI) and I have been in occasional contact with him. As well as the Canadian helicopters participating in the main assault already mentioned in the article, a group of 30+ Canadian soldiers (mostly 3 PPCLI), together with their mentored ANA company (OMLT Kandak 1), some US marines, and elements of a Stryker brigade (5th) entered the northern perimeter of the ‘Green Zone’ (~ irrigated land clearly visible on Google Earth) several days (9 February) ahead of the main attack. Their numbers were given in the media as almost 700 troops. They secured canal crossings and have fought their way south and west towards the northward advancing US marines/ANA ever since. In the days before the main attack, this battle group was featured on news media including CTV, FoxNews and the BBC through Associated Press. Their relative position in the battle zone is also shown on the BBC ‘operation map’ as a blue square, rather than the blue circles for US marine/ANA elements. Their link up with the northward US marine/ANA advance was reported on today (28 February) on FoxNews. I have refrained from editing the article at this point but wanted to highlight this now for future inclusion. Thanks for your consideration. The8welsh (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• That is all interesting information, however you should edit the article to make it better! However, information obtained directly from your son would be considered original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. All information must be sourced from published works. Zatoichi26 (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• OK, I understand - thanks. The8welsh (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• I've been unable to gain access to the article which seems to be protected in some way. Could someone please explain what I need to do? Thanks. The8welsh (talk) 12:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Operation Helmand Spider

I keep seeing Dept. of Defense media and news sources referring to troops engaged in this operation in Helmand Province. Is it related at all to Operation Moshtarak? --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 06:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

New Taliban Casualty Source

I found a new source that suggests up to 200 Taliban were killed. It says one Canadian soldier was killed on Feb 12 also. I did not add that because it was before the operation. The article was published Feb 23 and seems legit. http://sustainablesecurity.org/article/afghanistan-propoganda-deed (USMCMIDN (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC))

Would this qualify as a decisive victory?

Just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.173.24 (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)