Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mr. Tibbs (talk | contribs) at 07:03, 12 June 2006 (→Geography: Added mention of Zer0fault's RfC.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Commentary on the Name of Operation

The phrase enduring is ambiguous, and it is somewhat surprising that this ambiguity was not raised in these discussions.

In the usual intended sense it obviously referred to freedom that would last. Others, could view it as meaning that freedom imposed by American weaponry is something to be endured. --Eclecticology, Thursday, May 30, 2002

Chomsky pointed this out early in the campaign @ http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200111--04.htm

The other point is, nobody seems to have noticed it but, the word ‘enduring’ is actually ambiguous. It can mean ‘lasting’ or it can mean ‘suffering from’. So, I’m enduring pain is another interpretation of ‘enduring’ and, in fact, if you think of the kind of freedom they impose and enduring freedom in the other sense, that is: ‘somehow living with the horrendous consequences of it,’ is not an inaccurate description.

Purpose of OEF

"the campaign is regarded as limited to punishing the Taliban and eliminating their potential to attack the US again": this makes it sound like the Taliban have attacked the US before. Is that so? If not, perhaps it should be rephrased.--branko

The view of the US, i.e., the Bush administration, is that the Taliban did attack the US before; they regard the 9/11 attacks as being done by (or at the behest of) the Taliaban.

No, they don't. They believe the were carried about by Al-Qaida, at the beshest of bin Laden with the support of the Taliban -- User:GWO

Oh, my mistake. Then the US is punished the Taliban for supporting Al-Qaida. This is getting tricky. Feel free to revert my edits, if I messed up. --Ed Poor 09:27 Aug 12, 2002 (PDT)

Naturally, the 'pedia can neither support nor oppose this position. So the rephrasing should clarify that the "before" and "again" represent the US position. As in The US believes that the Taliban conducted or supported the 9/11 attacks, and the campaign is intended both as to punish the Taliban for 9/11 and to prevent them from attacking the US again. (If needed, we might add something like the following Mustapha Buwalla, a spokesman for the Blah Blah Coalition, denies that the Taliban had anything to do with 9/11 and thus regards the US campaign as totally unwarranted, labeling it an "act of naked imperialist aggression.") --Ed Poor 09:18 Aug 12, 2002 (PDT)

redundant with US invasion of Afghanistan

I think this page should redirect to U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, which gives a much more thorough treatment to the same subject. DanKeshet

I disagree, Dan. This page serves as a sort of disambiguation page. Furthermore, the "Operation" and the "invasion" are not identical.

• Here is one difference: OEF was a campaign to stop and/or punish the Taliban. The invasion of Afghanistan was a tactic used in that campaign.
• Another difference is that the invasion itself has been the subject of speculation and commentary. Is it for nation-building? Is it a violation of sovereignty? Does it constitute an "attack on" Afghanistan? Meanwhile, OEF (the military campaign) has a focused objective.

Thus, the topics are sufficiently distinct to stand alone. Please don't delete this article, unless (A) you merge everything it says into the other article and (B) others get a chance to see that your merge really is better. --Ed Poor

This is wrong. Operation Enduring Freedom was the name for the military campaign, the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. The name for the political framework under which the campaign was taken is the War on Terrorism. I will attempt to merge any content from here into U.S. invasion of Afghanistan before redirecting. DanKeshet

Last call for further objections before I redirect this page tomorrow. Every useful piece of information in this article is now covered in the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan article. DanKeshet

If you say all the content is merged and in, I trust you. Just leave this talk page, okay? --Ed Poor 15:09 Nov 4, 2002 (UTC)

resurgency

I realize that there's a link on the article that goes to a page that addresses this fact, but I still think that it should be mentioned within this article under the heading "Effectiveness of U.S. invasion of Afghanistan" that there has been a resurgency of Taliban forces in Southern Afghanistan, and that the Taliban in addition to other warlords retain a great amount of sovereignty outide the area around Kabul.

mujahiddeen

...the Taliban also had their mujahiddeen

"War on terror"

As this is a widely criticized propaganda term it should not be used without quotation marks and further comment. Añoranza 22:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am unclear on when propaganda stops and policy or historical jargon begins; is it possible for a propaganda term to pass into circulation and become generally accepted, international and bipartisan policy motives? would it not be sufficient to qualify it with something like the 'US declared war on terror' and save discussion for the war on terror page? Mrdthree 23:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I second the idea presented by Mrdthree, I think this discussion needs to be decided on the appropriate page War on Terrorism. If that article is allowed to stay then that would signify that it is infact not a propaganda term in Misplaced Pages eyes. --Zer0faults 01:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda terms are often notable and can very well have their own articles. But they should not be used without quotation marks and a statement that they are propaganda terms when used elsewhere. Añoranza 00:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Its a government policy. IT has been existence for 4 years. It has had ramifications. These need to be studied. WHether you like it or not is irrelevant.Mrdthree 02:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to second this, its government policy and should be documented.Mrdthree has a good arguement. --Zer0faults 16:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It is documented, and it is indeed irrelevant if we like it. It is relevant that the term is propaganda and widely criticized. This must be noted in a neutral encyclopedia. Añoranza 01:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Please follow concensus, as you asked me to on 2003 invasion of Iraq, which I no longer edit. Thank you. --Zer0faults 01:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

As there is no consensus that the propaganda term is no propaganda term the neutrality tag need s to stay. Añoranza 08:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

First its not a neutrality tag, its a comment you are leaving, please see Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view on how to use POV tags and where they are appropriate. Also myself and Mrdthree have stated we feel this is not the appropriate section, where as you alone seem to contend that, hence the concensus is against you. I follow concensus in other articles where you voted against my view, please respect it here. You cannot support concensus then directly violate it elsewhere. --Zer0faults 14:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

As you know very well, there is another user who agrees that the propaganda term cannot be used without quotation marks and comment. As you refuse to allow a specified NPOV tag I have to put the big one for the whole article, complete overkill. Añoranza 19:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that POV tags are overkill feel free to discuss it on the appropriate Wiki policy page. --Zer0faults 13:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

As I already explained I fell that a POV tag for a whole article is an overkill if the neutrailty of only one phrase is disputed. Usually there is an NPOV tag for headers or sections in such cases, but in a box it does not work. Obviously if there was a reasonable debate it could be handled here rather than make it a general wikipedia policy problem. Añoranza 10:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you managed to find the correct tags, now that you have tagged it can you please lay out your factual information below regarding why you did it, so people can present counter arguements and perhaps we can come to a concensus on the issue. --Zer0faults 11:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

JTF GTMO

I wanted to know why JTF GTMO is not included as an operation in Operation Enduring Freedom? can anyone address why JTF GTMO was deleted, and WHY? JTF-GTMO falls under OEF. WHy has it been ommitted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

Go ahead and include it and let me know what it is. Añoranza 10:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine I understand how is does have a title of "Operation" however maybe we can expand this page to include geography of how large this operation is. Bottom line JTF GTMO is part of OEF, should be included somewhere.

What was the original name of OEF?

I remember it had the word "Crusade" in it but Bush changed it after he realized that it sent the wrong message. I'm surprised that the article doesn't even bring that up.

The name you are referring to is "Infinite Justice"-it is included int he article

• Yeah, that's right. I was thinking about the fact that while it was named "Infinite Justice", Bush referred to it as a "crusade".

Geography

• is anyone opposed to adding a geography potion to show that this operation, and units are not just in Afghanistan, HOA, and the Phiilipines?

RUSMCUSA

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Zer0faults

For those interested, an RfC has been filed regarding User:Zer0faults at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Zer0faults. Any comments would be appreciated. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)