Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Kamdesh

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 16 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ARDCM.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

[edit]

Once the name of the village this took place in is released it should be renamed Battle of (villages name).XavierGreen (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some more info on this webpage http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/southasia/news/article_1505296.php/Ten-Afghan-soldiers-killed-in-Taliban-ambush-1st-Lead (article itself isn't about the attack) up to 600 taliban took part, 100 killed or wounded. They say this is from the afghan ministry of defense, but I don't know its webpage (if it has one) And how is this a Taliban Victory when the outposts weren't over run, they sustained a 1/3 or 1/6 casualty rate, at least 5 commanders dead, the OPs were going to be shut down soon (one of them within days) and they have been run out of the district in which the outposts were located in? I'm changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.30.253 (talk) 11:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result

[edit]

My edit was referenced, how is your edit a more accurate version since it is not even referenced? The result here on Wikipedia should be fair and neutral...not just from the US military POV, they won tacticaly yes...and i put that in the result section, but the Taliban still control much of Kamdesh and the police force of Kamdesh is almost non-existent after the attack. Plus the US will withdraw in a few days...who do you think will be controling the district after that? Thus this is a strategic Taliban victory. This had been a rerun of the Battle of Wanat and there editors put the result as Coalition tactical victory, Taliban strategic victory. You should check the talk page of the Battle of Wanat on this issue. Also until you provide a reference that specificly says that the Coalition is in control of the Kamdesh mountain range, and not just the towns and villages, my REFERENCED edit also stays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.234.254 (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC) copied from User talk:DJ Clayworth[reply]

The reasons I change the 'result' entry is that the version here now is simple and factual. Judging who had a 'victory' is something Wikipedia is not in a position to do. It depends on what the objective were. On the face of the insurgents attacked and were repulsed, which would be a Coalition victory if the insurgents were attempting to displace the coalition. It may be that the insurgents were simply attempting to cause casualties, in which case they succeeded. But was it is many as they expected? If not then surely it was a defeat for them. You correctly point out that the insurgents are in control of the surrounding province, but they were in control of it before the battle, so that's not much of a victory for them. If you start a battle, and everything is the same at the end, then you reasonably be assumed to have failed in what youset out to achieve.
My point is that announcing "victory" or "defeat" is something we can't do here, so we look at the only completely unarguably factual thing we can - the insurgents attacked and were repulsed. We don't say "victory" or "defeat" at all. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On closer inspection, the reference you gave simply doesn't say anything about tactical or strategic defeats or victories. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reference says that the Taliban had a meeting open for the public not far from the base. Thus that says the Taliban are still heavily entranched in the district and most likely will control it when the US military leaves since the police force has eather been killed, deserted or had been captured. But ok...I will let go the use of term defeat or victory...but i added one thing besides the Taliban assault repulsed, I added, with a reference, the fact that large portions of the base were destroyed, which I suppose was one of the main goals of the Taliban.89.216.234.254 (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FOB Keating was the base that was destroyed, the FOB was to be abandoned in the upcoming days anyway and preparations were already being made. The Taliban would have acheived the same effect if they had just waited a week. They didn't and they had 150 KIA. I'd say that their objective was to have a large battle and when the now largely destroyed FOB is inevitably abandoned claim a huge victory. Its a PR victory for taliban. Something about the propaganda value should be written in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.30.253 (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are we making stuff up now? NATO claims only 50-100 killed, and suddenly it's 150 KIA. As with all kill claims, these figures are likely to be severely inflated. It's quite likely the Taliban only lost 20-40 people killed, in which case it would mean that they achieved parity in terms of irrevocable casualties inflicted (killed plus captured). This reflects a significant enhancement in the rebels' combat abilities. Given that the typical ratio between killed and wounded is 1:3, 150 KIA would mean ~600 killed and wounded, double the highest estimate for the number of Taliban in the battle in total. Have some common sense. You really think the Taliban could have taken 200% casualties and still have enough strength to capture and cart off 20 prisoners? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.148.86.11 (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That 150 is the NATO claim of 100+ killend in the battle itself and the ~50 that they lost after it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.30.253 (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no problem with saying that as long as someone in a reliable secondary source has said that and we can cite it. Cla68 (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with DJClayworth, at this time we can't assume that we know what the overall result of this battle is. Maybe it's a strategic victory for the Taliban. But, on the other hand, maybe the local insurgent militia lost so many fighters killed that they have ceased to be an effective fighting force. We just don't know at this time. What we do know is that the Taliban tried to destroy or overrun the two bases, and were forced to end their attack without completing that objective. So, that's all we can say as the result, "Taliban attack repulsed." Time will tell, in reliable secondary sources, further impact of this battle on the war in general. Cla68 (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you should have the other video of the actual battle so people could see what you are talking about not just the aftermath one — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terango (talk • contribs) 17:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick review

[edit]

I have done a quick review on this article as per the request on WP:MHA. I have the following suggestions for improvement towards B class and beyond (if that is what is intended). I have no knowledge of this particular incident, so I am unable to comment on the content in much detail, so my review is mainly focused on style and technical aspects of the B class criteria:

  • would it be possible to format the web citations so that the url chains are not visible (for instance by using {{cite web}})?
  • the references that are to the same source with the same page number could be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS;
  • would it be possible to described the actual battle in more detail?
  • are there any specific images of the battle?
  • there appears to be some inconsistency in style and names: e.g. FOB Keating is also called COP Keating in the infobox, U.S. and US are used, etc.
  • could you clarify the word "guns" as in the second paragraph of the Battle section? Do you mean artillery or small arms (e.g. rifles, machine guns, etc.)?

Anyway, that is it. These comments are not meant by any means to be a criticism of the work carried out so far, indeed I feel that much good work has gone into it. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

Someone renamed the article, why? The reason given was that the battle occured only in the COP, but a large portion of the action occured outside the camp in the village, and there was some fighting at a FOB as well XavierGreen (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kamdesh seems fine to me. Cla68 (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Kamdesh/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Airborne84 (talk) 04:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Working...

The article is not ready to be GA yet, but I didn't fail it since it could pass with improvements. Comments are below:

1. Is it reasonably well written?

a (prose): FAIL b (MoS):
Major issue: The prose is too stilted. This is the single biggest issue overall. The article reads like a collection of information as opposed to paragraphs of prose that tell a story. This tends to happen when multiple editors contribute bits information and the article doesn't actually get "written". The "background" section is probably the best example of this, although there is a one-sentence paragraph in "Aftermath" as well. See the Battle of Bizani, which is a decent example of a GA that uses prose in complete paragraphs to tell a story.
Observation Post Fritsche is introduced rather abruptly in the lede. It needs a bit of explanation for what it is and where it was, even though it's discussed in the body. This could be one sentence or even part of a sentence.
"The attack was the bloodiest battle for US forces since the Battle of Wanat in July 2008, which occurred 20 miles (32 km)." Sentence fragment which needs revision. Also, although this is not necessary to attain GA, it may be desirable to provide a source for this statement.
"Quick reaction forces did not reach the outpost until 7:00 pm that day, while insurgents had controlled parts of the outpost as late as 5:10 pm." This sentence needs rewriting. Both parts of the sentence are fine and could stand alone. Their relevance together in the same sentence is not clear. When read together, it's also not clear what the sentence contributes to the paragraph.
"The outpost was evacuated the next day and later bombed on October 6 to prevent use by insurgents." This is the final sentence in the "Battle" section. This might be better in the "Aftermath" section though. And the "Battle" section could use a better "closer". When exactly did the battle end, for example? The section should have a decent closing sentence(s) that still transitions to the next section.
You use the word "Coalition" troops. The average reader may not know what the Coalition is. This needs a brief explanation or, better yet, simply a Wikilink.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): PASS c (OR): PASS
Which reference stated that it was the bloodiest battle since Battle of Wanat?
I can't access reference 7 regarding the US estimates of casualties. Was it the US that estimated the casualties or was it ISAF? Also, since these estimates could feasibly be a source of contention (as noted in a previous talk page thread), it may be a good idea to list a second source that is verifiable by a reader. This is a comment only and is not a show-stopper for GA.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

a (major aspects): HOLD b (focused): PASS
The infobox lists Afghan forces as part of the belligerents and casualties. Yet, there are no Afghan forces under "strength". Also, "civilian guards" are mentioned in the article without explanation of who they are (at least in their first mention).
"US Army soldiers at both outposts had been ordered to prepare to evacuate them and had informed local Afghan leaders of their intention to do so." This needs a bit of explanation. ("Been ordered to evacuate".) Were they ordered to do so that morning? Is this in reference to the deliberate withdrawal plan? That's mentioned two sentences later—consolidating these thoughts will help construct a better paragraph that describes this topic.

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy?

Fair representation without bias: PASS
I deleted the use of "although" early on. Given this change and the changes after the discussions on the talk page, the article seems reasonably free of POV issues.

5. Is it stable?

No edit wars etc.: PASS

6. Is it illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate?

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): PASS (although I'm not sure about the link to the video. You might want to get a second opinion on that if you're not sure it's free use). b (appropriate use with suitable captions): PASS

7. Overall:

Pass/Fail: ON HOLD

References comments

NY Times or New York Times?
Why is Philadelphia Enquirer and Military Times in italics, but the other sources are not?

If the editors here would like time to improve the article given the above, I'll leave it on hold. If not, I'll remove it from the GA nom page. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the nomination. The article can be renominated when adjustments have been made. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Excuse me for butting in here, but I’d just like to point out that the article is woefully light on detail in the battle section. Could the reviewer consider that, please? Content is king, right? Boscaswell talk 09:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abandonment

[edit]
The Americans "...declared the outpost closed and departed — so quickly that they did not carry out all of their stored ammunition. The outpost’s depot was promptly looted by the insurgents and bombed by American planes in an effort to destroy the lethal munitions left behind."

No where in this quote does it say the base was abandoned early. You are clearly drawing your own conclusion. Bsimmons666 (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading somewhere that the Taliban later filmed and publicized propaganda videos of their fighters frolicking amidst and playing with the the abundant equipment the Americans left behind at the base after they abandoned it. This isn't mentioned in the article but if a source for it can be found I think it should be. Cla68 (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "vanished" story published in the press is that they were planning to leave anyway; the "unvarnished" story from the War Diaries is that the soldiers in their haste to leave "lost every possession they had, save for the clothes on their backs", and left ammunition behind that the Air Force had to attempt to destroy afterwards to prevent it falling into enemy hands. Who would plan a withdrawal that involves leaving all their supplies and munitions behind for their enemy? No-one. And the quote "...so quickly that they did not carry out all of their stored ammunition" makes it quite clear that they were ejected according the Taleban's timetime, not their own. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't try to draw your own conclusions in the article, just report what the sources are saying. Cla68 (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See what Cla68 is saying; however, I believe the edits you made today accurately depict what all the sources are saing. Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I used a quote when you didn't like my paraphrasing, and there's certainly zero WP:OR in that. Anyway, glad everyone is happy now. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Know from talking with people that were there that the Americans did NOT abondon the ammo but had actually set charges to destroy them. Unfortunately the charges did not work and that is how the Taliban was able to get their hands on some of those munitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terango (talk • contribs) 16:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical American victory

[edit]

What are the guidlines for the military history project regarding battle outcomes in the infobox? Body count? Territoy lost/gained? A "victory" that left the Taleban in complete control of the whole area seems like a dubious one to claim... Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were the Taliban left in complete control of the area? Remember, after the base was abandoned, the coalition conducted a major sweep through the area and claimed to kill most of the rest of the Taliban fighters who had survived the assault on the outpost. So, trying to decide who "won" is difficult. Better to simply state exactly what happened, "Outpost nearly overrun but Taliban ultimately repulsed. Coalition forces withdraw soon after" or something like that. Cla68 (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know either. The claim of victory either requires a source or needs to be changed to reflect the unclear result. Otherwise, it's WP:SYNTH. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "tactical American victory" from the infobox to "attack repulsed." Cla68 (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Name

[edit]

I suggest we at least put the alternate name of the battle (Battle of COP Keating) in bold at the beginning of the article, like the Battle of Elkhorn Tavern is boldfaced in the Battle of Pea Ridge Article. It might sound petty, but its already redirected from "Battle of COP Keating". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.35.22 (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Historical Resources

[edit]

I obtained a copy of Jake Tapper's book, "The Outpost, an Untold Story of American Valor" with a Xmas gift card. The publication of this book represents an opportunity to produce a historical narrative for this article rather than a collection of isolated facts.Frank (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

300 insurgents?

[edit]

I'm sorry, i'm very new at this and am still working my way through all the information pertaining to editing Wikipedia, such as when a citation is needed and what qualifies as an accepted source. Lately I see a lot of these articles on wikipedia about one battle or another. It seems as though it is primarily the US military and coalition forces who provides most if not all the details of these battles, as well as info on the number of combatants involved. Again, I am a nube so have patience with me. I can't help but wonder, however, Who provided the official count of these 300 insurgents who were said to be the attackers in the Battle of Kamdesh? On edit: I see that it is the ISAF and UN that have provided this estimate, and that it is just that--an estimate that was based on intelligence provided by the US military. This is not, and should not be considered to be an unbiased source. These sorts of figures are notoriously and commonly downplayed or inflated according to the motives of the military force involved in disseminating this information. There is absolutely no way to confirm the number of "insurgents" involved in this battle. I request that the number 300 be removed and the number of insurgents be declared "unknown." Mccue3g (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)mccue3g[reply]

Having been around the block a few times on Wiki military history articles I may be able to clarify some conventions for you. When you see a number like 300 it means 300 plus or minus 100. In military speak that generally indicates more than a company but less than a battalion. In an engagement like the last attack on COP Keating, if they had less than a company they would not have shot the place to pieces as they did. If they had more than a battalion, they would have overrun it. In Tapper’s book on pages 580-1 Captain Portis records he counted more than 100 dead attackers on his way into the base after the battle, which gives some idea of the scale of the engagement. None of this makes much difference since the significance of the battle is that it represents the failure of the counterinsurgency (COIN) in Nuristan. If COIN fails, then the insurgent supply and reinforcement lines from Pakistan cannot be cut. If HIG and the Taliban can thus be supported in Nuristan the security of our objectives and puppet government in Afghanistan remain in doubt. That is what really matters, rather than the body count.Frank (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. The victors write the history books. Even by your explanation it is still just an estimate, but since this is about consensus I guess it is the consensus of us Americans (and the American puppet government,haha) that there were 300. Suits me just fine. I wonder, is there an Afghani WP? If there were, I wonder if they--the Afghan Wikipedia editors--would accept US military estimates as casually as we do. After all, we KNOW the US military and US intelligence lie about many things (think WMDs). I wonder why we consider them to be credible at all. I certainly don't and very few people I know consider them to be credible.67.235.94.30 (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is unlikely than all American sources of information on the Kamdesh battle will endorse that estimate of 300. The search for truth in military history involves finding as many different sources of information as possible. Since politics is war (rather than just war by other means) there will always be propaganda associated with it. The book on the subject, "The Outpost" by Tapper is a good source of information in that Tapper is ABC news correspondant rather than a representative of the military or any political party. Tapper, as a journalist, does seem to place a higher priority on objectivity, and places emphasis on the impact of military and political decision making on the lives of the individuals most impacted by those decisions. A greater level of credibility does seem to be the result. In order to see the best path in the future though, the fate of COP Keating must by analysed in terms of the success of American global strategy, and what passes for concrete objectives that promote the national interest. In short, what have we really accomplished in Nuristan, and does it justify the resources committed.Frank (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Kamdesh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Kamdesh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle section very light on detail

[edit]

Yes, really. The 12 hour super-intense battle is all over here in two and a half paragraphs (which is when the air support arrives). There’s far more detail in the Clinton Romesha article. I note that the article has been reviewed, as someone asked for it to be given a B grade. IMO it absolutely does not deserve that at the moment. Boscaswell talk 09:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tone is not neutral

[edit]

The general tone of the article is not neutral at all. Instead of factually reporting the events, on repeated occasions the article is explicitly judgemental of the Coalition in a way not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Ale rc310 (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Kamdesh&oldid=1252381607"