Talk:Battle of Tora Bora

casualty of Bin Laden's forces

this 200 figure is debatable, not sure where the original source is from, but several sources, including Bin Laden's own address says the figures are much less, ranging from 20-200. If no-one objects; wiki should be edited to have an estimate of 20-200 with 20 coming from the Bin Laden and 3rd party observers and 200 coming from US estimates, sources are Bin Laden's remarks in 2003 and page 142 of book From 9/11 to Terror War

References

one of the shittiest articles

This is one of the shittiest articles I've had the displeasure of reading. Philwelch 03:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

How so? Just saying it's shitty doesn't do anything. Wheres the problem, why is it a problem, how can it be fixed? Is it a NPOV problem, accuracy problem, formatting problem? Nobody cares what you think about the article unless you're going to offer a way to fix it. Sorry. Ghostalker 19:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Are members of the British SBS actually called commandos? I don't think so. 145.253.108.22 10:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes SBS members are usually drawn from the Royal Marines, who are properly called Royal Marine Commandos. So yes, SBS are "commandos".Voodoocol 00:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The main objetive of this "battle" was to capture Bin Laden. I removed the ridiculous "coalition victory"

• "Most of the enemy fighters made good their escape" isn't this a violation of NPOV policy? Filanca (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think that phrase conveys a POV. --AlexCatlin (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I heard that British Special Forces had Bin Ladin in their sights, but needed to await American approval before engaging, and by the time the Americans responded, Bin Ladin was gone, some said that this was because the Americans wanted to get Bin Ladin, but that is just a conspirac theory, and I don't believe most of those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.104.185 (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As an officer and a soldier involved with this cluster fuck, I feel the need to point out that this statement is completely false. There was no evidence that Bin Laden was ever at the battle, let alone in anyone's "sights."

The sixth paragraph of the battle section includes the sentence "Former CIA officer Gary Schroen concurs with this view and Pentagon documents are suggestive". This is obviously an incomplete sentence. "Pentagon papers are suggestive" of what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.110.140 (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Bin Laden last heard when?

"The last time Osama bin Laden was overheard on the VHF radio was on December 14th." Can we get a year for this? 2001 and 2003 are mentioned in the paragraph so it isn't clear from the context and I can't find a citation anywhere.--AlexCatlin (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is so biased it's comical —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.76.90 (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources

In a discussion when the battle was mentioned Col. Douglas Macgregor said that

"...General Franks was urged by Rumsfeld to look at troops that might be available, conventional troops that could supplement the special operations forces on the ground. And they were looking at two brigades, primarily from the 82nd airborne division, which were ready and available. And it was General McNeill, the 18th airborne corp commander, backed by General Shinseki, who was then Chief of Staff of the Army who said, "oh no it'll take us at least 6 months to deploy the entire 18th airborne corp", of course the argument was we don't need the entire 18th airborne corp we simply need two brigades. And they said absolutely out of the question. And it was at that point that Secretary Rumsfeld turned to General retired Wayne Downing who had commanded special operations command who then outlined a different strategy using special operations forces. There were many many opportunities and many missteps. General Wald, who was in the combined air operations center at the time, called Franks alerting him in November to the departure from Kabul of a convoy of white SUVs. And our intelligence agencies told him that they were 90% certain that Osama bin Laden along with Mullah Mohammed and a host of other al-Qa'eda types were actually in this convoy and he requested permission to use the predator and strike it. And at the time General Franks said "no I have to consult my attorney and see whether or not these rules of engagement are appropriate". And of course an hour later he called back and said you have permission to engage, and at that point they were gone. We've had several missteps. And you're right, if we had captured or killed Osama bin Laden and his inner circle, I don't think we would be talking very much about what's happening over there [in Afghanistan] today..."

here starting at 35:40 These comments may be useful to give perspective to this article or to use to find more sources. (But of course the quotes of others should not be treated as direct quotes.) -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Glasser vs. Feaver on Tora Bora: Who is right? -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Sunskind and the one percent doctrine

Quote two

"with bin Laden holed up in the Afghan mountain redoubt of Tora Bora, the CIA official managing the Afghanistan campaign, Henry A. Crumpton (now the State Department's counterterrorism chief), brought a detailed map to Bush and Cheney. White House accounts have long insisted that Bush had every reason to believe that Pakistan's army and pro-U.S. Afghan militias had bin Laden cornered and that there was no reason to commit large numbers of U.S. troops to get him. But Crumpton's message in the Oval Office, as told through Suskind, was blunt: The surrogate forces were "definitely not" up to the job, and "we're going to lose our prey if we're not careful."

Gellman, Barton The Shadow War, In a Surprising New Light The One Percent Doctrine, Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11 By Ron Suskind, Washington Post.

Quote one

"As Crumpton briefed the President -- and it became clear that the Pentagon had not voiced the CIA's concerns to Bush -- he pushed beyond his pay grade. He told Bush that "we're going to lose our prey if we're not careful," and strongly recommended the marines, or other troops in the region, get to Tora Bora immediately. Cheney said nothing.

Bush, seeming surprised, pressed him for more information. "How bad off are these Afghani forces, really? Are they up to the job?"

"Definitely not, Mr. President," Crumpton said. "Definitely not."

Suskind, Ron. The One Percent Doctrine, Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11, Google Books, p. 59.

R.S.K., CNN report ignored Bush administration's alleged responsibility for bin Laden escape from Tora Bora in 2001, Media Matters, August 17, 2007.

Adamtheclown (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Point of the bin Laden quote?

What is the purpose of the box with the extended bin Laden quote? If you're going to quote obvious jihadist propaganda about how al Qaeda proudly stood up to the attacks, then why not balance things out with an equally long quote about observations from the coalition side?67.68.47.109 (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree, deleting. Parkwells (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The inset quote is still there 7 years later. It is neither attributed nor sourced. It probably should be deleted both for these reasons and NPOV. Bgovern (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

"US-led victory"

Can this battle really be called a victory for the US when the main strategic goal (capturing Bin Laden) failed? It seems like the infobox should say something to indicate that while the US forces may have killed a lot of enemies, they failed at what they actually set out to do, sort of like the "tactical victory, strategic failure" the infoboxes for some historical battles have.

2601:405:4400:9420:58D9:A28F:4A12:F414 (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with this perspective tbh. It seems absurd, and worse yet misleading, to label this battle a US victory when it failed to accomplish its main objective. Fanatizka (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Recent changes - tone

Hi Fanatizka. I see you've done a lot of work on this article over the last few days. Firstly, thanks for helping! Unfortunately, while your additions may be an improvement, they'll need another rewrite to adhere to Wikipedia's rules about impartial, encyclopedic tone. Examples of inappropriately subjective/flowery phrases/vocabulary are "made a daring request", "narrowly escaped a deadly U.S. bomb", "the infamous terrorist", "the prolific journalist", etc.

Guidance can be found at WP:TONE, and the policy on impartial language is at WP:IMPARTIAL. You may find the advice on words to watch particularly helpful, as it gives a breakdown of problematic words and alternatives -- see MOS:PEACOCK. I hope this helps, and you're able to make adjustments with this mind. Best, Jr8825 • Talk 21:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello Jr8825. Thanks for the feedback, I will keep that in mind and try to do a rewrite when I have time. Sincerely Fanatizka (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey again @Fanatizka, I just wanted to thank you for making those changes so quickly. I've not had a detailed look at your edits but I imagine they're a solid improvement overall. Do give me a shout if you'd like more detailed feedback, I'm happy to take a closer look if you'd find that helpful. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 00:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi again Jr8825. You're very welcome to provide some detailed feedback. On further scrutiny, I even noticed some biases that had seeped its way into the writing myself (which I corrected.) As for the extremely subjective/decorative expressions, I believe I cleaned up the worst of it, but further input is appreciated. Sincerely Fanatizka (talk) 11:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

How is it U.S. victory?

Bin Laden literally escaped + the Taliban insurgency started, so how can it be U.S. victory? TheLibyanGuy (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)