Jump to content

Talk:Operation Enduring Freedom – Philippines

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

Neutrality of propaganda term

[edit]

As "War on terror" obviously is a propaganda term it cannot stay without quotation marks and a comment. Removing NPOV tags is against wikipedia policy. Añoranza 09:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, if you feel the term is propaganda then you need to show that first at war on terror instead of changing every article that mentions the term, because you cannot achieve a concensus on the page of the article itself. However since I do not feel you are doing this in bad faith I will direct you to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view wher you can read on how to use POV tags, what they are specifically and where they are appropriate. --Zer0faults 14:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you were already told elsewhere, the appropriateness of a propaganda term in an article can only be discussed in that article. It is an entirely different question whether a propaganda term should be used without quotation marks and comment in an article about something else or whether there should be an article about the term. Añoranza 18:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be evident if you were in fact disputing its use here, however you have disputed its use on every article containing its name, please do not misrepresent your intentions. If you feel the term is disputed everywhere then its best handled on the war on terror page. We try to centralize discussions so as to reach the largest group of the community. Thank you --Zer0faults 14:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Zer0faults, marking every article containing the phrase "war on terror" as a POV violation is disruptive and judging by the history of Añoranza's edits, it could be construed as POV in itself. The term is already accepted as canonical by the war on terror article, if there is any disagreement with the term, it should be taken there. Perhaps it might be time for an RFC--Folksong 22:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removing NPOV tags is a severe violation of wikipedia policy. The "war on terror" article clearly explains that the term is propaganda and uses quotation marks that should not be ommitted in other articles. Añoranza
Clearly you were not using a NPOV tag as the one up there now is the correct format from what you had before, so I am not sure why you would then write the above statement. I am glad you found what is the correct tag is. Can you please post your factual arguements supporting this statement below, perferably numbered style, so other can view your information, present counter arguements and then perhaps we can reach a concensus. --Zer0faults 11:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, where are the sources for this article? - --23prootie

In the inline citations, they are not in cite news and cite web format. Just the external linking system. If you follow the sources and find information after going through them that needs a source, feel free to let me know and I will dig one up. Please note the sections about each group are summarized from those articles so asking for sources would be done on their talk pages. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of POV flag

[edit]

Again, I removed the POV flag from the template includer (Part of War on Terrorism). The flag is in the wrong place; the user who put it there argues that the term War on Terrorism is not a neutral term (the POV flag is already in place in the article concerned). Even if that were the case, it has no bearing on the neutrality of the statement "Part of the War on Terrorism", because it doesn't matter how you term the NATO anti-terror operations: Operation Enduring Freedom IS part of them. This has nothing to do with a personal point-of-view. Putting the flag there in the first place was a logical fallacy on part of the user who did so. Cheers, Something Wicked 21:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

[edit]

Does anyone know the number of Filipinos who have died/are dying from this event. Why is there only 9 casualties. Based on the local media reports, the number of casualties should have reached at least above a hundred.23prootie 09:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should cite your source and change the number appropriately, I was under the impression the operation ended however. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

clarify? clarity?

[edit]

On November 20, 2005, a U.S. soldier accidentally drowned in the Republic of Seychelles while supporting the mission in the Philippines.

Names, other details?

Why Seychelles?

Thank You.

Hopiakuta 14:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allies???

[edit]

Are the New People's Army and Abu Sayyaf really "allies"? I am just asking because I had not heard that before and it seems kind of strange to me that a large Maoist guerrilla army bent on creating a Communist People's Republic in the Philippines would ally itself with a smaller conservative Islamist guerrilla army bent on creating an Islamic Republic. Can anyone clarify this for me? - Chris Gilmore

american troops are not in the philipines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.24.123 (talk) 04:24, June 9, 2007

Let me amplify on that a bit.....
Article XVIII, Section 25 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution says:

After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America concerning military bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.

So, in light of that, the question, "What are U.S. troops doing in the Philippines when the RP constitution prohibits their presence?" comes to mind. The answer to that question, as far as I understand it, is that (contrary to the impression generated by reading this article) U.S. troops discussed in this article are/were, in a strictly legal sense, not in the Philippines in support of any sort of operational mission. Look back at the snippet from the RP constitution quoted above, and note the "... except under a treaty ..." exception. One such treaty would be the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty (US-Philippines). Article 2 of that treaty reads:

In order more effectively to achieve the objective of this Treaty, the Parties separately and jointly by self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

The U.S. troops spoken of in this article were/are in the Philippines in support of the requirement in that treaty that, "the Parties separately and jointly by self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.", not to conduct any mission-oriented operational activities.
Or at least that's my understanding. -- Boracay Bill 00:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help in policing this article

[edit]

Some guy's claiming that Japanese, Australian and New Zealander troops are in Mindanao. While I've seen the Australian foreign affairs site that no troops, 'cept equipment transfers are being done, I have not seen evidence that New Zealander troops are in Mindanao, better yet with Japanese forces due to Article 9. Ominae (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japan and OEF

[edit]

I'm not involved in the ongoing Reversion war regarding Japan and OEF. However the question posed in the most recent reversion: "Removed. Where's the proof that Japan's involved? Last time I remembered, they had an Article 9." caused me to try to find an answer to that, with the following results:

  • PRESS RELEASE, US Embassy in Japan, October 19, 2007: Use of Japanese Fuel Provided to Operation Enduring Freedom
  • Article, Military connections website: Reservists deploying to Japan for Enduring Freedom
  • Article, Japan Ministry of foreign Affairs, October 2005: Japan's Efforts based on Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law "... From this perspective, the Government of Japan has recently decided to extend the duration of the Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law, and to actively contribute to the international efforts for the prevention and eradication of international terrorism, by dispatching Maritime Self-Defense Force (MSDF) vessels to the Indian Ocean for refueling operations."
  • U.S. Department of State web page: Operation Enduring Freedom Foreign Press Center Briefing by General Tommy Franks, Commanding General, U.S. Central Command, Washington, DC, April 11, 2002. "GEN. FRANKS: Let me talk to the latter part of your question first. The support by Japan causes us to count them among that number of very helpful coalition partners in this global war on terrorism. It has been important to our operations globally and will remain important to our operations in the future."

I stopped looking at that point. There's probably a lot of other stuff out there. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for help in clarifying it. However, I read all the stuff all over. Thanks for that. Now, I read it and saw that they were deployed to the Indian Ocean. Guess I forgot. I'll have to blame overtime with my studies in university. But unless they're some evidence like an article that Japanese fuel is being provided in OEF - Philippines, then there is no reason that it should be in the article. Even the part where Japanese troops are killed in Mindanao raised some irk in me. I'm a Filipino and I keep an eye on Japanese and international media 24/7 if time will allow it. Last time I read, Japanese troops are in UN-mandated peacekeeping missions overseas, not deployed for combat ops in Mindanao. Ominae (talk) 06:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also came across

and some other stuff. The closest connection between Japan and OEF-P which I saw was in

  • Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines [OEF-PI] at globalsecurity.org, which said, "In addition, elements of the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, based in Okinawa, Japan, and the USS Essex Amphibious Ready Group will provide additional support if needed. The forces afloat bring quick reaction teams, command and control assets, aviation support and medical support to the effort."

and other similar pages reporting deployment of U.S. forces based in Japan to OEF-P and

  • this article which reports participation of US Navy P-3s based in Okinawa in OEF-P.
  • This Armed forces journal article says, "Regional maritime security cooperation involving neighboring countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia has increased, too. U.S. allies Australia and Japan have also pitched in to support the Philippine government's efforts in the southern Philippines.", but it doesn't give any info beyond that teaser.
  • this report, ENHANCING BASIC GOVERNANCE: JAPAN’S COMPREHENSIVE COUNTERTERRORISM ASSISTANCE TO SOUTHEAST ASIA, David Fouse and Yoichiro Sato, Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, February 2006 mentions some nonmilitary assistance to the Philippines by Japan.* this page from the U.S. Embassy in Manila, quotes Deputy Asst. SecState Daley's testimony before the House, October 29, 2003: "... Australia, China and Japan, among others, have made significant contributions to the international campaign against terrorism, both within and outside the region. Japan, our linchpin ally in Asia, continues to back the international war against terrorism. It supports our counter-terrorism efforts during Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan by supplying coalition naval vessels with operating fuel at its own expense. Japan is a major contributor to Afghanistan reconstruction, and is vital to the demobilization, disarmament and reintegration efforts for that country. At the recent Madrid conference, Japan committed over a billion and a half dollars to Iraq's reconstruction to promote a civil society that does not harbor terrorists. Japan is also a partner in freezing and disrupting the flow of terrorists' assets. ..." -- no mention of Japanese activity in the Philippines. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wish someone interested in this issue would put some of this in the article, rather than just adding flags. Chwyatt (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the infobox?

[edit]

To all wikipedians who edit this article:

The infobox is very misleading. Balikatan is just a military exercise. The infobox seems to portray it as a war. What's the point in Belligerents, Commanders, Strength and Casualties and losses? Let me clarify things. Though United States treats the NPA as terrorists, Philippines does not. Philippines recognizes NPA's rebellion as part of a civil war, not terrorism. Also, the US forces do not fight in the ongoing skirmishes. So how come the casualties included US deaths with most killed in accidents. Also, the continued fighting of AFP (Philippine military) with NPA, MILF and ASG are not part of Balikatan. These fights are part of a civil war (as for ASG, government termed it as part of criminality) and not Balikatan. Please fix these things up. eStaRapapax xapaparatse! exsatpaarpa! 10:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've temporarily commented it out since it really is getting out of hand. If anyone else has input on how to approach the issue of the infobox then please chime in. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you never heard of terrorist attacks during a civil war? If the Philipines considers the NPA not to be terrorists, it does not matter. The New Peoples Army uses terrorist tactics which makes them terrorists despite what you or anyone else thinks. As for the war classification, an insurgency is a war. The only difference is that one or both sides uses terrorist tactics. The Vietnam War for example, NATO fought the Vietcong terrorist group, despite the Vietcong being terrorists/insurgents and not regualr NVA troops, the conflict is still considered a war. The Philipine/American war would be another example of an insurgency descibed as a type of war. --Az81964444 (talk) 03:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam War is not very good example. Vietcong were not terrorists, they were authentic guerillas. They didn't widespresdly use terrorist tactics, I mean that their primary target was military, not civilians. It can be said that, on contrary, US forces targeted and harmed civilians more than Vietcong. You are confusing guerillas with terrorists and eqauting insurgency with terrorism. It is a forgivable mistake, since many insurgents did use, and do use today, terrorist tactics, such as IRA,ETA etc. However this doesn't mean that every insurgent is automatically terrorist, unless they use terrorist tactics (that means targeting primarily or heavily civilians). 85.97.3.178 (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re Viet Cong and terrorist tactics, see e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], ... Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OEF-P is a conflict and there should be an info box

[edit]

I believe that Operation Enduring Freedom is a conflict and that there must be an infobox. The Philippines (with assistance from Australia and the USA) are fighting terrorists such as al-Qaeda and Abu Sayyaf (i should know im from the Philippines). and yes 2/3 more US marines were killed in acton but just werent included in the infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.180.86 (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, Article XVIII, Section 25 of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines specifies: "After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America concerning Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State." There being no treaty duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate relating to OEF-P, participation by U.S. troops is arguably barred by the RP constitution. My understanding is that a workaround for this is to regard the activities of U.S. troops in OEF-P essentially as providing training and conducting exercises, falling under Article II of the 1951 RP/US Mutual Defense Treaty ("In order more effectively to achieve the objective of this Treaty, the Parties separately and jointly by self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack."). RP and Australia have signed a "Status of Visiting Forces Agreement", but it has not been "duly concurred in by the Senate" (my understanding is that the agreement has not been submitted to the Senate by the Executive branch). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox is confusing...

[edit]

How come it only has two sides? On the left, the Philippine government and the United States government are allies, so it makes sense to list them on one side. But on the other side there are Islamist terrorists and communists together, even though they are against each other. Is it possible to make it into three columns, and list each "camp" on its own, instead of grouping all the "bad guys" together? Thanks.--Goon Noot (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox: Commanders

[edit]

An IP editor has recently been editing this article to name Alexander_B._Yano, the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, as the commander of this United States Special Operations Command, Pacific operation. For the moment, I've changed this to show only the U.S. commanders shown in the Operation Enduring Freedom article. Id would probably be better to show a lower-level commander than the ones I have shown. It would probably be appropriate to show the commander of involved Filipino forces as well, and also the Australian commander if there are Australian forces involved. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Franks

[edit]

I've just removed Franks from the commander field of the infobox as he did not command this operation. He was in charge of Central Command, not Operation Enduring Freedom, and the Philippines is within Pacific Command. A google search of 'Tommy Franks Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines' doesn't provide any evidence that he commanded this operation. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said previously, I just picked up Franks and Fallon as the commanders from the wikipedia OEF article. This info must be outdated (both have now retired from the military), but I have not tried to research that. Regarding CENTCOM command responsibility, note this, which says, in part (emphasis added):
Note that this says nothing about removing command responsibility for OEF-P from CENTCOM and transferring it to SOCOM . Also note that it was posted in 2001 and may not be the latest info on the subject. Also note that Holland is no longer SOCOM commander. The WP article on SOCOM currently says that Admiral Eric T. Olson is the SOCOM commander. The CENTCOM article doesn't name the current CENTCOM commander, saying only that LTG Martin Dempsey is the "Combatant commander". As a CINC, the CENTCOM commander is normally a four-star, as is the SOCOM commander.
Also, this email, "REPORTING PROCEDURES FOR INDIVIDUAL AUGMENTEES DEPLOYING TO JSOTF-P", and this AFJ article, "Flashpoint: No bungle in the jungle:M Operation Enduring Freedom-Philippines is getting results" may be of interest. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(added info) Ah! I see here that "CINC" is outdated terminology, having been replaced with Combatant commander (CCDR). So, it appears that LTG Dempsey is indeed head of CENTCOM. His wikipedia article calls him "acting commander", and says that he has been nominated for appointment to the (four-star) rank of general. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox changes

[edit]

For background see the preceding sections headed Infobox: Commanders and Tommy Franks.

The infobox is not about OEF-P, it is about a conflict in which RP forces are engaged and in which the US provides assistance and advice through OEF-P. I've changed the infobox conflict name to reflect this. I've deleted the Philippine President's name as a commander in this conflict (seems a bit over the top). I've updated the U.S. Commanders names to the current US CENTCOM commanders (I've also similarly updated the Operation Enduring Freedom article). Since the WP:LEDE lead section of this article asserts (without support) that there are about 500 U.S. troops, I've changed the unsupported (and earlier challenged with a {{fact}} tag) infobox US Strength figure of 2,000 to read 500 instead—bringing that into agreement with the figure asserted without support in the lead. In the Belligerents section of the infobox, I've moved the U.S. below the Philippines and noted that the U.S. forces are in an advisory role. I've changed the info for the (unsupported) infobox casus parameter to appear as a note with the (supported) notes parameter. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I suspect that a lot of that material had been added by the IP vandal who's been targeting this and related articles. I'm still not convinced about this coming under the command of CENTCOM - both Globalsecurity.org and an article on the US Army's websites says that the operation is being run by the U.S. Pacific Command's Special Operations Command, Pacific. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could be, I dunno. There must be a CCDR (I dislike that abbreviation, but I wasn't overly fond of "CINC" either, and I agree with Rumsfeld's objections to that term). From what I've seen, the CENTCOM commander is CCDR, but I could believe the the SOCOM commander as OEF-P CCDR. Since OEF-P is not really a combat operation, I could halfway believe the USPACOM commander as the responsible commander. However, it's not about what I can or cannot believe, it's about what is verifiably supportable. This article is chock full of of unsupported assertions. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casualty figures

[edit]

I've just removed the casualty figures again. I have two big problems with these numbers:

  1. They're uncited and are often changed by editors without providing a reason
  2. OEF-P is a US military advisory mission, and not the actual war. Cited casualty numbers belong in Insurgency in the Philippines or a similar article on the fighting, not this article.

As such, it seems to be original research to both try and calculate the number of casualties and attribute them to this US military operation. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also just removed most material from the 'Timeline of the fighting' section and renamed this to just 'timeline' as there was no apparent US military involvement in the events described here. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, you totaly messed up the article, this operation is not exclusivly a US operation. Yes it was started by the US but the Philippines military IS ALSO INVOLVED in this operation. And one of the stated goals of the operation are THE ELIMINATION of the terrorist organisations in the southern Philippines, and that's what the military is doing. The US military advisors are supporting the Philippines military so they can destroy the Abu Sayef and the others. Thus Philippines military is the one taking the lead in the fighting. It's supported by the US military but primarily fought by the Philippines military. As for the casualty figures we can at least leave the numbers and say they are based on multiple news sources. There is already a precedent for this with the 2007 Lebanon conflict and the Waziristan war. Please discuss this before reverting again. We have been using these kind of casualty numbers for over two years now and nobody except you has had a problem with this.BobaFett85 (talk) 09:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What sources state that OEF-P is the name of this war, and what sources support the casualty figures? IP editors, including a long-running vandal, have been fiddling with the figures for years, and they have no place in the article unless they can be sourced and attributed to 'Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines': please review WP:V. and WP:RS. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:DR I've posted notifications of this discussion seeking other editors' views at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Southeast Asian military history task force and Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that OEFP is the name of this war, but this war has become part of the OEFP and the War on terrorism, just like the Civil war in Somalia has become part of OEF Horn of Africa and the War on terrorism. The numbers have been updated by me recently and before that by other users based on news reports. At the very least we can put a tag of sources needed and not just dismiss it offhand.BobaFett85 (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on this talk page should not focus on what individual editors did or did not say, it should focus on what the article should or should not contain and on how it should present its contents.
Regarding OEFP as the name of the war, the article contains {{infobox Military Conflict}} with the conflict parameter set to "Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines". The documentation for that template says, "conflict – the name of the conflict being described (e.g. "Battle of Lützen" or "World War I")." If the article is about a military conflict, it should name the conflict properly. If the article is not about a military conflict, it should not use this infobox.
Regarding asserted numbers being based on news reports, such assertions should cite the relevant reports as supporting sources. Unsupported material may be removed without discussion per Wikipedia:Verifiability, one of the three Wikipedia:Core content policies. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the only editor who supported keeping this material has been blocked as a sock-puppet of another blocked editor (see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Top Gun/Archive) I've just removed the casualties. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Seabees Casualties

[edit]

A few days ago, I think it was yesterday actually, the news report I read said the two U.S. troops killed on the 29th were not Seabees but U.S. Army troops on a supply convoy mission, they were origionally thought to be seabeas but in the article it clearly says they were not. I will check this again before making changes.--Az81964444 (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Please remember, in the future to place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page, as noted in the header, unless it is connected to a previous discussion, at which point start a new paragraph in that section or a new subsection in that section.
As a response to your question, in the article there are already multiple references stating that the U.S. servicemembers killed in the IED attack were Seabees in references. Please take a read. If you want other references, I will be happy to find them for you. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read them, the first reference is the earlier news report which states that Seabees were killed, the second says U.S. Army troops were killed. On CNN it said origionally the U.S. casualties were thought to be Navy personnel, later they confirmed U.S. Army soldiers. A one Major Bradley Gordon also confirmed that the casualties were army not navy, they were members of the 600 man advisor force sent in the beginning of the war. I dont deny what the first reference says, the problem with the first reference is that it is wrong, a report written by a journalist before he had all of the questions answered. This is very typical in the news world, often reporters make reports and publish them as soon as the information comes in, despite whether they know all of the inf or not.

Please see CNNs version of the story which lists the names of the disceased and the fact that they were members of the U.S. Special Forces. I would reference it myself but honestly I dont know how so maybe you can do it as you offered in your reply, thank you.

The beginning of CNNs story:

SEATTLE, Washington (CNN) -- Two U.S. Army Special Forces soldiers were killed by a homemade bomb while supporting anti-terror operations on an island in the southern Philippines, Army officials said Thursday.


Staff Sgt. Jack M. Martin III, left, and Sgt. 1st Class Christopher D. Shaw were killed Tuesday. 1 of 2 Sgt. 1st Class Christopher D. Shaw, 37, and Staff Sgt. Jack M. Martin III, 26, died after a bomb exploded Tuesday near their Humvee on the island of Jolo, said Lt. Col. David King.

After looking at your page, it would appear you are/were a member of the U.S. military. If so, let me thank you kindly for servicing our great nation. Have a pleasant evening. :>) --Az81964444 (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Az81964444 (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posting the story does not help, posting a link to the story, makes it a verifiable reliable srouce. If you can provide that. Then go ahead and edit the entry that matches the sources, with the properly formatted citation to back it up.
The only new story that I can find about the deaths being Special Forces operators is from the Mindanao Examiner, however, when you follow the link, all it does it take you to a blank page with adds.
Until that time I will revert edits unsupported by verifiable reliably sourced references, but continue to assume good faith.
Your welcome, by the way, but there are far more valorous servicemembers past and present who deserve that thank you. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a source that supports your changes:
"DoD Identifies Army Casualties". Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs). 1 October 2009. Retrieved 3 October 2009.
I have changed the article accordingly. Keeping with BLP, I have not added the names of the falled soldiers to the article, as they are included in the reference already.
I stand corrected. Thank you for putting up with my revisions. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you have examined the situation further, once again I thank you for your military service.:>)--Az81964444 (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al- Queda

[edit]
AL-Queda's  involvment in Philippines war against abu-sayaf is false al-queda did not support The insurgents  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.151.53 (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

War?

[edit]

I recently added a timeline of insurgent actions and casualties, only to have it deleted under the impression that this article isn't about the war. If so, why do we have a military infobox, a list of combatants, and a timeline of American casualties?50.129.89.173 (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not being the editor who made the reversion, I cannot speak for said editor, that being said I am of the opinion that the reviewing editor removed the content as the larger insurgencies that have been occuring in the Nation-State of the Republic of the Philippines are not what the article is about. There are articles regarding those insurgencies, and perhaps that removed content should be added to one of those. This article is about the United States & Philippines joint anti-terrorist operations; this is the limit to its scope. Although it can be argued that it is related to some of those insurgencies, the scope of this article is within the context of the War on Terror, not within the context of the insurgencies. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my view was that this article is about the US military deployment to the country, which has been almost entirely focused on training and other non-combat activities, and not the war itself. Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up taking the insurgent incident and placed it on the insurgency in the Philippines page. Thanks for the clarification.50.129.89.173 (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article on US SOF participation

[edit]

For those who are interested... In the December 2013 Tip of the Spear publication from USSOCOM there's an article on page 38 titled "SOF history: Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines" written by the USSOCOM History & Research Office. It might help expand the article.—  dainomite   13:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/enduring-freedom-philippines.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20121014192713/http://www.ndu.edu/press/operation-enduring-freedom-philippines.html

02:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Biased sources

http://warontherocks.com/2015/03/the-bush-wars-ellis-on-america-fighting-in-the-philippines/

http://warontherocks.com/2014/06/the-end-of-an-era-in-the-philippines/

http://warontherocks.com/2014/11/special-warfare-the-missing-middle-in-u-s-coercive-options/

http://warontherocks.com/2014/08/a-closer-look-at-terrorism-in-southeast-asia/

Moro Reactions Section: Pushing an Agenda

[edit]

I highly suspect the section "Moro reactions" was written by MILF sympathizers. A number of dubious points are being pushed with dubious sources (opinion ed pieces??) to push an anti - American agenda (e.g. " putting a decisive halt to American plans for its Asia military "pivot" in the Philippines."). Much of what is said is also largely irrelevant or lacks a neutral, balanced tone. Attempts are also made to paint the Moro cause as heroic. I ask for a rewrite with objectively verifiable claims or purging the section altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arquenevis (talk • contribs) 14:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Arquenevis: yes, the policy on WP:RS and WP:SPAM prevents self-published material from being referenced, as they are not reliable sources. -- Callinus (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Arquenevis: This same statement that was placed in "Moro reactions" before it was removed (User Callinus was absolutely correct to remove it due to the bias, and non-reliable, partisan sources) is strategically placed in the Spratly Islands and related pages to push a pro-China agenda along with the anti-American bias by criticizing the Philippines. Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Operation Enduring Freedom – Philippines. 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) 13:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OEF-P, CIA, 2002 vs. 2014

[edit]

This edit caught my eye. I looked into it a bit, and it appears to be a s,all correction to an assertion which is in incorrect in other ways. I've tried to fix it, and this is my attempt to explain my fix.

The edit changed an assertion that the CIA had sent paramilitary officers from their Special Activities Division (SOD) to the Philippines hunt down and kill terrorist leaders "by 2014" to say "in 2002". That is supported by a dead link cite. The cited source is a 2002 newspaper article which had two pages -- page one can be seen here; I have not been able to find page two. Page one reports on CIA using drone strikes to target terrorist leaders and on procedures being streamlined to provide rapid action to green-light such strikes.

That earlier wikilink to the SOD redirects here to the Special Activities Center (SOC) article, which says that the SOC was established in 2015, and that the paramilitary operations of CIA centralized in 1962 in the Special Operations Division, the predecessor of SAC. For a bit more background, see this outside article, which speaks of a paramilitary entity with its own fleet of armed drones. This 2015 article speaks of a drone strike in the Philippines, coordination between the military and the CIA, and the possibility of CIA operators being on the ground in the Philippines working with the military.

With that as background, I've edited this bit of the article here. Please improve as appropriate. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wtmitchell: I believe the edit should be reverted in its entirety per WP:BRD. It cites Truthout, which may not be a reliable source, although it claims to be a news organization, but it also clearly states that it has a political slant. In the Timeline of American casualties section, it makes modifications without any reliable source for the change. It also entirely removes the Balikatan training exercises.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 04:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Start date, etc.

[edit]

[January 15, 200 This edit] caught my eye. After looking at the article, I've made some changes [ here. This is an explanation of my reasons for these c changes.

  1. viewpoint. The article title, Operation Enduring Freedom – Philippines is from the viewpoint of the forces conducting that operation. The infobox parameter territory is set to, "Failure of the militants to establish a provincial IS territory (wilayat)";That seems to describe the viewpoint of the forces against which the operation is directed. A change from \\falure to to prevention of bight have fixed that, but I saw other problems.
  2. {{Infobox military conflict}} usage docs for the territory parameter don't fit with the usage here. The action, result and status don't seem to fit either. I've removed the parameter definition, but see further belos.
  3. IS and wilayat were terms in that removed definition that were not not completely clear to me. The firsst is apparently short for Islamic State and the second is, I'm guessing, related to Wilayah. I found the same terrminology used in the Siege of Marawi article. It seems also to be related to the term wilayah
  4. 14 January 2002 came into the article as a specific star date for OEF-P with this unsourced and unexplained change. I've changed it back to January 2002 and cited a supporting source.

This video, titled SOCPAC JTF 510 is linked by the source I've added to support the change in the start date. Early in the video, the mission of OEF=P is stated. I've echoed that mission statement in the article, citing the news source which links the video. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Jihad and combatant2=

[edit]

Islamic Jihad is a disambiguation page, and this edit Tagged the wikilink to it here with {{dn}}. None of the alternatives listed there seemed to fit so, since OEF-P was a part of Operation Enduring Freedom, I looked at that article. The {{infobox military conflict}} infobox there has a combatant2= section titled "In the Philippines:", which lists the following:

The combatant2= parts of these two infoboxes should be reconciled. It looks to me as if this article might list just the three organizations named there, possibly with a breakddown under some of those giving more detail -- if the body of this article contains cite-supported info about that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was considering disambiguating the link to the umbrella term Jihadism, which I just added to the dab page Islamic Jihad. But listing the specific groups matching the list at Operation Enduring Freedom seems like the better choice. —ShelfSkewed Talk 20:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Major battles

[edit]

This article popped up on my watchlist and I was about to add subheadings into this section above the parts about the individual battles but I could not understand this section well enough to do that. The section has content about battles named Zamboanga City Crisis (AKA Zamboanga siege), then The Marawi Siege, then Siege of Zamboanga Aside from MOS:HEADCAPS problems there, I'm not sure from the content there whether there were two separate battles or not. This needs to be clarified and subheadings added. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Enduring_Freedom_–_Philippines&oldid=1246763457"