Talk:United States invasion of Afghanistan/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ovinus (talk · contribs) 04:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An impressive article to bring to GAN. I will probably make some hands-on tweaks (feel free to revert ones you disagree with). Do you intend on taking this to FAC? Ovinus (talk) 04:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) I may take to FAC eventually, but not anytime soon. --Cerebellum (talk) 08:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:D Sorry about this, but I'll need to be off Wikipedia for a bit—probably a week. I'll get back to you once off-wiki stuff settles. Ovinus (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! --Cerebellum (talk) 08:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, back. Main focuses will be NPOV, appropriate context, and summary style. Ovinus (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"became the first phase of a 20-year long war in the country" – I'd just be direct and say "became the first phase of the 20-year-long War in Afghanistan" Ovinus (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Cerebellum (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"eventually succeeded in overthrowing the Afghan government in 2021" – Probably should state that the overthrow occurred quickly/immediately after the withdrawal of US troops Ovinus (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to In 2021, while international forces were withdrawing from the country, the Taliban succeeded in overthrowing the Afghan government and re-establishing their rule across Afghanistan.
"warlord-ism" – Is this a common word? If not I'd rephrase it; if so I'd remove the hyphen Ovinus (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "warlord rule". --Cerebellum (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Hazara factions" – This word hasn't been introduced Ovinus (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added The Hazaras are a minority ethnic group adhering to Shia Islam and living in the mountains of central Afghanistan. They're actually quite fascinating, when I was in Logar province neither the Taliban nor the Afghan army would go into Hazara areas - they keep to themselves and run a tight ship. Should I make the sentence a footnote or leave it in the main text? --Cerebellum (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You were deployed in Afghanistan? Wow. Yeah, I like the extra information but I would put it in a footnote (probs at the end of the sentence, since it's close enough to Hazara). Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes :) Changed to a footnote. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I made a change giving context to bin Laden's return from Sudan (first sentence in Al-Qaeda). Please tweak/revert if it isn't supported by the source, but I thought it would help a reader who forgot about bin Laden's flee from Afghanistan. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you! --Cerebellum (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"One of bin Laden's strategic goals was to draw the US into a costly war in Afghanistan, so it could be defeated just as the Soviet Union had been" – To be clear, the cost of the war specifically would lead to defeat in Afghanistan?

Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't specify, it just says: "As a side effect of September 11, bin Laden hope to draw the United States into a long war in Afghanistan, where it would be defeated like the Soviet Union." --Cerebellum (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like a sentence at the beginning of Command structure that just states the countries involved. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Cerebellum (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"with a budget of $7 million" relevant? I haven't seen financial information up till here. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"with a Predator drone" A bit of context on the predator drone would be helpful. Why is its first deployment notable? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"the men left the school, but Omar escaped" – If Omar was among the men, probably should use "and" Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"They also began airdropping food and medical supplies" – To whom? Also, how relevant and/or unusual is this?

Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added to civilians in Northern Alliance-controlled territory. I think it is unusual, it was a big initiative of Bush because Afghanistan was in a severe drought.

Overall comment: There is a lot of detail on equipment, battalions, etc. I'll be honest: I rarely touch military articles and am not sure of the typical style. I'd imagine this article will be much more trafficked by people like me, so I'd strive for a more general audience if you do take it to FAC Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think what really hurts readability is that I refer to the Special Forces teams by their numbers, e.g. ODA 555. I couldn’t think of a better way to do it :( But I understand that any reader's eyes will glaze over when they see the wall of acronyms and unit designations, it is definitely a problem and one of the reasons I am hesitant to take this to AFC. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I still think it's quite readable. Ovinus (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"known as Pinkies" Relevant? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Emirati hunting camp" Forgive my ignorance—what is a hunting camp? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a strange story, there is a rare bird called MacQueen's bustard in Afghanistan that is beloved by falcon hunters. Some sheikhs from the United Arab Emirates built the airstrip so that they could fly in on their private jets in order to hunt the birds. Let me know if I should include that info in the article. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is pretty strange... but that's kind of what I assume you meant by "hunting camp" (hunting animals) so I think it's fine.
"preparatory fires" Again, sorry if this is jargon. Does "preparatory" mean prophylactic, practice, something else? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Preparatory fires means bombing something before an attack in order to “soften up” the target, I agree that it is unnecessary jargon. How about B-2 Spirit stealth bombers and AC-130 gunships bombed and strafed the site.
Sounds good
"Objective Gecko" is used before it is defined. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"No casualties were suffered" I'd clarify "US casualties" Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The next day, the Pentagon showed the video footage from Objective Rhino at a press conference and distributed it to news organizations" Relevant because... it was the first public video of the operations? If so, I'd state that. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was relevant because General Dailey had his men attack a worthless objective (worthless because he knew there were no enemy on the objective), just so he could film the mission and give it to reporters. The whole thing was for propaganda purposes, is there a better way I can convey that? Or am I already editorializing too much? --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay.
"both objectives were empty" What does empty mean? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to neither objective had any Taliban on it, hope that's better. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Since intelligence prior to the missions had indicated that both objectives were empty, the mission primarily aimed to psychologically damage the Taliban" The second half of sentence can be removed, as it nearly duplicates the next sentence, and I think Dailey's quote is more compelling. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"calling al-Qaeda and the Taliban criminals who were not proper Muslims" What does this mean? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the source, it just says decrying the Taliban and Afghanistan as criminals who had ruined Afghanistan, so I removed the part about them not being proper Muslims. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"an important hostage rescue mission" – I'd probably remove "important" unless it was a defining event of the operation, as it's slightly editorializing, and the reader can immediately see the significance with the next sentence. Up to you, though. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"caused heavy Taliban casualties" Any estimates on the toll? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source does not give an estimate. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"surprised everyone" Who is everyone? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "surprised the Americans". --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"impromptu massed infantry assault" What does "massed" mean? Should it be "mass"? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Several nights later, beginning on October 16" I assume you mean November here Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's an image of the propaganda pamplets, but I don't see anything about them in-text. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the image. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"they assassinated his father" Is "assassination" appropriate here? (Was his father a high-level political figure) Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source says “assassinated”, so does our article Abdul Ahad Karzai. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The airlift is alleged to have evacuated up to five thousand people" – Is this figure controversial enough to say "alleged"? If so, I'd like in-text attribution Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, everything about the airlift is controversial, I added some specific views with attribution including the US government position that no such airlift took place. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, and I like the additions.
"opium plant" – Perhaps you could use "factory" or whatever term you think is most precise; I was confused for a moment because I thought they had some giant opium poppy :P Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lol! Changed to "production facility". --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"On the way to the target one Land Rover broke down due to an engine problem and was left behind with its crew (they were picked when the assault force exfilled)." Seems like excessive detail... Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"recovered Spann's body" On what date? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
26 November, added to text. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"86 Taliban survived" Out of how many? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1,000, added to text. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The revolt was the final combat in northern Afghanistan." Citation needed Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could not find a source so I removed that sentence. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Dasht-i-Leili massacre" In the interest of NPOV, I'd put a quick sentence about the subsequent investigations into the massacre, or in Aftermath. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Dostum, despite being responsible for that massacre, went on to become vice president of Afghanistan until he was accused of sodomizing a political rival with an assault rifle in 2017 and fled the country (source). --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh gosh.
"Using CIA cash" Is "cash" frequently used formally in this context? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "funds". --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"They would also retreat to their base areas to sleep and break their fast each night, since the battle occurred during Ramadan, the month of fasting when Muslims do not eat or drink during the day." To be clear, the forces observed Ramadan despite their fighting? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, should I say that in the text? --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No need; I was just quite surprised..
"Powell and Rumsfeld" Give Powell's title, first name, and link Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld aimed to carry out operations..." This should be moved before the Powell–Rumsfield debate Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Because the rise of the insurgency" What insurgency? Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Linked Taliban insurgency. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"invoking the memory of General George Marshall whilst talking of Afghan reconstruction" Somewhat flowery; I'd rephrase a bit. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff

There is a sandwich issue at the beginning of Prelude. I'd suggest moving things a bit or removing the Ground Zero photo (I think most people reading this article will have seen it). Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the Ground Zero photo. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a pleasing and compelling article, even for someone who isn't into military conflicts. Ovinus (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the peanut gallery

One major aspect that I don't see covered here is the question as to whether the invasion of Afghanistan was legal according to the UN charter and international law. There are various sources that discuss it, for example:

Juan, Michelle Ann U. (2002–2003). "Testing the Legality of the Attack on Afghanistan". Ateneo Law Journal. 47: 499.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
Quigley, John (2002–2003). "The Afghanistan War and Self-Defense". Valparaiso University Law Review. 37: 541.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
Williamson, Myra (2013). Terrorism, War and International Law: The Legality of the Use of Force Against Afghanistan in 2001. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 978-1-4094-9656-4.

(t · c) buidhe 04:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe makes an excellent point, thanks; completely forgot about the non-military aspect. A discussion on international reactions and legality is important for completeness, especially for a fairly massive event like this one. And as I alluded to above, I'd also like a bit more info in Casualties; where was the death toll highest? Ovinus (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Buidhe for the comment and those sources. Ovinus, if you can give me the weekend to review the sources I will get the section added no later than Sunday. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take as much time as you need! Ovinus (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ovinus: @Buidhe: I took a stab at a legality section, let me know what you think. Tomorrow I will try to find more detailed information on casualties and/or war crimes, I know there is at least one account of the Northern Alliance beheading Taliban prisoners. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty good, although a tad short. Buidhe, do you know if the invasion's illegality is a majority view? You could hatnote this section to Opposition to the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) which is largely about this same topic (although not the best article out there), and actually provides other pertinent topics to put elsewhere in Aftermath: International reactions, the reaction of the US public, and of Afghanis. My feeling is that the military coverage is excellent and complete; we just need more context on non-military aspects of the aftermath. Ovinus (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done. Added a reactions section and expanded casualties. Most of the coverage of civilian casualties begins after the invasion, for example on December 23rd 65 tribal elders were killed in an airstrike while on their way to Karzai's inauguration, but the scope of this article ends on December 17th. Same with Afghan public opinion, there are anecdotal reports but I couldn't find any actual surveys before 2006. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good, imo! I'll probably pass the review after a quick second pass of the article. Ovinus (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, passing. Thank you for your excellent work on this important topic! :) Ovinus (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! You made my day :) --Cerebellum (talk) 08:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]