Talk:Canada's role in the invasion of Afghanistan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 Canadian military history task force

Sept/23/06

President Karzai's recent visit should be mentioned somewhere.

Apr 22/06 casualties listed under March. Also all ranks are abrieviated for said event except Bombadier...changed to keep consistant. Motorfix 17:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No Mention of why we went into Afghanistan. This is more a timeline of events. This could do with a proper intro.

Motorfix 19:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

According to this article all Canadians have done since March 2006 is get injured and killed. Leave it to CBC to focus on body counts (and Tim Hortons in theatre). How about some information on what Canadian soldiers are actually doing? --M4-10 22:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

OPSEC might preclude some info, but I agree with the sentiment that the "article" is really just an unveiled mortality count.Michael Dorosh 00:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the main problem is with sentences like "Canadian forces undertake Operation Harpoon as part of Operation Anaconda in the Shah-i-Kot Valley.", and they just wikilink to the actual in-depth articles. It would be nice to have a one-paragraphy summary of what each operation was inside this article, so the reader has a clear idea. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 01:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed this as well. The article is our role in the invasion, but it doesn't discuss our role in detail. It is more a timeline of events. I'll see if I can work on this a bit.Motorfix 15:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we need Timeline of the Canadian forces in Afganistan, or something, and this article properly cleaned up? It's horrible right now. -b 18:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Expenditure for Afghanistan

Does anyone know what the Canadian military's total expenditure has been so far in Afghanistan ever since 2001? A number and a source would be appreciated. I tried to find it myself, but couldn't find any specific numbers. Perhaps it should even be something to add to the article.

I doubt you'll find it. The mission cost was brought up recently by politicians but there were major disagreements over what should be included. --M4-10 18:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fatalities

I'm going to move from a list to a table, to explore in more detail each death and circumstance. -b 18:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps start a new page? List of Canadians killed? Motorfix 03:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
List of Canadians killed in Afganistan or List of Canadian Fatalities in Afganistan? -b 03:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Either one would be a candidate for deletion. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of lists." The article as is seems very unencyclopedic and a list would be moreso. I had a listing of fatal casualties at Crescent Heights High School that was removed for the same reason - basically, it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I'd even be in favour of deleting the names altogether, not only is it morbid, but it actually seems disrespectful given that the only information in this article has to do with who died and not with what the soldiers are accomplishing over there.Michael Dorosh 03:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Michael. We do not have to mention name for name every soldier killed. Each death is it's own tragedy, but can you picture what the US Invasion of Iraq page would look like if they named each loss? Even the timeline of events doesn't say much. I'd love to edit or help, but alas, as the father of two busy boys...I barely have time for a game of combat mission these days! Motorfix 04:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I've rewritten the page and done a quick bit of research on the various missions - will need fleshing out and corrections, but it is a start. The info on fatalities does not belong in the main text and so I've moved some of it to the fatality listing. I won't ask you for a Combat Mission setup then, either. ;-) Michael Dorosh 04:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Agree, for the record. Good start Michael. By the way, what's with the title of the article? The invasion was so 2001. --M4-10 00:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Don't know what is up with the title, was set up this way. We could change it if we wanted.Michael Dorosh 04:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


Mmmkay, so I've created a sandbox for this article (as opposed to creating a third on my userpage) to experiment with the idea of a table. Canada's role in the invasion of Afghanistan/Sandbox, based roughly on a CBC idea. [1] Thoughts? -b 07:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks very good, and the thought occurred to me as well the info might be better presented as a table. I'm still unsure that the casualties should receive so much focus. They deserve a mention but may not be encyclopedic per WP standards. For now, I would say go ahead and complete the table - it's very nicely done. I suppose if there are objections to it we can discuss at that time and cross the bridge when we come to it. If the information really is seen to be encylopedic, the table offers a much better and accessible format. At some point we may want to include a column for photographs, as well.Michael Dorosh 13:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Unless anyone has any problems, I'll be moving it from the sandbox to the article sometime tomorrow. -b 03:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit uneasy about the latest entry. "Accidental discharge" makes it sound like he himself was at fault - not a great way to remember him. The correct term, "negligent discharge", makes it sound even worse. I think it would be closer to the truth to just say "non-combat death" or "accidental death" as it requires the least explanation.Michael Dorosh 03:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
See comments in your sandbox talk page regarding a suggested place to move it and some minor adjustments.Cheers,

Motorfix 03:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Private Costall, friendly fire

An inquiry into his death was recently concluded [2], and while we have to wait for the results, shouldn't it still be included? Also, and this is ignorance, isn't an accidental discharge considered friendly fire? -b 19:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of Costall. No we should not wait for the results, that is speculation. Also, An accidental discharge is not "friendly fire", I raised this subject a few days ago in your sandbox. See also negligent discharge.Michael Dorosh 20:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political Aspect

I have added info on our diplomatic history a bit. Worthwile, or not? Motorfix 22:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think so. Good work today. Michael Dorosh 23:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Material

Current gov. website with info on all Missions and deployments.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1703 Motorfix 23:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Units

Might it be worthwile to list units and military organization of Canadian Forces in Afghanistan? Perhaps on a seperate page? Motorfix 16:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The units change every 6 months, and every regular force infantry, armour, and field artillery unit has or will get a go. --M4-10 19:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
As well, individual augmentees from reserve units get mentioned frequently in the news, which is no doubt confusing to most of the public - for example, a fellow from the Loyal Edmonton Regiment was seriously injured today in the G-Wagen accident that unfortunately killed another soldier. (I see CTV has referred to it as the "Royal Edmonton Regiment"). There would be no way to track which reserve units were contributing; my own unit has deployed about two dozen soldiers alone. Should they be mentioned? I don't believe there is any publicly available information on which unit has reservists deployed though I do understand they are over there serving directly with PPCLI, RCR, etc. I realize the press is publishing the names of units as is the official Army website so security is not an issue, but is it really encyclopedic to keep a running tally even of just the major units involved? It seems like a lot of extraneous detail which is being done in lieu of substantial information relating to the mission itself.Michael Dorosh 19:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Well said. -b 23:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name change

As above, the title of this article is completely outdated. It definitely needs a new title. Suggestions? -b 03:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] For/Against arguments?

Hi, I looked this article up because I'm currently undecided about Canada's role in Afghanistan, and wanted to learn more. However, the article is extremely vague, and details the mechanics of Canada's involvement, more than the reasons for it/arguments supporting/condemning it. A brief disection of our 3 missions there would be great, too. "Defending our national interests?" That's rather vague, and really not helpful. What are our national interests, and why? What will be the reprecussions for having those interests, and who in Parliament supports them? Those sorts of things seem far more important and encyclopedic than a list of the casualties, which, to be honest, is cluttering to the article. Perhaps a seperate article, "Canadian Casualties in Afghanistan" should be made, since there's really no point to listing off each individual who has died in the confrontation; as thoughtful as it is, in the long run, I find it irrelevant.

-Jackmont, Aug 10

While I agree about the casualty list and strongly agree that we should have more information about what has and what is happening there, I disagree about for/against arguments, as they are unencyclopedic. "Canada's role in the invasion of Afghanistan" (an awful title) is just one major part of larger Liberal and Conservative foreign policy regarding the Middle East and the War on Terrorism and the foreign policy considerations are beyond the scope of this article. --M4-10 05:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Our role as editors is not to advocate a political position but to report facts in as balanced a manner as possible and allow the reader to interpret them for themselves. The article should not betray any one side - see WP:NPOV.Michael Dorosh 05:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Title

How about "Canadian military operations in Afghanistan"? Or does that ignore our diplomatic and aid accomplishments? Should the article include the latter? If not, then would this be a better title?Michael Dorosh 05:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is a good answer for this, but one option is to get rid of this page and simply have fleshed out pages for Op Apollo, Op Athena, and OP Archer, with each explicitly linking to the Op before and after it. Each operation has been reasonably distinct in intent, disposition, and mission area. Your suggestion is acceptable as a minimum, interim solution. "The Invasion of Afghanistan" may have been obvious in 2002, but Afghanistan has been invaded what, dozens of times? --M4-10 07:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
It has been refered to a few times as the "Canadian Mission in Afganistan" by the media. Perhaps something like this? It would be nice to keep this article as a hybrid of military, diplomatic and aid work. -b 15:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
How about "Canada's role in ISAF"? I know the content within is not strictly ISAF but we can make those sections clear and it is a more natural link from ISAF. --M4-10 18:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Military Operations. role in the invasion of Afghanistan is clearly POV. --Deenoe 01:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see this article reflect the military, diplomatic, aid and rebuilding roles that Canada is engaged in, so I think any name change should leave room for that. how about just "Canada's role in Afghanistan" or "Canada's role in Afghanistan since 2002"?. Mike McGregor (Can) 02:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/n/Talk%7ECanada%27s_role_in_the_invasion_of_Afghanistan_eb6d.html"