Talk:Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of Tambayan Philippines, the WikiProject and notice board for topics related to the Philippines. To participate, visit the Tambayan for more information.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Neutrality of propaganda term

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

[edit] Removal of POV flag

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)

[edit] Casualties

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)

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)

[edit] clarify? clarity?

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)

[edit] Allies???

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)

[edit] Help in policing this article

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)

[edit] Japan and OEF

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)

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)

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)
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)

[edit] What's with the infobox?

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

[edit] Infobox is confusing...

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)