Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Imminent Taliban victory

It now seems clear that the Taliban will conquer the entire country by the end of the week, what would suffice in order to change "Result" to "Taliban victory" in the infobox? If we have major international newspapers like the New York Times putting it on the front page, would that be enough? --RaphaelQS (talk) 09:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• While there will certainly be continued fighting even after final surrender of the IRA government -- not unlike the last time the Taliban took over in '96 -- I would support (assuming RS report it) putting a pin on this article by crediting it as a Taliban victory (again, assuming RS report it thusly) and then starting a fresh article "War in Afghanistan (2021–present)" to cover the ensuing conflict. The belligerents infobox will get too confusing and cluttered otherwise. Chetsford (talk) 09:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• • Who said there will be a protracted conflict though? Let’s just wait for the coming events and see what happens. ArabMan719 (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a conflict which has concluded with the end of the Kabul regime which occurred today. Therefore rename the article appropriately.SAMBLAman (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Not yet. There are thousands of American troops still there, even if their purpose is just to protect the evacuation. And the Taliban has not yet taken control of Kabul or of the organs of government. It's true that everyone seems to think that is inevitable, but it's not a RESULT from Wikipedia's point of view until it actually happens. If one sports team has a huge or insurmountable lead in a game, do we declare the result in our article before the game actually ends? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we should wait till the evacuation is finished, but all major cities including Kabul and its palace are in Taliban hands, the Taliban is about to declare an emirate, and what’s left of the Afghan government that hasn’t gone into exile is negotiating surrenders. It seems to be a textbook case of debellatio. I would recommend using the Soviet–Afghan War as a frame of reference and adopting the result of “NATO failure and Afghan Taliban victory”. Certainly with the Taliban conquest of the country and destruction of the Afghan government prior NATO’s withdrawal, it would seem to be what the overwhelming majority of reliable sources say.Freepsbane (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The Taliban took control of the presidential palace and are sitting in the president's chair (and the president fled the country), which has been widely covered by the news media. What more is needed to declare this a Taliban victory? Someone Not Awful (talk) 01:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The entire war should not be listed as a Taliban victory, it should be listed as satus quo ante bellum. The Taliban conquered no American soil or extracted any unilateral concessions from the American government in a peace. The Taliban is in power as it was in 2001. This is a return to the status prior to the war.

You forget that the war in Afghanistan was also a civil war. The so-called "North Vietnam" (Democratic Republic of Vietnam) is considered to have won the Vietnam war, although no North Vietnamese soldier ever put his foot on the American soil. And besides, South Vietnam and Afghanistan were effectively "American soil" because they had been occupied by US troops for years, just as British India or British Kenya were "British soil" in some sense. JJohannes (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Well then, if this is a “status quo antebellum” instead of a Taliban victory, for consistency’s sake we would have to change the Soviet–Afghan War to “Soviet Victory” as not only did their foes fail to conquer Kabul or any major city while they were in there, but also left a puppet government that lasted for years, crumbling only after Russia ended their aid. Not status quo either since lots of reliable resources are starting to say the losing side in this war seems set to suffer serious prestige damage and the Taliban themselves have seized billions in arms, and where they only controlled part of the country in 1996, they seem to hold all. The Taliban have expanded territorially from the war, and taken arms as spoils, surely very typical for a victory.Freepsbane (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The Taliban did actually expand its territory over what it possessed in 2001 since the Taliban never conquered the northern provinces at the end of the 1990s Afghan civil war. Today, territory that was controlled by the US allied Northern Alliance prior to the 2001 invasion is now controlled by the Taliban. They have not only achieved their 'war objectives' of the withdraw of US troops and conquest of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, but have also expanded their pre-war territory. N0thingbetter (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Status quo ante bellum is a meaningless, American, face saving term. Afghanistan was invaded and the invaders were kicked out. That is a victory for the defenders and a sound defeat for the invaders, no matter who is who on this one.

Term is certainly not an American one. That being said, the Americans/Coalition members showed up, occupied the nation, basically ran the country for as long as their military was present and then left without losing a battle. The people of Afghanistan suffered tremendously for the better part of two decades. Sure, this recent offensive by the Taliban against the former Afghani government is a Taliban victory, but to call the entire two decades an American/coalition defeat is an oversimplification.

Surely then you must edit the outcome of the Soviet–Afghan War to a Soviet victory as not only did they not lose a major city (when the NATO lost every city) prior to withdrawal, but they left a strong client government which could defeat jihadist offensives like the Taliban’s. This war is not status quo though, the Taliban expanded territorially from controlling part of the country before the war to having conquered everything including the old northern alliance, and taken an army’s worth of spoils. Also NATO was losing even before the peace treaty they had already lost control of half of Afghanistan [1] and then lost the other half while withdrawing. Their withdrawal now is continuing under the graciousness of the victor. This is as through a defeat of an outside power as Yorktown and the American revolution.Freepsbane (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Fully agreed. I don't know why the "result" is not "Taliban victory" yet. 80.30.95.56 (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Because the wider debate about if the war is over is happening below this thread. — Czello 19:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

It's all but a fait accompli. That said, just to be by the book, I'm going to wait till the evacuation is finished. There still is a chance the situation could deteriorate and lead to fighting, but so far, it seems the Taliban has agreed to allow the NATO members to retreat in peace[2]. Assuming that holds, once it's done, it might make sense to gather a constellation of reliable sources describing the war's result as “NATO failure and Taliban victory”. There already are a ton but I don't feel like provoking controversy by making that edit till the evacuation is fully complete.Freepsbane (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Agree. Several Reliable Sources are reporting that the outcome is indeed a Taliban victory. I believe the infobox should be changed to reflect this; see references. Vitomontreal (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Sources

• Comment as i partly agree and partly disagree. I think the results should be two for the War in Afghanistan: US-led coalition victory over Al-Qaeda and Taliban victory over US-backed Republic of Afghanistan. Or maybe just AL Qaeda defeat and Taliban victory. It makes sense to have two results since both Al Qaeda and the Taliban have been indicated as the main enemies of the US (and allies) in this war. Most importantly, this is also based on what Biden said: our mission against Al Qaeda was a success, our mission to build a democratic Afghanistan was not. So he basically declared victory in one fight and defeat in another. I think that's a fair take. Barjimoa (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I’m under the impression we don’t vote, we vote, the reliable sources “vote” a consensus for us. And right now I see no “coalition victory over AQ” as what the NYT, what WaPo, what any say. In fact most say AQ would join in on the victors spoils and that his is one of the most comprehensive defeats ever. That said, if we want to redefine what victory means… then as a show of faith you should edit other wars by similar standards, obvious candidate being Soviet–Afghan War. Should be easy for you to do as they did not lose any major city, versus a Cornwallis surrender type situation in Kabul, and left a relatively lasting an enduring client, versus Ghani falling before the withdrawal was complete. Part of our strength is we have universal standards, do not treat people or countries with favoritism, so if we now re-evaluate how we rate success, the best way to prove its no ‘where we live’ kinda favoritism is to apply it to outsiders. But no, plenty of sources saying AQ is joining in on the spoils, how could they be defeated when their brothers in arms now have completely and utterly prevailed in the war over the country.Freepsbane (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

As an addendum, while the comparison to Yorktown is shocking, it is not at all exaggerated:, despite frenzied air strikes by strategic bombers and gunships (nato participation in battle) the coalition could not keep the Taliban from completely defeating their clients and taking billions in tax payer paid plunder. The Taliban subsequently seized the capital with coalition citizens and troops still there, and the coalition was reduced to asking for permission to evacuate in exchange for deconflicting/not fighting the Taliban[3] it’s a very surrender of Cornwallis type moment. Which is why I think if we are going to redefine victory (against what the overwhelming majority of reliable sources say) then to prove we aren’t just a nationalism or favoritism project, we should start with other countries. And what better than the last war which ended in a comparatively dignified way for the Soviets with a client regime enduring for a respectably long period of time. That would prove to readers we are not just letting nationalism and sentimentality get in our head.Freepsbane (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Freepsbane: Don't bother with this guy, he's been going around altering items like the infobox without any consensus or sources other than "Biden said" (hardly an unbiased source there) to insert claims about Al-Qaeda as being a coalition win. Clearly a biased user wanting to insert their own preferred narrative rather than evidence-based sourcing of outcomes. Apache287 (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I find this comment offensive honestly. I'm just stating facts, and i only added Al Qaeda defeat when others added Taliban victory (which obviously i'm fine with). One cannot doubt my objectivity.Barjimoa (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Don't care if you find it "offensive", you are trying to spin fairytales that we only invaded to remove Al-Qaeda when we invaded to remove the Taliban from power and prevent Afghanistan from being used to harbour terrorists. Now are there still terror groups using Afghanistan as a base? Yes. Do the Taliban control Afghanistan? Yes. We failed completely. Also you're sharing opinion pieces as evidence. An opinion piece isn't journalistic reporting Apache287 (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Sources do claim that Al Qaeda has been defeated in Afghanistan, both of this year (url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/ten-years-later-islamist-terrorism-isnt-the-threat-it-used-to-be/2021/04/29/deb88256-a91c-11eb-bca5-048b2759a489_story.html) and of the past (https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/president-obamas-secret-100-al-qaeda-now-afghanistan/story?id=9227861). I don't know if AQ will come back in the future (by the Doha agreement it technically shouldn't). But still, so far their network has been basically wiped out of Afghanistan. Barjimoa (talk)

Not only is the first an oped by an architect of the war, and the second a puff piece by a country from the war, but those predate the decisive Taliban victory and so are badly out of date. It’s like a 1972 paper claiming the Vietcong are defeated when they’re a few years away from joining the north in their triumph. It seem they’re joining on the spoil and as part of the winning side see it as their victory too.[4] I would challenge you to produce a post fall of Kabul source that so much claims any shred of victory. And as a sign of good faith in redefining what victory means,I would urge you to edit Soviet–Afghan War, to prove we are not practicing favoritism. It should be easy since they lost no major cities during their tenure and had no Yorktown type humiliation where they had to ask their foes for safe passage out the country.Freepsbane (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

This makes eminent sense to me. As I wrote elsewhere on another talk page just now... The US was successful in its initial invasion and in its al Qaeda eradication efforts. Strictly speaking, the Taliban "victory" came after American withdrawal and the cessation of hostilities. The US did succeed in replacing the government; that government was not successful in surviving post-American occupation. The nation building is retrospectively a failure, but was the American mission? What was the American mission? The lack of definition on that point is problematic, as the debate above clearly highlights. Right now, media mentions are leaning into the concept of a Taliban victory, but I'm not entirely sure how that's representative of the entire 20 year war when that victory has taken place after the withdrawal of most of the combatant forces i.e. the US and ISAF allies. ISAF operations concluded seven years ago; how can those operations have concluded with the Taliban's reconquering of the country in 2021? This war is, in fact, more complicated than the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan vs the Taliban in a civil war; the war, in fact, predates the republic and, insofar as it is recognized to have begun in 2001, was initiated by the US, which, again, had ceased military operations and withdrawn prior to the Taliban "victory". This isn't at all about face-saving; it's about accuracy and clarity. Jbbdude (talk) 05:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• As a side, if a puff piece from before the war went south is enough to support “USA victory” (in any capacity) claim, then the overwhelming stream of sources claiming the lost war badly damaged American prestige must be cited as well. It makes no sense to use marginal deprecated sources not in agreement with the consensus to claim an outcome but also exclude a stream of universally scathing sources from America and the world on its outcome. Clearly there is substantially more reliable sources, and more current sources arguing ‘’United States Prestige Significantly Damaged’’ than there is victory over anything.Freepsbane (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Result(s)

I think the results should be two for the War in Afghanistan: US-led coalition victory over Al-Qaeda and Taliban victory over US-backed Republic of Afghanistan. Or maybe something along the lines of AL Qaeda network in Afghanistan dismantled and Taliban Emirate restored following the US withdrawal. It makes sense to have two results since both Al Qaeda and the Taliban have been indicated as the main enemies of the US (and allies) in this war. Most importantly, this is also based on what Biden said: "our mission against Al Qaeda was a success, our mission to build a democratic Afghanistan was not". So he basically declared victory in one fight (dismantling Al Qaeda network in Afghanistan and counter-terrorism) and defeat (nation-building and counter-insurgency) in another. I think that's a fair take and it's going to be easy to find the sources for both claims, starting with the Biden speech. Barjimoa (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

If you don't want accuracy, but some sort of US face saving title, then do that. It won't be true though. There was no US victory here, it was a clear defeat of the US led forces.

Even though Joe Biden himself is lying in the speech, as per his previous comments where he was pro-"nation building". Even if you wanted to be generous and claim NATO had two objectives, to remove the IEA/Taliban and to degrade Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups then clearly given that Trump had to bomb ISIS in Afghanistan and that the Taliban have just seized control of 33/34 province centres in less time than most people go on holiday it's clear the US/NATO mission has been a complete failure and we are now at the exact same position as when we went in. Apache287 (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The US/NATO mission succeed in keeping the Taliban out of power for as long as it was carried out. Soon after the US/NATO mission was discontinued, the Taliban took power – which is clear evidence that the US/NATO mission was completely successful in keeping the Taliban out of power. Here's a perfect analogy: if you switch off a light, and the room becomes dark, it's clear that the light was successful in its job of illuminating the room. 2601:281:D47F:AE60:FD18:5947:165:39BD (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I want accuracy and I am not being generous. It's just that NATO did in fact always claim to have two objectives (from Bush to Biden). Dismantle Al Qaeda and defeat the Talibans. Dismantling Al Qaeda has been achieved, defeating the Talibans has been a failure. Do you really think AL Qaeda shouldn't be mentioned in the infobox? It was the main reason the US went to war in the first place.Barjimoa (talk) 06:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The infobox template is pretty clear that this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"; we don't generally do "X victory but ..." (Template:Infobox military conflict). Chetsford (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Taliban victory and Al Qaeda defeat. That's what i am saying. Barjimoa (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Apache287. The result of the war has been a Taliban victory and their takeover of Afghanistan. It's as simple as that. Whether the US/NATO withdrew or lost is irrelevant. Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

It's obviously not irrelevant. But even if was, Al Qaeda lost. I do agree that Taliban won, obviously. Barjimoa (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Anglosphere news sources have slowly started using «Taliban victory»; this comes a few days later than sources in other languages. Ffaffff (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

But i agree with that, i am not saying this is not a Taliban victory. I'm saying (like Biden in his speech) that the US and allies lost to the Taliban insurgency (taliban victory) but defeated Al Qaeda (al Qaeda defeat). One has been defeated and the other hasn't. Many sources are out there to back this up. Barjimoa (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Al Qaeda still exist and Islamic terror they support has only grown since 9/11. They haven't "lost" in any way. The invasion was about punishing the Taliban and removing them from power for their support of Islamic terror groups like AQ. The Taliban are still in power. Stop just repeating what Biden said in a face-saving speech where he also blamed Afghan civilians for not evacuating earlier as some well-supported fact. Apache287 (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Apache287 is correct. Ayman al-Zawahiri is still at large, and al-Qaeda affiliates such as Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula are still very active. 2601:281:D47F:AE60:FD18:5947:165:39BD (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, as a network and force, has been dispersed and dismantled. I'm not repeating everything Biden said, certainly not the part of Afghan civilians. However, one cannot exclude the true things Biden said just cause he is Biden. Note that now Boris Johnson also said something along those lines (and even exaggerated with calling the whole mission a succcess because of that). Even by the Doha agreement the Talibans agreed to not give bases to Al Qaeda.Barjimoa (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Your "sources" are two different politicians, one who is infamous for lying frequently, giving speeches during massive criticism of the collapse of Afghanistan as to claim why losing isn't actually losing. Funnily enough plenty of leaders throughout history have done this but we don't take their face-saving as gospel. Reliable Sources are not considering the dismantling of Al-Qaeda as the primary war goal, instead it was the removal of the Taliban regime. 2A00:23C7:62A3:3A00:FD21:BFBF:5F0C:F61E (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Wow I knew wikipedia was full of trolls and propagandists but are you guys serious? If you're conclusion is that the US "lost" then you're a fool or a liar, maybe both. Germany lost WW2. Argentina lost in the Falklands. To label this mission a defeat, when the overarching goal of dismantling the threat of Al-Qaeda in the country has been achieved and then some, is completely misleading and wrong. Then again, Jimmy Wales and his army of basement dwellers excel at lying on this free "encloypedia."

Wikipedia is a joke and Jimmy Wales should be in prison. You people are pathetic degenerates for your fake result on this page.

Good you agree with me (altough i don't agree with your language). Sign yourself though.Barjimoa (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn’t encourage people to be disruptive(and I doubt you agree with his “basement dweller” claims he uses as bizzare “evidence” of rightness), but regardless; I could not find so much as a single, current source to argue: US-led coalition victory over Al-Qaeda and I see no reason why we should make this article a puff piece where instead of applying what the overwhelming mass of sources say, we cite something more comforting to our nationalism, it would discredit us. And yes, no shortage of sources described this as a Taliban victory over the US lead coalition. That said many sources now also said it had destroyed Washington’s prestige so as a counter proposal I recommend: US Prestige Significantly Damaged as there is a veritable wellspring of contemporary reliable sources claiming that versus nonexistent contemporary sources claiming the war was a victory of any sort.Freepsbane (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Of course the sources of these days would talk more of the Taliban victory. But the sources about Al Qaeda network in Afghanistan being dismantled have been out there for the last months and years and i have provided a couple. Now Johnson too, even more than Biden, has also made that claim (i actually think he went too far by saying that the whole mission has been a success, but certainly one objective has been achieved). This is not in conflict with Taliban victory or US prestige going down.Barjimoa (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• Best to have no results since the war is still ongoing and you can find sources for just any type of outcome at this stage. AnM2002 (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
  • If that is the case, why have no sources claiming the war hasn't ended, or that the Taliban lost, been presented yet? IronManCap (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• See my reply here and take a break from repeating same replies in multiple sections. Reliable sources are clear now that the war isn't over. AnM2002 (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• Per my reply, no they are not. IronManCap (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I am just here to add more sources.

Sources

Ffaffff (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• • No result for now, okay, but at one point, perhaps soon, we will have to add the results.Barjimoa (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
• No. This is a «Taliban victory» in the media in every language that I'm able to read or grasp. There's a real country called Afghanistan with the Taliban in power, this country was attacked and invaded to depose the Taliban, and after 20 years they've managed to recover it. So this is a clear Taliban victory. Those are the historical facts and what history will remember. Wikipedia is not for propaganda, publicizing propaganda goals or whitewashing, American or otherwise. MaeseLeon (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

It is a Taliban victory, but also an Al Qaeda defeat. Afghanistan was attacked to depose the Taliban and dismamtle the network of Al Qaeda there. How can one even deny that? The two things are not in constrast. How is this propaganda and whitewashing? Please let's not get paranoid. Barjimoa (talk) 07:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose - **(For Now)**

While I agree things will likely end sooner or later as a loss for NATO. US President said in an address that they will respond with devastating force if the Taliban attempts to interfere with remaining operations.

And that troops will continue to be added possibly even beyond August/Sept in new news reports

Relevant Sources:

https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1427429837053079553?s=20

https://twitter.com/AJEnglish/status/1428240577473220615?s=20

I feel like this is the same as changing end date to 2021 early because of the Battle of Kabul was also premature when things haven't ended yet and should have a move review due to issues with WP:Original Research WP:Reliable Sources & WP:Snowball Clause

Can't we just wait and see what's relevant after August 31st? People seem to be rushing to mark this phase of current events as closed. Daseiin (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment: An additional source from current news reports

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/aug/18/biden-us-troops-afghanistan-31-august-deadline Daseiin (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Question:

People have had this debate before and the page has had to have dates changed following that, and now for the 15th during a situation that keeps developing

Surely the international recognition of the Government and it's President (Ghani) and his refusal to cede him being President of Afghanistan nor having signed any UN Peace treaty/UN Security Council Decision would be cause to wait until US & NATO have left after August 31st or whenever considering the instability in Kabul still and the airport being under control still? (There has been reports of fighting and shots aswell)

There's also more troops going in now aswell which has caused the August 31st retreat to be in doubt (Bidens own words on video and his Social Media Posts)

I'm not saying this is likely to end in a coalition victory for remaining people who are being joined by more troops with the rebels & rally protesters~ resisting and managing to gain the upper-hand back but I will say it's too early to declare the situation closed until all parties have pulled out which could be soon or could be a while away after 31st

Relevant Sources:

nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/afghan-protests-spread-to-kabul-in-early-challenge-to-taliban (For recognition not being given)

today.ng/news/world/protests-afghan-taliban-spread-early-signs-resistance-384143 (Caretaker President siding with Opposition & Resistance)

msn.com/en-us/news/world/whats-next-for-afghanistan-peace-talks-in-qatar-resistance-in-the-valley/ar-AANsV6l (A coalition of anti-Taliban resistance forces in the last region of Afghanistan not under Taliban control.) Daseiin (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• No. Even western media is referring to it as a «Taliban victory» Please don't suggest a clearly invalid double-result or things such as «AL Qaeda network in Afghanistan dismantled» That should instead go in an "Aftermath" section with valid sources as seperate discussion. Please read the template if you don't understand Prawndisama (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Again, Taliban victory does not disprove that Al Qaeda lost. Are you seriously proposing to not mention Al Qaeda in the infobox?In the War in Afghanistan?Barjimoa (talk) 07:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Seriously Barjimoa? Please read the template like I requested. We all saw/read your opinion the first time you posted it, you don't need to re-spam it over and over again in the same discussion. Wikipedia isn't your personal opinion site. Please don't make us create a mod page about you. Prawndisama (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a total NATO failure, keep coping.

Whether the US lost or not is actually an interesting question. My impulse is to say the US clearly lost in terms of treasure and lives lost, but there is a legitimate question of how long the war actually was. The invasion was to fight Al-Qaeda, after that goal was completed the US just kind of stayed and occupied Afghanistan. I would argue that an occupation isn't a war, and that the war was won by the US when Al-Qaeda was utterly destroyed. We might want to consider stating that the war ended at that time and then splitting information about the occupation into another page. The Gentle Sleep (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Original Research doesn't answer this question, the consensus of impartial sources does, and as the dozens of reliable sources, ranging from top American ones like the NYT, to international all near universally say, the war ended a US failure and Taliban victory. That said, if you think your point of view should be featured, you are welcome to establish a preponderance of reliable sources make that claim. Please no dated opeds by the defeated belligerents though, else you would also be forced to edit the Yugoslav wars because Karadžić and friends claim it was a legendary victory. When in doubt, follow the overwhelming consensus of sources.Freepsbane (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

As a side, the occupation, just like the soviet occupation was a war. Especially since the Taliban were openly trying to drive Nato and clients from the country and before the peace deal had already succeeded in clawing back half the country though war[5]. Their relative success by the deal, and complete success afterwards attests to the military nature of their victory. But as mentioned, the most important thing about what to write is that sources from everywhere, including the US universally refer to the Afghan war as a Taliban victory, we write that down, not rationalize though original research that the climax of the war can't count as the war.Freepsbane (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Why was this discussion started, duplicating an earlier discussion on this talk page? A discussion in which this section's OP participated, I might add? I commented there, in the more comprehensive discussion, in support of their argument. Jbbdude (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Should the war be divided into three phases?

I think it might be worthwhile to say the first phase ended on 22 December 2001 with the formation of the Afghan Interim Administration, the second phase ended on 28 December 2014 as the article currently states the first phase ended on, and the third phase ended on 15 August 2021. Alternatively, the first phase could end on 17 December 2001, which is when Wikipedia says the "United States invasion of Afghanistan" ended. New Wiki User 2021 (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

There are two official phases, and we must not divide it to three phases based on WP:OR. Either ways this war was a part of the long lasting Afghanistan conflict (1978–present). I hate the outcome, I that terrorists like Tlibans are now torturing the poor civilians there, hopefully, they will be overthrown and peace will be restored in Afghanistan. But that would be a different phase, which is not part of this, which according to WP:RS is definitely over. I am just following Wikipedia guidelines, thats all. Dilbaggg (talk) 03:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what either of you mean by "phases". User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 06:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

The second phase has not finished yet. Sgnpkd (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is now at least tripling an earlier discussion on this talk page. This talk page is becoming borderline indecipherable, with similar disputes being peppered all over. For the record, this seems like a logical division. Suggesting that the ISAF mission, which ended in 2014, failed in 2021 is just ridiculous. Suggesting that the US war, which ended when forces withdrew, was lost by another party after their departure doesn't entirely make sense. Victory depends on how victory conditions are defined. They have been defined variously, and many were achieved (unseating the Taliban in 2001 when they were harboring al Qaeda; defeating al Qaeda and killing Bin Laden; forming a new government; receiving assurances from the Afghan government not to harbor transnational terrorists like al Qaeda in the future, something even the Taliban has claimed to agree to). Some, like the viability of the Afghan state and security forces post-US withdrawal, clearly were not. Jbbdude (talk) 05:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Panjshir conflict

The 2001-2021 war is over but the long conflict that began in 1978 still goes on. The Panjshir conflict should be counted as part of the Afghanistan conflict (1978–present) and not the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) of which it is the "aftermath". I hate the outcome of the 2001-2021 war but this is what WP:RS states. My best wishes to the Taliban resistance, hope Afgnahistan will be free from the terrorist Talibans again someday and people will find peace and have their rights restored. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no separate "Panjshir Conflict", it is the same conflict as this article. There are no reliable sources which say it is a separate conflict.XavierGreen (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, can't seem to see why it should branch out into more pages.

At the moment still potentially in 2nd or starting a 3rd Phase of already the existing conflict and making more pages with different names could be messy and confusing with non-original and verifiable sources Daseiin (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no WP:RS that claims Panjshir conflict is a continuation of the 2001-2021 war, its like saying the 1996 civil war which never ended before NATO intervention is ongoing, there have been multiple wars since 1978, so Panjshir conflict is a separate "insurgency". After Iraq's defeat in the Iraq War in 2011, there was some insurgency until a new civil war begun in 2013. Either ways consensus agreed https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%932021)#Requested_move_15_August_2021 its over, [{WP:RS]] agrees its over. Do i like the outcome/ Never, its disgusting that terrorist Talibans took over and are now torturing the people and there is bound to be protest agaisnt their brutal regime. But this particular war, until WP:RS states its not over, multiple sources, it is over, and all I am doing is complying with Wikipedia policy just one out of 1000s already: [6] says its over. Hopefully in the future the Taliban's evil regime will fall, but taht will be a different war, this one has ended.Dilbaggg (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that say the war is ongoing, try for instance the LongWarJournal.XavierGreen (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Thats not even a reliable source, like say New York Times that agrees the war ended: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/15/world/asia/afghanistan-taliban-kabul-surrender.html , either ways I hate the outcome and I hope that the Afghan people would be free from the terrorist Talibans, there will be new revolts, but this phase is over. The 1978 conflict is ongoing, the 2001-2021 period was a phase of it, NATO involvement is over for now and solidiers are just there to evacuate people. But soon a new rebillion will gain momentum and I hope they succeed in defeating the Taliban terrorists. But that will be a new part of the 1978 conflict, this part 2001-2021 is over per most major widely accepted WP:RS. I read a young footballer died trying to escape the Taliban's reign of terror, it broke my heart, hope these radical terrorist Talibans are ousted from power.Dilbaggg (talk) 03:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) was a phase of the long-running Afghanistan conflict (1978–present). That phase is over now and a new phase of the conflict that started in 1978 has now started, the Panjshir conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

That and I would like to add the Afghan Civil War (1996–2001) never officially ended, before its end the NATO led 2001-2021 war begun, now all major WP:RS, the Talibans, the US Government everyone agrees its over, the Panjshir conflict is a new and seperate conflict, saying its part of the 2001-2021 war is like saying the 2001 to 2021 war is part of the 1996 war which was never officially over, 2001-2021 was about NATO led intervention which is over, and they are now only helping people evacuate. Only thosse who know nothing about history claim these are the same war. The Afghan Civil War (1996–2001), War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) and the new Panjshir conflict are all distinct phases of the ever lasting Afghanistan conflict (1978–present), so learn histroy please.

Dilbaggg (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I second the agreement. There are several factual errors in the opening part of this article. First, this is not the longest US war - the Korean War (which is still on-going) is. Second, it is not yet a "Taliban victory", notwithstanding the "major combat is over" or "mission accomplished" statement by the Taliban - the government displaced by the Taliban from Kabul still continues under the new president, Saleh, now one and the same as the new Northern Alliance. "Victory" cannot be stated as an outcome of the war, in the opening of the article, unless or until the Northern Alliance is defeated. So, this should be treated as a transition into a new phase of the conflict, rather than as a conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:aa4d:c5b8:0:f7e5:9da4:9e8c (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Decisive Taliban Victory

The InfoBox should read for the result: Decisive Taliban Victory per credible source. "Taliban Victory" is not accurate or descriptive enough. -- Sleyece (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Nope, the infobox entry is fine in its current status. Regarding the parameter result, Template:Infobox military conflict reads: "result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much."--Darius (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

War is still ongoing, parts of Baghlan province have been retaken from the taliban

Parts of Baghlan province were retaken from the Taliban today. See here [[7]]. There is also a force of 600 Afghan Army soldiers deployed at the airport assisting in holding it against the Taliban. See here [[8]].XavierGreen (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

This article is about US involvement in the Afghanistan war, as far as I know, and this part has been declared as over by numerous reliable sources, including the Taliban and the US government themselves. Aasim (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Awesome Aasim. As I stated above, this article (War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)) covers one phase of the long-running Afghanistan conflict (1978–present). That phase is over now and a new phase of the conflict that started in 1978 has now started, for which we have a separate article already. EkoGraf (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Unsure, Setting aside whether or not everything in this event is closed or if there is no new battle/relevant information that could possibly come up during the current operations since the debate on whether to call the war over & pick an end date has now been considered multiple times.

No matter where we stand on it, that debate is over and even has a move review considered. I disagree with the interpretation of the consensus but i'm leaving it aside with the trust that it would be retroactively amended later should the available info & views change as needed.

...With that being said I would like to raise the possibility that this should be put in an "Aftermath" section here instead if the sources check out.

My reasoning being that while a lot of this particular conflict may be considered "practically" over to editors rn, adding this as Aftermath to "War In Afghanistan (2001)" anyway could still be a better fit than the 'Afghanistan Conflicts (1978-Current)' page which seems to be more a compilation of different conflicts overtime as opposed to being one wider one that would have everything in.

But if it gets big enough then this proposed part of the aftermath should have its own page with a new name and links to it from here & in the sections of the "1978-Current" compilation.

As things presently stand we don't have consensus on if these smaller scale clashes are protests declaring themselves to be against the current offensive who would be quelled as the dust is still settling or start of another war that has an Anti-Emirate Coalition fighting against the forces initiating the current offensive. Both noteworthy of course but should be dealt with differently depending on what they are counted as.

I want to boldly put out another way of keeping things up to date but still being acceptable to everyone in good faith without causing more disagreement with seemingly warring-type behavior beyond just the standard edits or reverts and beating a dead horse. It might be better to have this stuff in an aftermath section first because we don't have a crystal ball to see which of those two statements fit the events more accurately.

---

A Compromise:

I suggest this situation being placed into this article first in the manner stated above

And/Or

Any proposed pages to be merged into it until we know enough more to say otherwise or that the section becomes too big and complex to avoid having too many unnecessary splits/requests that don't fit well together in the wider topic which I have already seen before.

---

That's just what I think and would love to hear any thoughts or feedback on the idea :) Daseiin (talk) 02:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Or an "Aftermath & Legacy" section (Provided this proposal wouldn't conflict with WP Policy) as mentioned before in this talk page Daseiin (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

The Afghan Civil War (1996–2001) never officially ended, before its end the NATO led 2001-2021 war begun, now all major WP:RS, the Talibans, the US Government everyone agrees its over, the Panjshir conflict is a new and seperate conflict, saying its part of the 2001-2021 war is like saying the 2001 to 2021 war is part of the 1996 war which was never officially over, 2001-2021 was about NATO led intervention which is over, and they are now only helping people evacuate. Only thosse who know nothing about history claim these are the same war. The Afghan Civil War (1996–2001), War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) and the new Panjshir conflict are all distinct phases of the ever lasting Afghanistan conflict (1978–present), so learn histroy please. Dilbaggg (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I support @Daseiin:'s proposed compromise. Most articles about wars have an aftermath section, and I'm sure the "War in Afghanistan (2001-2021)" will get one sooner or later. For now, I hope that adding one now could be a stopgap against some of the unconstructive behavior surrounding this article. (I would title it "Aftermath" rather than "Aftermath & Legacy," however, because the war's legacy has yet to be interpreted and debated by historians. While there's a lot speculation in the media about what the war's end will mean for U.S. power and what other countries will try to step into the power vacuum, for our purposes those opinion pieces get into Crystal Ball territory, and we should leave off on talking about the legacy until history books and articles start to be published on the subject.) CoatGuy (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the constant breaking off of articles and repeated debate and edits seem to be a bit disruptive. I'm sure all in good faith but trying to find a proposal that helps focus conversations across the related articles, keep them consistent and keeps things productive Dasein (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

the Panjshir conflict lasted only 10 days and was the last fight of the afghani islamic republic. it should be included into this conflict, the Nato troops are still in afghanistan, and the panjir resistance is based on the islamic republic, with it's VP taking control. If the ceasefire shouldn't last long and they start fighting again, it would be it's own conflict, but if these 10 days were all of it, it's definitely part of the 2001-2021 war, like an epilogue is part of a novel, even tho the story is over. Norschweden (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Norway missing from infobox

Why is Norway missing from the info box of countries participating in the invasion in 2001 ? Norwegian special forces has been participating in several missions from the get go, including operation Task Force K-Bar and has been in Afghanistan for 20 years. Why has Norway been removed from the infobox ? This is revisionist history and it's wrong. Mortyman (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Again, why has Norway been removed from the list of countries participating in the invasion in 2001 ? Mortyman (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mortyman: Find a WP:RS and add it in yourself, or ping me here with a news article and I'll add it. I think calling it "revisionist history" is unnecessarily paranoid— More likely, it's just our bureaucracy removing it due to not having a citation for it, or at most a semantic argument at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Countries or somewhere about the level of involvement needed for military infoxboxes. Intralexical (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. It's just annoying that something is removed without checking the info better. The info had source. But the urls was outdated. Wikipedia and it'¨s editors can't expect every detail to be uppdated with a new source every few months: Here is one url about Norwegian special forces taking part in Task force K bar: https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/operation-enduring-freedom-the-first-49-days-6/ . Here is a source about Norwegian comitment in general: https://2001-2009.state.gov/coalition/cr/fs/12753.htm . Norwegian special forces and other forces has been in Afghanistan sice october 2001 to 2021. I was not able to add it to the infobox. Seems to be off limits to me. I appreciate if you can uppdate it. Mortyman (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mortyman: Well, this is a bit embarrassing. Norway is actually already in the infobox— There's a "[show]" button next to the "ISAF" entry, and Norway is listed in there. The ISAF page itself goes into more detail on Norwegian involvement. There's also an entry for "Resolute Support", which links to another article that includes Norway. Sorry for sending you to get new citations; I probably could have checked for it more diligently first! BTW, talk pages usually don't send notifications automatically when you reply to someone. I had to check this page manually to see if you'd replied. You can use Template:Reply to in the future if you want to get someone's attention. Intralexical (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Intralexical: Message text. Mortyman (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC) Yes, but Norway invaded Afghanistan already in October 2001, so before ISAF and therefore, it should be added to the main list of invading countries in my opinion. As pointed out Norwegian forces was already part of the Task Force K-Bar in October 2001Mortyman (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mortyman: Hm. Right. I'm missing the background history, but that does seem to be the case. I'll look more into the timeline later to make sure I get it right, and then ping you again when I've added it. Intralexical (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Intralexical: Still no edit to the info box. Both Norway and Denmark should be added to the lsit of countries invading as part of Task Force K-Bar https://alchetron.com/cdn/task-force-k-bar-371135e7-f250-4298-a90c-778009e78fc-resize-750.jpeg from October 2001. Mortyman (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

End of War date

Are there WP:RS that state that August 15, 2021 is the end? This source has August 16th as a date. The move didn’t have a consensus on the specific date in 2021 for the end of the war.Manabimasu (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

It would make sense that 16th would be end of Battle of Kabul since that's when it was declared even if I do think we should wait to see what comes out to avoid unnecessary creation of a split for current phases and pages after the fact.

Also s agree on not seeing a consensus either, could someone perhaps clarify the edit reasoning? Although this point has already been made in the past Daseiin (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

In the RFQ above, the admin closing the conversation said that consensus was the war was still ongoing "but would end before the end of the year". Irrespective of that, sources clearly state that the conflict is still ongoing as anti-Taliban forces are still operating in Panjshir. Those forces have been fighting the taliban there continously for the past several years, its the same conflict that has never ended. See for example here [[9]]XavierGreen (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

16 August was an informal claim, they never said the war ended that date and the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has been declared officially on August 19, most major WP:RS cites August 15 as the end date, so we go along with it. Dilbaggg (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The RFC closing admin stated consensus is exactly as follows: "There is overwhelming consensus that the war is (practically) over, and even if it is technically not, it will almost certainly be by the end of the year." The Admin clearly thus stated that the war is in fact actually still going on.XavierGreen (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Could always just put August 31st 2021 and then review if Biden stays longer as he said he would to be consistent with the other linked articles on here that say Phase 2 is still ongoing, I'm confused myself at this point.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Operation_Freedom%27s_Sentinel Daseiin (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Withdrawal of remaining troops is not part of the conflict itself in a true sense, but an outside issue (for example, the withdrawal of troops in WWII is not taken into account for end dates). Unless the fighting starts again the only things we can go on are whether there is armed conflict ongoing involving Islamic Republic or US/NATO forces and the answer is no. The Pentagon themselves confirmed that airstrikes had stopped on the 15th and unless I've missed something they've not started up again. Apache287 (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Temporary "August 2021"

Perhaps it would be optimal to compromise by replacing the "present" with "August 2021" (without a day in month). Since it is (mostly) agreed upon that the war is over, "present" should be replaced. The day in the month could be added later when it gets clearly officially agreed upon and "August 2021" covers all potential exact dates (15, 16, 19 and even 31 if the official end of the withdrawal becomes the official end of war date). 193.198.162.14 (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Naw there is no reason why it shouldn't be August 15, 2021.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The war ended 15 August for all intents and purposes. The Taliban had defeated the IRA and the US confirmed it had ended all military operations. Just like Vietnam the Fall of Kabul is the final event of this conflict and the potentially emerging I think Third Afghan Civil War will be a new conflict marked by a return to it being a purely Afghan affair (outside clandestine support I'd imagine) and not a war led by foreign intervention to support a foreign-backed government. Apache287 (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The Vietnam War ended on 30 April 1975 with the Fall of Saigon. The American Civil War ended on May 9, 1865 with President Johnson's declaration, although the last confederate forces did not surrender till November 6 1865. The Fall of Kabul on 15 August 2021 is officially recognized as the end of the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) by all major Wp:RS and should be as such. Dilbaggg (talk) 03:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support - We don't know what's going to happen now after the incident with the airport that involved an attack on troops while evacuating (Which should be added to aftermath/legacy section)

or if there would be a Phase 3 of different actions by NATO and it's allies. The end date shouldn't have been added till after August anyway as there's no way of knowing what would happen without a crystal ball. Dasein (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Any End of War date is incorrect, as the war has not ended

The war is not over at all, given that the Panjshir resistance yesterday drove the Taliban out of three districts. The article is incorrect in stating an end date to the war. 174.63.102.231 (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I would also be curious to see any source or this supposed claim that the war ended. In the past few years NATO insisted it was merely an invited guest of the legitimate Afghan government (like the USSR in the Soviet–Afghan War), the main conflict being the civil war. The Afghan Civil War (1989–1992) ended with the Peshawar Accord.

It seems premature to make big changes while the events are unfolding and there are no historical nor official sources, only media report. This affair has been ongoing for 20 years, the English Wikipedia article can wait a little more. Nemo 05:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Main image caption is out of sync

The caption in hasn’t matched the image in the infobox since August 23. There is no longer a M777. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Why did the "second phase" of the war start three days after the "first phase" ended?

I'm referring to the infobox. What phase were the missing three days in? Moncrief (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

End of the war

Various sources are reporting the 18 years war has ended after the truce was signed with Talibans on February 29, and now troops are just being withdrawn: [10], [11], [12] , [13] and so many more. According to sources any further actions by Talibans would be insurgency but the war itself has ended with the February 29 deal. Well just pointing out, not an editor of this article so its upto editors of this article to decide. Dilbaggg (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The withdrawal has begun, but I'd say the war is ongoing at least until all coalition forces have left Afghanistan. Even then, Taliban and ANDSF may continue to fight. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

In that case it will be civil war/insurgency. But the international war should be over with foreign troops withdrawal, like the Iraq war (2003-2011), Soviet-Afghan war (1979-1989), etc. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Hmm I see what you're saying, make sense. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with much of this The conflict ended for Western forces as far back as 2014 when Resolute Support became the new mission (Advise, Train, Assist). Combat missions officially at that point. Since then its been only minor involvement from Western forces. It has been a largely Afghan Government vs Taliban/Insurgency/Opposition conflict for many years now

"Overthrow of coalition-backed Islamic Republic of Afghanistan on 15 August 2021".. by persons unknown? Surely someone is responsible, why not state it? Furbian (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Njofallofall (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The sentence: "Since 2001, Afghanistan has experienced improvements in health, education and women's rights" should be removed from the introduction as soon as possible, given the Taliban takeover of the country. Ending the introduction with the statement that more than 6 million Afghans are internal or external refugees is much more appropriate.

End date should be changed to 31 August 2021 as NATO troops were still present and were prepared to fight the Taliban if they restarted hostilities until that date. Adykens (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

End date of the war?

Should we really be using the 15th of August as the end date of the war when the US military has not left Afghanistan until August 30th? 72.78.201.92 (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

See the above section. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2021

Change “Taliban victory” to “Afghan Government defeated by Taliban. ISIS defeated by Taliban and NATO/Afghan Government. Al Qaeda weakened by NATO intervention”

The war is too complicated to simply label it a Taliban victory. Yes the Taliban defeated the Afghan government but NATO was not defeated. NATO just simply decided to leave and the Afghan government lost their own civil War. Also, both NATO and the Taliban fought ISIS and ISIS was defeated. Additionally, Al-Qaeda was weakened in the region and no longer has major bases in Afghanistan Jab1998 (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add in this edit Jab1998 (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This will be a contentious change, please establish consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

First of all: Wikipedia is based on sources, not opinions of Wikipedia editors and virtually all sources called it a Taliban victory and US defeat. Secondly: whether a war is won or lost is not based on who kills more enemy soldiers, who wins more battles or anything like that, it is decided based on who is able to achieve their goals. The goal of the Taliban was to take over Afghanistan and they did. The goal of NATO forces was to defeat the Taliban and create a stable, democratic government in Afghanistan. This obviously didn't happen, so NATO lost. 89.64.39.248 (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Taliban Victory

Shouldnt it be Stalemate instead of Taliban Victory? It’s wrong and UNAMERICAN to say that America lost the War in Afghanistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.83.111 (talk • contribs)

They did lose, and the sources are fairly clear about that. — Czello 16:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

No, they did not lose. America barely even used 1% of their powers to fight the Talibans. 775,000 US soldiers out of 330 million total Americans. that’s less than 1%. Losing is when the Taliban occupied America like how America occupied Japan and Germany. It’s pathetic to see how we downgraded our numbers From 16 million that fought in WW2 to 2.7 million that fought in Vietnam War to Only 775,000 that fought in war in Afghanistan.69.244.83.111 (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

WW2 was a total war. This was some kind of asymmetric war, similar to the Vietnam war. See War § Types of warfare. That it was not a total war does not change the outcome of the war. USA did lose Afghanistan. The troops are leaving, and the Taliban have already re-taken 95% of the area. It is not possible to change these facts by any amount of willpower, or nationalism. · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Whether a battle or war is won or lost is decided based on the objectives. The goal of the Taliban is and always has been to take over Afghanistan. They succeeded, therefore they won. The goal of USA was to overthrow the Taliban and create a stable, democratic and pro-American government in Afghanistan. They failed, so they lost the war. 89.64.39.248 (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

America could’ve won this war if they used nuclear weapons and Napalm like they did against Japan. 1945 Pacific theater was a Defensive war. The Japanese were as fierce against Americans as the Taliban is doing right now and they lost. I don’t understand why America won’t use nukes against those that killed 2,0000 Americans.69.244.83.111 (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

i feel like this talk page isn't the correct place for warfare tactics criticism Cascer1 (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Add "destruction of al-Qaeda camps and presence in Afghanistan" to infobox

This is an important development of the War in Afghanistan that is listed in the Afghanistan section of the War on Terror's Wikipedia page's infobox and is widely discussed by authorities on the topic as having been a development of the war. It was in this page's infobox before being removed at some point recently. Is this not an important detail to include given the war in large part was launched to do just that and it was largely accomplished given Al Qaeda being a shell of its former self at the conclusion of the war? If it's in the War in Afghanistan section of the War on Terror infobox shouldn't it be in this infobox? Oxcart5 (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The truth is who we are not sure about the "destruction of Al Qaeda or it's presence in Afghanistan, but considering who the vice emir Haqqanni is related to the terrorist organization, it would be a lie to claim a victory on that aspect.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

It’s not about claiming victory instead the fact Al-Qaeda’s camps, capabilities, and numbers were and are severely incapacitated throughout the war and their standing today is a shell of what it was before the war. The War on Terror Wiki page infobox has this for Afghanistan so I figured it would only make sense to have it in this page’s infobox. Oxcart5 (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Muttawakil's supposed unconditional offer to hand Bin Laden over

I've struck the section discussing this. The only source is IPS which is not an established news service, but instead an NGO. Even taking the source at face-value, this appears to be reporting of how Muttawikil himself described what happened ten years after the fact, and is not corroborated by any other source. FOARP (talk) 09:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Nope, you're wrong. [[14]]'s the Guardian discussing exactly this, as it was happening, in 2001. As a brief aside, I understand the neolib bias in political articles is strong in Wikipedia nowadays, but are you guys even trying anymore? The sentence "the Taliban refused, stating that Osama bin Laden was protected by the traditional Pashtun laws of hospitality" is literally followed immediately by a footnote linking to an article titled "Bush Rejects Taliban Bin Laden Offer." The content of that WashPost article supports exactly what's said in the title and exactly the opposite of what's stated here. 2600:1700:4671:DAF0:A8F1:E4AB:7C0F:F932 (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Are any of the people that keep reverting these edits actually going to talk about it here like they say? Wikipedia is not a platform for US propaganda. The burden of proof is clearly on those who insist on including a reference to an initial "Taliban refusal." So far we have two offhanded references from hindsight sources, including one Brookings Institute article (lol). I don't think one contemporary news source reporting on this event in detail is asking for a lot -- who refused? when? was it announced publicly by spokespeople? The reference to "Pashtun laws of hospitality" is especially hilarious and absolutely needs a better source than one sentence in a 2010 Baltimore Sun article which does not seem to refer specifically to the Taliban at all. 2600:1700:4671:DAF0:4C05:39F0:61B3:F22F (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2021

2603:8001:4700:79C0:CD6C:9188:3535:35E7 (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC) The US lost the war in Afghanistan, 2 trillion dollars spent, trained the Taliban and gave them equipment and aircraft for them and they are making their own government, US and NATO withdrew, it wasn't that the Taliban and the US claim a victory, the Taliban won the war they took over the capital like if it was Saigon in the Vietnam War, change this mistake if you can.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Sirdog (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

US casualties

The war ended in Afghanistan oficially on August 30th, There had been more casualties in the last days, and I propose them to be included in the grand total.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Are you talking about post-August 30th US casualties? (There aren't any, as there aren't any more troops there.) I believe the 13 US military deaths that occurred in the August 26th airport attack are already included in the total, if that's what you're referring to. They certainly should be if they aren't, but I'd be shocked if they weren't already already added in, as editors here tend to be on top of such changes. Moncrief (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I was refering to those on August 26th, (Because by that time Wikipedia considered the war over on August 15th, but now it is August 30th) I was looking for changes but nobody had done it yet, (Also the casualties are not updated since July 2018.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

If you're not able to edit the article yourself due to the article's semi-protection (if you are able to edit it, please add a cite for your source when you edit), then please specify here what you believe the new number should be, and request that an auto-confirmed editor edit the article. Please provide as much specific information as you can (what you believe should be changed in the article and where). Moncrief (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou for your answer, the number of US casualties should be changed to 2465. This is based on the updated sources who were used. http://icasualties.org/USMap And here is the casualties list in the article listing the casualties in Wikipedia. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan#All_fatalities (no grand total upgraded yet) And here is the list of individual casualties from the coalition (2465 Americans included) http://icasualties.org/App/AfghanFatalities

I would also want to request who an auto confirmed user will update it.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

This page is for discussing article content. It's not a forum for our opinions. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Only 2,400 American soldiers died in the war in Afghanistan? Thats not a lot compared to the 400,000 US soldiers deaths in WW2. Are you telling me, Joe Biden is too much of a coward to send more soldiers to protect Afghan women and children from getting raped by the Taliban? As you know, We only sent a total of 775,000 US soldiers to Afghanistan, which isnt a lot compared to the 16 million US soldiers that fought against Nazis and saved thousands of Jewish lives. In other words, America hasnt even used 1% of its military power against the Taliban. (130,000 US soldiers peak surge during Obama/Biden years 2013-2014 and then only 10,000 US soldiers was present during 2021 pull out of Afghanistan. out of 1.5 million active soldiers). I mean US spent only $2 trillion fighting the war in Afghanistan. On the other hand, USA spent $4 trillion to fight the Nazis. Now that’s what I call lazy strategy. To me, America abandoning Afghan women to get raped is similar to America abandoning Jewish people to get gassed. 107.77.204.174 (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC) This page is not a discussion about the implications of American strategy, nor should it be a talking ground for whatever you believe should have happened. Please don't provoke others by introducing discussion which is completely innapropiate to improving the article.TuaamWiki (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

End of war

Change end date for the war to August 30, instead of August 15. Additionally noting August 15 as end of hostilities should be fine. Per: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/30/politics/us-military-withdraws-afghanistan/index.html jonas (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Just as 30 April 1975 is listed as the infobox end date for the Vietnam War, even though it occurred years after US combat operations had ceased, so to should 31 August (not 30 August, as it was midnight 31 August Kabul time) be considered the end of this war. US troops remained in the country until then, and operational control of all parts of the country (namely, the perimeter and airfield of the Kabul airport) did not end until that day. I think it will naturally appear in the coming days' RS that 15 August and the fall of Kabul is an arbitrary end date for the war, with Wikipedia out of sync if we keep that date. I'll leave it at that at this point. Moncrief (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It actually ended just before Midnight Kabul time but right now I am a little undecided, the last Vietnam battle, (Mayaguez incident) ended on May 15, 1975 (2 weeks after the "Fall of Saigon"). Also the Iraq War article ends on December 15, 2011, although the last troops didn't leave until a few days later.

What are you undecided about? 30 August is fine, just not 15 August. Moncrief (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm undecided on if the end date should be August 15 or August 30.

It's considered quite poor Wikipedia form not to sign your posts. You do so by adding four tildes. Moncrief (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I prefer August 30 because of this article and many others like it, such as this one. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I was initially for the August 15th date, but considering today's sources are generally calling tonight's final US withdrawal as the end of the war I am now more in favor of the August 30th date. EkoGraf (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

We already voted on August 15, 2021. The evacuation process has nothing to do with a war. Period--2601:3C5:8200:97E0:1421:1A37:FA9D:2AE9 (talk) 05:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is edited based on verifiable/reliable sources. The sources used in the previous discussion indicated the result of the war as a Taliban victory, which most agreed upon, and that is what we inserted in the result section of the infobox. Now, verifiable/reliable sources state the final US soldier leaving is the end of the war. In addition, the Taliban themselves said that the last US troops leaving marks their victory. As per Jonas1015119's suggestion, I think adding a small note that August 15th was the end of major hostilities is acceptable. EkoGraf (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The war never technically ends until a peace treaty is signed. See Korean War. 72.78.201.92 (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Nobody ever said that the overall conflict (Afghanistan conflict (1978–present)) is over, just this phase. EkoGraf (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly Agree with August 30 to 31st - and with a lot saying that we should've waited for the dust to settle incase with something like this still being likely, Biden said he'd wait till August 31st before making these kinds of decisions (Whether to leave or add more) and this sort of stuff has changed before on related Wikipedia articles and in News Sources after other facts change. A change seems consistent with how current & recent event are handled here in general, votes can't change facts and we didn't have a crystal ball at the time either. So I agree with the August 30-31st end dates. Worried that this page is getting cluttered with disputes over the end date which could potentially be disruptive going forward. Dasein (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: 26th August Attack on Evac Troops (+ Retaliatory Strikes on planners)

Incident at Kabul Airport along with the response attack against it by troops should be mentioned in article as it is a current & relevant event. One possible place could be a sub-section under "Aftermath" 's main section or under the main intro (Although there is concern that the intro paragraph needs to be reformatted/streamlined) Dasein (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support Strongly - Obviously due to the points raised in my proposal I think this should be added to the article and that it is a part of the conflict until all troops have left & any external presence occupying the area in Kabul has ceased.

(Planned August 31st) Dasein (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - The attack and counter attack on troops could also be added to "US departure and return of Taliban rule" section instead IF people oppose it being in the "Aftermath" section next to the Panjsher Resistance. Dasein (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Date for the End of the War

Why is the end of the war dated 30 August 2021 instead of 29 February 2020 when the peace deal was signed between the US and the Taliban? Tickersocks (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles defer to reliable sources (WP:RS), and that's what they say. Moncrief (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

US did have a military presence/hold in the area of Kabul after the battle occuring there, till 30-31st August with activities carried out in response to the 26th Aug. Which even if not directly against Afghanistan it doesn't seem like it was a loss at that point. (Although now we all ofcourse know US-NATO re-treated via announcements after August) Biden also posted his statement Online+Social Media before this while the situation was still active saying that 'after pulling troops on 31st we will have ended the 20yr war' I do want to ask if it's constructive to remove the duplicate questions on the end date with an edit now though, since it's a closed matter? Dasein (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Panjshir

Taliban claim conquest of Panjshir, last holdout of opponents. Widely covered. [15] [16] [17] [18] – Sca (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Firstly the claim should be fully verified, which it hasn't so far (resistance still claim to control some parts). Secondly that is part of the succeeding Panjshir conflict; the War has ended on August 31st, so it should not be here. --WR 18:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

History section has been rewritten, now needs refinement!

Following on from what I said here weeks ago, I have taken a great deal of time and effort to create a History section covering the entire war. I done this by taking the History of the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) article and significantly cutting down on that, removing small and trivial bits, and reconstructing sub-sections. Despite having cut down a lot of content, the History is still overloaded in many places. Therefore I have published this with cleanup notices - it is obviously not one person's job (and admittedly I can't go any further from here) but I hope other Wikipedians here will help take part and contribute in cleaning up this new History to get it to the high quality standards that Vietnam War possesses. The History section in Vietnam War is extremely well developed, and it's a model to follow to improve this article's. My edit today will hopefully be the starting point for us. --WR 22:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Just want to add that the History (as with much of the rest of the article) does have a strong tilt towards a U.S. viewpoint. It needs to be more neutral and from an international perspective, for example currently there's a lot of content about US forces in particular but not much about the ISAF. Additionally too much of the History has these "On x October 20xx, y happened and z were killed" sentences. It reads like a timeline instead of what should be an encyclopedic paragraph. Again, see Vietnam War article for examples of good paragraphs. It's just difficult to put these together as good paragraphs and without overloading content. --WR 23:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Bold edit to opposition article

I have made a bold edit to the article about opposition to the war, which has been tagged with multiple issues for years. The article read as a list of reasons to oppose it, not an account of opposition. Therefore, a lot of what I removed was details about the war itself, some of it decently sourced, so editors might want to check the diff to see if there is anything that should be moved here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Location

Add that spill overs of the conflict occurred in Pakistan. Kurt Hartman 11:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

"Afghanistan War (2001-)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Afghanistan War (2001-). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 26#Afghanistan War (2001-) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Aasim (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Confusing Caption Text in Infobox

I was looking at this article today, and noticed that while the main picture (the collage at the top of the infobox) has a caption (which probably should clarify that the Chinook mention applies to the center photo, but whatever), there's a second caption:

Bottom: The military situation of the Afghan Civil War (1996–2001) prior to the US invasion, between the Taliban (red) and the Northern Alliance (blue) (For a map of the current military situation in Afghanistan, see here.)

It apparently refers to a map I don't see, and so I imagined someone likely removed the map at some (recent) point, and missed the caption. Out of curiosity, I went looking.

This appears to be the edit that made the Infobox more-or-less as it's currently shown (at least for this purpose):

 https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%932021)&oldid=796435161 (apologies, but this URL wasn't working correctly when I tried to make a link out of it)

Anyway, this is the edit, as it's listed in the history:

 20:29, 20 August 2017‎ Lord Mota talk contribs‎ 236,869 bytes −19,649‎ transferring to Template:War in Afghanistan (2001–present) infobox undo

Even as it appears here, the new collage-picture appears, along with both captions and NO MAP. Also, that infobox looks surprisingly modern for 2017 (it mentions 2021 at the top).

Needless to say, I expect I am misunderstanding something here. I would appreciate some education in this regard. Nevertheless, this appears to be a disembodied caption, and I never did find a version of the page that appeared to show it paired with its map / picture / whatever. I don't know if it's better to attempt to restore the associated image, or to remove the caption, but it strikes me as odd to imagine something so basically wrong with the presentation of the article being in such a state for (apparently) such a long time.

It's worth noting (I noticed while doing some last-minute checking) that the relevant map looks like it might exist elsewhere in the current article (but, apparently not in the 2017 version I was looking at) That, at least resolves some of my confusion.

Thanks in advance! 50.50.102.13 (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I have removed the erroneous caption, which went to a now deleted map that showed the military situation prior to the start of the war. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Rename the war the American Afghan War

The war in afghanistan is too broad, and should be reserved for the all encompassing article. The American Afghan war is more specific to the time period DM1256 (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Not really, since other NATO countries were also involved. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Template Incomplete

The template has removed the Panjshir Conflict which more sources claim is spreading more rampantly throughout Afghanistan. However, it was replaced with the Taliban ISIS Conflict? Why? PanjshirLions (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Aftermath Edit Suggestion

Taliban victory[37] Islamic State–Taliban conflict continues Panjshir Conflict Begins

(I'm sure somebody can put a link to the wiki page if not I can get one) https://www.heritage.org/terrorism/commentary/afghanistan-resistance-arises PanjshirLions (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)