Talk:Battle of Wanat/Archive 1

Taliban casualties
The Taliban casualty figure needs to be updated. A later AP story says "Attack helicopters swooped over the battlefield, and in hours of fighting dozens of insurgents were killed and about 40 were wounded, the NATO official said." An Afghan government statement quoted by AFP says 40 were killed. Gaintes (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

NATO not coalition
This should be reworded as a NATO installation, operatoin, and troop entourage that happened to have American troops killed. 67.5.119.109 (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Indecisive?
Hows it indecisive when more of one side dies than the other and is pushed out and mopped up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * the death toll doesn't matter. What matters is the enormous propaganda victory by the Taliban by breaching a US base. Summed up with their subsequent retreat means indecisive -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 11:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This was actually a tactical victory for NATO(the US and its allies), but considering the U.S. troops withdrew from the area directly afterward it should allso be considred a strategic victory for the taliban. They suceeded in making the U.S. make a tactical withdraw{an ordely retreat} from the area, and now control the town(One more parade (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)).

A tactical victory would be one where there is no substantial long term gains achieved by either side, or losses or gains out weigh that of your opponent. It could be argued successfully that there were/are no long term gains here for either side, making it tactically inconclusive. Both sides (from the numbers provided in the article) suffered approximately a 40% casualty rate. Strategically, neither side, with the loss of 9/4 and 40+ fighters, has impaired the ability of the other to continue fighting, nor has long term advantage been achieved by either side in this encounter, nor has access to critical ground been denied to either side. This incident was inconclusive militarilyCillmore (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It seem it's more of a NATO victory since the attackers were beat back and driven out of the town.--66.229.34.63 (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the result "Reinforcement of Base" is weaselish, if US forces withdrew 3 days later, and the outpost is presumably abandoned/in militiant hands, it looks like a defeat to me.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am going to reword it, but the base isn't abandoned, but was reinforced the following day and they were chasing the surviving taliban that escaped. if you look at the "related" video at one of the cited websites, you will see that. Here is the direct link , which is far from a victory for the taliban. --Hourick (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think your assessment of that video is conclusively accurate. Jeff Carr (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this skirmish was indecisive for everyone all around, although it makes more sense to call it a tactical NATO win and a strategic Taliban victory. NATO forces held the position and the Taliban briefly withdrew, meaning that NATO scored a tactical win. NATO withdrawal later on makes it a Taliban strategic victory. The Taliban lost the battle but won the strategic objective anyway. I'm also sensing some disagreements along ideological divides over this article, which I hope we can avoid in what is supposed to be an objective account of the incident.Krg8501 (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm being totally neutral on the matter. When I put up "reinforced" note I didn't say "victory" for either side as I thought that wouldn't be appropriate.  Which I believe shows that I'm being quite neutral on this matter.  Since we're getting conflicting reports on whether or not this base is still in use, perhaps we should wait until more sources confirm it one way or another. --Hourick (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

In determining the strategic importance of the battle a much larger assessment of the long term gain or loss by either side must be determined. It is not appropriate at this time to (with finality) assess the strategic implications of the encounter and to assign a "victor".Cillmore (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest "undetermined" for now as far as outcome goes. This may not be the last time we might be hearing of this location. --Hourick (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Aren't the objectives of the two sides quite clear? The Americans wanted to set up a base and establish control over the area. The Taliban wanted to removed the fledgling base and establish their control over the area. The American objective has failed (i.e. they withdrew) and the Taliban's objective was achieved. Seems quite simple to me. Casualties are irrelevent if the objectives are accomplished. Just ask the Russians on the Western Front.  Plasticup  T / C  12:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is only your conclusion and characterization, echoing what you've heard or read, which has omitted the 173rd's "side of the story", i.e. its own description of the platoon's mission and what it was trying to accomplish. Now that it has, the story is quite different in many ways from what was first described and implied. The Americans set up a temporary base, not to control the area, but to function just as it did: a temporary defensive position for unit security while they were in the area. At most "undetermined" is appropriate.--Reedmalloy (talk) 06:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

this is a response to the first comment in this section, are you aware that the allies suffered more casulties than the axis during WW2, and the allies won? death toll is totally irrelevant to victory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.128.204 (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Battle?
This incident isn't being referred to as the "Battle of Wanat" on any news sources I've encountered. Although the precise definition of a battle is difficult to determine, an exchange that counts less than 200 troops on either side sounds less like a "battle" and more like a "skirmish" or a "raid". Operation Anaconda and the Battle of Fallujah seem more like conflicts that would typically be called battles. The incident at Wanat sounds a lot more like one of the countless raids, ambushes, and suicide bombings frequently heard from Afghanistan and Iraq. Admittedly the intensity of the fight and its ambitious objective are worth of note, but calling it a battle rings of hyperbole.Krg8501 (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm in overall agreement. This is along the lines of Operation Red Wing in its scope.  Reading the various sources, I never heard the what the operational name was or I would suggest that THAT would be included in the name like, "The Skirmish of 'operation' whatever... --Hourick (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

An earlier report is now being cited for initial strength and casualty calculations. Afghan sources cite 400-500 militants. We should return to 200 and 40.Cillmore (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I change my mind. I would like to wait until more info is available.Cillmore (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC) The number of people involved is not what makes a battle, a battle. Two military units engaged is what makes a battle there are numerous incidents througout history where even smaller engagements have been considered to be battles for example the First Battle of the Stronghold during the Modoc War. I listed this article under Battle of Wanat because i could not find a name for it, names of battles are not created instantaniously instead they are created by the people who write about them including us. When the Iraq War began it was called many different things, The Second Persian Gulf War... ect. If it would be more appropriate, move it to a page called Battle at Wanat if it makes any difference i think the title fits the article calling it anything else just sounds silly. XavierGreen First Battle of the Stronghold

My focus isn't on the number of combatants involved which, I readily admit, is largely arbitrary when defining a "battle". I'm more concerned about the military nature of the incident, which remains unclear. Was it intended as a raid? An ambush? I don't know. But in scope it seems more like a skirmish, with two sides fighting over an outpost well removed from a point of strategic significance. My concern echoes the debate over the use of the phrase "War on Terror", with some arguing that rather than being a single coherent war, U.S. anti-terrorism efforts are a series of loosely connected operations, police actions, terrorist attacks, ambushes, etc. without a clear purpose or objective. More importantly, this incident has not been referred to as the "Battle of Wanat" and that title seems grandiose and inaccurate. Due to the ambiguity of the fight, I think it should be referred to as "Incident at Wanant" or "Raid at Wanant" or, better yet, whatever the news sources are using to refer to it. All I know for sure is that if I were someone who wanted info on the incident, I wouldn't think to type in "Battle of Wanant" off-handedly if only because it hasn't been referred to in this manner on the news.Krg8501 (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A comparable incident during Vietnam might be Battle of FSB Mary Ann. Just a thought when deciding what to name the incident.Lawrencema (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems being that this is a gurilla war for the taliban. The fact they would stage an attack using conventional warfare tactics would to me qualify this as a "battle". I can only think of one other occasion they actually attacked an entrenched U.S. position in this fashion. (One more parade (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

Revised Casualties
The original casualty figure indicated around 40 dead but a senior military official quoted by ABC later claimed that only about fifteen were believed to have been killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.219.199 (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The numbers you are editing are likely not correct. I doubt seriously, as committed as the Taliban are, that they would have retreated given the numbers you are seeking to insert in this article. Please wait until more information is available.Cillmore (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. wait a couple of days before revising it. I've seen a DIFFERENT number on two different websites.  let THEM get their act together first, a week should do it.  --Hourick (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Second Battle of Wanat?
Allso, when NATO/Afghan forces move to retake Wanat(as it has been compleatly vacated by all Afghan/NATO forces) would that be considred a continuation of this event(the battle of wanat)? Or would that be considered a new inncident? (One more parade (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC))
 * That will likely depend upon the timing and nature of their return. If it isn't for another 6 months then it is obviously not the same battle. We will cross this bridge when we come to it.  Plasticup  T / C  15:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Militants
Is there some reason that combatants are being referred to as "soldiers" if they wear NATO uniforms but "militants" if they happen to be fighting for the Taliban? Are they not "soldiers" in either case? Why the distinction? 139.48.25.61 (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm backing this linguistic position. The word "militant" is a bit loaded. We are talking about freedom fighters, Partisans, Nationalists, Guerrillas, revolutionary forces, whatever here.. they could be regarded as all kinds of things, but the word "militant" doesn't work for me. Not that I am pro-Taliban, far from it, its just that the chances are that these ragged trousered irregulars will be the next legitimate government of Afghanistan when we all get fed up with no political progress and the rising body count, and the invading Nato forces will be soundly defeated in small skirmishes like this, as is usual in Afghanistan and has been since the days of Alexander the Great and the British Raj. For better or worse. God help us all, and especially the poor soldiers out there.Excalibur (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Freedom Fighters?!? Come on now, i seriously wonder where some of you get this stuff from... anyway militants is pov because technically a militant is someone who belongs to a militia. Now a militia is a body of individuals carrying weapons. If you want to tell me that six hundred taliban nearly overran an american based in an unarmed unorganized flashmob then yes i would say that they are not militants.  But they were armed and organized in a group, therefore militia and the members of that milita are called militants. User:XavierGreen   —Preceding comment was added at 04:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How about the term "guerrillas"? From the article, "small group of combatants use mobile tactics (ambushes, raids, etc.) to combat a larger and less mobile formal army. The guerrilla army uses ambush (draw enemy forces to terrain unsuited to them) and mobility (advantage and surprise) in attacking vulnerable targets in enemy territory." Sounds exactly like what happened here.Lawrencema (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No No No
This "battle" is more Tactically a Taliban victory than Indecisive, though even that is a stretch. There is no strategic victory here. The MILITARY term stratigic victory does not apply the current Taliban position. The simple english difinition of the word strategic may be mostly correct, but if one puts it in military context there is no strategic victory.72.188.102.140 (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say it is a strategic victory for the Taliban, NATO troops abandoned the base and the Taliban now control that area. It's simple as that.(Top Gun)


 * If you look at the article on strategic victory, the definition is one "that brings long-term advantage to the victor and disturbs the enemy's ability to wage war". The loss of a platoon base hardly disturbs the U.S. ability to wage war in Afghanistan. Of course, if there's a citation for that, I'll be happy to retract my statement. As it stands, I'd like to see standards introduced for the use of the battle infobox results as per my comments (and discussion) here.Lawrencema (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that, if United States left this region, then Taliban winned this battle.Guerrilla isn't such a conventional battle.In a normal battle, the winner has less casualties, while in guerrilla war, the control of people and land is far more important, than causalties.See Vietnam war:United States wasn't defeated in any major battle, but lost that war, beacuse domestic support for that war became over.Agre22 (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)agre22
 * I suggest you do some research. To claim that America 'never lost a major battle' in Vietnam is nothing more than a myth. You should look up the Battle of Kham Duc and FSB Ripcord. In both cases the Americans were forced to run for their lives in a MAJOR battle.Canpark (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Tow truck
The tow truck mentioned in the battle section. Does it refer to a vehicle designed to tow disabled vehicles, or a vehicle with a mounted TOW launcher? Lawrencema (talk) 00:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think considering that was the second object hit, Iwould imagine it was a mounted TOW launcher. --Hourick (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)