Talk:Helmand province campaign

POV issue
The 1,500+ number of Taliban killed creates some POV issues. First, it is unsourced. Second, media has reported dozens of civilians dead, which I am sure the coalition says they are Taliban. -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 12:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have put references for the coalition casualties, I have even put the number of killed British troops during the 2006-07 Taliban takeover even if this article was created with the purpos of talking about the coalition operations to retake the province, but as for the 1,500 taliban number, that is just a best estimate based on the reports on icasualties. Most probably a big number of those killed ARE civilians but there is no evidance. I mean c'mon, 1 coalition soldier killed and in contrast 100-200 Taliban killed, like that could happen what are tehy Terminators, but this is how it stands.Top Gun —Preceding comment was added at 16:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point. If icasualties.org is just citing NATO press communiqués, then this has to be written clearly. NATO claims are not neutral figures.


 * Also you seem to have formed a rather erroneous picture of the fighting in Helmand. There was no sudden takeover in September 2006, as the Taliban already held way over much of Northern Helmand. Helmand province has always been a Taliban stronghold, since several years. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see 1,500 Taliban KIA on icasualties...-- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 22:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I agree with you Raoulduke47. It started in june 2006. And as for the 1,500 number it's not stated as that number on icasualties, but there is the archive of reports and is about 1,500 in those reports. I will add in the infobox that the 1,500 is a NATO claim.Top Gun —Preceding comment was added at 04:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK for the NATO claim. Now 2,000? Those reports are not visible. -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 16:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The reports are in the archive, it is not stated in that way 2,000 dead but if you compile them. It was my best estimate that it was 2,000 based on the reports I read over the last year. We can not just put Unknown number of dead when they always stated how many they killed. Hmmm? How avout this lets not put 2,000 but in words Few thousand killed and then put beside that NATO claim. What do you say? Top Gun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.170.203 (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * June 4 was the date of operation Mutay (in Naw Zad), the first NATO op.(AFAIK) during which there was heavy fighting. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Map of the campaign requested
A map of the location of these operations, Coalition locations (i.e. where are the British operating, where are the Marines operating), major Taliban attacks, etc would definitely make it easier to see the ebb and flow of the campaign. Lawrencema (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

US Marine section...
The entire article seems like a US Marine section. This is a NATO operation with participant forces, no reason not to break down those forces, but it remains a NATO and Afghan Army operation, it is not an operation with interests that bias towards any single nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.113.249.107 (talk) 07:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

...gives the impression that, whilst the US Marines are a useful addition, all subsequent ops were either under US Marine control (which is not the case), that they were central to all subsequent ops within this section (again not so), or are now the largest force (again not so). The US Marines are a very useful and important addition the this part of A’stan. But having the US Marines in this section's title gives an unbalanced impression that every sub point is a US Marine led one. The US Marines are important reinforcements, but they don’t signify any change in strategic or military policy. Chwyatt (talk) 10:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The arrival of a 2500 strong MEU was a significant event for several reasons:


 * It was the greatest single increase in troops since the beginning of the campaign. 2500 more troops represents an important upgrade in coalition capabilities (until then just 8000 British troops, and some smaller contingents)


 * It has allowed the coalition to open a new front in the south of the province, around Garmsir, where NATO only had a small presence. This sector is regarded as strategic, and sometimes called the Taliban's "gateway to Helmand".


 * Which is why it deserves, IMO, a separate section as a important phase of the campaign. You are right, however, that subsequent operations that did not involve any US marines should not be grouped under the same header, and they should be placed in a different section. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with your new edit Raoulduke47. Made one small change (north Helmand, rather than just north) . I think the other edit, calling it ‘War of Attrition’, whilst possibly true, is a value judgement on the status of the situation. Chwyatt (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

First of, you have totaly removed the section on the Taliban spring offensive, it has been notable this year because of the higher rate of Coalition deaths per mnth than in Iraq. So I will return that section to the article. Second, we are not going to be slicing up the article so much. Before we had two distinct phases when NATO outposts were under siege in 2006, and when NATO counter-attacked in 2007, so this should be only a third phase. Not a third (Deployment of U.S. Marines) and a fourth (Continued fighting in north Helmand). Continued fighting in north Helmand? What's up with that, it sounds like the fighting is over in the south but is still continuing in the north of the province, while the Taliban are still active preaty much in the south. OK, I admit the "War of attrition" name for the phase was probably not the best one (although it represents the situation like it is). But in any case this should be presented as one and not two phases. Because to me it looks like each year the situation changes. So the Marines have arrived but that is only one of several mayor activities this year, it doesn't deserve that much attention to be just one phase in the campaign.Guyver85 (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In these edits, I sought not to remove any text. Removing the Taliban Spring Offensive paragraph was an accident. Sorry about that. All I want to see is the US Marines recognised as an important development, whilst at the same time, not giving the impression that since their arrival, all subsequent ops were US Marine led ops. Chwyatt (talk) 07:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the "taliban spring offensive" section and it was not an accident. It was centered around a borderline POV statement that the Taliban had "launched an offensive even though NATO said they couldn't" and then went on to mention the fighting in Kandahar province, that is not relevant here. However, the author didn't bother to explain what this supposed offensive consisted in, nor did he provide any sources to back up his opinion. Did the Taliban launch any attacks against coalition bases, or did they conduct any large-scale ambushes? No. Did they seize control of any more districts? No. Laying a few more IEDs is not an offensive. The fact that the coalition suffered more casualties in Afghanistan than in Iraq is not relevant to this article, which is concerned only with the fighting in Helmand. So if you feel like re-adding this passage, I suggest you do some research first, and provide some factual evidence that there actually WAS a spring offensive in Helmand province. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Having read the "taliban spring offensive" section as it stands now, it seems that there is a serious amount of dishonesty going on here. The author claims that "heavy fighting" broke out in Helmand, and gives three sources for this. However, having read through these three sources, one can easily see that not ONE of them mentions Helmand. In fact, one of these articles is concerned solely with an ambush against French troops in Kabul province, and is completely unrelated to the fighting in the south of the country. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Changed the title from "Deployment of U.S. Marines" to "2008 U.S Marine reinforcements to Garmsir" for a few reasons. First, the date provides a quick idea of the timeline. This Escalation section was getting too large, and with the current 2009 Marine operation there, it will be confusing for readers. Second, after reading everyone's arguments, I do feel that the word "reinforcement" will immediately clue the average reader that the Marines aren't the only force there, and that they were sent there to temporarily augment the NATO forces there. Third, "to Garmsir" reveals that this was not an increase in Marines everywhere, but that the Marines supported NATO effots in Garmsir and did not suddenly operate everywhere in Helmand.

Added extra information regarding the 24th MEU's deployment, in particular the Battalion Landing Team's experience there. Explained the "bitter resistance" a bit better, I feel. I ended the section with their total deployment length (130 days) to ensure there is no mistake that the Marines left the region.

Operation Khanjar
Added ongoing operation. Should this have its own section? It IS a significant phase of the campaign... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ouketi.ego (talk • contribs) 00:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There should be a new section about the surge of US troops into Helmand, not just about OP Khanjar. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Australians in operation blue sword?
There are press reports of Australians in blue sword, with mention of some casualties though these may have been from an operation in uruzgan. However their involvement is not mentioned here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.162.58 (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Media releases re. Australian participation during Blue Sword: http://www.defence.gov.au/media/departmentaltpl.cfm?CurrentId=9029 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-04-25/aussie-troops-strike-taliban-heartland-80-dead/1662552

In May 2011, Australians again returned to Kajaki to look for drugs http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=12101 http://images.defence.gov.au/fotoweb/Grid.fwx?position=25&archiveid=5003&columns=4&rows=2&sorting=ModifiedTimeAsc&search=11120044 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.64.220 (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Georgian Forces
The Georgians deployed some 926 combat troops to Helmand and are allready in action. Hence I suggest to put them into the section of participitating ISAF forces of the campaign. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)