Talk:International Security Assistance Force/Archive 1

About the structure and the contents of the article
Contents at October, 16, 2006:

•	1 Jurisdiction •	2 Structure •	3 Command •	4 Contributing nations o	4.1 NATO nations o	4.2 Partner nations o	4.3 Non-NATO / Non-EAPC nations o	4.4 Coalition casualties in Afghanistan •	5 Timeline o	5.1 ISAF Stage 2 o	5.2 ISAF Stage 3 o	5.3 ISAF Stage 4 •	6 Further reading •	7 See also •	8 External links

Note: about the presence of every contributing nation an article can be written...? (Rob)

The ISAF appears to simply be a U.S. "assistance force" much like the "coalition of the willing." This group is almost exclusively staffed by U.S. forces and commanded by U.S. forces. It is nice to put a multi-national label on something when a mission goes wrong or is intentionally questionable. It is nice to fly the flag of the international community as the U.S. goes about its own agenda in the region.

Also, this Wikipedia section is filled with military trolls trying to paint their own picture of troop contributions to intentionally mislead by claiming "peak" contributions from other nations that simply aren't accurate. Wikipedia numbers should absolutely be consistent with current NATO figures.

ISAF Logo
Umm....Has anyone noted that the ISAF symbol is NOT written in Pashto? Kumak u Hamkaree is Dari, not Pashto.

Also, isn't it 'komak Va hamkari' instead of Wa? This wikipedia article is the only site on the net that says Wa. --80.60.212.248 18:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

- The Arabian letter is the "wa", and this means "and" in Arabic. (By the way, I was not the one who wrote "wa"). I do not know how they spell "wa" in Pashtu or Dari. But this letter is the letter for "and" in Arabic.14:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Rob van Doorn

Somebody should still change it to "wa" OR "va", as I read it in Dari or whatever, it just says "aw" now, is that really correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.51.113 (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no reason for the ISAF symbol to be in Pashtun. The official language of Afghanistan is Dari. 138.162.128.54 (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

About the lead
Date of UN sanction (20 December 2001), see for example: http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/isaf.cfm

Peacekeeping vs stabilisation
I've never heard the term "stabilisation force" before. Where does this come from? Peace keepers is more usual, no? Is it a UN term? The fact that ISAF is a non-UN group should be emphasised. There is a good summary here: If peacekeepers is wrong, the references later on in the article need to change, I guess. Mr. Jones 19:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Peacekeeping is fine when peacekeeping is being done. But there is no peacekeeping in Afghanistan because international forces have a side (the Afghan government) and an enemy (the Taliban).  But I already changed the terms long ago so I'm not sure what you are on about.  --M4-10 20:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe one day UN or NATO gave it the name "stabilisation force"? Already in 1996 a force was named like this, *http://www.nato.int/sfor/, is was the "stabilisation force" for Bosnia. Maybe the first time (?) a force was called like this? First there is a war, and later the situations must be stabilised? (Rob)


 * And how about: Peacekeeping, stabilisation, security?


 * Yes, I think this is a good question. Since NATO-ISAF took over command at the south at 31 July 2006, British and Canadian soldiers in the provinces of Helmand and Kandahar came under daily attack (And also the Dutch and Australians at Uruzgan are many times attacked). British commanders told the fighting for the British is the most fierce since 50 years, when there was the Korean war. BBC reporter Alistair Leithead, embedded with the British forces, called it at an article "Deployment to Afghanistan's hell". deployment to Afghanistan's hell]

So what peace to keep in the south, also observers and analists and commanders and soldiers are saying, when you are under daily siege and attacks?

Even the town Kandahar became surrounded by suspected Taliban, so the NATO-ISAF started the offensive Operation Medusa together with the Afghan National Army.

So when a force is almost under daily attack, there is little peace to keep? Rob van Doorn 02:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Stabilization Force" is a well-known term for military folks. If you have heard of the mission in Bosnia, the force there is called "SFOR", or "Stabilization FORce". 138.162.128.54 (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation: David Richards
The link to 'United Kingdom Lieutenant General David Richards ' goes to a rally driver which doesn't seem quite right. ExpatEgghead 08:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

--Fishman3226 10:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Anton--Fishman3226 10:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Article misses Australian contributions to ISAF including SAS, engineers and tradesmen. Reports on 27/7/06 state 'about 240 soldiers' deployed. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19925160-31477,00.html

Up to date ?
I dont think that this article is up to date.. I mean... look at the « contributing nation ».. Canada was part of « Enduring Freedom » in 2001-2002 and after that withdrew their troops and came back as part of the ISAF... anyway...


 * And then Canada left ISAF and went back to OEF! And then ISAF took over command in the south... yesterday.  --M4-10 14:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

(1 August ISAF took command in the south, ISAF 3, with British, Canadian, Dutch, Danish troops deployed there. (Rob, 7 oct. 2006)


 * I was keeping this up-to-date...but that was a few years ago. Much of the info in this article is now 2 years old. I'd appreciate your help in updating it. Kingturtle 02:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll do my best. (Madame Choucroute 05:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC))


 * I have seen the addition of ISAF and OEF fatalities. I think that the list of fatalities for ISAF should include just the ISAF deaths.  Any deaths during OEF should be listed in OEF articles.  Thoughts? UEL 14:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Question is maybe: every day so many things are happening. And maybe it is a pity when information get lost because of making the article up-to-date day by day. Maybe it is a good idea to add new information, without deleting data? So make lists, for example, with situations at different times?)

---

Countries involved
We need more information on the Greek troops who are currently deployed. And, if possible, a picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgt.jchak (talk • contribs) 00:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it is the best thing to do to talk about them in alphabetical order? Rob van Doorn 19:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It is quiete a long time ago I was starting to expand this article and made a lot of 07:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Rob van Doorn (talk)credits to it. But I started a weblog about the ISAF and Afghanistan. Although the blog is in Dutch, it can be interesting. weblog isaf

Somebody asked to expand the paragraph about the involvement of the ISAF countries but: About every country involved it looks like a whole article can be written about their involvement. Maybe we can discuss about it here? Alphabetically, chronologically, by theme, or geographically?

Albania
Source from the Albanian Minstry of Defence: http://www.mod.gov.al/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=78&Itemid=60&lang=en

Austria
Information available at the site of the MoD: http://www.bmlv.gv.at/ausle/missionen/mission.shtml

Belgium
At this place we can discuss the role of Belgium in the ISAF-mission. The official ISAF site of the Belgian MoD: BELU ISAF 12, the official ISAF site of Belgium and Luxemburg (In Dutch and French)

Bulgaria
2006: 120 troops. Bulgaria will send 200 troops more in 2007

Canada
Canada is using Leopard2A6M tanks to support their troops in Helmand.

Croatia
- Croatia is increasing its participation from current 210 troops to 328 troops by April 2008 and up to 550 troops towards the end of the 2008. Perhaps Croatia might send 2 Medical helicopters, 2 AN32B transports and medical team (30 doctors and nurses).

RE: Italian forces in Afghanistan

 * For accuracy's sake, writing from Italy where the presence of Italian forces in ISAF is politically contentious so very closely followed in the press, I would like to draw the editors' attention to the fact that Italy's ISAF contribution - and coalition efforts in Afghanistan in general - have been and are a lot larger than reported in this article and elsewhere in Wikipedia entries on the war in Afghanistan(i.e. re Operation Enduring Freedom).

The following links are to official information provided in English by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

(May 2004)

"- active participation in the operation Enduring Freedom, especially through the mission of Task Force Nibbio (approximately 1000 parachutists and special forces) operating in Khost between 2002 and 2003 ;

- participation in the ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) Mission established by UN Security Council Resolution 1386 at the end of 2001. Italy contributed with approximately 450 soldiers to this mission, which is still under way and under the command of NATO since August of 2003; " http://www.esteri.it/eng/4_27_54_25_254.asp .....

31st May 2006 (from interview with Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs Gianni Vernetti):

«We have 148 civilians working in cooperation and development, and many more with non-governmental organisations. We have 1,356 soldiers, 834 of which are in Kabul and 522 in Herat».

http://www.esteri.it/eng/6_38_90_01.asp?id=2419&mod=2

See also: 30/6/2006: "Italy agrees to keep troops in Afghanistan

Prime Minister Romano Prodi’s government agreed on June 30 to keep Italian troops in Afghanistan despite opposition from pacifists in his coalition threatening to vote against the mission in parliament. The cabinet unanimously adopted a decree that extends financing for Italy’s overseas military operations, including for its some 1,300 troops on a NATO-led mission in Afghanistan. Defence Minister Arturo Parisi, in a nod to pacifists, said Rome would not send any additional troops or hike spending. But he also declined to lay out an exit strategy and warned it could take 25 years to fully resolve Afghanistan’s conflict."

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1921838&C=europe

Number of troops Update:as of the website of MoD 4200 troops have been authorized to partecipate to ISAF,so the number have increased. the website has been updated on 4th of july 2011. http://www.difesa.it/Operazioni_Militari/Operazioni_internazionali_in_corso/Afghanistan_-_ISAF_HQ_-_ITALFOR_KABUL/Pagine/Contributo-nazionale.aspx     93.144.157.96 (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Denmark
See for a very useful source: http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/CoalitionPages/Denmark.htm Rob van Doorn 22:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Denmark is using Leopard2A5DK tanks to support their troops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.161.106.194 (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Estonia
At November 2006 there are 79 defence forces personnel from Estonia serving in Afghanistan. By the end of 2006, Estonia plans to increase its presence in Afghanistan to 120 troops. Considering the small size and limited opportunities of Estonia, this is a significant contribution. 

Finland
October, 2, 2006: A Finnish peacekeeper was wounded in a shooting incident in northern Afghanistan Sunday night, the Finnish Defence Staff said in a statement Sunday. Finland currently has about 100 peacekeepers in Afghanistan. (2.10.2006; * http://virtual.finland.fi/stt/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=13866&group=General). (Newsroom Finland, news from the Finnish News Agency (STT), http://virtual.finland.fi/stt/

Georgia
Since November 20, 2009, Georgia has 173 military personnal stationed in Afghanistan, Helmand province. More than 1,000 Soldiers will be deployed in January 2010.

Greece
Not enough information. Sombody please try to add more. There is a 120 strong unit at Kabul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.119.149.156 (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hungary
1 October 2006: source the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant: *http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/article349004.ece/Nederland_weg_uit_noorden_Afghanistan

Ireland
Seven Irish troops participating in ISAF since July 5th 2002. Three personnel under the ISAF in Kabul on information services duties. Four personnel working on liaison duty between the Kabul Multinational Brigade and the Afghan National Directorate of Security, the Kabul city police and the United Nations Assistance Mission.[] The Irish Defence Forces had originally offered to send special forces to provide training for other troops but this was declined.[] -- sony-youth  11:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Lithuania
http://www.kam.lt/index.php/en/74343/ Lithuanian Ministry of Defence site

Mongolia?
The ISAF contributor map on the page has Mongolia high-lighted in dark green indicating their involvement yet they don't appear anywhere on the page. According to the Military of Mongolia page, they have some trainers and peace-keepers there. Shouldn't this be included?--Sanorton (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Netherlands
The article states: "HQ in Kandahar, Kandahar province (Led by UK, soon to be under 6 Division)" but both the small map next to it and the article about the Provincial Reconstruction Teams clearly indicate that the southern region is under command of the Netherlands. A mistake made by a previous writer or did I overlook something? - SRJ 19-01-2008 23:31


 * At the moment (July, 2008) Canada is the lead nation. The Netherlands will assume command in November, 2008. there was a discussion about the lenght of it. It looks like also the US is going to be one of the rotating nations in the future.


 * The Dutch government decided in November 2007, when they expanded their mandate to the end of 2010, to withdraw a few hundred troops in the second half of 2008 (when the original mandate expired), although it’s the question how many reinforcements in Uruzgan will arrive.

Also two F-16 fighters will be withdrawn from Kandahar, and the Belgium Air Force will send 4 additional jets (although with no Enduring Freedom mandate).

The Dutch government wanted reinforcements of other countries as a guarantee before expanding the mandate. The same like Canada, who asked for reinforcements for Kandahar before expanding the mandate.

France will send 60 trainers for the Afghan Security Forces to Uruzgan, Slovakia promised to send 60 trainers and guards to protect the base, also the Czech Republic promised to send tens of additional forces. Georgia wanted to send 200 troops, but this is still unclear. Singapore will send two medical teams, 2 x 10 doctors and nurses.

A Dutch newspaper said: what we gain? “There will be a lot to translate like this.” The government was hoping to receive a contribution of a third “Uruzgan-partner” of about 400 troops, but there were no countries who did want to employ such an amount in this very volatile province. Rob van Doorn (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think The Netherlands should be put back on the list under returning nations. Cause Dutch troops are going to Kunduz for a police mission. Some troops are already in Kunduz building their camp etc. Also yesterday the first trainers arrived. I hope someone will put The Netherlands back in the list. Koentjuhh (talk) 7:47, 16 june 2011 (UTC)

Norway
(- Might as well send helicopters made of cardboard, to Afghanistan)"- Kan like gjerne sende papphelikoptre til Afghanistan" is a link from the website of a National newspaper in Norway, today.

It is about Norwegian politicians reacting ... to plans of pay-cuts for "parts of the Norwegian soldiers in Afghanistan".--85.166.141.247 (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Singapore
sent more than just themedical team--it sent a radar team to track rockets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.246.95 (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sweden
Swedish troops are deployed in the north of the country, together with troops from Finland and Norway, they work closely together as Nordic troops. 500 man force as of december 09.

Turkey
Since November 2006, Turkey is leading the 25th PRT at Wardak. two times there was a Turkish commander of ISAF in Afghanistan (ISAF 2 and 7)

United Kingdom
Text at October 12, 2006

•	United Kingdom – 461. (At September 2006, some 4,000 British troops are in the province Helmand, with the figure set to rise to around 4,500. A further 1,000 are in the capital Kabul and a few hundred are in the southern city of Kandahar. British commanders on the ground are asking time after time for reinforcements). The UK was one of the first countries to join the US-led coalition into Afghanistan. (6 soldiers have died as part of ISAF (as well as 31 under OEF): one was murdered by a comrade (who then committed suicide), one died in an accidental weapon discharge, 2 were killed in separate suicide bombings and one died in a firefight.) (7 October 2006) Currently there are 5,500 British troops deployed in Afghanistan. That figure will rise to 5,800 in October. Of those already in Afghanistan, 1,300 are in Kabul and 4,200 are in the southern province of Helmand.

They are there to help train Afghan security forces, facilitate reconstruction, and provide security. But over the last few months, the situation in the north of Helmand has turned increasingly violent, with British troops involved in fierce fire fights against the Taleban and anti-coalition militia (ACM).

British troops have been involved in clashes in the towns of Sangin, Musa Qaleh, Kajaki and Nawzad. The article Q&A: UK troops in Afghanistan (BBC News) gives also a list of the British units which are involved in the ISAF mission. [1]

Pacifist traitors vs those actually involved in fighting the taliban insurgency.
It should be noted that those countries with troops in the south and east are actually involved in some of the worst fighting seen by the individuals country's armies in a long time. Germany and France who have a lot of troops in Afghanistan aren't contributing with anything against the Taliban Insurgency and where the fighting is actually going on. The Danish, British, The Netherlands, and the Canadians are the only ones who are actually involved in fighting the taliban insurgency...
 * without Germs keeping the North more or less peaceful all of Afghanistan would be burning! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.228.19 (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * German and Norwegian troops have been involved in fighting in the north. And as the above said, without them, the Taliban/al-Qaeda would exploit that.
 * As for the south, Estonians and Norwegians have also been in the fight, as has (non-NATO) Australia. Chwyatt (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

refs
I tried to label all references and moved them in a note section. The following sources had varying problems.

http://www.mindef.nl/service/fotogalerij/frmMediaItemDetails.aspx?nMediaItemID=221 (dead, unrestoreable, deleted)

http://www.mindef.nl/en/news/2006/1/20060125_news.aspx (latest news is crap, should have at least the title and headline be noted. didn't delete but it should be checked and corrected)

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1900585.ece (Service Temporarily Unavailable (no replacement found but didn't delete now, ref name = "afterposten1")

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2220344(no replacement found and deleted)

http://www.kmweg.com/gb/index.php (looks like advertisement without essential information, didn't delete but it should be checked by some one if it is appropriate, refname = "kmweg1")

Hope it was usefull. -- Stan talk 17:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ISAF observation group in Afghanistan.jpg
Image:ISAF observation group in Afghanistan.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ISAF observation group in Afghanistan.jpg
Image:ISAF observation group in Afghanistan.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Are the Icelandic Crisis Response Unit military?
Not that straight forward. They are mostly police and coastguard personnel. And they are not tasked with aggressive military operations. But nor are they police. They are an armed unit who take part in missions traditionally done by the military in other countries, namely contributing to ‘peacekeeping’ missions and military observation. They have military ranks. They undergo military training in Norway by the Norwegian Army. So with no unique word, they are closer to military than police or coastguard. Chwyatt (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Troops of the United Arab Emirates
According to this BBC report there are troops of the United Arab Emirates in Afghanistan. But neither this article nor the ISAF seems to list them. Gugganij (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My best bet is that they're not mentioned since they are not members of ISAF.Ghyslyn (talk) 09:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

--- One day they were quoted in a report of the Dutch ministry of Defence, because they were together with Americans in the province of Uruzgan, next to the Dutch base, where the PRT is led by the Netherlands. This was already before the article of Frank Gardner about their involvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob van Doorn (talk • contribs) 02:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Also research of a broadcasting corporation found out, I translate it:

This means: about 170 troops of the United Arab Emirates are taking part in Uruzgan in the battle against Muslim fighters of the Taliban. Research of the Dutch World Broadcasting Service (Radio) found out they are in the Dutch camp at Tarin Kowt. (source: 30-10-2006; []. they like to keep this secret, (UAE), because of not getting isolated from the rest of the Arabian World. (But "funny" it was one day also not kept secret by the Dutch ministry of Defence.

"Ongeveer 170 manschappen van de Verenigde Arabische Emiraten vormen in de Afghaanse provincie Uruzgan onderdeel van de strijd tegen de moslimstrijders van de Taliban. Uit onderzoek van de Wereldomroep ter plekke blijkt dat zij zijn gelegerd in het Nederlandse kamp Tarin Kowt. De VAE hebben hun rol in Afghanistan zoveel mogelijk geheim proberen te houden, om zich niet te isoleren van de rest van de Arabische wereld."

(additional) At that time (Oct 2006) the forces of the UAE were under command of the American led operation Enduring Freedom, and not NATO-ISAF. An UAE captain told the reporters "it is known we are here", but the reporters couldn't find news files about it, before they met these UAE soldiers. The minister of Foreign Affairs, at that time Ben Bot, did not want to answer questions about their involvement in Parliament, because members of Parliament wanted to know how about the mandates (NATO-ISAF or OEF) they were operating.

02:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Rob van Doorn (talk)

Troop numbers - current and peak
As troop numbers reflect current deployments, they may not reflect past peak numbers. As some nations may wind down deployments, I believe it would be worthwhile to mention peak activity and numbers, so we have that history. Chwyatt (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agreeGhyslyn (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I do also agree with this, but we can mention both numbers? A few months ago the Dutch Union of Soldiers said there are a few hundred Dutch troops more deployed in Uruzgan/Afghanistan than mentioned by the MoD. The MoD said it is because of rotations, the Union said it is structurally like this.Rob van Doorn (talk) 02:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Something like...
 * 🇫🇷 france – 1,670 troops as of June 2008 (Peak: 2,100 in August 2004).
 * ? Chwyatt (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

- I agree with this. There is also another possibility, for example (2.140; June 2005), (1.600; Feb 2007), (1.850; June 2008). This is also giving an impression of the developments of a contributing nation.

(see also a note at this day about the involvement of the Netherlands above)Rob van Doorn (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

UK Has More Troops Than The List Says
I heard in a speech by George W. Bush and Gordon Brown saying Gordon had 8,000 troops in Afghainstan in the middle of April and currently in other reports. Should we change the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConnorIBurnett (talk • contribs) 01:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Source it so we can check the validity of this invormation. Ghyslyn (talk) 09:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As discussed above? The Dutch government says 1.625, NATO gives a number of 1.750, the UNION of soldiers says about 2.000, is also possible? Rob van Doorn (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Contributing nations
There is a list at the top of this section, from a NATO source, that reflects the major contributions at a certain peak point, the 8th October 2008. I don’t think individual nations contributions should be changed in that list to the current contribution, because (a) it would not reflect an overall multi-national picture at one point in time and the list would become unbalanced and comparison would become impossible, (b) the current contribution would always change (c) some nations would be changed and others would not and (d) it contradicts the source.

Another list may be needed at some point in the future, if the nature of the international contribution fundamentally changes.

I think the individual nation’s entries underneath should reflect both the current and the historical contribution of that nation. Regards. Chwyatt (talk) 08:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

India Contribution?
The future Indian contribution of 120 000 troops is based on 1 unreliable source and should be removed as the 3rd source makes no mention of any such plans. Valorum (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It says that the indian contribution is rumored. For now, I have taken India off the expected nations list till there is enough proof of a possible indian involvement from a well-known media corporation 96.52.193.72 (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Contributing Nations needs re-write
War in Afghanistan (2001–present) uses the information provided on this page to point users to which countries provide troops to ISAF in Afghanistan. It currently has United States United Kingdom Germany Italy Canada France Netherlands Poland Belgium and then mentions 37 other countries. Please can we help keep this information updated regularly, and provide a summary of ALL countries in either alphabetical or by numbers of troops deployed. Jez t e C 12:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Further, to this -- As this is not just current numbers but also historical, then perhaps a chart such as the below made-up example:

As such, then every wikipedian who wants to dispute his / hers countrys numbers and why flags are not displayed would be pointed here.. COMMENTS?? Jez t e C 12:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI ISAF Placemat has 18 previous numbers of troops in AFG. Jez t e C 13:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Jez, per your suggestion, I have added to the ISAF article a table that is close to what you suggested. See below. I believe that every number in this new table is backed up by a referenced. If any editors modify the table then please include references for your changes:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" !

Approximate Afghanistan/ISAF Troop Strength Over Time (Military and Police)
! 01DEC2008 ! 17FEB2009 ! 22OCT2009 ! 20NOV2009 !

ISAF Troop Contributing Nations (TCN)
! ! ! 140 ! 140 ! 250 ! 250 ! 0 ! 0 ! 0 ! 0 ! 1,090 ! 1,090 ! 1,350 ! 1,350 ! 1 ! 1 ! 4 ! 4 ! 45 ! 45 ! 90 ! 90 ! 400 ! 410 ! 530 ! 530 ! 0 ! 0 ! 10 ! 10 ! 460 ! 510 ! 460 ! 460 ! 2,750 ! 2,830 ! 2,830 ! 2,830 ! 300 ! 270 ! 290 ! 290 ! 415 ! 415 ! 480 ! 480 ! 700 ! 700 ! 690 ! 690 ! 130 ! 90 ! 150 ! 150 ! 80 ! 110 ! 165 ! 165 ! 2,785 ! 2,780 ! 3,095 ! 3,095 ! 1 ! 1 ! 1 ! 1 ! 3,600 ! 3,460 ! 4,365 ! 4,365 ! 130 ! 140 ! 145 ! 145 ! 240 ! 360 ! 360 ! 360 ! 8 ! 8 ! 2 ! 2 ! 7 ! 7 ! 7 ! 7 ! 2,350 ! 2,350 ! 2,795 ! 2,795 ! 0 ! 4 ! 7 ! 7 ! 70 ! 160 ! 175 ! 175 ! 200 ! 200 ! 260 ! 260 ! 9 ! 9 ! 9 ! 9 ! 1,770 ! 1,770 ! 2,160 ! 2,160 ! 150 ! 150 ! 300 ! 300 ! 455 ! 490 ! 480 ! 480 ! 1,130 ! 1,590 ! 1,910 ! 1,910 ! 70 ! 30 ! 145 ! 145 ! ! 740 ! 900 ! 990 ! 990 ! 0 ! 20 ! 2 ! 2 ! 180 ! 120 ! 245 ! 245 ! 70 ! 70 ! 130 ! 130 ! 780 ! 780 ! 1,000 ! 1,000 ! 400 ! 310 ! 430 ! 430 ! 135 ! 170 ! 0 ! 0 ! 860 ! 700 ! 720 ! 720 ! 10 ! 10 ! 10 ! 10 ! 0 ! 25 ! 25 ! 25 ! 8,745 ! 8,300 ! 9,000 ! 9,000 ! 19,950 ! 24,900 ! 34,800 ! 34,800 !
 * Albania
 * Albania
 * Armenia
 * Armenia
 * Australia
 * Australia
 * Austria
 * Austria
 * Azerbaijan
 * Azerbaijan
 * Belgium
 * Belgium
 * Bosnia and Herzegovina
 * Bosnia and Herzegovina
 * Bulgaria
 * Bulgaria
 * Canada
 * Canada
 * Croatia
 * Croatia
 * Czech Republic
 * Czech Republic
 * Denmark
 * Denmark
 * Estonia
 * Estonia
 * Finland
 * Finland
 * France
 * France
 * Georgia
 * Georgia
 * Germany
 * Germany
 * Greece
 * Greece
 * Hungry
 * Hungry
 * Iceland
 * Iceland
 * Ireland
 * Ireland
 * Italy
 * Italy
 * Jordan
 * Jordan
 * Latvia
 * Latvia
 * Lithuania
 * Lithuania
 * Luxembourg
 * Luxembourg
 * Netherlands
 * Netherlands
 * New Zealand
 * New Zealand
 * Norway
 * Norway
 * Poland
 * Poland
 * Portugal
 * Portugal
 * Romania
 * Romania
 * Singapore
 * Singapore
 * Slovakia
 * Slovakia
 * Slovenia
 * Slovenia
 * Spain
 * Spain
 * Sweden
 * Sweden
 * The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
 * The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
 * Turkey
 * Turkey
 * Ukraine
 * Ukraine
 * UAE
 * UAE
 * United Kingdom
 * United Kingdom
 * United States (ISAF)
 * United States (ISAF)

Approximate Subtotal Troop Strength (ISAF only)
! 51,350 ! 56,420 ! 71,030 ! 71,030 !

Non-ISAF TCN
! unknown ! 79,300 ! 93,890 ! 97,200 ! unknown ! unknown ! unknown ! 93,800 ! unknown ! 8,189 ! 31,200 ! 31,200 !
 * Afghan National Army (ANA)
 * Afghan National Army (ANA)
 * Afghan National Police (ANP)
 * Afghan National Police (ANP)
 * United States (non-ISAF)
 * United States (non-ISAF)

Approximate Total Troop Strength (ISAF and Non-ISAF)
! 51,350 ! 143,909 ! 196,120 ! 293,230 ! 01DEC2008 ! 17FEB2009 ! 22OCT2009 ! 20NOV2009
 * }
 * }


 * Feedback on this table is welcome.Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

EU citizens in ISAF
You shuold report that EU citizens in ISAF are much more than the US ones (28000 vs 19000).In the article seems that people with US passport are more than people with EU passport.89.97.225.77 (talk) 07:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Georgian soldiers
Why has Georgia decided to post one soldier in Afghanistan, is their really any point in that? If so I think it should be noted here. 95jb14 (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

UN Authrozation of ISAF ends 13th of October 2009
Or has there been another resolution since 1833? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.243.131.234 (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a resolution, and it goes to the security council on the morning of October 8th for a vote: this is only a formality. Check the UN website under "security council" for details of such things.

174.137.217.177 (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)trainman2

Propose that the Table in Contributing Nations Section Only be Updated When a New NATO Placemat (or Other NATO Factsheet) is Released
I noticed that the number of Georgia troops in the table was very recently changed to 173. However, now the total in the table no longer matches the current NATO placement. Even the numbers in the table no longer add up. This type of inconsistency reflects poorly on Wikipedia. I propose that the table in contributing nations section only be updated wen a new NATO placemat (or other NATO Factsheet) is released. (I don't mind if the other parts of this article are updated the very latest information.) Ideally this table will be more stable and only list one entry for each year for entries older than 24 months. During the last 24 months updates might be more frequent if there is a lot of troop activity. Can we reach a concensus to wait for a new NATO placemat (or other NATO Factsheet) to modify this table? Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is a new proposal for a more flexible way to handle last minute updates. A new column called "RECENT UPDATES" has been added to the table. Also added was the Georgia update and the Georgia reference . This approach allows historical data to be accurate while still allowing for up to minute updates. If there is a consensus on this approach to the table then it might be time to add historical data for xxDEC2007, xxDEC2006, xxDEC2005, etc. Where each date corresponds to the latest date of the NATO placemat for the calendar year. Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Initial Draft of New Table Finished - Title: "Approximate Afghanistan/ISAF Troop Strength Over Time (Military and Police)"
Initial Draft of New table has been finished. Comments from other Wikipedia editors would be helpful. There are no data before January 2007 (the date of the earliest NATO placemat). Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Countries in ISAF/NATO Contributing Nations Table needs to be listed in the same order as the current ISAF/NATO placemat
I propose that the countries in ISAF/NATO Contributing Nations Table (see below) be listed in the same order as the current ISAF/NATO placement (see http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/epub/pdf/placemat.html). This will it make it much easier to keep the table current and updated. Unless I see comments in this discussion section to the contrary, I plan to go ahead an reorganize the table as proposed above.Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

ISAF total - 73,230.


 * Updated "Table of ISAF/NATO Contributing Nations". The countries are now listed in the same order as the ISAF/NATO placemats. Any feedback is appreciated.Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * ISAF may be a good start point but is not necessarily 100% right as a source. Ref Australian force totals - the Australian Department of Defence lists current strength as 1,550 while the last ISAF update says 1,350. See . Aus DoD would seem a more reliable source to me (in this instance). Anotherclown (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. The ISAF only provides a good start point. Often times other references are more current than the ISAF. I recommend that if a non-ISAF source is used then it be referenced. I was completely comfortable with the way you referenced the Australian Department of Defence.Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Estonia is left out from current table in the article.--Kyng (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Estonia is in the table now. I don't know how/why Estonia was deleted on 4 February.Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 03:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick sandbox on ISAF SOF
It seems ISAF Special Forces have designations running in the 40 ranges. Eg. the Italian special forces in RC-W are Task Force 45 (source Jane's Defence Weekly), in RC-North the Germans have Task Force 47, and in the south a Task Force 42 from the UK are mentioned in a U.S. SOF web magazine. Meanwhile, the New Zealand Special Air Service are assisting an ANA unit known as the Crisis Response Unit / Task Force 24 (http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/news/3257136/Key-broke-pledge-on-Kiwis-in-battle). Just thought all this info should be in one place. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Buckshot, Thanks for the information on ISAF SOF. I am hoping you have a suggestion as to where to put this SOF info in the ISAF article. Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Update needed
This article is in desperate need of an update, especially the section on individual countries' deployments. While the current numbers seem to be updated regularly, the background info has a lot of often severely outdated info on what used to be planned but very little on if and when deployments actually happened. Travelbird (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that a lot of the background info is outdated. I have made regular efforts to "clean up" the outdated info. However, a lot more clean up is still needed. Hopefully, other editors will help with the clean up that is needed. If I get some time, I will try to do more clean up.Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Expected contributions
The article states that Colombia planned to send 100 troops to Afghanistan in 2009. They clearly never arrived and with them being more than a year overdue I very much doubt they ever will. The question is: Should we just strike the info on Colombia altogether or have a new section with "nations that pledged troops at one point but never actually sent them" ? Travelbird (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It has been almost two weeks since your post and no one has commented. In my opinion, it is safe to strike the info on Colombia. The information can be restored or edited in the future, if needed.Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Czechs do not participate anymore
Czech men recetly left the Afghanistan mission; the new government of the Czech republic arranged not to money-support the mission anymore, so in June 2010 the 500 men had to leave Afghanistan (it was very dangerous). —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrancerCZ (talk • contribs) 02:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Over (False) Precision in Tables
The two tables with percentages listed are calculated out to 1/1000ths of a percent. Such precision is not needed, and is indeed unhelpful. I urge the contributors to those tables to consider False precision, Significant figures, and WP:MOSNUM. Giving readers a rounded percent and/or "<1%" figure will work better. If more precision is compelling, then go for a 1/10th of a percent. "<0.1%" works well in telling the reader that country such-and-such has contributed to a small portion of the total number of troops. Will rounding change the addition involved in reaching a 100.000% total? Perhaps. But that tiny bit of "inaccuracy" can be explained by a "Totals may not equal 100 because of rounding" notation. (And yes, I understand that False Precision & Significant Figures pertain to science topics/scientific notation. In response, I ask what is the purpose of giving readers a 1/1000th of a percent figure?) --S. Rich (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The purpose using more precision for "% of Total Troops" is to keep the following percentages from being displayed as zero: Luxembourg 0.007%, Ireland 0.005%, Iceland 0.003%, Austria 0.002%. Although these countries contribute a small number their participation is not zero. If you have a specific idea for improvement please share it. Let me know if this answers your question. Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Countries less than "0.01%" could be shown as "<0.01%" and countries less than "0.1%" could be shown as "<0.1%". However, it seems to me this special notation (<0.01%) would not be sortable in a wiki table. Therefore, unless there is another approach I am inclined to not change the present format. These numbers change so frequently this special format would be a an added challege to keep current. What do people think?Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Article split

 * I have reduced the percentages but the article is still too long and has not enough space for a real history of the force, instead of statistics. I propose to create ISAF troop number statistics and move all the statistics and charts into that new article. What do people think? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No comments have been received for 12 days so I will split the page within the next three days if there are no more comments. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Buckshot06, I like the split in general, however, you put the link for the latest statistics and historical statistics at almost the very end of the article. If there are no objections, I plan to move the very short section "Contributions of participating nations"  to the begining of section 4 "Contributing nations".  The overall length of the article will not be affected.  This change will allow people to find the link to the latest statistics and historical statistics more easily.  Buckshot06, what do you think? What do other people think?Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

ISAF soldiers from Norway: No more captives to be turned over to prisons in Afghanistan
Are there any equivalent links in English?


 * "(ISAF soldiers from)Norway discontinues transferring captives to the authorities of Afghanistan"
 * October 29, "Norway is denied access to Norwegian prisoners - Amnesty: - Shows that Norwegian authorities are not in control"/ "Norge blir nektet å besøke norske fanger - Amnesty: - Viser at norske myndigheter mangler kontroll"
 * October 30, "(Norwegian soldiers must release prisoners in Afghanistan) Norske soldater må slippe løs Afghanistan-fanger --85.165.231.200 (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * November 2, "(Norwegian soldiers: - Faremo forces us to kill — Former "Chief of ISAF soldiers from Norway": - This increases the danger for Norwegian soldiers) Norske soldater: - Faremo tvinger oss til å drepe — Tidligere Afghanistan-sjef: - Går utover sikkerheten til norske soldater--85.165.231.200 (talk) 11:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * November 4, "(This is how Faremo responds to the Afghanistan-criticism — the Minister of Defence on the attack after prisoner-criticism from soldiers and from Red Cross) Slik svarer Faremo på Afghanistan-kritikken — Forsvarsministeren til motangrep etter fange-kritikk fra soldater og Røde Kors--85.165.231.200 (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)