Talk:Opposition to the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)

Merge
Post-September 11 anti-war movement is writtern in a POV editorial orriginal reasearch fasion. I belive that this partly steams from the title which sets the article up to present an editorialised content.

To solve this problem I want to propose merging the content of the article into this page and the following pages Anti-war, Protests against the invasion of Afghanistan, Opposition to the 2003 Iraq War, Protests against the 2003 Iraq war and The Left and war and then deleting Post-September 11 anti-war movement.--JK the unwise 13:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree. This focus of this article is primarily about the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan and should be merged with it.  As as standalone article it cites almost nothing, does not include individuals, and is, in my opinion, of little value.  Merging with the aforementioned wiki will at least give it some value.

Afghans
Hamid Karzid and Afghan's feminist and anti-Taliban movements opposed the US and British led NATO opperation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apconig (talk • contribs) 19:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate content
The fact that U.S. and Afghan authorities want to build a pipeline is not disputed. But the idea that the sole reason for the attack on Afghanistan was to build a pipeline, and not to fight al-Qaeda and their Taliban sponsors, is a view only embraced by a lunatic fringe who have no real evidence to prove this is the case. No maintream observers think this is true. In fact, the only way it can be true is if you believe that the government was involved in or complicit in the 9/11 attacks to provide an "excuse" for the war. It should be characterized as a conspiracy theory.

The length of the war is highly irrelevant. The fact that there have been past wars in Afghanistan is not relevant to an article that deals only with the 2001 war. 69.133.126.117 (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

extensive misuse of quotes
This article runs afoul of wp:quote in nearly every section. I will be trimming the use of quotes extensively. Bonewah (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is very clearly stated on wp:quote that:


 * "This guidance essay contains comments and advice of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline."


 * The quotes are useful, relevant, and aid understanding of the subject. 65.94.85.240 (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand that essays are not policy, however, one should not simply disregard essays without at least attempting to explain why the essay doesnt or shouldnt apply. You have simply declared the the quotes are useful, without addressing why there should be so many, and of only tangential relationship to the sections which contain them. By my count there are over 40 quotes in this article, nearly every section has one or more, and often they are often used only to advance a point of view, again, exactly what wp:quote warns against.  I will refrain from removing them at this time, however it is my feeling that the overuse of quotes here is at least bad form, and likely a violation of wp:or and other fundamental rules. Bonewah (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the quotes should be removed - they're unbalanced as they only advance one side of the argument about the war, they're not really integrated with the article and most are presented in isolation with no background on the person being quoted. Nick-D (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is entitled Opposition to the war. It validly presents the various motivations for the opposition to the war, and validly presents significant expressions of that opposition that have been made and reported on in the media. This page is not the place to try to insert arguments or quotes in favor of the war, or the place to try to refute or undermine the arguments that are behind the opposition to the war. Besides their inclusion as significant expressions of opposition, the quotes are highly relevant in that they capture and illustrate to the reader the sentiments and arguments that motivate the opposition to the war. They help the reader understand the subject, the opposition to this war. 70.52.30.221 (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think you are responding to the substance of the problem here. Quotes are not forbidden, but the over use of quotes is definably a problem. Again, this article has over 40 quotes, which is way excessive, and often the quotes have only a limited connection with the subject at hand.  You haven't really responded to this concern, other than to say that they are relevant, which is little better than saying, "this usage of quotes is acceptable because i said so". Bonewah (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of tags
Consult Template:POV, template usage notes. Tag applied in April contravened every one of the template's usage notes. Removing as indicated by Template:POV. Similar misuse of Template:OR and essay template, removing as indicated by Template:OR.

Length observation reviewed. The readable prose length is still within guidelines, and as the guideline states for a subject involving so many factors, "the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time". 65.94.87.133 (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Image removal
With all due respect, Nick, I think you are wrong to try to remove the image of the foreign soldiers conducting a house raid, and I ask you to reconsider.

This article is about the opposition to the war, and, in most significant part, about the reasons for the opposition. On the other hand, it very specifically does not deal with the protest marches against the war, and includes only a very brief mention in passing for completeness, since there is already a full-fledged and dedicated article for that, Protests against the War in Afghanistan (2001–present), (which you know about since the image of the protest march that you are trying to substitute in was taken from there and is redundant here.)

Nor is this article about the Peace movement or peace activists or anti-war organizations, all of which have their own articles. This article tries to explore the opposition to the war in a more substantial way for readers than simplistically, superficially, and hence dismissively, portraying opposition to the war as simply another bunch of protesters marching with placards.

The house raid image you seem to want to censor out depicts a central source of opposition to the war - if not the central source of opposition - in Afghanistan and in the rest of the world. Here is just a tiny sampling of the issue's high prominence and central relevance to the topic:

"Many cite civilian casualties and house raids as the main reason for their opposition. Recently in Logar, armed locals blocked the highway into Kabul for hours, in protest of a night raid where US forces killed one and detained three others. According to local reports, the nearly 2,000 protestors burned tires and chanted anti-US slogans."

(from Many in Afghanistan oppose Obama's troop buildup plans)

"Afghans repeatedly point to a variety of social and political grievances that account for their opposition to the government: ... abuse by local and international security forces, involving mistreatment by local police or army as well as by international forces during village and house raids, the killing of civilians through aerial bombardment, and illegal detentions."

(from Rethinking the Afghanistan Mission)

In recent months Karzai has adopted "an increasingly adversarial posture toward NATO and American forces deployed here, denouncing what he has called heavy-handed bombings and house raids that have caused civilian casualties, offended cultural sensitivities and undermined popular support for the war that routed the Taliban in late 2001."

(from Afghan Leader, Showing Impatience With War, Demands Timetable From NATO)

"The ministers demanded a status of forces agreement, which would stipulate that the authority and responsibilities of international forces be negotiated, and they said that aerial bombing, illegal detentions and house raids by international forces must be stopped."

"Heavy-handed bombing raids and house raids, which are seen as culturally unacceptable by many Afghans who guard their privacy fiercely, and the detention of hundreds of suspects for years without trial at the Bagram air base and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have stirred up Afghans’ strong independent streak and ancient dislike of invaders."

(from Afghans Want a Deal on Foreign Troops)

"... from house raids and air strikes, to problems in the classroom and civil service, they believe they are the main victims of a war deliberately targeting their very way of life."

(from Pashtuns increasingly see war on Taliban as war on Pashtun way of life)

"In the spring of 2006 Kabul’s imams decided to speak out against all this and more. Officials were lining their own pockets and alcohol was easily available, they said. They were also angry at the house raids conducted by foreign soldiers in rural areas and accused them of molesting women during the searches. Most said the time for jihad was approaching and one announced that armed resistance was now the answer."

(from Afghanistan: Chaos Central)

The report, released in Kabul by the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, questions U.S. and NATO air strikes and nighttime searches of civilian houses.

"Afghan families experienced their family members killed or injured, their houses or other property destroyed, or homes invaded at night without any perceived justification or legal authorization," the report says.

(from Coalition forces slammed for 'abusive' raids, air strikes in Afghanistan)

"Civilians described how these groups, often called ‘campaign forces’, used disproportionate and indiscriminate force, throwing grenades or firing into homes without provocation during night-time house raids."

(from Afghanistan: End the war to end the killing)

"Immediately end aerial bombing, house raids, and other offensive tactics which harm civilians and increase anti-U.S. sentiment."

(from FCNL to Obama: No More Troops to Afghanistan! Invest in Diplomacy & Development)

"That crisis is one of extreme poverty and hunger, and cannot be alleviated with guns, aerial bombardment, house raids, arbitrary detention, and mistreatment of detainees."

(from Afghanistan Needs Food, Not Bombs)

This recurring issue of raids of Afghan homes was brought up yet again in the news just two weeks ago when Afghan President Hamid Karzai complained about them, again, in an interview in the Washington Post:

"Karzai was emphatic that U.S. troops must cease such operations, which he said violate the sanctity of Afghan homes and incite more people to join the insurgency. A senior Afghan official said that Karzai has repeatedly criticized the raids ..."

''"The raids are a problem always. They were a problem then, they are a problem now. They have to go away," Karzai said. "The Afghan people don't like these raids, if there is any raid it has to be done by the Afghan government within the Afghan laws. This is a continuing disagreement between us."''

(from Karzai wants U.S. to reduce military operations in Afghanistan)

Nor is POV an issue. Even the U.S. military recognizes and acknowledges that the house raids are a central source of opposition:

"NATO's top commander, Gen. David McKiernan, said that all house raids will be conducted with Afghan troops in the lead and only with the permission of the homeowners."

(from Afghan civilian death toll undermines U.S. support)

"This is what Afghan war commander General Stanley McChrystal promised this summer: fewer civilian casualties, fewer of the feared house raids, and a more transparent detention process."

(from Obama’s Secret Prisons) 174.93.213.52 (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * But the photo doesn't depict 'opposition to the war' and use of it to depict what you claim is something which is greatly upsetting Afghans seems to be POV pushing. Given that the article is focused on public concerns about the war a photo of a protest would make the best lead image as it depicts the topic of the article rather than an element of the issues which have lead to opposition. The photo would fit nicely into the 'Foreign military raids of Afghan homes' section though. Nick-D (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Nick. It is not 'my' claim that it is greatly upsetting Afghans - it is what has been widely reported, it is what the Afghan president has repeatedly said, it is what human rights groups have repeatedly said, it is what numerous think tanks have said, it is what anti-war groups have said, it is what the US military has recognized as a source of opposition as well. By writing "what you claim", you seem to be of the view that all the sources are wrong. With all due respect, to seek to remove this photo as the lead image, while saying it would be perfectly appropriate if only moved just off the top of the page, seems to be POV pushing.


 * The photo is a depiction of the war in question, and a depiction of a key aspect of the war that is one of the central sources of opposition. A photo of a protest actually makes for a very poor lead image as it does not depict the war in Afghanistan, and it simplistically and misleadingly casts the opposition to this war as consisting only of stereotypical protesters with placards. Clear majorities of the public in almost every country surveyed oppose this war, representing billions of people, but only a very tiny fraction of those opposed to the war ever bother to march in protest, (far less than 1/10th of 1%). The protest photo, which gives the reader no enlightenment on the reasons for the opposition, would fit nicely into the main article for the 'Protests' section - and does so already.


 * The current photo, depicting a key source of opposition, is far more relevant to the article, and provides far more substance and value to the article than a redundant and trite photo of protesters, which adds little or no value (war -> protesters. Who would ever have guessed). 174.93.212.26 (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Malalai Joya
The Malalai Joya military occupation comment is representative of the cornerstone view held by opponents of the war, both in Afghanistan and in NATO countries, that this is a foreign military occupation. She is notable as one of the first and only female parliamentarians in Afghanistan, and as one of the key Afghan voices of opposition to the war. Rather ironic how many supporters of the war try to sell it as giving Afghan women a voice, but then try to silence their words the moment they speak up.

Elections that "have touched on" the war is actually a very far cry from being able to vote on the war. In so many countries, voters have had no ability to vote on the issue because the main establishment parties offer them no choice. In the US, for example, the choice was McCain or Obama who repeatedly promised to turn Afghanistan into the main war and to send even more troops. Same non-choice in Canada, Australia, the UK, etc. The elections end up being decided on numerous other issues (economy, healthcare, etc.) because voters are presented with no viable options on the issue. There is seriously no shortage of news articles about how leading parties in all these elections went of their way to avoid making the war an election issue.

From just two weeks ago:

"For an electorate concerned first about the economy and unemployment, the war in Afghanistan barely registered as an issue in congressional elections this year. In a Pew Research Center poll just before Election Day, 5% of voters cited Afghanistan as the most important issue in determining their vote, compared with 39% who named jobs, 25% health care and 17% the deficit." 70.51.33.9 (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Taxpayers bear the costs
Nick, with all due respect, your edit to strike out the word taxpayer is not objective or justified.

First you claimed the term is 'imprecise'. It is in fact very precise and very straightforward.

Collins English Dictionary, Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition states that a taxpayer is "a person or organization that pays taxes or is liable to taxation". Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law states that a taxpayer is "a person (as an individual or corporation) that pays or is liable for a tax".

You then claimed that "govt revenue comes from more sources than just 'taxpayers'". Just what non-insignificant government revenue sources are you referring to that doesn't come from taxpayers, and what percentage of total government revenue is it?

Virtually all government revenue is ultimately paid out of the pockets of the tax-paying citizen. Have a look at Federal Revenues by Source. It makes clear that "most federal revenues come from individuals".

Starting with just income tax and payroll tax alone that's already 85.8% of federal revenue. Now throw in excise tax (sales/consumption tax - ie. the tax that you pay when you buy something) 3%, estate tax (tax you pay when you die), gift tax (tax you pay when you receive a gift) 1.1%, custom duties (tax you pay when you buy something imported from outside your country) 3.5%. That's now already 93.4% of all government revenue.

What does that leave? Corporate tax of 6.6%. Well, corporations are taxpayers too. They too suffer the consequences when a government overspends or misspends and then has to raise taxes, because they too are taxpayers. The corporations and businesses of our country, as taxpayers, also bear the cost of the war.

(If you take the time to think about it, individual taxpayers end up paying for that too when they buy products or services from corporations. The taxes your ISP pays, your cell phone company pays, your grocery company pays, etc. are all ultimately paid by you and the other individual taxpayers. Whatever a corporation pays in taxes is passed on to its customers in the form of the prices they pay. In the end, it's virtually all borne by the individual taxpayers.)

Spending on the war, military spending in general, and government spending in general, doesn't come from some vague, unspecified magical source somewhere, as you and others seem to assume. It comes from taxpayers.

The use of the term taxpayers is very precise, necessary (as your misconception proves), highly relevant to the article topic, and reflective of the cited sources. 174.93.216.34 (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've just reverted the article back. The use of 'taxpayers' is imprecise as it's government expenditure which is the issue here (which includes revenue from non-tax sources such as borrowing). References to 'taxpayers' money are emotive and add unneeded words. Happy to discuss further, but let's not edit war. Nick-D (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Nick, sorry but I have to correct you again. I guess you just don't realize it but borrowing is still paid for by taxpayers. It's even worse in fact because taxpayers still have to pay it all plus the additional burden of interest. Give it some thought. So, with all due respect, your statement "which includes revenue from non-tax sources such as borrowing" is thoroughly misguided, and it's apparent you weren't able to come up with any real non-tax revenue of any overall significance (which is not suprising since there aren't any.) As I took the time and effort to show you above, government expenditure is virtually 100% taxpayer-paid. So once again your own comments demonstrate how informative and relevant it is to use the term taxpayers. All this is straightforward and factual, so I'm not sure why you think the term is emotive - could it have to do with your point of view? The term is not in the least emotive, it factually presents to the reader one of the key reasons why majorities in just about every country involved are opposed to the war: it's massively expensive and as taxpayers they directly bear the burden of its costs.


 * The term is also reflective of the cited sources. Here's the opening line of the first cited source: "For the first time, the war in Afghanistan in the next budget year will cost Americans more than the war in Iraq." It doesn't say "the government", it says "Americans" - in other words, to be even more precise, American taxpayers (because Americans that are non-taxpayers obviously are not affected). Yet you censored out the accurate and very precise phrase "American taxpayers" to leave the cost vague and completely unattributed to anyone. Who is it going to cost? Perhaps for some reason you would like to leave readers with the same misconception that you have and seem intent to propagate, that it doesn't cost the taxpayers anything because, hey, it comes from some vague, magically free, "non-tax source", or, hey, it's borrowed and who knows and who cares who has to pay the multi-billion dollar loan plus interest? Why is it that you want to hide a straightforward, factual, informative, relevant, and precise piece of information that accurately reflects the cited source and serves to explain the opposition?


 * Here's another one: "At the end of May, appropriations for both wars will reach over $1 trillion -- mostly borrowed money that we're not investing at home. Upcoming congressional hearings on veterans care will demonstrate the human costs. No wonder a majority of Americans -- 52 percent -- believe the war "is not worth its costs," according to a recent Washington Post poll." Again that refers to Americans and borrowed money that we're not investing at home - in other words, the article is clearly saying that American taxpayer money, borrowed no less, that is meant to be invested at home is being spent on an expensive foreign war instead. The use of the term taxpayer is an entirely accurate conveyance of the meaning of the cited source, yet you actively sought to transform it so that it doesn't reflect the article's meaning.


 * Just one more for now: "An Independent on Sunday assessment of the "hidden costs" of fighting since the Taliban was ousted in 2001 reveals that the bill works out at £190 for every man, woman and child in the UK – and would pay for 23 new hospitals, 60,000 new teachers or 77,000 new nurses. The £12bn directly funded by taxpayers is swollen still further by millions poured into rebuilding Afghanistan every year by British charities and other non-governmental organisations." If it's not enough that it states "every man, woman, and child", in other words, the taxpaying population, and "bill", and tax-funded social infrastructure needs in the same sentence, it then states "directly funded by taxpayers". Yet you deliberately censored out "British taxpayers" and substituted "the British government". Why do you seek to downplay and dilute what the cited source clearly states? Who is being inaccurate and why?


 * I could go on, but I think it's clear that you are not being objective. Even if you just didn't bother to check the cited sources, that too is quite damning if you made such a systematic change throughout the article, (and reverted a contributor after they initiated a discussion,) without bothering to look at what the cited sources say.


 * I'm always willing to discuss for as long as it takes, and if for example you don't understand how government borrowing is done on the taxpayer's tab, I can try to help you with any questions you may have. 174.91.225.117 (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Suicide attacks unheard of in Afghanistan?
The article claims suicide attacks were "virtually unheard of in Afghanistan prior to the 2001 invasion" yet this is factually untrue. For instance, Massoud was killed by al-Qaeda suicide bombers... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.10.221.46 (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It does not state that not a single suicide bomb attack ever occurred in Afghanistan before the invasion - The article correctly and factually states that they were virtually unheard of in Afghanistan before the U.S. invasion. Since 2005 they have become a frequent and widely heard of practice. 174.93.217.200 (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Counter Arguments
The criticism are all fine and well written enough but there is absolutely no counter-arguments not even disputing the more conspiratorial criticisms or far fetched blow back theories etc(like blaming the Soviet War on USA). Shouldn't there be counter arguments. Alot of section could also be shortened. For example you have polls displaying opposition to the US involvement even though mots display support. You mention the increase of suicide bombing but don't mention that US invasion has helped the return of millions of refugees and and massive reduction of violent deaths etc. That is what I mean bu counter arguments. They are desperately needed.88.104.220.55 (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

New draft: Pacifism in the United States ‎
Please add to Draft:Pacifism in the United States. Thanks. M2545 (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Bold edit
This article has been tagged with multiple issues for years now. I have made a major bold edit. If editors feel I've gone too far, please revert (ideally bit by bit rather than in toto) or discuss. I will post on the war's page in case any of the deleted material should be moved there. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That looks like a good change to me Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. This article still needs a lot more work, but cutting out the cruft is a good start! Bonewah (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)