Talk:United States Central Command

Untitled
I'm tagging the Central Command page for speedy deletion. It's a c&p of the about us page (Google cache), and is (obviously) duplication.. - N (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Staff
Should we put in a section about CENTCOM staff? Like the J1, J2, etc.?

Hal06 13:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Blogs as Sources
Removed two references to a news blog from the penultimate section. Happy New Year! --Yitzhak1995 05:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Dempsey's rank
I thought Dempsey was promoted to full General on March 13th, 2008? Thus the reason for my edits at his article. Was I wrong? GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * He was just confirmed by the Senate in March. The rank goes hand in hand with the position of commanding general U.S. Army, Europe. Therefore he will be promoted to the rank of General when he takes over the command in Germany. --GrummelJS (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Area of Responsibility
I think the area of responsibility no-longer includes the horn of Africa. The only African country included is Egypt. This is hinted at in the second paragraph but is not shown on the map. I think the map is from before the creation of AFRICOM. The map needs to be updated. Yaris678 (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Lloyd Austin
General Lloyd Austin was approved by Congress to be Commander of USCENTCOM, sometime this month, thus my edit with "TBD". SamSennett (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

article problems
--Wuerzele (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC) A user has reverted placement of a section flag for being unreferenced.
 * The WP:lede does not adequately summarize whats in the article and vice versa. I will copy edit and move a lot into the body.
 * There is a problem with WP:verifiability, because of a dearth of references. Most sections are unreferenced.
 * Much is out of date.


 * Update: Same user is WP:editwarring a sourced sentence AND has been removing more than the sentence supported by the source.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Command supervising Afghanistan operations
I've just had an editor delete "A series of major subordinate multi-service commands reported to Central Command responsible for Afghanistan. These included Combined Joint Task Force 180 (2002-2005), and Combined Forces Command Afghanistan (2003-?). CENTCOM also had significant influence over the International Security Assistance Force, through formally from 2003 NATO's Joint Force Command Brunssum supervised the headquarters."

This has been replaced with "Two major subordinate multi-service commands reporting to Central Command were the International Security Assistance Force, which was taken over by NATO and the Combined Forces Command Afghanistan Afghanistan War order of battle for U.S. force in Afghanistan. "

There's absolutely no doubt about either CJTF 180 or CFC-A; numerous references can be seen at the CJTF 180 page. Regarding ISAF, it was never formally commanded by U.S. Central Command. It was initially mandated by a UN Security Council resolution and run by a number of countries, before it was taken over by NATO (and Joint Force Command Brunssum). This is correctly shown at the ISAF infobox. Auerswald and Saideman 2014 are eloquent about the command-and-control problems that NATO suffered. This is course is the formal, legal, position. In actual fact U.S. four-star generals held command after British General David Richards, and Secretaries of Defense Rumsfeld and Gates selected commanders (Petraeus and McChrystal among them). This can be seen at Auerswald, David P. & Stephen M. Saideman, eds. NATO in Afghanistan: Fighting Together, Fighting Alone (Princeton U.P. 2014), 93-103. This book breaks down the history of the U.S. effort in Afghanistan down by deployed commander.

Effectively the U.S. government directed the effort, but not in a formal legal sense.

Unless there's any convincing argument against, I will revert this edit within around eighteen hours. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * thank you for clarifying,, great. I agree with what you wrote, if sourced by the book you mention. (I dont have it and have to trust you.) Can you tell me what you mean by "commands"? Do you know any more than these 2 "commands", because you write "a series"? The second sentence I propose "CENTCOM also had considerable (instead of significant) influence over the International Security Assistance Force, though (instead of through) formally from 2003 onward NATO's Joint Force Command Brunssum supervised the headquarters."
 * Let me know.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your many constructive edits today. Quick question re ISAFNATO - why do you think it shouldnt be mentioned under ext links? I had added ended January 2015, Resolute Support NATO official website.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in United States Central Command
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of United States Central Command's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "africom-stands-up": From Operation Enduring Freedom – Horn of Africa:  From Trans-Saharan Counterterrorism Initiative:  From Combined Joint Task Force – Horn of Africa:  From Camp Lemonnier:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

More citations needed
In order for this article to reach B-class, add more references. 86.22.8.235 (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding CENTOM's designation as a terror organisation.
The significance of the CENTCOM being a terror group should be underscored and not downgraded to some "counter-measure" as some biased editors wish for.

Therefore I propose the following statement: The SNSC labelled CENTCOM and all its affiliated forces as a terrorist organization.

This is a citation from an official statement released by the Government of Iran. There is no need to be polite here. The US-Forces are creating havoc in the Middle-East, killing innocent civilians all over the place, hence the designation has a sincere justification.

Watch Wikileaks video of CENTCOM forces killing Reuters journalists and civilian bystanders: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25EWUUBjPMo--Contra1973 (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a place to push ones views. The current wording suffices and provides adequate context. Garuda28 (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * you must be joking. WP is nothing but that. Ask Feliks of WP De. The cult-like power structure of WP has now been laid bare. They even showed a movie about it in cinema. 93.204.63.39 (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "US-Forces are creating havoc in the Middle-East, killing innocent civilians all over the place" ... and you were complaining about "biased editors" here? Don't change that edit again unless you have a clear consensus to do so. - wolf  01:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not pushing for a view here, only reflecting public consensus. It is commonly known that US-Troops have violated human rights and committed war crimes in the ME on different occasions. The video I linked is only the tip of the iceberg. Here is a statement of the ICC regarding committed war crimes in Afghanistan at the hands of US-Troops.
 * "The International Criminal Court said that despite "a reasonable basis" to consider war crimes committed in Afghanistan, there was little chance of a successful prosecution. Rights group Amnesty criticized the decision."ICC Afghanistan War crime probes
 * If they go by the "chance of a successful prosecution" principle, they should rename ICC the "cangaroo court of the vanquished" proper. 93.204.63.39 (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As you can see this is not "ones view". Unless of course you call the ICC biased.--Contra1973 (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not debatable that this designation was a retaliatory measure from Iran - it’s stated directly in reliable sources. Garuda28 (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Really? You call me bias when I cite facts? I posted a video to back up my claims. Show me your counter-evidence, Professor of human rights. And unless you are able to proof that CENTCOM is not violating all sorts of human rights and committing war crimes, I will insist on my initial changes.
 * Please watch this- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0iZ2M3ZESQ Members of CENTCOM torturing people in secret Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. This is the same brutality demonstrated by ISIS towards POW's. You call me bias? I call you bias for the disregard of human life clearly displayed in that video. Do you want me to cite more examples? Drone strike assassinations. Afghan wedding bombing. With regard to all that please explain how I am biased or pushing "a view" that is not already an established fact. Stop trying to silence me.--Contra1973 (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It is apt to use the same wording as here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Revolutionary_Guard_Corps#Designation_as_a_terrorist_organization and put CENTCOM into the list as well of course. After all, terrorism is in the eye of the beholder. 93.204.63.39 (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Terrorist designation by Iran
It should be mentioned somewhere in the article and in the infobox, that CENTCOM is designated as a terrorist organization by Iran. KhakePakeVatan (talk) 08:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The designation was later upgraded to the entire U.S. Armed Forces, which it was decided on that page wasn’t notable enough to add. I don’t think it would make sense to mention it on CENTCOM without it being mentioned there. Garuda28 (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * One of the editors there opposing its inclusion was a sockpuppet: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * While unfortunate, it looks like even without that editor it seems that there isn’t a change in consensus. Garuda28 (talk) 06:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the info should definitely be in the article. To remove it is frankly an attempt by some users to censor Wikipedia. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , you participated in the Talk:United_States_Armed_Forces conversation. In fact, you pointed out in that thread that Source talks about the US military, not only USCC. Schazjmd   (talk)  00:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Btw, it has been added to Iran–United_States_relations. Schazjmd   (talk)  00:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

If the IRGC's designation is mentioned in its article's lead the US Armed Forces/Department of Defense's designation should too. Is the argument for the latter to be omitted the fact that only one state designates it as such? Lightspecs (talk) 09:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , please discuss in the Talk:United_States_Armed_Forces conversation. Schazjmd   (talk)  15:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

It is mentioned in this article already, and in the. correct place. BilCat (talk) 06:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Contractor details
Dear, the contractor details, as you rightly saw are not really suitable unfiltered for addition to this article. However, they may be really useful later wound in with other material. Would you mind reverting/removing the material and adding it to this talkpage instead? Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep! I can do that. Garuda28 (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

designation as a terrorist organisation: undue weight?
a user has edited this page to remove reference to CENTCOM's designation as a terrorist organisation by Iran. For comparison, the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps article includes the designation as a terrorist organisation. Why is the former considered "undue weight" but the latter acceptable? Both organisations have been designated as terrorist organisations by other states, to include one but not the other seems to me to be a suppression of information, and seems to me to be an example of systemic bias in giving primacy to terrorist designations from the United States and its allies, over other nations. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * See, where the consensus to mention it only in the article, not the lead, was established. Please do not edit war to re-add this to the lead again until a new consensus is reached. BilCat (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't see such a consensus being reached? Can you please quote it? The discussion petered out without any consensus being reached, and then you appeared months later to assert "It is mentioned in this article already, and in the. correct place." That is not a consensus, just because you had the last word on the matter. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You've now been blocked for edit warring. When your block is up, you can engage in a discussion here to reach a consensus to add the comments to the lead. BilCat (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)