Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)/Archive 13

Conditional Surrender
[Serious Question] Under what circumstances would the peace deal currently in discussions, be considered a conditional surrender by the belligerent? I am not a history buff so I am unsure of the meanings of these terms. Gabefair (talk) 21:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A surrendering is of arms, materiel, or personnel. Not territory, which is ceded or occupied or transfered or invaded. So, not applicable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.179.134.88 (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Third Phase?
Since "Operation Freedom's Sentinel" is stated to have ended on February 29, 2020 could we now be in a third phase of this current conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:402:9F10:ED0A:8CF6:9173:2E15 (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. In the intervening days since the peach deal, both the Taliban and United States have resumed offensive attacks. Frevangelion (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Well now someone changed it to state that the whole war is over, which I don't think is the case in the slightest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:402:9F10:ED0A:8CF6:9173:2E15 (talk) 04:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

International Criminal Court threatened
In the War Crimes -> NATO and Allies section, a paragraph describes the U.S. threatening sanctions and charges against ICC judges who attempt to prosecute Americans. Should this section specify which officials and/or departments made this announcement? The sources War in Afghanistan (2001–present) and War in Afghanistan (2001–present) seem to indicate that it was announced by White House National Security Advisor John Bolton, with the Defense Department also objecting to possible ICC probing. 2601:2C4:780:4ED0:9DB4:B71A:EC6E:E002 (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

"Escalating Misinformation War"
Hi, a New York Times article published yesterday, entitled, "Afghan Leaders Sideline Spokesmen in an Escalating Misinformation War", highlights the misinformation mechanics happening on various sides. I considered adding a new subsection "Misinformation" to section 3 "Impact on Afghan society". Any thoughts about that? Any suggestion as to a better place to include this info?--JBchrch (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Wardak re Alipour's militia.
Wardak re Alipour's militia has captured Markazay Behsood district from the Afghani government. He has no relations with the Taliban, so you think his militia is a new belligerent.--Garmin21 (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Legitimacy of Wikipedia when faced with obvious disinformation
I don't know if anyone will see this, but this article on the war in Afghanistan is so abysmally propagandic that listing all its errors and lies is too much work. Seriously, Wikipedia has a lot to answer for. At this point, it's been completely taken over by the american propaganda machine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.18.27.135 (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree. The levels of propaganda in this article achieve some ludicrous levels, such as the part of the article that states "According to Nicholas Kristoff, improved healthcare resulting from the war has saved hundreds of thousands of lives." A credulous reader might be tempted to think that war is healthy, and that the world might be a far better and safer place if the war in Afghanistan was expanded throughout the entirety of Asia, or maybe even worldwide. One wonders if the two world wars might be considered to have been humanitarian causes. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Healthcare indicators have improved since the war began. Mortality rate for children under five went from 129/1000 in 2000 to 62.3/1000 in 2018 (source). Maternal mortality went from 1450/100,000 in 2000 to 638/100,000 in 2017 (source). How do you think this article should present that information to avoid bias? I'm thinking remove the part about improved healthcare "resulting from the war" and just say that since the war began, healthcare has improved.  I know you're making a broader point, I'm just trying to fix the specific issue you mentioned. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Jalaluddin Haqqani
Not so easy to edit for me, but I report Jalaluddin Haqqani died of natural causes and was not killed in action as written in the infobox.--79.24.120.120 (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed! --Cerebellum (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Ending this article?
In september, the US will pull out its troops. NATO will do so probably sooner. The NATO phase of the Afghan Civil War will end. Will there be a civil war afterwards? We can't predict that, but what is obvious is that in september a new phase of the war will begin.

So, is time to "close" this article end change the title to War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) when the time comes? Let's hear em. Coltsfan (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this, and think that the article should say 2001-present because not only is the war still going on and you are putting its endpoint in the future, we also cannot be certain that the United States will actually pull out of the country by the appointed date. I don't even know how you could argue against this, unless anyone editing Wikipedia can peer into the future.  ComradeKublai (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also you would need to provide a source that NATO forces actually did leave Afghanistan on September 11, 2021 for this to be added to the encyclopedia, and as this has not taken place yet no source exists and it cannot be put in an article. ComradeKublai (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * the change wouldn't happen right away. It's just a discussion for now, and no formal proposal to change the name was made here. The idea is to debate whether that if the conditions are such, like the withdrawal is completed, we'll have a new conflict pretty much, a civil war. It would be the same case that we saw when the soviets withdraw, with the government that they left behind fighting the war on their own. It's almost the exact same scenario and we have two articles for that one too. Coltsfan (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ps: And to your second point, yes, there are sources (here is one) that says that NATO will also withdraw, thus ending it's mission there. Coltsfan (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It may not have been you, but someone did edit the page and the wikibox to say the war ended September 11, 2021. As for your second message, you seem to have misunderstood what I was saying.  Obviously there are sources right now predicting that the withdrawal will happen, however no one can predict the future and so such articles are not a valid reason to close the article.  You originally argued that "what is obvious is that in september a new phase of the war will begin" but it is far from obvious at this point that Biden will keep this promise (many like it have been broken before).  You also explicitly asked if it was, "time to 'close' this article end change the title to War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)," clearly indicating that you were in favor of changing the article right now and engaged in the Motte-and-bailey fallacy in your response to me.
 * first, i didn't change any dates in the article. Second, i used words like "probably", said "We can't predict that", plus i didn't at any point suggested changing the name of the article now, i suggest that we entertain the idea now to see if the change is visible when it we cross the withdrawal deadline. But the point of this discussion is not to see if i'm right or wrong, only to know other people's opinions on the subject. But feel free to discuss the semantics of what i said, i guess, but i'd much rather stick to the topic at hand. Coltsfan (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I made a supplement to the phrase to avoid confusion, hope it's better now. Coltsfan (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's against Wikipedia to edit your comments on talk pages, especially after someone else replies to you and even more so to cover up for the fact that you lost an argument. Please don't do this, there is no need for the admins to get involved.  ComradeKublai (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * i don't know how long you've been editing Wikipedia, but technically it's not against the rules to edit my own comments, especially when i warned you i did it. Look, this is not a debate to see who is right and wrong and who "wins" the argument. This is a honest discussion about the prospects of the changing the article's name it might happen, or not, depends on a consensus among the users here). You mentioned that i wasn't very clear, so i decide to make my statement more, well, clear. There is nothing against the rules about that. Feel free to ask any Sysop, they will confirm it. What it's not very nice is you editing what other users have wrote. It's ok, i didn't mind, relax. You are sorta correct in your point as this "should be avoided", but i wasn't trying to "win any argument" or convincing anyone, i was trying to know what other people's opinions. That's it. Assume good faith on people's behaviour.
 * So again, you want to go back and debate the issue or not? If your answer is "no", fine, i'll just wait for other people to weight in their opinion, it's not a problem. Coltsfan (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Map of current military situation
The map of the current military situation in Afghanistan is over a year old. I know that not that much has changed since then, but it would be nice if someone could upload a new one and make that reflected in the caption. I'd do it myself except I have no idea how. Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I second this request, what is going on in the country? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Someone working for someone probably removed this one https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Taliban_insurgency_in_Afghanistan_(2015–present).svg to lessen the negative PR impact of their forces withdrawing after a 20 year conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.137.44 (talk) 09:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Allied losses
Total dead in the infobox for Allied casualties should be 73,925+. I did the math. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:1D2:DEEE:5BB6:814A (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

If you have done it then edit it. No one pay heeds to everything on talk page. Khalidwarrior (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

A House of Commons paper puts the UK fatalities at 457, not 456. As the page is currently locked, I can't edit the figure. Source: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9298/CBP-9298.pdf. Tregonning6 (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Mabey the biggest loss for the American-led Coalition was America's dignity Source: https://time.com/6091183/afghanistan-war-failure-interview/

Taliban losses?
There are of course no real estimates of Taliban losses. However, there are various sources that have compiled different numbers for different periods. None of them are truly cohesive though

The Watson Institute for example, undercounts Taliban losses. and I will provide reasons as to why that is the case...

take for example the 2016 Estimate https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2016/War%20in%20Afghanistan%20and%20Pakistan%20UPDATE_FINAL_corrected%20date.pdf

This gives a tally 42,100

if we also take the 2019 Estimate https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2019/Direct%20War%20Deaths%20COW%20Estimate%20November%2013%202019%20FINAL.pdf

You will notice that the tally of 42,100 is also used.

The Newest estimate (Which is used within both the Taliban Insurgency, and War in Afghanistan article) give the new estimate of 51,191

Which only incorporates 2 separate 4 month reporting periods for the Ministry of Defense as stated within the source https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/figures/2021/Human%20and%20Budgetary%20Costs%20of%20Afghan%20War%2C%202001-2021.pdf "From July 1 through November 5, 2019, Afghan National Defense Forces reported killing 10,259 militants/insurgents/terrorists and reported killing 10,091 from 6 November to 13 April 2021"

This is a clear undercount, simply considering even from 2016-2019 there were no additions. Within the 2014 version, they admit that any estimates are likely undercounted, and no records are actually kept https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2015/War%20Related%20Casualties%20Afghanistan%20and%20Pakistan%202001-2014%20FIN.pdf

However, I would like to highlight that various sources do give Taliban losses for certain periods of time For example, the "Taliban at War: 2001-2018" specifically page 261 by Antonio Guistozzi gives yearly totals (according to Al Somud) from 2002-2016 (omitting 2013) Overall, we can see nearly 80,000 Taliban deaths during that reporting period.

On top of this, the Ministry of Defense has at times given yearly totals, or various seasonal estimates Take for example this article https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/officials-count-around-30000-war-dead-afghanistan-year Which states in the year 2016, there were 30,000 deaths in the Afghan War, 18,500 of them Taliban Also various reports from the MOD can be found here https://mod.gov.af/en/press-release or also the Twitter account (which tends to be updated more often) https://twitter.com/MoDAfghanistan We see that in this month (June) alone so far over 1,300 Taliban have been killed in ANDSF operations?

I think it would be interesting to incorporate these numbers because as I highlighted above.. the Watson study is very flawed (at least in regards to Taliban figures) However, I am unsure about how to do that They could very quickly increase the Taliban fatalities of the war well over 100,000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njofallofall (talk • contribs) 05:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)  Njofallofall (talk) 05:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

In Regards to Afghanistan territorial control map. How can we define it as accurate or impartial?
I add this information also in the Taliban Insurgency page (and Taliban insurgency detailed map page), but I found it relevant here. In this case, I am speaking specifically to the map that comes from the "Taliban Insurgency detailed map" page which can be seen in the section for 2019 in the War in Afghanistan article

Going through the edit sections of this map I have noticed that there has been a heavy reliance on a singular source for the updates? Specifically, an anonymous Twitter account by the name of "RisboLensky" Which seems to be quite a questionable source? (Especially given the accounts political takes on certain issues which seems to be the opposite of impartial).

The fact of territorial control is that it is a contested issue (and often confused as to what "Control" means). There are various sources that give different standards Some of them clearly being Pro-Taliban, and others clearly being Pro-Afghan Government. ^ both of which are sources upon themselves. Each claiming to control the majority of the country.

Various other outsider sources apply different standards, and have come to different conclusions. (Which clearly at times can be debatable to the methodology)

For example, https://www.longwarjournal.org/mapping-taliban-control-in-afghanistan Which applied would give a completely different map lays out a methodology (though a questionable one) that deals with issues

Or perhaps the SIGAR reports (which will return in June) https://www.sigar.mil/pdf/quarterlyreports/2021-04-30qr-section2-security.pdf <-- as you can see it will return to reporting territorial control the last territorial control report was this one https://www.sigar.mil/pdf/quarterlyreports/2018-10-30qr.pdf None the less it will be returning, and will likely provide a different answer IF I supplied the SIGAR map of June 2021, will that then be added and updated to this map?????

There are also other sources that compile claims such as https://afghanistan.liveuamap.com/ which also highlights territorial control or various other sources that give completely different stats https://feminist.org/our-work/afghan-women-and-girls/taliban-controls-3-of-afghanistan/ ^ older of course, and I dont mean for you to use it.. but an example of how "Control" can be used to develop narrative as opposed to reality.

The List is honestly quite endless... and I am curious why we should take this map seriously when it seems to rely heavily on an anonymous twitter account? which absolutely discounts MOD reports https://mod.gov.af/en/press-release and seems to have a great deal of personal bias on certain issues JUST A few examples from the past couple of days......... proving it lacks impartiality and clearly has a lean on this issue.

https://twitter.com/RisboLensky/status/1397834662492479490

https://twitter.com/RisboLensky/status/1397901353268228096

https://twitter.com/RisboLensky/status/1397816361850748929

https://twitter.com/RisboLensky/status/1397463526810210306

https://twitter.com/RisboLensky/status/1397459159650557954

These are just from the last couple of days, and random ones I could find These are not the comments of an impartial source. RisboLensky has a clear Taliban leaning, and is far more likely to report their claims. While ignoring other claims, and highlighting their own political views ^ this is what I have noticed while going through the claims, though I could be wrong.

So I ask Why are the majority of updates on this page of a singular anonymous twitter account?

This account is used as a source well over 700 times, since October 2018 which in that period saw only slightly above 1,000 separate edits. It makes up the vast majority of claims??????

While all other sources (which give completely different accounts) are completely ignored? Why is this? TRULY Why is an anonymous twitter account with 7,000 subscribers and a self claimed "Marshal and all inclusive, comprehensive and verified troll. Polytheist magician" the very basis of this map???

I find it very silly. Njofallofall (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Njofallofall - The map is out of date anyway since it hasn't been updated since 2019. I agree that if the map is sourced to anonymous Twitter comments then it is not reliably sourced. Time to delete it. FOARP (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * FOARP - Thank You so much for taking the time to deal with this.

Sadly, the same map is still used on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_insurgency and as you can see from the edit history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Taliban_insurgency_detailed_map&limit=500&action=history This anonymous Twitter account is STILL used as the main source for updating this map. There are plenty of more reliable sources that can be used (Some of which I have labeled up above). Njofallofall (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Operation Haymaker
Article needed: Operation Haymaker. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Drug trade photos
I think it's over the top to have three consecutive images about opium production in this section. One image should suffice. GreenCows (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Done! --Cerebellum (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 15 July 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jack Frost (talk) 10:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan (2001–present) → Afghanistan War (2001–present) – I have two reasons for this move. First, Afghanistan War has 384 million Google hits, and War in Afghanistan has only 304 million, so WP:COMMONNAME applies here. Second, Afghanistan War is shorter and easier to type. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me!  10:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Google hits are a poor metric for determing the common name, and 384m vs 304m is not a very significant difference. Both NGrams and a quick look at the article's references show that the common name is indeed War in Afghanistan. It's also already sufficiently concise. Lennart97 (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose If you use quotation marks in your google search you will get 17 million results for "War in Afghanistan", and about 2 million for "Afghanistan War". My preferred title is actually Afghan War but that also has only 2 million results. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose It could result in confusion with the Afghanistan conflict (1978–present)ImperatorPanda (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. I'm sorry but calling it "Afghanistan War" is an extremely biased name from an American perspective (we need something neutral for an international audience). The ex-Soviets for example call the Soviet-Afghan War also as "Afghanistan War". And then on top of that there are the Civil Wars (1989-2001) which further confuses matters. --Weaveravel (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The 2001–present part disambiguates it. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me!  10:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2021
Update it with the current actions from coalition forces such as the United States and United Kingdom such as evacuating others. Blazefuse (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. (pinging Blazefuse) — Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2021
79.75.108.78 (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Ferien (talk) 19:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Missing Biden statements
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X20mGH266r4

Last month Joe Biden made important statments like: - The Afghan troops have 300 thousand well equiped and trained soldiers and an airforce, while the Taliban have just 70 thousand - The Taliban will not take over Afghanistan - There is no chance. Zero. That it will be like Saigon. You will not see helicoters evacuating an US embassy

All of those statements made just a month ago. Currently this article is very partisan and just quotes of Biden get posted, sometimes out of context, that are strongly in his favor. For completition sake, all the statements that he made in his press conference a month ago should be included. If you need reliable sources, you just need to choose a random newspaper of your liking and see what they wrote about this conference. 212.95.5.216 (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree these need to be put in the article. Wikipedia has become far to partisan. Cj7557 (talk) 05:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * America is going home now. Biden's statements on Afghanistan haven't been this unimportant since Bill Clinton mattered. We should start trimming contradictory English rhetoric and needless partisan snippets, not adding more. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I would argue that these statements have a relevant historical value, as they highlight the position of US officials in contrast to the actual situation as it unfolded. The context surrounding these statements is a matter worth evaluating alongside the rest of the history of the War in Afghanistan. Jade Phoenix Pence (talk) 08:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Jade Phoenix Pence

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2021
Because the Taliban have clearly won the war. The west have withdrew and the Taliban have taken control. The war has now ended with Taliban victory. 2A00:23C6:F13:501:166:28C2:F931:8A3C (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Result (as of 30 June 2021)
The result should be "Withdrawal of U.S and their allied forces from Afghanistan" instead of "Withdrawal of U.S forces from Afghanistan". Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa (talk) 07:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Given the sole victory condition for US and Allies was complete destruction of the Taliban, we should think about posting it as Taliban Victory. They have endured and seen America and Allies driven out. Taliban win.


 * The war continues and although the Taliban are gaining ground they haven't won. Other countries & private military companies could join to support the Afghan government. Jim Michael (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * We can't base a wiki article on things that could happen, only on what has happened. Furthermore, any private military contractors conducting what would amount to illegal non-state actor action would be acts of terrorism, not war. The Taliban have driven America out, and the sole victory condition America and NATO allies attached to their combat operations was the destruction of the Taliban. The Taliban have won, and America has lost another landwar in Asia.


 * It would be legal for the Afghan gov to hire PMCs - many countries have done so in various wars. Unlike the Taliban, PMCs aren't categorised as designated terrorist groups. Jim Michael (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * How could you say the war is over just because an actor pulled out? The Afghan government still exists and is still fighting the Taliban. There are also other militias who oppose the Taliban for one reason or another that are still fighting too. Wowzers122 (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * From the look of things, the Taliban have consolidated control over 3/4s of Afghanistan, essentially being restored to their 1996 extent of territorial control. Most of the government enclaves are isolated and besieged. Would say that’s probably significant to the outcome of the war: that a belligerent reversed near all the coalition gains before the withdrawal is even over. Perhaps it’s worth noting in the results that most of Afghanistan is under Taliban control.131.96.223.33 (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Told you so. What reason for not calling it a Western Defeat now? The lengths people will go to to try and not admit America just had another humiliating military defeat in Asia. It is literally begging the Taliban not to attack as it runs away. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/08/14/afghanistan-taliban-advance-humanitarian/


 * That's not how Wikipedia works. It's not for us to decide, we wait until reliable sources start describing it as such. — Czello 13:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It was over weeks ago, the removal of US forces and personnel should go in the aftermath section. Reliable sources, including the American Government itself with its surrender and withdrawal agreement by Trump, all admitted so. Wikipedia's mission should not include protecting the egos of American editors who just don't want to admit losing. However, this article needs to be changed to reflect the final loss and rout of America and we can close out the war in Afghanistan conflict as ending today, August 15th 2021.


 * If you want to provide some sources that declare the war is over, go ahead. — Czello 18:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Head of British Military ops in interview to the London Times good enough for you? https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/taliban-could-force-us-out-of-afghanistan-at-any-moment-defence-chief-admits-g70z80kb3

Reliable Western news sources are beginning to refer to Taliban as "undisputed victor[s]": https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/15/talibans-abdul-ghani-baradar-is-undisputed-victor-of-a-20-year-war Vitomontreal (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

BBC and all western media sources referring to it as a "Taliban Vicotry": BBC News The Guardian News Prawndisama (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Change the title to (2001-2021)
The box at the top right hand side says:

War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)

and in the article

> On 15 August 2021, the president of Afghanistan Ashraf Ghani fled the country and the Taliban declared victory and the war over.

But the title says (2001-present)
 * There is a discussion, above, about when to change the article title to 2001-2021. It will probably happen soon. BTW just because one side declares victory doesn't mean the war is over. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Every side is saying it is over now, with even the US signing a joint statement calling for the Taliban ruling government to allow safe passage of all their citizens and allies out of the country. https://www.jpost.com/international/world-reactions-to-fall-of-afghanistan-676772
 * I hate to break it to you but both sides are now saying that the war is over and the Taliban are in full control. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the end date of the war should be set to when the Hamid Karzai International Airport is fully evacuated and the last US soldiers leave Afghanistan. This will likely be in the next weeks, per US government. - Netanyahudi (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The US troops currently in Afghanistan are not doing any fighting, so it is fair to say the war is over even though some are still there. BakedGoods357 (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The war clearly isn't over, as an anti-Taliban coalition appears to be forming, but this phase of the war, that was defined by the domination of the Islamic Republics forces and its predecessors, and the presence of the United States, is over. The page should be re-named and a new one created for the new phase of conflict Afghanistan is about to enter. --KingSepron (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The London Times is reporting UK military commanders as saying they conducting the evacuation only with the Taliban's permission, and that that consent could be removed at any time and the evacuation shut off. A clear admission of a loss, and that the war is over with no combat phase left. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/taliban-could-force-us-out-of-afghanistan-at-any-moment-defence-chief-admits-g70z80kb3

Reference 85 is a dead link
Reference 85 (Al Jazeera article) points nowhere, as the article has been removed. Another source needs to be used. Hdwardeson (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)