Talk:Operation Enduring Freedom

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Enduring Freedom article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 365 days

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Military history: South Pacific / British / Canadian / European / French / North America / United States / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
	British military history task force
	Canadian military history task force
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Afghanistan Top‑importance

	Afghanistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Top-importance).

United States High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why is FRENCH Flag noted under belligerents??

This is not to diminish the contributions of any nation concerened, but on first glance, one might assume that FRANCE is contributing on a massive scale when they in fact, ARE NOT!!

As of July, 2009, France actually ranks about 7th or 8th of all the NATO nations and has sustained 28 casualties from the start of their partipation.

Canada, on the other hand, with a "tiny" military in relation to France has continually fielded between 2,500 and 3,000 troops from the very beginnning of this conflict. Frances current committment is about 1,000 and they are located just outside Kabul. Probably the LEAST dangerous sector in the entire country if any area can be described as such. France has also announced that they will be COMPLETELY withdrawing its committment. (and may in fact have aleady begun to do so??)

The Canadians are currently tasked with partolling and figthing in one of the most dangerous provinces in all of Southern Afghanistan (along with the British) and are subject to attacks on a daily basis. They were one of (if not the very first) contributor to actually field Main Battle Tanks in support of their and other NATO troops.

Tragically, Canada has up to this point sustained over 120 dead (The third highest casualty rate after the US & Great Britain!!!), to France's 28.

My point is this.... When one prominently notes the flag of a nation, that in reality is NOT doing the majority of the fighting and as a side note underneath states "and approximately 39 other nations", you have in effect, belittled and diminished the real sacrificies of others, and that is SHAMEFUL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.34.128 (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emotion should not be taken into account. Shame and sacrifice are irrelevant. Simply because France is not doing the "majority" of the fighting does not mean that their contribution is not worth mentioning in an encyclopedia.

I second the comment immediately above this one. Beingsshepherd (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd[reply]

The Taliban

I propose deleting the subjective words: 'extreme' and 'harsh' from this section. I did so myself and my changes were (as nearly always) reverted. Beingsshepherd (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd[reply]

OIF?

I was in Iraq in 2003 as an US Army soldier in 286TH Sig Co. attached to an ADA unit. I noticed that Operation Iraqi Freedom is not mentioned in this article anywhere. As we were told OIF was a part of OEF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.230.253 (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links/To do

Need to mention the security pact deliberations, perhaps as "result" [1] + .> US halts army shipments out of Afghanistan >> Failure to sign pact could end Afghan mission >> Planes Parked in Weeds in Kabul After $486 Million Spent >> Australian troops leave Afghanistan >> Karzai: no security deal without peace talks >> Afghan war takes rising toll on civilians >> Can the UN save Afghanistan? (Lihaas (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Is it over?

I'm confused as to whether or not OEF is over. Two DOD sources give conflicting info. This says it's still ongoing, yet this says it's over. Illegitimate Barrister 02:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better to error on the side of caution, if the campaign medal is still authorized, keep it open IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alrightey, thanks. Illegitimate Barrister 03:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent an e-mail to the DOD asking about this. I shall await an answer and report back. Illegitimate Barrister 06:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, just got a reply back from the DOD's AFPS. It says: "Good morning - Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan ended Dec. 31, 2014. It was succeeded by Operation Freedom's Sentinel. Thank you for your query." This pretty much confirms my suspicions that OEF is still ongoing, it's just that OEF-A is over. Illegitimate Barrister 13:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OEF is not "the official name" of the WoT

Absent an "official" statement from an authorized US gov. official that corroborates the claim made in the first sentence of this article, it is simply false. OEF originally pertained exclusively to Afghanistan in distinction from the Iraq operations, all of which were under the umbrella term War on Terror. Granted WoT is a meaningless term to the extent it is defined as "US efforts to harm, defeat and destroy any person, organization or state the US designates as terrorist", but that does not mean that OEF is synonymous with WoT, either officially or colloquially.

As this article notes, OEF "ended" and was replaced with OFS. As the WoT main article notes, Bush arguably coined the term WoT (which he used as a synonym for 'crusade') in 9/2001, and that term referred broadly to any fight against terrorists anywhere, not just Afghanistan. Obama even stopped using the term WoT altogether, preferring instead to use some other hopelessly ambiguous term - but not OEF.

This may sound like pedantry but it is critical that terminology used as a euphemism for war has a reasonably objective definition. Sloppy language allows for things like calling the decades old US interventions in Central/South America OEF, and according to this article therefore part of the WoT, despite US involvement predating the WoT, despite the lack of belligerents on one side.

This entire article is full of dubious claims, but the first sentence is fairly outrageous.BTercero (talk) 05:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead adjusted to reflect sourced article content. (Hohum ^@) 17:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BTercero: Then what is OEF-A, et al? My email to the DOD was met with a reply that said OEF-A ended. You say that OEF ended in 2014, but this DOD page from 2015 says it is still ongoing. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 17:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox "Result"

Please note that Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters states against "result" that "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." The infobox has been amended to reflect this. Please read the template "result" guidance in full before amending or reverting. It would probably be best to discuss any proposed change here first to seek consensus. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]