Talk:Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan: Allies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Pakistan isn't arab

By comparing pakistan and iran to arab states it sot of implies that these are arab countries, which they aren't. 75.7.240.89 10:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I'll change it.Cameron Nedland (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Canada's Forces are not part of the Unites States Armed Forces

"In 2002, Canada had 2,025 personnel in the CENTCOM region"

CENTCOM is a US entity. Are Canadian military assets in the Gulf and Afghanistan really part of CENTCOM? I hope not. Hudicourt (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That was the phrasing on the US DoD/State Department (I forget which). What they mean is that the region CENTCOM covers, there were these numbers of Canadian forces. Not that the Canadian forces were an integral part of CENTCOM. Although some of those forces, for some periods, were part of OEF, and therefore under US command as well as reporting to the Canadian government. Chwyatt (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greece

If interested Greek participation can be found at:

http://www.mod.mil.gr/Pages/MainAnalysisPage3.asp?HyperLinkID=3&MainLinkID=50&SubLinkID=144

(Greek Ministry of Defence site) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Getas75 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] India

IIRC, the Indian government specifically stated that it was not an participant in the Operation. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you got a source? This one said India did. http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/6207.pdf India may not have sent troops for OEF, but there is more to support than sending troops. Chwyatt (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Declaring "support" is not the same as (a) providing support and (b) being an "ally". Either the name of this page is changed, an additional specific source is found, or this is removed. I am fairly certain that no attacks were "launched" from Indian soil. Whatever support India provided to Afghanistan after 9/11 it was already providing to the Northern Allianve before 9/11. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Granted, they are two seperate things (hence the name change). Intel support though is real support. And if it was taking place before 9/11, that does not matter, if it was also happening during OEF. Chwyatt (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name Change

Chwyatt (talk · contribs) wanted to modify the name of the article from "Allies" to "International support". He went about it the wrong way, and his new versions have been deleted. Is there a consensus for this name change? If there is, then the article can now be renamed with a move. rudra (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the previous person on the comment about India objected to the phrase 'allies' and I agree that 'allies' is not a good word; 'international support' allowing more scope. So if there are no objections, when can I go ahead and do the name change? If there are objections, I will happily discuss of course, but if not, how long must one wait? Chwyatt (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)