Talk:Combined Joint Task Force – Horn of Africa

POV Arguments

This article looks like it was lifted straight from a US govt press release. It's extremely unspecific and dreadfully POV.

"does not have a specific terrorist organization as a target" - then why is Al-Qaeda listed as a target?

"OEF-HOA instead focuses its efforts to disrupt and detect terrorist activities in the region and to work with host nations to deny the reemergence of terrorist cells and activities." - what cells? what activities?

"The primary goal of the coalition forces is to monitor, inspect, board and stop suspected shipments from entering the Horn of Africa region and areas of Operation Iraqi Freedom." - shipments suspected of what? to whom?

"15 non-combat fatalities" - how did 15 soldiers manage to get themselves killed? Has there been any actual fighting?

Even the title "Operation Enduring Freedom" is POV. The page on the Zar'it-Shtula incident is not called "Operation Truthful Promise" for a reason - it's a stupid euphemism. I doubt the chronic AIDS, famine, poverty etc. in the Horn of Africa is an example of freedom that endures. EamonnPKeane 17:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand why this is a POV article. The Page is about the CJTF-HOA, multi-national military unit in the Horn for "Operation Enduring Freedom". Because you (and I) think its a stupid name for a military operation doesn't really matter or make it POV. If the articles doesn't get into specifics on some issues than it's a lack of content issuse, not a POV issue, unless it's leaving out "the other side" or a differing opinion of some kind. Al-Qaeda is one of the NGOs listed as targets, not the only one which is why the operation doesn't target a specific org. Most of the fifteen troops died where Marines that where killed when two CH-53s collided off the coast. I'll find a link for it. Unless you can make it a little more clear what is unobjective about the article or cite some actual POV I don't really see the need for the tag. NeoFreak 03:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was it was indirectly POV for saying a lot but at the same time saying absolutely nothing, except that NATO have troops somewhere in East Africa training government soldiers how to root out some unspecific "terrorist" groups, who have plans to probably do something bad. EamonnPKeane 21:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I get that the article doesn't have a Side "A" vs. Side "B" component like you would see in most military operation articles. This is not a neutrality issue as much as a unavoidable result of dealing with a open ended, multi-faceted, non-combat theater of operations like the Horn of Africa. CJTF-HOA is not really a combat component of the "Global War on Terrorism". It is serving to pre-empt the emergence of anti-western, anti-goverment forces in the region instead of combating a specific anti-western faction already entrenched. By the definition you are using the only "real" military ops going on in the region are a few Special Operations units based out of Camp Lemonier and most details on these groups are classified and hard to find. The remainder of operations are training, humanitarian, survellience and support activites. Any lack of depth in the information about these things are the result of detailed, "on the ground" information being hard to come by, not a POV issue. I don't understand what POV it is you think is being pushed in this article. NeoFreak 12:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Somaliland and Somalia

I have added information to this page regarding actions in 2006 that involved CJTF-HOA regarding anti-piracy and humanitarian missions, but also noted an alleged (and officially denied) landing in Somaliland, and the cross-over to the growing conflict in Somalia. Petercorless 11:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Suggest Renaming Page

Noting the argument above, and looking at the expanded role of the organization since 2001, and also noting the organizational name, the page would be more properly titled Combined Joint Task Force - Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA). That term is aliased here in any regard. Petercorless 11:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. NeoFreak 13:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Put in a lot... Maybe take it out...

Seeing how there is more news coming out, and not wanting to hijack this article for the purpose of this one operation, I will take out the vast majority of Somalia-specific information under this article, and leave it for people to go to the War in Somalia (2006–present) and Battle of Ras Kamboni article. --Petercorless 02:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

US Special Forces mention

I keep editing down the mention of the US special forces, especially when I see the term "French protectorate of Djibouti," which is a clear copy-and-paste plagiarism violation from the blog from which it is taken. Besides, it is incorrect. Djibouti is a former French protectorate. It's been independent for a while now. --Petercorless 05:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop inserting plagiarized material regarding the Special Forces. Again, the insertion of such can be clearly spotted by the mention of the "French protectorate" of Djibouti. It has been an independent nation for decades. --Petercorless 01:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Devil's advoacte here: The country of Djibouti is not only protected by the French military (to include a garrison of French Air Force Controllers that cover the air space and a garrison of both regular and Foreign Legion troops on the ground) but the French goverment also heavily subsidizes the Djibouti civil services and goverment as well. That might be the (rather obvious) point the editor is try to make. Maybe an effort at clarity rather than reversion would be more appropriate? NeoFreak 01:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The term Protectorate is a legal definition according to international law. Djibouti is not legally a protectorate of France, since it gained its independence in 1977. It was a protectorate formerly known as French Somaliland or the French Territory of Afars and Issas. It would be like saying that Djibouti is a protectorate of the United States because we have troops there. That is legally incorrect. --Petercorless 03:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I'm aware that Djibouti is an independant country, I'm not going to argue that. What I'm saying is that Djibouti is still dependent on French (and increasingly American) foreign aid and the country is also host to French garrisons. The French still condier Djibouti to be in their sphere on influence and both support and protect it's soverign status which I believe (or would hope) that was the point the editor was trying to make. NeoFreak 19:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That might be so, but the problem was that the entire paragraph was a direct plagiarized copy of a blog. So, it needed to be a) corrected and b) abbreviated so as to not by a simple copy/paste. --Petercorless 17:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove ARPCT casualties?

The ARPCT, though funded by the US CIA, was not formally part of OEF as far as I can tell, and certainly not part of the CJTF-HOA, unless someone wants to quote a source on that? Perhaps we should take out their casualties, or, if they remain there, we'd need to add in a flag for Somalia as part of CJTF-HOA, which I do not believe that they are. --Petercorless 17:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The ARPCT is not part of this strike force, and as to the ARPCT being involved in OEF-HOA, it is not, atleast officially. Until the recent airstrike, the USA has said they were not involved at all in Somalia, so they definately have not as of yet claimed that the ARPCT was part of this operation. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OEF-HOA vs. CJTF-HOA

A problem that crept in to this page was that it used to be primarily focused at OEF-HOA, the operation, so the campaign box was appropriate. Now, more and more the page is becoming about CJTF-HOA -- the command -- so it is less appropriate to keep the campaign box here. I'd suggest splitting out CJTF-HOA to be a unit, to get a unit box, such as II Marine Expeditionary Force, and then we can have an OEF-HOA page be where the campaign box goes. I want to give the idea a chance to socialize before we make the switch, but that seems to be appropriate. --Petercorless 17:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yea, thats the problem that came about when it was renamed. There should probably be two articles, one being about the contingent itself, the other about the Operation and stuff done under it. Its similar to the INF and OEF-Afghanistan, the INF is just an international force participating in the operation. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Split. There is now a separate OEF-HOA article, and a CJTF-HOA. I moved all of the operations discussion to OEF-HOA, especially since the air strikes conducted against Somalia were specifically said to not be the work of CJTF-HOA. --Petercorless 08:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

OTHER CASUALTIES

OK listen up ARPCT was funded like the Northern Alliance by the CIA and this has been confirmed, and also posibly by the US military, as for the TFG and Ethiopian casualties, they should also be included, because they were used by the US and other anti-Somali islamist contrys as a satellite force to destroy the ICU. The ICU were in fact just like the Taliban, and the Ethiopian army and TFG were just like the Pakistan army and the Northern Alliance. Plus the Ethiopian army was trained from the very beggining by the US special forces. And it has been confirmed that US special forces have been in Somalia ever since the first ethiopian soldier crossed in to Somalia. Also The Northern Alliance was not ever official stated as part of OEF. If you would recal OEF was started by the US military and the Alliance just jumped in after a month of bombing the Taliban. Now we have the TFG and the Ethiopian army starting the fight but it has been confirmed that they were trained and funded by the CIA and US special forces. You can not deny that or you are putting yourself in the same position the US has been taking. And that's of denial about involvment in Somalia.--Top Gun 14:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see the analogy, yet their casualties are already (or should be) covered on the Rise of the Islamic Courts Union (2006) and War in Somalia (2006–present) pages. Putting them here is somewhat double-dipping in regards to casualty figures. If you are making the analogy to Afghanistan, there are many years of CIA-funded Mujahideen taking casualties during the years of Operation Cyclone and the Soviet-Afghan War, but those are not counted on the OEF pages either. Not until the US enters as a formal combatant. Which, in Somalia, we only did on one official occasion so far – the AC-130 gunship strike. Other than that, officially, the US is not admitting much. I feel like we should remove the ARPCT casualties here, and leave them on the Rise of the ICU page. --Petercorless 15:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The casualtie numbers have already been put on the other pages, also it has been said that the Al-Qaida operatives in Somalia, which the US is hunting had been already involved since the rise of the ICU at the begining of June of last year. They directed the ICU ledaership in one way or another. That means one side in the War on terrorism had already been involved in Somalia. OK how about this, we remove ARPCT and about 200 killed which belonged to them. And leave the TFG and Ethiopian army casualties which have been estimated at 400 killed. Because US special forces trained the Ethiopians and they trained the TFG, also the US special forces have been confirmed to be present in Somalia since day one of the Ethiopian invasion. In that case OEF Horn of Africa shifted into Somalia with them.--Top Gun 00:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No US military or political leadership is making the assertion the war in Somalia, on a broader context, is directly part of OEF. After the one anti-terrorist strike by the AC-130 gunship, the US has not (at least not publicly) continued to wage hostilities. This is more of an "incident" than a "campaign." If we were to include other such casualties where the US provided training and equipment, then we need to add back in Pankisi Gorge to the OEF page and probably many other "supported" counterinsurgency programs. I'm of an opinion we keep them out of CJTF-HOA as a command-oriented page (as opposed to a war/battle page) in any regard. --Petercorless 23:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Africom?

anyone know if this task force is going to be reassigned to africom? considering they will be in its area of operation. -Tracer9999 (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was reassigned. I have also corrected and updated the first three paragraphs with open source information.Draperjc (talk) 09:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)draperjc

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Combined Joint Task Force – Horn of Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060214024023/http://www.usmc.mil:80/genbios2.nsf/0/9A5FFE5E9C3391A98525680800436D6D?opendocument to http://www.usmc.mil/genbios2.nsf/0/9A5FFE5E9C3391A98525680800436D6D?opendocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110722180538/http://www.hoa.africom.mil/getArticle.asp?art=2546 to http://www.hoa.africom.mil/getArticle.asp?art=2546

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Combined Joint Task Force – Horn of Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120916154416/http://www.africom.mil/getArticle.asp?art=3967&lang=0 to http://www.africom.mil/getArticle.asp?art=3967&lang=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)