User talk:George Swan/sandbox/Skirmish at Lejay, Afghanistan

The {{subpages}} template is designed to be used within article clusters and their related pages.
It will not function on User talk pages.

Clarifications and sourcing

In the first sentence, "Americans" does not link to any military organization. Presumably, for it to have an operation name, some military headquarters had to assign it, and this headquarters needs to be identified. Note that not all headquarters, in Afghanistan, with tactical control over U.S. units, are all-American. There are at least two major headquarters organizations in Afghanistan, the UN-mandated NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), and apparently some U.S. special operations component that is subordinate to SOCCENT (Special Operations Component, United States Central Command, or possibly directly subordinated to United States Special Operations Command. I could not rule out that the responsible headquarters was an intermediate U.S. echelon in Afghanistan, reporting to ISAF or CENTCOM.

The nature of the code name suggests it was assigned, after the fact, by public affairs people at some upper-level headquarters. Real U.S. code names, used in planning operations, have very little meaning, although the first few letters indicate the organization and general program (e.g., RI programs are usually communications intelligence programs under Headquarters, USAF (e.g., RIVET JOINT), SE are imagery intelligence (SENIOR YEAR), while Central Command contingency plans, such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq, were PO (POLO STEP)).

A "public relations" code name of this type would be associated with a press release or briefing, probably at ISAF or CENTCOM. This should be available online.

"Skirmish", incidentally, is a military term of art describing a certain kind of ground invasion. Please cite the source of the term "Skirmish at Lejay".

In the first section, you cite "intelligence analysts" and "American forces". Please identify and, if possible, cite. There are very general terms like "air support" and "stopped all traffic". Who? How?

Again, generic "intelligence analysts" are mentioned in the second section; again, they should be identified.

At present, the article does not really seem to be about the actual skirmish, at least at any level of detail to let it be understood at a military level. The details concern the disposition of individuals who went to Guantanamo. If you can't detail the action, then I suggest renaming the article to something about challenged detentions of individuals taken into custody on the relevant dates, and not describe the action unless there is a credible level of detail. Howard C. Berkowitz 10:49, 29 June 2008 (CDT)

Skirmish, or alternatives

I picked the name skirmish. The allegations against the captives don't use the term "skirmish". I was unaware that this term had an official meaning. I picked it to reflect that this was not a "battle". Some of the allegations the captives faced described it as an "ambush". George Swan 16:19, 29 June 2008 (CDT)

Not trying to be critical, but, since it has a specific meaning, I didn't know if it had been used. You may have run across the term "skirmish line". A skirmish is usually considered to be a small engagement, with the additional characteristic that it results from two opposing formations, spread out in a ragged line, running into one another.

There's no rigorous definition of what makes something a "battle" -- a "campaign", arguably so. I'm reminded, however, of what an annoyed H Norman Schwarzkopf said at a press conference, when a reporter asked "how many mines make up a minefield?"

"One, if you're in it."

Seriously, the article seems to have a certain conflict between describing some type of military engagement, and a critique of the hearing process. For the record, I believe that the Guantanamo process is a travesty of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, with the caveat that the Geneva Conventions don't deal well with non-national combatants. Nevertheless, there is a flavor, in the writing, of trial argument. As a CZ military workgroup editor, I understand my responsibility is to help objectivity, rather than push my own opinions.

I do appreciate that you are bringing in fewer claims of the type of air support than in the forum. Nevertheless, I suspect you might have a stronger article if you stayed with the Guantanamo process, rather than trying to analyze an engagement for which there is very little actual data. I did search out some press accounts of the air attacks, and they variously contradict one another, as well as some of the aircraft capabilities. Some reports indicate that some of the airstrikes came from one or more Dutch F-16 aircraft, and, while I'm not certain, this may have been an ISAF operation in the field rather than unilaterally an American one. If so, that raises the question of why the U.S. got control of the individuals.

You may want to refer to some of the provisions of the Third Geneva Convention (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm) as well as the U.S. legal decisions. Depending how far you are intending to analyze the proceedings, some discussion of the relevance of ex parte Quirin might be in order: http://law.jrank.org/pages/13645/Ex-Parte-Quirin.html

Howard C. Berkowitz 16:41, 29 June 2008 (CDT)