Military history: North America / United States Stub‑class

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 Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force

This article seems biased to me. Close it down.

How do you figure? It's true that there's a fair amount of conjecture, but it's reported as such. The mention of 2 fatalities, out of dozens, seems peculiar. The article needs work, but what specifically seems biased? Martin.duke 14:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent article. That photograph of neat kerbs, lamp post and a Subway outlet (!) is one of the most striking and inspiring images I've seen. It just goes to show that Iraq can be transformed into a pleasant little Westernised client state if we really put the effort in. 80.47.61.189 20:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

LSA Anaconda is a US Army base. Balad Air Base is USAF. I believe they should have their own articles. --JAYMEDINC 02:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

They're physically the same installation even if the services call them by different names. I'm not sure how you parse out the information between two articles, or if you end up having the same article twice. I also think it's confusing to readers. I do agree that adding some language about the two names, in addition to a redirect from "Balad Air Base", is in order. Martin.duke 19:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I agree with what you said above. They are physically the same place and there is no clear distinction segregating one area from another. -- VegitaU 03:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balad Air Base is ensconced within LSA Anaconda. It is an inseperable part of the installation. and secondary to it. Th USAF commander reports to the Army commander for all instalation related decisions, if I'm not mistaken. Aestiva 01:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been open for more than six months and is clearly weighed toward opposition. I got rid of the spilt tag. VegitaU 20:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. The strategic purpose and mission of Balad/Anaconda is theatre logistics for the Iraq AOR. In that regard Balad AB is a support unit for LSA Anaconda. Functionally the Air Force operates somewhat on its own, but technically its day-to-day activities remain under the command of the CO, LSA Anaconda. Geeyore 15:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the nature of this argument, I have removed the Wiki redirect link of Mortaritaville from LSA Anaconda and made it a separate article on Wikipedia since LSA Anaconda/Balad AB is not the Mortaritaville. I have also moved the discussion to the Mortaritaville discussion page. -Signaleer 08:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I was there for 6 months. I never once heard anyone call Anaconda/Balad "Mortaritaville", except in reference to having read it somewhere. Which is not to say we weren't mortared. We were, almost every day. Onesy-twosies, with the occasional targeted fusillade that was more apt to cause injury and/or death. In the year prior to my arrival (that is, mid-2004 - 2005) it was worse, with full-scale rocket attacks, some quite deadly. Geeyore 15:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently here now and all of the other airman and soldiers do in fact refer to it as Mortaritaville.~~SkipmCdiddler 10:17, 21 June 2008

• Let Me Reinforce This, Please...' There's no reason to start a war on this page too over this issue that can simply be removed to a non-definitive note referring to the other article where you all have been warring already... VigilancePrime 23:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without a reference, this part of the article doesn't belong at all. Even with a reference, it probably doesn't and instead should just stay in the Mortatitaville page, where that heated debate can remain contained. The phrase (which was re-added and I'll next revert out) itself is Original Research-ish and POV-ish as well ("Although the soldiers stationed here like to refer to LSA Anaconda as Mortaritaville..."). It's just out of place entirely. Perhaps a link in a See Also to Mortaritaville would be the best way to solve this to everyone's satisfaction? That would allow for the inclusion of the information, though through a linked page, and prevent the "erroneous" statement that Anaconda is the "true" Mortaritaville. (Granted, there's no such thing as the "true" when we're talking about unofficial, colloquial terms like this anyway...) VigilancePrime 21:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to hear some opinions on this issue (especially from military users). As I understand, Operations security (OPSEC) is a method of identifying critical unclassified info and securing it to deny the enemy the ability to use it in operations against more sensitive operations. Basically, not allowing unclassified tidbits to add up to a bigger, more critical picture. That being said, are the expeditionary units stationed in Balad AB critical information? I ask this because the Air Force itself discloses the information on their Balad public site. If OPSEC applied in this case, wouldn't the Air Force's own website be the last place to find that information? -- VegitaU 05:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not speculate on how the Air Force handles that information, but in the Army, information such as that is considered critical. The Army view on where units in Iraq are is information not to be revealed in a public forum, and that is what I based that edit on.RFP15 08:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I wanted to see what the Army view was on this. -- VegitaU 16:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The units listed that were there in the past, have nothing to do with violating OPSEC. Current units maybe? --JAYMEDINC 18:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. However, the units listed were not marked as units that have already been and gone, so I guess I made a judgment call.RFP15 21:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OPSEC is a judgement call Vegeta, and you're correct in stating that it's a collection of "innocuous" facts that can aid the enemy. In the case of unit deployments, a determined enemy analyst could simply plug all past and present unit information into a database to develop a clearer picture of the mission of that base, along with many other speculations (I won't even say what those might be, in deference to OPSEC). It is always best to err on the side of deference, IMO. Don't confirm, deny, or propagate anything you believe could be misused. It's a balance. Geeyore 15:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There really isn't anything on this page that violates any rules of OPSEC, so you're good as they say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.29.176.60 (talk) 07:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Base Balad is the new name replacing both Balad Air Base and LSA Anaconda, according to the AF at [1]. --Pmsyyz (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]