Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Operation Enduring Freedom

Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) was the United States-led military campaign initiated on October 7, 2001, as the primary combat response to the terrorist attacks, focusing on dismantling the network responsible for the assaults and removing the regime in that provided them safe harbor. The operation encompassed airstrikes, , and ground engagements that rapidly toppled the government by December 2001, disrupting al-Qaeda's core leadership and operational base while involving a coalition of over two dozen nations contributing troops and support. Initial successes included the liberation of major Afghan cities and the establishment of a new interim government under , but the campaign evolved into a prolonged effort marked by persistent resurgence, high civilian and military casualties, and escalating financial costs exceeding $800 billion by 2014. Controversies arose from strategic shifts toward and governance reforms that yielded limited long-term stability, with critics highlighting intelligence failures, that hampered operations, and the failure to decisively eliminate insurgent sanctuaries across the border, ultimately contributing to the Afghan government's collapse after U.S. forces withdrew in 2021. OEF formally concluded in on December 28, 2014, transitioning to for train-advise-assist missions, while parallel counterterrorism components persisted in regions like the and .

Response to the September 11 Attacks

On September 11, 2001, 19 hijackers affiliated with the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda seized control of four commercial airliners departing from U.S. East Coast airports, executing suicide attacks against symbolic targets of American economic, military, and political power. American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 struck the North and South Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City at 8:46 a.m. and 9:03 a.m. Eastern Time, respectively, causing both structures to collapse and resulting in 2,753 deaths at the site; American Airlines Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, at 9:37 a.m., killing 184 people; and United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 10:03 a.m. after passengers resisted, claiming 40 lives. The coordinated assaults, the deadliest terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, killed nearly 3,000 people in total and injured over 6,000 others, with cascading economic disruptions including the temporary shutdown of national airspace and markets. U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA and FBI, rapidly attributed responsibility to , an organization founded by in the late 1980s and operating training camps and safe havens in under the protection of the regime, which controlled approximately 90% of the country since 1996. informed President that evening that al-Qaeda was the perpetrator based on intercepted communications, hijacker identifications, and prior intelligence on bin Laden's fatwas calling for attacks on Americans. Bin Laden, indicted by the U.S. in 1998 for earlier bombings, had been sheltered by the Taliban despite repeated international demands for his following al-Qaeda's 1998 embassy attacks in Africa and the 2000 . President Bush addressed the nation that evening, vowing that "we will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them," signaling a doctrinal shift toward holding state sponsors accountable for non-state actors' terrorism. In the ensuing weeks, the Bush administration pursued diplomatic channels to compel Taliban compliance while preparing military contingencies. On September 20, 2001, Bush delivered an address to a joint session of Congress outlining five specific demands: deliver to U.S. authorities all al-Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan; release all foreign nationals detained without trial, including American journalist Daniel Pearl's eventual captors; close and abandon terrorist training camps; allow access for FBI and international investigators; and comply with UN resolutions barring terrorism. The Taliban, led by Mullah Mohammed Omar, rejected these ultimatums, conditioning bin Laden's handover on evidence of his guilt presented in an Islamic court—a demand dismissed by the U.S. given prior ignored extradition requests and the regime's history of harboring militants responsible for attacks killing hundreds of civilians. Taliban Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil conveyed conditional offers to negotiate if bombing ceased, but these were deemed insincere and rejected as the regime failed to act decisively against al-Qaeda assets. This refusal, coupled with intercepted Taliban-al-Qaeda coordination, provided the causal basis for U.S. determination that regime change via force was necessary to dismantle the terrorist sanctuary, culminating in the launch of Operation Enduring Freedom on October 7, 2001.

Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)

The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), enacted as 107-40, was a passed by the in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Introduced as S.J. Res. 23 on September 14, 2001, it passed the unanimously by a vote of 98-0 on the same day and the by a vote of 420-1, with Representative (D-CA) casting the sole dissenting vote citing concerns over open-ended war powers. President signed it into law on September 18, 2001, affirming it as specific statutory authorization within the framework of the while preserving executive authority to conduct military operations. The AUMF's core provision empowered the President "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States." This language explicitly targeted al-Qaeda, identified by U.S. intelligence as the perpetrator under Osama bin Laden's leadership, and extended to entities providing safe harbor, including the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which had refused demands to extradite bin Laden and dismantle al-Qaeda training camps. The resolution's preamble detailed the attacks' scale—nearly 3,000 deaths across New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania—and underscored Congress's determination that such acts constituted threats to national security, foreign policy, and economy, necessitating a unified response. For Operation Enduring Freedom, initiated on October 7, , the AUMF provided the constitutional and statutory foundation, enabling airstrikes, special operations, and ground engagements against and forces without a formal . This authorization aligned with Article II of the Constitution, vesting commander-in-chief powers in the , and was interpreted to encompass defensive actions abroad to dismantle terrorist networks responsible for 9/11. Unlike prior authorizations limited to specific states, the AUMF's focus on non-state actors and harborers facilitated flexible coalition operations, though its breadth later drew scrutiny for enabling extended efforts beyond the Afghan theater.

Objectives and Strategic Framework

Core Counter-Terrorism Goals

The core counter-terrorism goals of Operation Enduring Freedom, launched on October 7, 2001, focused on neutralizing the immediate threat posed by and its protectors in following the . These objectives, authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) enacted on September 18, 2001, empowered the President to employ "all necessary and appropriate force" against nations, organizations, or persons determined to have planned, authorized, committed, or aided the attacks, including those who harbored such perpetrators. In announcing the operation, President specified strikes against terrorist training camps and military installations to disrupt the network's ability to coordinate attacks, destroy infrastructure used for recruiting and planning, and target leadership to prevent future operations against the and its allies. Central to these goals was the elimination or capture of 's senior figures, including , whose organization orchestrated the 9/11 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people, and the degradation of their command, control, and logistical capabilities. Military actions aimed to dismantle training facilities, which had hosted thousands of militants, and sever communication lines to hinder regrouping, while pressuring the to surrender members or face regime collapse as a consequence of continued harboring. The strategy emphasized denying as a safe haven for global terrorism by clearing out entrenched networks, a prerequisite for broader prevention of attacks originating from ungoverned spaces. By design, these counter-terrorism imperatives prioritized kinetic operations over long-term governance, with initial successes including the disruption of cells and the flight or death of key operatives, though bin Laden evaded capture until 2011. Efforts extended to financial interdiction, freezing over $34 million in U.S.-blocked terrorist assets and coordinating with over 160 countries to target funding streams that sustained operations. The framework underscored a causal link between physical safe havens and terrorist projection of power, aiming to restore deterrence by demonstrating that state sponsorship of non-state actors invited direct retaliation.

Evolving Military Doctrine and Phases

The initial for Operation Enduring Freedom emphasized , leveraging U.S. Forces (SOF), precision airstrikes, and indigenous Afghan allies such as the to rapidly dismantle networks and overthrow the regime. Launched on October 7, 2001, this approach relied on a light-footprint strategy with minimal conventional ground troops—approximately 10,000 U.S. personnel initially—to avoid the pitfalls of large-scale occupation while prioritizing counter-terrorism objectives like denying terrorist sanctuaries. Operations such as the campaign at Mazar-e Sharif (October 19–November 9, 2001) and the fall of (November 14, 2001) demonstrated the efficacy of SOF-directed and coordination with local militias, leading to the 's collapse by December 7, 2001. By early 2002, doctrine began evolving toward stabilization and elements in response to remnants and emerging insurgent threats, incorporating conventional forces as evidenced in (March 2–19, 2002), which involved over 2,000 U.S. troops targeting in the Shahi Kowt Valley and highlighted the need for integrated joint operations. The establishment of Combined Joint Task Force-180 (CJTF-180) in May 2002 and Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) in December 2002 marked a shift to civil-military operations, focusing on security, governance, and reconstruction along logical lines of operation, including humanitarian assistance and Afghan National Army (ANA) training via CJTF Phoenix (formed May 2003). This adaptation addressed the limitations of the initial enemy-centric focus, transitioning to population security and indigenous capacity-building amid rising violence—65 attacks and 79 deaths in 2002 escalating significantly by 2005—while designating OEF as an "economy of force" mission to prioritize operations. The formal adoption of (COIN) doctrine intensified post-2005, culminating in the U.S. Army/Marine Corps Field Manual 3-24 (published December 2006), which advocated population-centric strategies like "clear, hold, and build" to protect civilians, foster governance, and marginalize insurgents. Applied in through expanded NATO-led (ISAF) integration after 2006 and the 2009 troop surge under General Stanley McChrystal—adding 30,000 U.S. forces—this emphasized combined operations with (ANSF), intelligence-driven network targeting, and interagency coordination, as seen in Combined Joint Task Force-82 (CJTF-82) during OEF X (June 2009–June 2010) covering Regional Command-East with 24,000 U.S. and 6,000 coalition troops alongside 42,000 ANSF. Despite these doctrinal refinements, challenges persisted, including insufficient early police training, warlord dependencies, and cross-border sanctuaries in , which undermined long-term stability efforts. Operational phases reflected this doctrinal progression: Phase I (October 2001–March 2002) focused on decisive combat to oust the ; Phase II (2002–2005) emphasized stabilization, PRTs, and initial sweeps like Operation Mountain Viper (August 2003); and subsequent phases (2006–2014) integrated full-spectrum with /ANP expansion and transition planning, culminating in OEF's end on December 28, 2014. These adaptations prioritized denying operational space while building Afghan self-reliance, though critiques noted over-reliance on external forces delayed indigenous reforms.

Operational Overview

Timeline of Major Phases (2001-2014)

Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) commenced on October 7, 2001, with coordinated U.S. and British airstrikes targeting and positions across , marking the initial phase of rapid offensive operations aimed at dismantling terrorist infrastructure and the regime. This phase involved U.S. Special Operations Forces partnering with militias, leading to the capture of on November 9, 2001, on November 13, 2001, and on December 7, 2001, effectively collapsing the government by mid-December. Concurrently, the from December 6-17, 2001, sought to eliminate remnants, though evaded capture. From early 2002, OEF shifted toward consolidation and counterinsurgency, exemplified by (March 1-18, 2002) in the , which inflicted heavy casualties on and fighters but highlighted the challenges of and incomplete enemy neutralization. U.S. troop levels remained limited, focusing on training Afghan forces and pursuing high-value targets, while the Bonn Agreement (December 2001) laid groundwork for the Afghan Interim Authority. By August 11, 2003, assumed command of the (ISAF), expanding stabilization efforts beyond into provincial reconstruction teams. The mid-2000s marked a phase of resurgence and intensified operations, with U.S.-led forces conducting offensives like Operation Mountain Thrust (June-September 2006) amid rising insurgent attacks that killed over 1,000 coalition personnel by 2007. Troop commitments grew modestly, but strategic emphasis remained on counter-terrorism raids rather than full-spectrum until Obama's 2009 , deploying an additional 30,000 U.S. troops peaking at approximately 100,000 by mid-2010 to secure population centers and train (ANSF). Key milestones included the death of commander Mullah Dadullah (May 12, 2007) and the raid killing (May 2, 2011) in . Drawdown commenced in 2011, with U.S. forces transitioning security responsibilities to ANSF under the framework, reducing troop numbers to about 66,000 by 2012. OEF's concluded on December 28, 2014, shifting to for counter-terrorism support, after over 2,200 U.S. military fatalities and the training of more than 350,000 ANSF personnel, though control persisted in rural areas.

Coalition Composition and Command Structure

Operation Enduring Freedom was directed by the (CENTCOM), based at in , with serving as the overall commander from its inception on October 7, 2001, until his relief in July 2003. CENTCOM coordinated the multinational effort through its service component commands, including U.S. Army Central (ARCENT), U.S. Naval Forces Central Command (NAVCENT), U.S. Air Forces Central (AFCENT), U.S. Marine Corps Forces Central Command (MARCENT), and U.S. Central Command (SOCCENT), which provided specialized capabilities for ground, naval, air, and special operations missions. In the Afghan theater, tactical execution fell under Combined Joint Task Forces (CJTFs), such as CJTF-Mountain led by the U.S. , which integrated coalition elements into operations against and targets. The coalition's composition was dominated by U.S. forces, which supplied the vast majority of personnel, equipment, and operational leadership throughout OEF's duration from 2001 to 2014. Key initial contributors included the , which deployed special forces units like the and alongside for ground operations starting in October 2001; , contributing its for reconnaissance and direct action; and , providing naval and special operations support. Other nations such as , , and offered special operations teams, airlift, and logistical aid in the early phases, with coalition partners collectively fielding nearly 6,000 troops in by early 2002 to support counter-terrorism missions distinct from the parallel NATO-led (ISAF). Over time, additional allies including , , and the contributed forces under U.S. command for OEF-specific tasks like detainee operations and counter-insurgency, though numbers remained modest compared to U.S. commitments, emphasizing the operation's primarily American-led structure. This multinational framework allowed for flexible integration of partner capabilities, such as intelligence sharing and precision strikes, while maintaining unified command under CENTCOM to target leadership and remnants. The expanded to include over 130 nations in broader counter-terrorism efforts, but direct military contributions to the Afghan theater under OEF were limited to a core group of close U.S. allies focused on high-risk, counter-terrorism operations.

Primary Theater: Afghanistan

Initial Invasion and Taliban Regime Collapse (October-December 2001)

On October 7, 2001, U.S. and forces commenced Operation Enduring Freedom with an intensive air campaign, launching cruise missiles and airstrikes from , bombers, and submarines against air defenses, command-and-control sites, and facilities across . The operation targeted over 30 sites initially, including airfields at and , with precision-guided munitions comprising the majority of ordnance to minimize while degrading the 's operational capacity. U.S. Central Command, under General , coordinated the strikes from bases in the region, supported by approximately 100 U.S. forces (SOF) teams liaising with anti- factions, primarily the . The strategy emphasized indirect support to indigenous forces rather than large-scale U.S. ground commitments, with CIA paramilitary operatives and Army providing intelligence, targeting data, and coordination to Northern Alliance commanders like and Mohammed Atta. By mid-October, SOF teams, numbering fewer than 500 personnel, had inserted via helicopter into northern , enabling laser-guided strikes that shattered lines at and elsewhere; for instance, on October 19, the first conventional U.S. ground element, Task Force Dagger, linked with cavalry to exploit these gains. Naval aviation from carriers like and flew the bulk of sorties, dropping thousands of tons of munitions and accounting for over 70% of strike missions in the early phase. Northern Alliance advances accelerated in November, capturing on November 9 after U.S. airstrikes neutralized Taliban artillery and armor, followed by and Bamiyan on November 11, on November 12, on November 13, and on November 14; these victories stemmed from Taliban defections and morale collapse under sustained bombing, which destroyed an estimated 50-70% of their military equipment. On November 25, U.S. from the 15th and 26th Marine Expeditionary Units executed the longest-range amphibious assault in , seizing Rhino near to interdict Taliban supply lines and support Pashtun anti-Taliban militias allied with . The , facing internal fractures and lacking air defenses, abandoned fixed positions, with foreign fighters from reinforcing but unable to halt the momentum. By early December, the Taliban regime disintegrated: Kandahar, their spiritual capital, surrendered on December 7 after negotiations and intensified airstrikes, with Mullah Mohammed Omar fleeing; this marked the effective end of centralized Taliban control, as remaining fighters dispersed into guerrilla resistance or fled to Pakistan. Concurrently, the Battle of Tora Bora from December 6-17 involved U.S. SOF, Afghan militias, and over 1,000 airstrikes targeting al-Qaeda caves, resulting in hundreds of enemy casualties but allowing Osama bin Laden's escape due to insufficient U.S. ground troops and reliance on unreliable local proxies. The Bonn Agreement on December 5 formalized the transition, installing Karzai as interim leader amid the regime's collapse, achieved with minimal U.S. casualties—fewer than 20 killed in action during this period—highlighting the efficacy of combined airpower and proxy warfare against a conventionally brittle adversary.

Counterinsurgency and Stabilization Efforts (2002-2014)

Following the collapse of the Taliban regime in late 2001, coalition efforts in Afghanistan transitioned from rapid conventional operations to protracted counterinsurgency (COIN) and stabilization activities aimed at denying insurgents sanctuary, building Afghan governance capacity, and fostering economic development. The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), initially limited to Kabul under a UN mandate established in December 2001, expanded nationwide in 2003 under NATO command to support the Afghan Transitional Authority formed via the Bonn Agreement. By 2004, ISAF oversaw provincial-level stabilization, coordinating with U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom forces focused on high-value target disruption. However, Taliban remnants regrouped in Pakistan's border regions, launching a low-level insurgency from 2002 that escalated by 2005 with increased improvised explosive device (IED) attacks and ambushes, exploiting governance vacuums and tribal grievances. Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), pioneered by the U.S. in 2002-2003, integrated military security with civilian to extend government reach into rural areas, conducting over 1,000 projects by 2007 such as building and to undermine insurgent influence. PRTs grew to 26 teams by 2005, involving allies like the and , but faced criticism for militarizing and yielding uneven results due to cultural mismatches and intimidation of locals. Stabilization efforts also targeted narcotics, as production surged from 3,400 metric tons in 2002 to 8,200 tons by 2007, funding insurgents, though eradication campaigns displaced farmers without viable alternatives. A core pillar involved training the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), with the Afghan National Army (ANA) expanding from zero in 2002 to a target of 70,000 by 2004, later scaled to 134,000 combat troops plus support elements. By 2012, NATO's training mission had fielded approximately 350,000 ANSF personnel, including 157,000 soldiers, emphasizing literacy programs and equipment provision like 20,000 vehicles. Yet, persistent issues included high rates exceeding 20% annually, in officer ranks, and inadequate , limiting operational independence. U.S. troop commitments remained modest at 8,000-10,000 from 2002-2008, prioritizing , allowing safe havens to solidify. President Obama authorized a 30,000-troop in December 2009, peaking at 100,000 U.S. forces by August 2010, implementing doctrine via population-centric clearing operations in Helmand and , which reduced kinetic activity in targeted districts by 2011. Coalition forces conducted over 1,000 partnered ANSF missions monthly by 2012, but gains proved fragile as drawdowns began in 2011, with insurgents regaining momentum through cross-border attacks from . By 2014, when ISAF transitioned to the , stabilization metrics showed mixed efficacy: violence levels dropped temporarily post-surge, with Afghan forces assuming lead in 90% of operations, but underlying causal factors like porous borders, , and insufficient rule-of-law persisted, enabling control over 10-20% of territory. SIGAR assessments highlighted that despite $100 billion+ invested in ANSF, systemic graft eroded capabilities, with inflating payrolls by up to 40%. These efforts, while disrupting core networks, failed to eradicate the , which adapted via asymmetric tactics and external support.

Key Military Operations and Engagements

The , conducted from December 6 to 17, 2001, targeted forces in the White Mountains of eastern , aiming to capture or kill . U.S. forces relied on air strikes and Afghan militias to assault fortified cave complexes, resulting in an estimated 20 to 50 enemy fighters killed, though higher figures have been claimed. Bin Laden escaped into due to insufficient U.S. ground troops and dependence on local proxies, marking an early operational shortfall. Operation Anaconda, launched March 2, 2002, in the of , represented the largest conventional engagement of the early war, involving approximately 2,000 U.S. and coalition troops alongside Afghan forces against 200-300 and fighters. The operation employed a hammer-and-anvil tactic but faced ambushes, leading to eight U.S. deaths and over 70 wounded; enemy losses exceeded 500 killed. It highlighted adaptation challenges, including underestimation of enemy strength and coordination issues with air support. In September 2003, Operation Mountain Viper in Zabul Province's Daychopan district involved U.S. Army's 1st Brigade, , and Afghan National Army units targeting safe havens in mountainous terrain. Joint forces cleared insurgent positions, killing an estimated 100 to 124 militants through air assaults and ground sweeps. Coalition casualties included one U.S. soldier from an accidental fall and five Afghan deaths, demonstrating effective integration of local forces in disrupting cross-border threats. Later engagements, such as the on July 13, 2008, in , saw forces overrun a U.S. outpost, killing nine American soldiers and wounding 27 in a four-hour assault involving 200 attackers. This incident exposed vulnerabilities in remote basing and intelligence, prompting doctrinal shifts toward fortified positions. Overall, these operations inflicted significant attrition on and al-Qaeda networks but faced persistent challenges from terrain, enemy tactics, and sanctuary in .

Targeting Al-Qaeda and Taliban Leadership

Efforts to target and leadership began immediately after the October 7, 2001, launch of airstrikes, with U.S. forces prioritizing high-value individuals (HVIs) such as , , and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, who were believed to be coordinating resistance from remote strongholds. Special Operations Forces (SOF), supported by CIA paramilitary teams and Afghan allies, conducted raids and precision strikes aimed at disrupting command structures, though top figures evaded capture through evasion tactics and cross-border flight to . By late 2001, operations like the (December 6-17) sought to encircle and eliminate bin Laden and senior Al-Qaeda operatives in eastern Afghanistan's mountains, resulting in hundreds of enemy casualties but allowing bin Laden's escape, later confirmed by declassified intelligence assessments. In early 2002, in the Shahi Kot Valley targeted and remnants, including foreign fighters and mid-level commanders, killing or wounding scores of HVIs through combined SOF assaults, airstrikes, and ground support, though incomplete intelligence and rugged terrain enabled some leaders to flee. This marked a shift toward systematic HVI hunts, with the establishment of interagency task forces fusing , , and SOF raids to dismantle networks; by mid-decade, these efforts had captured or killed numerous facilitators and regional commanders, degrading operational capabilities in sectors like explosives and suicide bombings. A notable success occurred on , 2007, when joint Afghan, U.S., and forces killed Mullah Dadullah, the 's top military commander responsible for high-profile atrocities including beheadings and campaigns, in a raid near Lashkar Gah, ; his death fragmented operations in southern temporarily, as successors struggled to consolidate control. Subsequent years saw intensified JSOC-led night raids under Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force-, eliminating or capturing dozens of shadow governors and deputies—such as the 2008 killing of commander Mullah Naeem in —through real-time intelligence and precision kinetics, with U.S. Central Command reporting over 400 HVI operations annually by 2010. These actions relied on advanced surveillance and Afghan partner tips, though resilience persisted due to leadership regeneration from Pakistan-based shuras and ideological recruitment, limiting long-term effects. Despite these gains, core leaders like Zawahiri relocated early, minimizing losses in proper, while Omar died of natural causes in 2013 without direct combat engagement; empirical data from military after-action reviews indicate that while mid-tier disruptions reduced attack tempo in targeted areas, the absence of Pakistan sanctuary denial allowed hierarchical reconstitution, underscoring the limits of unilateral targeting absent broader regional pressure. By OEF's 2014 transition, coalition forces had neutralized approximately 2,700 classified as HVIs, per ISAF metrics, but insurgency persistence highlighted that leadership attrition alone insufficiently eroded cohesion without parallel and border security measures.

Role of International Allies and Afghan Forces

In the initial phase of Operation Enduring Freedom, international allies provided critical support alongside U.S. forces partnering with the , an anti-Taliban coalition of Afghan militias. U.S. Green Berets linked with commanders to coordinate airstrikes and ground advances, enabling the capture of on November 9, 2001, Kabul on November 13, 2001, and other key sites, which precipitated the Taliban regime's collapse by mid-December 2001. Contributions from allies such as the United Kingdom's and Australia's augmented these efforts with reconnaissance and direct action against Taliban positions. The (ISAF) was established on December 20, 2001, under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1386 to secure and support the Afghan Transitional Administration. Initially led by the , command rotated among allies including and before assumed leadership on August 11, 2003. ISAF expanded from to nationwide coverage by October 2006 through staged provincial activations, peaking at over 130,000 troops from 51 and partner nations engaged in , combat operations against resurgence from 2007, and stabilization via Provincial Reconstruction Teams. Non-U.S. allies contributed more than 8,000 troops by mid-2002, with countries like leading task forces in and the in Uruzgan, focusing on mentoring Afghan units and disrupting insurgent networks. Afghan forces transitioned from militias to formalized structures, with the Afghan National Army () established in November 2002 to create an ethnically balanced, professional force. Trained by the U.S.-led Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan with input from 13 partners, the grew from initial battalions to approximately 63,000 troops in the field by 2008, participating in operations such as deployments to in 2004 and 2006 and Operation Maiwand in July 2007. By 2013, , including the , assumed lead responsibility for security nationwide, conducting partnered patrols and independent actions, though reliant on air support, , and over $26 billion in U.S. aid from 2001 to 2008. Effectiveness was mixed, with high rates around 10% in 2008 and a casualty ratio of 40-60 Afghan to one soldier, reflecting operational inexperience and equipment shortages despite combat engagements.

Secondary Theater: Philippines (OEF-P)

Threats from Abu Sayyaf Group and Jemaah Islamiyah

The (ASG), an Islamist militant organization operating primarily in the southern ' Sulu Archipelago and , emerged in the early 1990s as a splinter from Moro separatist movements, blending local secessionist goals with global jihadist ideology influenced by . By 2001, ASG had demonstrated capabilities in high-profile kidnappings, beheadings, and bombings, including the April 2000 siege of 's municipality where militants overran a camp, and the May 2001 Dos Palamas resort abduction of 20 , including three , which highlighted vulnerabilities to attacks on Western targets. These actions, coupled with ASG's receipt of funding and training—estimated at over $6 million between 1998 and 2001—posed direct threats to U.S. citizens and interests, as evidenced by the June 2002 rescue operation that resulted in the death of American Martin Burnham amid ongoing captivity of U.S. missionaries. ASG's tactics, including ransom demands exceeding $1 million per and public threats against , underscored its evolution from banditry to terrorism aligned with 's network. Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), a Southeast Asian jihadist network founded in the 1990s with aims to establish an Islamic caliphate across , , and parts of the , maintained operational footholds in through alliances with local groups like ASG and the (MILF). JI utilized Philippine territory for training camps, where operatives received bomb-making instruction and hosted al-Qaeda-affiliated fighters, including figures like involved in the . Prior to (OEF-P), JI's threats manifested in collaborative plots, such as facilitating ASG's acquisition of explosives for urban attacks and reconnaissance for strikes on U.S. assets, with documents seized in 2002 revealing plans for bombings targeting embassies and transportation hubs in the region. JI's leader (Hambali), who bridged and Southeast Asian cells, directed funding and personnel to Philippine bases, enhancing local groups' capacity for spectacular attacks akin to the 2000 in , which killed 22 and bore hallmarks of JI-ASG coordination. The synergy between ASG and JI amplified threats by providing ASG with ideological reinforcement, technical expertise in improvised explosive devices, and access to al-Qaeda's global logistics, enabling sustained operations in ungoverned spaces that could serve as launchpads for attacks beyond the . Philippine intelligence assessments in 2001 identified over 20 JI trainers embedded with ASG, contributing to incidents like the 1995 Ipil town raid where ASG looted and burned structures, killing dozens, and foreshadowing potential escalation post-9/11. These groups' al-Qaeda ties, including pledges of allegiance and joint financing, positioned southern as a prospective for plotting against U.S. and allied targets, prompting international concern over disrupted plots like the foiled 2002 Singapore embassy bombings traced to JI networks transiting .

US Advisory and Support Operations

In January 2002, the United States deployed approximately 160 personnel from the 1st Group (Airborne) to Island to initiate advisory operations under (OEF-P), focusing on supporting the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) against the Group (ASG). These efforts adhered to restrictions under the Philippine constitution prohibiting foreign combat troops, limiting U.S. roles to training, advising, and enabling Philippine-led actions. U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) averaged 500–600 personnel across services, peaking at around 1,300 during the initial phase in summer 2002 before stabilizing at a cap of 600 in operational areas. U.S. advisory activities emphasized through exchanges (SMEEs) on small-unit tactics, marksmanship, patrolling, , weapons maintenance, and night operations using goggles. teams partnered with AFP units, including marine battalions and the newly formed Light Reaction Company, to build the Philippine Joint Special Operations Group (JSOG) and enhance capabilities in maritime interdiction, led by U.S. . Training extended to conventional forces, such as use with U.S. Marine howitzers on Island and upgrades to OV-10 Broncos for . By 2004, operations/intelligence fusion teams facilitated daily information sharing, drone surveillance (initiated March 2002), and targeting of high-value individuals via the . Support operations included logistics and equipment provision, such as devices, helicopter maintenance, precision-guided artillery ammunition, and replacement parts for AFP weapons, addressing chronic shortages in Philippine forces. Civil-military operations (CMO) involved (MEDCAPs), dental (DENTCAPs), and veterinary (VETCAPs) civic actions, alongside infrastructure projects like constructing or renovating 40 schools, digging 34 wells, and building 80 miles of roads on by 2009, often in coordination with USAID funding exceeding $180 million for and economic programs. U.S. SOF also provided , surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) support, , and engineering assistance via Seabees, enhancing AFP mobility and operational planning in Basilan and the . Efforts expanded from Basilan (2002–2005), where U.S. advisors trained 15 AFP battalions and helped displace ASG forces, to the Sulu Archipelago (2003–2007), including Operation Ultimatum on , which integrated advising with CMO to restrict terrorist sanctuaries. Institutional-level support reformed AFP command structures and logistics, fostering self-sustaining capabilities by the operation's transition phase around 2014. These non-kinetic enablers prioritized population-centric approaches, leveraging local partnerships to degrade ASG and operational freedom without direct U.S. engagement in combat.

Measurable Reductions in Terrorist Capabilities

U.S. Forces support under Operation Enduring Freedom-Philippines (OEF-P), initiated in 2002, enabled Philippine security forces to degrade the Group (ASG) through advisory roles in training, intelligence sharing, surveillance, and civil-military operations, without direct U.S. combat involvement. This assistance facilitated the elimination of key ASG leaders, including in June 2002, in August 2006, and Abu Solaiman in January 2007 during Operation Ultimatum, contributing to the neutralization of 19 out of 24 high-value individuals by 2013. ASG operational capacity diminished markedly, with estimated membership declining from 1,270 fighters in 2000 to approximately 400 by 2014, confining remnants to remote areas like Island and reducing their freedom of movement. Enemy-initiated attacks in , , and fell 56 percent from 73 in 2000 to 32 in 2012, with specific drops such as 57.5 percent in from 56 attacks in 2005 to 31 in 2007 post-Ultimatum. Kidnappings for ransom, a core ASG revenue source, became logistically constrained, as the group could no longer freely transport hostages through and Zamboanga by 2014. Impacts extended to Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), whose ties to ASG were disrupted via precision operations supported by U.S. intelligence, including the 2012 strike on a joint ASG-JI encampment in the and the killing of operative in January 2015. Public support for ASG in southern surveys dropped from 8 percent in 2011 to 2.5 percent in 2014, while satisfaction with security forces rose from 51 percent to 63 percent, reflecting enhanced governance and reduced terrorist influence. These outcomes stemmed from Philippine-led actions bolstered by U.S.-provided equipment, such as night-vision devices and secure communications, which improved targeting efficiency.
MetricBaseline (circa 2000)Post-OEF-P (2012-2014)Source
ASG Membership1,270~400
Enemy-Initiated Attacks (Key Islands)7332 (56% reduction)
High-Value Targets NeutralizedN/A19 of 24

Secondary Theater: Horn of Africa (OEF-HOA)

Maritime and Regional Counter-Terrorism Focus

The maritime dimension of (OEF-HOA), launched on October 7, 2002, centered on naval interdiction to sever terrorist supply lines and prevent the use of sea routes for al-Qaeda-linked activities in the region. (CTF-150), a multinational naval under the Combined Forces, conducted these operations across roughly two million square miles, encompassing the , southern , , and approaches to . Established in the wake of the , 2001, attacks, CTF-150's mandate prioritized counter-terrorism by monitoring commercial shipping, boarding suspect vessels such as dhows for illicit cargo, and disrupting smuggling networks that financed groups like affiliates operating from Somali coastal areas. CTF-150's efforts integrated with CJTF-HOA's broader mission by leveraging forward basing at , , to enable persistent presence and real-time intelligence sharing. Participating navies from the , , , , and others rotated command and assets, conducting thousands of vessel encounters and hundreds of boardings between 2002 and 2014 to potential terrorist resupply, including arms and funds derived from trade in , , and other goods from unstable littoral states. These actions denied terrorists across vital chokepoints, reducing their ability to project threats via vectors toward global shipping lanes that carry over 90% of world trade. Regionally, OEF-HOA's counter-terrorism focus extended maritime operations through partnerships with Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Yemen, fostering joint patrols, training, and intelligence exchanges to target coastal safe havens used by precursors to Al-Shabaab, such as Al-Ittihad al-Islamiya. CJTF-HOA supported these initiatives with unmanned aerial surveillance and logistics, contributing to the degradation of terrorist logistics nodes along the Somali coast and preventing the consolidation of ungoverned maritime spaces as launchpads for attacks. By 2014, as OEF-HOA transitioned, these efforts had measurably constrained jihadist maritime financing and transit, though challenges from piracy linkages persisted until specialized task forces like CTF-151 assumed dedicated anti-piracy roles.

Partnerships and Specific Actions Against Al-Shabaab Precursors

The Combined Joint Task Force–Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA), operating under Operation Enduring Freedom–Horn of Africa from 2002, established key partnerships with regional states including , which hosted the U.S. forward operating base at ; ; and to enhance counterterrorism capacities through intelligence sharing, joint training, and maritime interdiction efforts aimed at disrupting arms flows to Somali militants. These collaborations focused on precursors to Al-Shabaab, such as al-Islamiyya (AIAI)—a 1990s-era affiliate that fragmented into elements absorbed by the (ICU)—and the ICU itself, a coalition of courts that by June 2006 controlled and much of southern while harboring foreign jihadists. A pivotal action involved U.S. intelligence and logistical support for Ethiopia's December 2006 invasion of , which targeted the ICU as a sanctuary for operatives and radical factions, including the nascent Harakat al-Shabaab al-Mujahideen—the ICU's youth militia that formally splintered to become Al-Shabaab in 2007. CJTF-HOA facilitated this through surveillance and targeting data, enabling Ethiopian National Defense Forces to advance rapidly and capture by December 28, 2006, thereby dismantling ICU governance in key areas. The U.S. provided Ethiopia with over $35 million in Section 1206 funding starting in fiscal year 2007 for equipment like night-vision devices and C-130 aircraft enhancements, alongside International Military Education and Training (IMET) programs to bolster Ethiopian capabilities against Islamist threats. Following the invasion, CJTF-HOA supported follow-on disruptions via intelligence exchanges with Kenyan forces along the border and training for Somali Transitional Federal Government (TFG) allies, including logistics for TFG units trained in and from September 2007 onward with over $30 million allocated. U.S. forces conducted at least one in 2007 against suspected targets in southern linked to ICU remnants, contributing to the scattering of precursor networks though not their elimination. These efforts emphasized non-kinetic measures like civil-military operations in and to deny safe havens, alongside naval patrols that intercepted dhows suspected of supplying ICU holdouts.

Disruption of Piracy and Safe Havens

Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA), operating under Operation Enduring Freedom-Horn of Africa (OEF-HOA), provided planning, logistics, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) support to multinational counter-piracy operations off Somalia's coast. These efforts targeted pirate networks in the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean, where Somali-based groups exploited ungoverned coastal areas as launch points for attacks, generating ransom revenues estimated at tens of millions of dollars annually that indirectly bolstered local instability and armed groups, including precursors to al-Shabaab. By disrupting pirate logistics and mother ships, U.S. forces aimed to degrade these maritime safe havens, which overlapped with terrorist operational zones in regions like Puntland. The U.S. contributed destroyers, frigates, and to (CTF-151), a multinational command established in December 2008 specifically for counter-piracy, with U.S. leadership in its inaugural rotation. From August 2008 onward, U.S. and coalition actions resulted in the seizure or destruction of 40 pirate vessels, the apprehension of 235 suspected pirates for prosecution, and the confiscation of numerous weapons and skiffs. These operations, supported by UN Security Council Resolution 1851 authorizing actions within Somali territorial waters, deterred attacks through high-visibility patrols and rapid response interdictions. Pirate attack numbers, which surged to 122 reported incidents in 2008 from 19 in 2007, began declining after sustained naval presence, with international forces thwarting dozens of attempts by mid-2009. Complementing maritime disruption, OEF-HOA efforts to dismantle terrorist safe havens focused on enabling partner nations and Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) forces to clear ungoverned spaces where pirates and jihadists coexisted, through training, intelligence sharing, and precision strikes against high-value targets. This indirect approach reduced the permissive environment for both and affiliates by promoting regional stability and denying sanctuary in southern and coastal enclaves. By 2012, the combined pressure from naval interdictions, best practices for merchant vessels (e.g., armed guards), and onshore capacity-building led to a sharp drop in successful hijackings, with attacks falling below 100 annually and ransoms diminishing as a funding source for . These outcomes demonstrated the causal link between enforcement and broader denial of safe havens, though residual threats persisted due to 's weak governance.

Achievements and Strategic Outcomes

Degradation of Global Jihadist Networks

The U.S.-led coalition's military campaign in under Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), commencing on , , rapidly dismantled 's core operational base by destroying key infrastructure that supported global jihadist activities. This included the elimination of 11 terrorist training camps and 39 command-and-control sites, which had served as hubs for recruiting, indoctrinating, and equipping fighters destined for attacks worldwide. The swift overthrow of the regime, which had provided safe haven to , forced the network's leadership and operatives into dispersal, severing access to these facilities and disrupting command structures essential for coordinating transnational operations. By early 2002, 's Afghan sanctuary was effectively neutralized, compelling survivors to relocate to more precarious locations like Pakistan's tribal areas, where sustained coalition pressure via and further eroded their cohesion. OEF's targeted operations resulted in the killing or capture of hundreds of personnel in the initial phases, including mid- and senior-level commanders responsible for planning and logistics, which degraded the group's for executing sophisticated attacks. raids, such as those during in March 2002, inflicted significant casualties on entrenched fighters and eliminated key trainers, impairing al-Qaeda's ability to maintain expertise in areas like bomb-making and surveillance. These losses, compounded by global spurred by OEF, led to over 3,000 suspected terrorists detained worldwide by mid-2002, many linked to al-Qaeda's operations, thereby fracturing communication and financing pipelines that sustained the network's reach. Empirical assessments from U.S. analyses confirm that such disruptions reduced al-Qaeda's capacity to orchestrate centrally directed, high-impact strikes, as evidenced by the absence of successful 9/11-scale plots against the U.S. homeland in the subsequent decade. The degradation extended beyond Afghanistan through OEF's secondary theaters, where U.S. advisory and direct actions weakened jihadist affiliates integrated into 's global web. In the , operations from 2002 onward diminished the Group's kidnapping and bombing capabilities, capturing leaders like Khaddafy Janjalani in 2007 and reducing their operational tempo by over 70% through joint raids that severed ties to funding and training. Similarly, in the , naval interdictions and ground partnerships disrupted precursor networks to al-Shabaab, preventing the consolidation of safe havens that could export fighters and ideology. Overall, these efforts, per declassified evaluations, curtailed core's external operations branch, limiting its influence over franchises and contributing to a strategic contraction in the network's ability to project power globally. While affiliates adapted through , the loss of as a command nexus fundamentally impaired the jihadist ecosystem's resilience against sustained counterterrorism.

Prevention of Afghanistan as a Terrorist Sanctuary


Operation Enduring Freedom's core mission in Afghanistan centered on denying safe haven to al-Qaeda and affiliated groups by eliminating their operational bases and overthrowing the Taliban regime that provided protection. Launched on October 7, 2001, coalition airstrikes and ground operations swiftly targeted al-Qaeda infrastructure, destroying 11 terrorist training camps and 39 Taliban command-and-control sites within the first 100 days. This initial phase captured, killed, or dispersed key al-Qaeda personnel, severely disrupting their ability to plan and execute international attacks from Afghan territory.
By mid-December 2001, U.S.-backed forces, supported by teams and , ousted the from major population centers, including and , effectively ending their national control. Subsequent operations, such as Anaconda in March 2002, dislodged remaining and fighters from strongholds like the Shahi Kot Valley, preventing consolidation of rear-area sanctuaries. These efforts transitioned into broader stabilization, including the Afghan National to conduct independent patrols and secure borders against terrorist infiltration. Throughout OEF's duration until 2014, coalition forces maintained pressure through targeted raids, intelligence-driven strikes, and infrastructure denial, ensuring al-Qaeda's core could not regenerate a pre-9/11-scale network within Afghanistan. U.S. assessments highlighted that these measures made it increasingly difficult for terrorists to freely operate as a base, with no successful large-scale plots against the U.S. homeland originating from Afghan soil during this period. While domestic insurgency persisted, international export of terrorism from the country was curtailed, as evidenced by the degradation of al-Qaeda's global command structure and the absence of Afghanistan-based attacks comparable to 9/11. This prevention relied on sustained military presence rather than solely Afghan capabilities, which faced challenges in independent enforcement.

Successes in Non-Afghan Theaters

In (OEF-P), initiated in 2002, U.S. forces provided non-combat advisory support to Philippine security forces, resulting in substantial degradation of the Group (ASG) and associated (JI) networks. ASG fighter strength declined from over 1,200 at the outset to fewer than 500 by 2012, with the group reduced from 15 battalions in 2002 to 2 by 2006 and confined to remote camps thereafter. Enemy-initiated attacks decreased, public support for ASG eroded as evidenced by local polls showing majority satisfaction with Philippine forces, and the terrorist threat transitioned from a strategic to a manageable problem. Key achievements included the elimination or capture of high-value individuals: ASG commander Aldam Tilao ("") was killed on June 7, 2002, during a raid; , ASG leader, was killed during Operation Ultimatum from August 2006 to April 2007; ("") met the same fate in the same operation; and Rajah Solaiman Movement founder Ahmed Santos was arrested in October 2005. By 2013, 19 of 24 designated high-value targets, primarily ASG seniors, had been neutralized. U.S. training via exchanges enhanced 15 Philippine infantry battalions in small-unit tactics, marksmanship, and patrolling by mid-2002, while establishing the Philippine Joint Special Operations Group with light reaction companies and helicopter support; maritime interdiction capabilities also improved through U.S. assistance starting in 2005. JI's operational reach in the Philippines diminished due to severed external funding and logistics ties, compounded by actions. OEF-P concluded on February 24, 2015, with Philippine forces assuming full lead and no U.S. combat deaths recorded. In the under OEF–Horn of Africa (OEF-HOA), –Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA), established in 2002 and based at , , emphasized interdiction, intelligence sharing, and partner-nation capacity building to disrupt and precursor al-Shabaab networks. Operations focused on denying safe havens and transit routes for terrorists and pirates, with U.S. assets supporting regional forces in detecting threats and conducting over-the-horizon strikes, such as intelligence enabling the September 14, 2009, helicopter raid killing operative Saleh Ali Saleh in . CJTF-HOA's persistent presence facilitated rapid crisis response, trained thousands of African troops in tactics, and contributed to regional stability by reducing ungoverned spaces used for illicit financing and movement, though direct attribution of specific terrorist reductions remains tied primarily to and allied efforts rather than conventional metrics. These activities deterred potential attacks on U.S. interests and allies, with the task force's forward posture providing logistical and advisory benefits that outlasted OEF-HOA's formal end in 2015.

Costs, Casualties, and Resource Allocation

US and Coalition Military Losses

The United States suffered 1,790 total military deaths during Operation Enduring Freedom, with the majority occurring in Afghanistan between October 7, 2001, and December 31, 2014. Of these, approximately 1,663 were attributed to Army personnel, reflecting the service's primary ground combat role. Hostile actions accounted for the bulk, including killed in action and died of wounds, while non-hostile incidents such as accidents, illnesses, and suicides contributed the remainder. Additionally, over 20,000 U.S. service members were wounded in action, with Army personnel comprising the largest share. These figures exclude post-2014 operations under Operation Freedom's Sentinel and contractors, focusing solely on active OEF-designated losses. Coalition partners, operating primarily under the NATO-led (ISAF) within OEF-Afghanistan, recorded approximately 1,190-1,200 non-U.S. military fatalities from 2001 to 2014, bringing combined U.S. and allied deaths to around 3,000. Losses were concentrated in ground engagements with and forces, improvised explosive devices, and , with minimal casualties in secondary OEF theaters like the or due to their focus on advisory and counter-piracy roles. Wounded figures for non-U.S. forces exceeded 15,000, though comprehensive tallies vary by nation due to differing reporting standards.
CountryMilitary Deaths (2001-2014)
454
158
41
86 (estimated from ISAF reports)
59 (estimated from ISAF reports)
Other NATO/Partners (e.g., , , )~400 combined
These losses underscore the protracted insurgency's toll, with peak fatality rates in 2010-2012 during intensified offensives in Helmand and provinces. Official data from national defense ministries provide the most verifiable counts, though some allies underreport non-combat deaths to maintain .

Enemy Combatant and Civilian Casualties

Estimates of enemy combatant casualties during Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), primarily involving , , and affiliated in from 2001 to 2014, are inherently uncertain due to the lack of centralized reporting by forces and the ' own opacity on losses. The U.S. of ceased routine body-count announcements after the to avoid incentivizing inflated claims or issues, relying instead on operational assessments. Independent aggregations, drawing from media reports, intelligence, and local sources, place the number of opposition fighters killed in at approximately 52,893 over the full 2001-2021 conflict period, with the majority occurring during the intensive OEF combat phase through 2014 before the transition to advisory missions. This figure encompasses confirmed kills from airstrikes, ground engagements, and , though undercounting is likely given the dispersed nature of and incomplete battlefield recovery. Civilian casualties, often resulting from coalition airstrikes, ground operations, or crossfire in populated areas, totaled an estimated 46,319 direct deaths in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021, again with most during OEF's active years amid efforts to dismantle Taliban strongholds. Early phases saw lower numbers due to precision targeting of Taliban positions, but escalation in airstrike volume—such as during in 2002—led to incidents like the July 2002 wedding party bombing killing over 40 civilians. By 2006-2007, documented 116 civilian deaths from 13 OEF/ISAF airstrikes in 2006 alone, rising nearly threefold the following year amid intensified . Distinguishing combatants from civilians proved challenging in asymmetric warfare, where insurgents embedded in villages, contributing to debates over rules of engagement and collateral damage minimization.
CategoryEstimated Direct Deaths (Afghanistan, 2001-2021)
Opposition Fighters (, , etc.)52,893
Civilians46,319
These tallies, compiled by the Costs of War project from diverse sources including UNAMA and Terrorism Portal data, exclude indirect deaths from or but highlight the trade-offs in kinetic operations against embedded threats. -claimed figures often minimize their losses while exaggerating civilian tolls for , underscoring verification difficulties absent forensic oversight.

Economic and Logistical Expenditures

The United States Congress appropriated approximately $686 billion for Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) from its launch in October 2001 through fiscal year 2014, funding military operations primarily in Afghanistan alongside counterterrorism activities in regions such as the Horn of Africa and the Philippines. This figure, derived from Department of Defense (DoD) base budgets and Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) supplemental appropriations, encompassed direct warfighting expenses, with a substantial portion allocated to operational and maintenance (O&M) costs that included logistics, transportation, and sustainment of forces. Annual obligations fluctuated significantly, peaking at over $100 billion in fiscal years 2010-2012 amid troop surges, before declining post-2011 drawdown. Logistical expenditures were driven by Afghanistan's rugged terrain, landlocked status, and dependence on vulnerable transit routes, imposing high costs for delivery and operations. The primary supply corridor, the Pakistan Ground Lines of Communication (), facilitated the bulk of ground shipments but faced repeated insurgent disruptions, including over 200 attacks in 2011 alone that halted convoys for weeks and inflated insurance and security premiums. In response, the U.S. Transportation Command expanded the Northern Distribution Network (NDN) in , routing supplies via , , and other Central Asian states, which handled up to 40% of non-lethal cargo by 2011 but at 2-3 times the cost per ton-mile compared to southern routes due to extended distances and diplomatic transit agreements. Airlift operations, managed through programs like the , supplemented these efforts at premiums exceeding $300,000 per C-17 flight equivalent, with fuel alone accounting for billions in annual outlays as daily consumption reached 1.5 million gallons during peak deployments. Contractor support amplified logistical burdens, with firms like KBR and executing fuel distribution and base life support under Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) contracts valued at over $40 billion cumulatively for OEF through 2014. These arrangements, while enabling rapid scaling, drew scrutiny for inefficiencies, including overbilling and waste in fuel procurement, as audited by the Inspector General, contributing to an estimated 20-30% of total O&M funds being tied to . By OEF's transition in 2014, cumulative efforts had shipped back or destroyed over 1.7 million pieces of equipment, underscoring the scale of forward-deployed that strained U.S. strategic lift capacity and incurred fees in the hundreds of millions.

Controversies and Debates

Assessments of Military Effectiveness

The initial phase of Operation Enduring Freedom in showcased exceptional tactical effectiveness, with U.S.-led coalition forces, relying heavily on teams, air power, and Afghan proxies, toppling the regime and destroying much of al-Qaeda's training infrastructure in just 102 days following the commencement of airstrikes on October 7, 2001. Precision-guided munitions constituted about 70% of ordnance delivered, a sharp increase from 9% in Operation Desert Storm, enabling strikes against both fixed and mobile targets with enhanced accuracy even in adverse weather conditions. This technological edge, including the combat debut of armed Predator UAVs and GPS-guided JDAMs from B-1 and B-52 bombers, compressed decision cycles and boosted lethality, with hit rates on fixed targets rising 12% and mobile targets 21% compared to Operation Allied Force in . Networked joint operations further amplified these gains, integrating real-time surveillance, ground spotters, and rapid air support to dismantle command structures and deny operational bases, thereby fulfilling core immediate objectives of regime removal and terrorist expulsion. Major combat operations concluded by early December 2001, with minimal U.S. conventional ground troop commitments, underscoring the efficacy of light-footprint, technology-enabled warfare against a conventionally brittle adversary. Subsequent assessments of efforts reveal more qualified effectiveness, as and remnants, dispersed during actions like in March 2002, regrouped in Pakistani border sanctuaries beyond reach, evading full eradication despite inflicting heavy attrition. Tactical innovations persisted, but centralized target approval processes introduced delays, constraining adaptability against elusive insurgents, while incomplete battle damage assessments hampered iterative improvements. gaps among systems also impeded seamless operations, though overall, the campaign validated U.S. superiority in direct engagements, with limitations stemming more from geographic and political constraints than inherent combat deficiencies. In peripheral theaters, such as , military advisory support proved highly effective in degrading Group capabilities, reducing terrorist-initiated attacks through intelligence sharing and without large-scale U.S. kinetic involvement, demonstrating scalable success in hybrid threat environments. Similarly, maritime interdiction under disrupted al-Qaeda logistics and piracy networks, underscoring the operation's broader utility in denying global jihadist mobility. These outcomes affirm tactical proficiency across domains, though strategic persistence required sustained resourcing beyond pure purview.

Criticisms of Rules of Engagement and Constraints

Criticisms of the (ROE) during Operation Enduring Freedom focused on their increasing restrictiveness, particularly after General Stanley McChrystal's July 2009 tactical directive, which prioritized minimizing Afghan civilian casualties to bolster legitimacy. The directive limited the use of airstrikes and unless threats were positively identified, even in high-risk scenarios, requiring higher-level approvals and legal reviews that delayed responses. and analysts argued this shifted emphasis from to civilian safety, allowing fighters—who routinely embedded among noncombatants—to exploit the constraints by initiating ambushes without fear of immediate retaliation. Such rules, critics contended, undermined operational effectiveness in where distinguishing combatants from civilians was often impossible until after attacks began. A prominent example was the on September 8, 2009, in , where approximately 13 U.S. and Afghan forces faced over 150 fighters in a prolonged engagement. Repeated requests for and artillery were denied due to ROE prohibitions on firing into areas with potential civilian presence, despite enemy fire originating from populated zones; this resulted in five U.S. deaths, eight Afghan National Army fatalities, and the escape of many insurgents. recipient Capt. William Swenson later criticized the delays, stating his priority was "saving as many lives as I can, not necessarily one," highlighting how ROE interpretations prioritized hypothetical civilian risks over imminent threats to troops. U.S. soldiers expressed widespread frustration, describing the as leaving them "fighting with our hands tied behind our back" and fostering hesitation due to fears of Article 15 punishments or courts-martial for perceived violations. Specialist Ross Chambon noted that the rules compelled overly conciliatory behavior toward locals, compromising force security, while Justin Cervenik warned that "if you hesitate, you’ll die." Analysts like retired Lt. Gen. echoed these sentiments, asserting that troops were "handcuffed in combat needlessly," as the faced no reciprocal constraints. Data from the period showed a between these ROE changes and elevated U.S. casualties, with deaths rising from 166 in 2008 to 499 in —a more than doubling attributed by some experts, including former CIA asset Wayne Simmons, to the "radical ROE changes" that inhibited proactive engagements amid the troop . While proponents argued the restrictions enhanced long-term Afghan support, detractors maintained they prolonged the conflict by ceding initiative to insurgents, a view partially validated by subsequent ROE relaxations in 2017 under Defense Secretary , which expanded authority for airstrikes and correlated with reported tactical gains.

Debates Over Nation-Building Mission Creep

The initial phase of Operation Enduring Freedom, launched on October 7, 2001, emphasized dismantling al-Qaeda's network and ousting the Taliban regime to deny terrorists a safe haven, with U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld advocating a light-footprint approach focused on counterterrorism rather than extensive occupation. By 2003, however, the mission expanded under NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), incorporating Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) that blended military operations with civilian development projects aimed at building Afghan governance, infrastructure, and security institutions—a shift critics labeled as mission creep into nation-building. This evolution intensified after the 2006 NATO assumption of command and the 2009 U.S. troop surge under President Obama, which adopted counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine prioritizing population protection and state stabilization over purely kinetic strikes. Critics contended that this expansion diverted resources from core objectives, fostering overstretch and strategic impatience amid incompatible cultural and tribal dynamics in , where centralized Western-style governance clashed with local power structures. For instance, the infusion of over $130 billion in aid by 2021 fueled corruption, in the Afghan National Army, and dependency rather than self-sufficiency, as documented in Special Inspector General for Afghanistan (SIGAR) audits revealing systemic waste and fraud. analysts argued that PRTs and efforts entangled coalition forces in protracted stability operations, increasing U.S. casualties—peaking at 499 in —without proportionally degrading capabilities, as insurgents adapted by retreating to Pakistan-based sanctuaries. Proponents of the expansion, including some State Department officials, maintained it was essential to prevent from reverting to a terrorist haven, asserting that isolated would fail against an requiring holistic ; yet empirical outcomes, such as the Afghan government's collapse in August 2021 after 20 years and $2.3 trillion in total U.S. expenditures, underscored the limits of externally imposed institutions. The debate highlighted tensions between short-term tactical successes—like the initial rout—and long-term strategic failures, with SIGAR reports attributing the ' rapid disintegration to over-reliance on foreign aid, inadequate decentralization, and unaddressed elite corruption rather than insufficient alone. Congressional testimonies and analyses further critiqued the lack of public mandate for pivoting to , noting how metrics manipulation—such as inflated Afghan force readiness reports—obscured creeping objectives and eroded domestic support. While some defended as inherent to post-Bonn commitments from December 2001, causal assessments emphasized that tribal patronage networks and Pakistan's support for insurgents rendered sustainable governance improbable without indefinite Western presence, ultimately validating concerns over mission dilution.

Political and Media Misrepresentations

U.S. political leaders across administrations systematically overstated progress in during Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), presenting an image of steady advancement in and governance that internal assessments contradicted. Analysis of over 2,400 interviews conducted by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) revealed that senior officials, including generals and ambassadors, privately expressed skepticism about the war's viability as early as 2002, citing resilience, , and unrealistic goals, yet publicly affirmed metrics of success to sustain support. For instance, despite evidence of sanctuaries in enabling resurgence by 2006, Bush administration reports emphasized dismantled networks without addressing persistent threats, while Obama-era officials in 2014 declared the "tide of war receding" amid drawdowns, downplaying ongoing insurgent capabilities tied to core remnants. Media coverage amplified distortions by disproportionately emphasizing setbacks and casualties over achievements, fostering a narrative of quagmire that undervalued OEF's disruption of terrorist infrastructure. A study of U.S. news outlets from to found that as American fatalities surged—particularly after the troop surge—story volume increased while tone shifted negatively, correlating casualty spikes with more critical framing of strategy and outcomes, even as operations like the killing demonstrated tactical efficacy in degrading leadership. This , evident in mainstream reporting from outlets like and , often prioritized anecdotal failures in over empirical gains, such as the Taliban's expulsion from urban centers by 2002 and a 90% reduction in operational capacity by 2010 per intelligence estimates, potentially reflecting institutional skepticism toward . Retrospective political and media narratives have further misrepresented OEF by conflating successes with later shortfalls, propagating myths of inherent unwinnability that ignore causal factors like strategic shifts and Pakistani support for insurgents. Critics, including some policymakers, claimed early light-footprint operations doomed the effort, yet evidence shows initial phases achieved rapid ouster and prevented from serving as a launchpad for large-scale attacks on the U.S. homeland for over a , a outcome attributable to sustained pressure rather than inevitability. Such distortions, echoed in post-2014 analyses, overlook how OEF's focus on denying terrorist yielded measurable benefits until policy decisions prioritized withdrawal timelines over enduring , with media outlets rarely qualifying failure claims against these baselines.

Transition and Legacy

End of OEF and Shift to Freedom's Sentinel (2014)

On December 28, 2014, the concluded the combat phase of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in , as announced by President , who declared that U.S. and coalition forces had degraded 's operational capabilities and disrupted terrorist networks originating from the region. Defense Secretary reinforced this in a concurrent statement, highlighting the transition from large-scale combat operations to a support role for Afghan forces amid ongoing security challenges. This endpoint followed over 13 years of OEF, initiated on October 7, 2001, to dismantle and remove the from power. The shift to Operation Freedom's Sentinel (OFS) took effect on January 1, 2015, reorienting U.S. military efforts toward two core objectives: training, advising, and assisting (ANSF) to assume primary responsibility for internal security, and executing targeted counterterrorism missions against remnants and affiliated groups. OFS paralleled NATO's , launched in January 2015, which focused exclusively on non-combat capacity-building for Afghan institutions without direct fighting roles for alliance troops. U.S. troop commitments under OFS initially sustained around 9,800 personnel, a drawdown from the 2014 peak of approximately 38,000, enabling focused advisory embeds with ANSF units while retaining authority for precision strikes. This operational pivot aimed to foster Afghan self-reliance, though it presupposed ANSF competence amid persistent resurgence and governance weaknesses, with U.S. forces retaining the capacity to respond to threats against American interests. The change signified a doctrinal move from dominance to limited partnership, informed by assessments of OEF's achievements in disrupting terrorist safe havens but acknowledging incomplete stabilization.

Long-Term Counter-Terrorism Implications

Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) significantly disrupted 's central infrastructure in , destroying training camps and command sites, which degraded its capacity for coordinated global attacks. By toppling the regime that harbored al-Qaeda within 102 days of the operation's launch on , 2001, OEF denied terrorists a key safe haven, contributing to the absence of large-scale, foreign-directed attacks on the U.S. homeland since September 11, 2001. This outcome aligned with empirical trends from the , which records no comparable spectacular strikes on U.S. soil post-2001, though global incidents rose due to factors including regional instabilities beyond . However, al-Qaeda adapted by decentralizing into regional affiliates, such as and , which sustained low-level threats while the core group evaded decisive elimination until Osama bin Laden's death in 2011. The Taliban's dispersal rather than destruction allowed its regrouping in Pakistan's border regions, fueling a persistent that eroded initial gains and highlighted the limits of initial light-footprint tactics without sustained denial of cross-border sanctuaries. By 2021, the Taliban's resurgence enabled its return to power, restoring partial operational space for al-Qaeda remnants, as evidenced by U.N. reports on their continued presence. OEF pioneered counter-terrorism innovations, including integrated forces, unmanned aerial vehicles for persistent , and precision-guided munitions—used in nearly 70% of strikes—which informed subsequent strategies emphasizing targeted killings over . These approaches reduced reliance on large-scale occupations, influencing post-2014 shifts to "small-footprint" operations globally, such as drone campaigns in and , and underscored the causal importance of rapid sanctuary denial while exposing risks of into . Centralized targeting approvals, however, delayed responses and permitted enemy escapes, prompting doctrinal refinements for decentralized command in future operations. Overall, OEF demonstrated that military disruption can suppress core terrorist capabilities but requires complementary and partner-capacity efforts to prevent adaptation and resurgence.

Lessons for Future Operations

The initial success of Operation Enduring Freedom in rapidly toppling the regime by December 2001 demonstrated the efficacy of a light-footprint employing forces, precision airstrikes, and local proxies to disrupt terrorist sanctuaries, achieving major combat objectives with minimal U.S. ground troop commitment of approximately 350 personnel in the opening phase. This approach underscored the strategic value of aligning force structure with narrowly defined goals, avoiding the resource drain of large-scale occupations that historical precedents in —such as British and Soviet campaigns—had shown to be unsustainable against entrenched local resistance leveraging terrain advantages. Subsequent expansion into and operations revealed the risks of , where initial military victories eroded amid efforts to impose centralized governance on a fragmented, tribal society, ultimately contributing to the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces' rapid collapse in August 2021 due to on foreign sustainment rather than . Doctrinal adaptations, including the U.S. Army's 2006 manual emphasizing protection of civilian populations and intelligence-driven operations, improved tactical effectiveness but highlighted persistent challenges in generating reliable in culturally alien environments and sustaining political will over two decades. Operationally, restrictive prioritized avoidance but often constrained kinetic responses, elevating risks to coalition forces in asymmetric fights; congressional reviews post-2001 identified needs for balanced engagement protocols that preserve operational tempo without alienating locals. Logistically, the campaign's reliance on for 90% of early sustainment in austere conditions exposed vulnerabilities to weather and enemy interdiction, prompting advancements in agile combat support systems like theater , which future operations should integrate from planning stages to mitigate disruptions. For multinational efforts, Afghanistan's of over 50 nations exposed frictions from differing national caveats and command structures, emphasizing the imperative for preemptive training and shared lesson repositories to harness diverse capabilities without diluting unity of effort. Overall, OEF illustrates that enduring demands rigorous of local socio-political realities against imposed models, prioritizing measurable benchmarks for over indefinite commitments, as unchecked optimism in transformative outcomes repeatedly undermined strategic .

Recognition and Decorations

US Military Awards Conferred

The , the highest U.S. military decoration for valor, was conferred on multiple service members for actions during Operation Enduring Freedom in , recognizing acts of gallantry at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty. Recipients included Lieutenant , who exposed himself to enemy fire to call for rescue on June 28, 2005, in the Hindu Kush mountains, resulting in his death but saving his team. Sergeant received the award for repeatedly driving into enemy-held terrain under heavy fire on September 8, 2009, in to evacuate trapped Afghan and U.S. forces, killing over 20 insurgents. Clinton L. Romesha was honored for leading a counterattack against a assault on October 3, 2009, at , despite being wounded, to repel the enemy and recover fallen comrades. Other recipients for OEF actions included Chief Edward C. Byers Jr. for a daring hostage rescue in 2012 and Earl D. Plumlee for single-handedly engaging ISIS-K attackers at on August 6, 2021, though the latter occurred post-OEF transition. The Distinguished Service Cross, the Army's second-highest valor award, was conferred on personnel for extraordinary heroism in combat during OEF, often involving leadership under intense enemy fire. Notable examples include awards to soldiers for operations in remote provinces, where recipients like Leigh M. Tubbs directed fire and evacuated casualties amid ambushes. Such decorations highlighted individual initiative in denying sanctuaries, with citations emphasizing sustained combat against numerically superior forces. Equivalent service crosses for other branches included the to Marine and Navy personnel, such as for actions in where recipients assaulted fortified positions to disrupt insurgent networks. The Air Force Cross was awarded sparingly, recognizing aircrew valor in missions critical to ground operations. Lower-tier valor awards, including the Silver Star, were conferred in significant numbers to acknowledge bravery in firefights, medical evacuations, and defensive stands across OEF theaters. For instance, Army lists detail over 100 Silver Stars for Afghan engagements, often for suppressing enemy machine guns or shielding wounded comrades. Bronze Stars with "V" device and Purple Hearts were also widely issued for meritorious combat service and wounds, respectively, though exact tallies vary by branch records. Campaign medals provided recognition for operational service: the for 30 consecutive days or direct OEF support in designated areas from October 7, 2001, onward, and the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal for combat against terrorism in and surrounding regions. These were authorized by and policy to denote participation without requiring individual valor.

Honors for Coalition Partners

The (NZSAS) Regiment received the Presidential Unit Citation, the highest unit award bestowed by the U.S. President, on December 7, 2004, for extraordinary heroism and outstanding performance against enemy forces in . This recognition covered the unit's initial deployment starting in December 2001 as part of the Combined Joint Task Force- (CJSOTF-A), where NZSAS personnel conducted raids, , and targeting operations integral to early OEF objectives. Eligible members were authorized to wear the corresponding U.S. Navy Presidential Unit Citation on their uniforms, reflecting with U.S. forces. Individual coalition personnel also received U.S. decorations for valor or meritorious service during OEF. For instance, nine soldiers were awarded the U.S. in September 2015 for their response to a green-on-blue attack in , demonstrating rapid neutralization of threats and protection of allied forces. Similarly, a Royal Marine operations officer earned a from the U.S. Marine Corps in June 2020 for instrumental leadership in joint operations, underscoring tactical contributions amid sustained combat. Such awards, while selective, highlight U.S. acknowledgment of partners' effectiveness in high-risk environments, though foreign recipients required home government approval for acceptance and wear. Beyond U.S. honors, partner nations conferred their own campaign medals and gallantry awards to troops deployed under OEF, with eligibility tied to specific rotations and operational theaters.

References

  1. [1]
    Operation Enduring Freedom - Naval History and Heritage Command
    Apr 22, 2024 · Operation Enduring Freedom officially began 7 October 2001 with American and British bombing strikes against al-Qaeda and Taliban forces in Afghanistan.
  2. [2]
    Operation Enduring Freedom One Year of Accomplishments
    The CIA suffered one killed in action in Afghanistan. Coalition Support. Operation Enduring Freedom. Twenty-seven nations have deployed more than 14,000 troops ...Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline
  3. [3]
    Operation Enduring Freedom: An Assessment - RAND
    Dec 12, 2005 · The attacks of September 11, 2001, thrust the United States into a no-notice war against Osama bin Laden, his al Qaeda terrorist network, and ...
  4. [4]
    Statement by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel on Operation ...
    Dec 28, 2014 · In Operation Freedom's Sentinel, the United States will pursue two missions with the support of the Afghan government and the Afghan people. We ...
  5. [5]
    Overseas Contingency Operations (OEF, OIF, OND, OIR & OFS ...
    Operation ENDURING FREEDOM began on October 7, 2001, when the United States launched military operations in Afghanistan, including airstrikes against Kabul ...
  6. [6]
    The 9/11 Terrorist Attacks - Naval History and Heritage Command
    Sep 7, 2023 · On the morning of 11 September 2001, 19 terrorists from the Islamist extreme group al Qaeda hijacked four commercial aircraft and crashed two of them into the ...
  7. [7]
    Historical Office > DOD History > Pentagon > 9/11 Attack
    As no other event in U.S. history, not even Pearl Harbor, the deadly assaults on New York and Washington that took the lives of almost 3,000 people on 11 ...
  8. [8]
    9/11 Investigation - FBI
    Our investigation of the attacks of 9/11—code-named “PENTTBOM,” short for Pennsylvania, Pentagon, and Twin Towers Bombing—was our largest ...
  9. [9]
    President Declares "Freedom at War with Fear"
    The leadership of al Qaeda has great influence in Afghanistan and supports the Taliban regime in controlling most of that country. In Afghanistan, we see al ...
  10. [10]
    Conflicts After The 9/11 Terrorist Attacks: Timeline
    US President George W Bush demands that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden and expel Al Qaeda from Afghanistan. When they refuse, Bush declares a 'War on ...
  11. [11]
    Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over - The Guardian
    Oct 14, 2001 · President George Bush rejected as non-negotiable an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in ...
  12. [12]
    Global War on Terror | George W. Bush Library
    The Global War on Terror is an international, American-led military campaign launched following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.Missing: achievements | Show results with:achievements
  13. [13]
    Roll Call Vote 107 th Congress - 1 st Session - Senate.gov
    Vote Number: 281. Vote Date: September 14, 2001, 10:44 AM. Required For Majority: 1/2. Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed. Measure Number ...Vote Summary · By Senator Name · By Vote Position
  14. [14]
    [XML] https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll342.xml
    > <!DOCTYPE rollcall-vote PUBLIC "-//US Congress//DTDs/vote v1.0 20031119 ... totals> <totals-by-party-header> <party-header>Party</party-header> <yea ...Missing: tally | Show results with:tally
  15. [15]
    President Signs Authorization for Use of Military Force bill
    Sep 18, 2001 · In signing this resolution, I maintain the longstanding position of the executive branch regarding the President's constitutional authority ...
  16. [16]
    Authorization for Use of Military Force 107th Congress (2001-2002)
    Authorizes the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, ...
  17. [17]
    [PDF] Public Law 107–40 107th Congress Joint Resolution
    To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. Whereas, on September 11 ...
  18. [18]
    Presidential Address to the Nation
    Oct 7, 2001 · The United States military has begun strikes against al Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
  19. [19]
    [PDF] A Different Kind of War - Army University Press
    ... Operation ENDURING FREEDOM. (OEF). The work focuses on Army operations in the larger Joint and Coalition campaign that evolved between October 2001 and ...
  20. [20]
    [PDF] Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan - RAND
    May 20, 2006 · 25 U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Operation Enduring Freedom, pp. 22–23. 26 Biddle, Afghanistan and the Future of Warfare; Anthony ...
  21. [21]
    None
    ### Summary of Operation Enduring Freedom X (OEF X), CJTF-82, and COIN Doctrine Implications (2009-2010)
  22. [22]
    [PDF] Operation Enduring Freedom, September 2001-March 2002 - GovInfo
    Names: Folse, Mark R., author. | Center of Military History, issuing body. Title: Operation Enduring Freedom : September 2001-March 2002 / Mark R.Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline
  23. [23]
    Timeline: The U.S. War in Afghanistan - Council on Foreign Relations
    The U.S. military, with British support, begins a bombing campaign against Taliban forces, officially launching Operation Enduring Freedom. Australia ...
  24. [24]
    [PDF] LESSONS ENCOUNTERED - GovInfo
    United States—. Military policy—History—21st century. 3. Afghan War, 2001- 4. Iraq War, 2003-. 2011. 5. United States—Armed Forces—Operations other than war ...<|separator|>
  25. [25]
    [PDF] Operation Enduring Freedom, March 2002-April 2005
    It recounts the story of the quest to build a new, democratic Afghan government capable of maintaining internal security and tending to the needs of the Afghan ...
  26. [26]
    ISAF's mission in Afghanistan (2001-2014) - NATO
    May 30, 2022 · NATO took the lead of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan on 11 August 2003. Mandated by the United Nations, ...
  27. [27]
    [PDF] Operation ENDURING FREEDOM, May 2005-January 2009
    The United States Army, which was trained and equipped primarily for conventional combat, had to reorient its forces and its thinking for a complex, irregular ...Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline
  28. [28]
    After 13 years, Operation Enduring Freedom concludes in Afghanistan
    After 13 years of combat operations, Operation Enduring Freedom drew to a close today in a ceremony at the International Security and Assistance Force ...Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline
  29. [29]
    The Canadian Armed Forces Legacy in Afghanistan - Canada.ca
    Dec 13, 2018 · The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) conducted operations in Afghanistan for more than 12 years in a number of different roles involving air, land and sea assets.
  30. [30]
    Tommy Franks > U.S. Central Command > Bio Article View - centcom
    Tommy Franks. Gen. Tommy Franks was born in Wynnewood, Oklahoma, and grew ... Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq.
  31. [31]
    The General Who Heads Enduring Freedom - ABC News
    Oct 29, 2001 · Franks took over USCENTCOM, one of nine unified commands in the Department of Defense, four months before the attack on the USS Cole in October ...
  32. [32]
    U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) Component Commands
    CENTCOM operates with component commands: ARCENT, NAVCENT, AFCENT, MARCENT, SOCCENT, and SPACECENT, one for each U.S. armed service.
  33. [33]
    International Contributions to the War Against Terrorism and ...
    Some nations have helped openly; others prefer not to disclose their contributions. In Afghanistan alone, our coalition partners are contributing nearly 6,000 ...
  34. [34]
    International Contributions to the War Against Terrorism - state.gov
    Jun 14, 2002 · In Afghanistan alone, our coalition partners ... Granted overflight rights to all NATO aircraft in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.
  35. [35]
    Mission and Structure - About U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM)
    USCENTCOM soon launched Operation Enduring Freedom to expel the Taliban government in Afghanistan, which was harboring Al Qaida terrorists, hosting ...Posture Statement · CENTCOM History · Leadership · Command Priorities
  36. [36]
    None
    Below is a merged summary of the U.S. Navy contributions and key events in Operation Enduring Freedom (Oct-Dec 2001), combining all provided segments into a single, comprehensive response. To retain all details efficiently, I’ve organized the information into sections with tables where appropriate for clarity and density. The response includes all airstrike, ground support, and Taliban collapse details, along with useful URLs.
  37. [37]
    2001 - Operation Enduring Freedom > Air Force Historical Support ...
    On October 7, 2001, Operation ENDURING FREEDOM began with coalition aircraft, including USAF B-1 and B-52 bombers, performing night strikes against 31 targets.Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline
  38. [38]
    [PDF] the “new american way of war” and transitioning decisive combat to ...
    One may assume their view is that the same amount of ground forces needed for success during decisive operations, can be used for the post conflict.Missing: phases | Show results with:phases
  39. [39]
    The Rise of Afghanistan's Insurgency: State Failure and Jihad
    In 2002 Afghanistan began to experience a violent insurgency as the Taliban and other groups conducted a sustained effort to overthrow the Afghan government.Missing: resurgence 2002-2006
  40. [40]
    Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan - how they ... - NATO
    Jul 1, 2007 · 'Provincial Reconstruction Teams' are small teams of military and civilian personnel working in Afghanistan's provinces to provide security for aid works.
  41. [41]
    The U.S. Experience with Provincial Reconstruction Teams in ...
    This report focuses on lessons learned by Americans working in U.S. PRTs. It highlights areas where U.S. capacity and methods of operation required adjustment, ...
  42. [42]
    [PDF] SIGAR 16-58-LL Corruption in Conflict: Lessons from the U.S. ...
    Experience in Afghanistan is the first in a series of lessons learned reports planned to be issued by the Special. Inspector General for Afghanistan ...
  43. [43]
    [PDF] Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF): Training and Development
    Dec 5, 2012 · Training is ongoing to increase the number of those officers to 850. ANSF are also to focus on strengthening leadership; ensuring that soldiers ...
  44. [44]
    [PDF] The Afghan surge : January 2009-August 2011
    MORTIMER JR. Page 2. Front cover: 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team,. 4th Infantry Division (U.S. Army) ...
  45. [45]
    Was Obama's 2009 Afghanistan Surge Based on Sound Strategy?
    In this article, John K. Warden analyzes the strategic rationale behind President Barack Obama's decision to surge 30000 additional troops to Afghanistan in ...
  46. [46]
    [PDF] Reconstructing the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces
    Sep 23, 2017 · The report examines how the U.S. government—primarily the. Departments of Defense, State, and Justice—developed and executed security sector ...
  47. [47]
    Did Military Misstep Let Bin Laden Escape? - Brookings Institution
    The US decision to rely on Afghan militias and Pakistani troops, rather than American forces, to seal off escape routes from those mountains permit bin Laden ...
  48. [48]
    [PDF] Tora Bora Reconsidered - NDU Press
    Pakistan, in May 2011, the seminal event in the 13-year hunt for Osama bin Laden was the operation to capture or kill the. Saudi terrorist at Tora Bora in ...<|separator|>
  49. [49]
    Operation Anaconda, Shah-i-Khot Valley, Afghanistan, 2-10 March ...
    As of 2 March 2002, Operation Anaconda was the largest combat operation in Afghanistan of the War on Terrorism that began after the attack on the World ...
  50. [50]
    [PDF] Operation Anaconda - NDU Press
    The U.S. battle plan for Anaconda employed forces, tactics, and procedures that reflected earlier successful experiences in Afghanistan. The early stages of the ...
  51. [51]
    OEF - Operation Mountain Viper - GlobalSecurity.org
    May 7, 2011 · Operation Mountain Viper took place around the mountain town of Daichopan in the southeastern province of Zabul.
  52. [52]
    Up to 100 Afghan Militants Killed in Operation 'Mountain Viper' - VOA
    Oct 29, 2009 · The US military says a joint operation with Afghan troops has so far killed up to 100 militants allegedly supporting Afghanistan's former Taleban regime.
  53. [53]
    The Global War on Terrorism: The First 100 Days - state.gov
    Homeland Security. President Bush has taken steps to help protect America against further terrorist attacks, providing $20 billion for homeland security; ...
  54. [54]
    [PDF] Secret Weapon: High-value Target Teams as an Organizational ...
    worked to unravel Taliban and al Qaeda networks. In keeping with the SOF practice of intel- ligence operations fusion,34 the interagency analysis team was ...
  55. [55]
    Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force-Afghanistan A Short ...
    4 Iraq reduced U.S. military interest thereafter. This article covers the creation of the CJSOTF-A in early 2002, general operations for 13 years, and its ...
  56. [56]
    First to go: Green Berets remember earliest mission in Afghanistan
    Feb 8, 2017 · Gamble served on one of the first Special Forces teams to go into Afghanistan after 9-11. The mission was to destroy the Taliban r
  57. [57]
    Sentinels of Afghan Democracy: The Afghan National Army | Article
    Since the launch of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in 2001 and the subsequent fall of the Taliban, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan has made great ...
  58. [58]
    Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) - National Counterterrorism Center | Groups
    ... full range of issues pertaining to international terrorism: terrorist groups, wanted terrorists, and technical pages on various threat-related topics.
  59. [59]
    Abu Sayyaf: Target of Philippine-U.S. Anti-Terrorism Cooperation
    Two large resistance groups, a Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and a Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) fought the Philippine government into the 1990s ...
  60. [60]
    #419: 07-23-02 FIVE LEADERS OF THE ABU SAYYAF GROUP ...
    Jul 23, 2002 · ... activities against Americans and others in the Philippines. ... The indictment alleges that the Abu Sayyaf Group repeatedly made known its threats ...
  61. [61]
    JEMAAH ISLAMIYAH | Security Council - UN.org.
    217), Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) evolved from the long-established Indonesian militant movement, Darul Islam, into an organization with links to Al-Qaida (QDe.004) ...
  62. [62]
    Terrorism in Southeast Asia - Naval History and Heritage Command
    To combat the threat, the Bush Administration has pressed countries in the region to arrest suspected terrorist individuals and organizations, deployed over ...
  63. [63]
    [PDF] An In-depth Look at the Jemaah Islamiyah Network
    JI envisions the founding of an Islamic state, Daulah Islamiyah. Nusantara, which would include. Malaysia, Indonesia, southern Thailand, the southern ...
  64. [64]
    [PDF] U.S. Special Operations Forces in the Philippines, 2001-2014 - RAND
    Jul 11, 2011 · Some Philippine and U.S. officials also expressed concern that the withdrawal could lead to a resurgence of a renewed terrorist threat, pos-.
  65. [65]
    [PDF] Success in the Shadows: Operation Enduring Freedom–Philippines ...
    When American Special Forces Soldiers returned to the Phil- ippines in 2002 as part of the larger Global War on Terror, they were confronted by a Philippine ...
  66. [66]
    Jemaah Islamiyah (a.k.a. Jemaah Islamiah)
    A profile of the Southeast Asian terror group Jemaah Islamiyah, the group allegedly responsible for the 2002 Bali bombings.
  67. [67]
    U.S. Special Operations Forces in the Philippines, 2001–2014 - RAND
    Philippines contributed to the successful degradation of transnational terrorist threats ...
  68. [68]
    U.S. Security Assistance to the Philippines
    The bulk of this money has been used to promote defense reform and underwrite the logistics for ongoing counter-terrorism efforts in the southern Philippines ...Missing: 2002-2014 | Show results with:2002-2014
  69. [69]
    CTF 150: Maritime Security
    CTF 150 conducts Maritime Security Operations (MSO) outside the Arabian Gulf to ensure that legitimate commercial shipping can transit the region, free from ...Missing: HOA | Show results with:HOA
  70. [70]
    Combined Maritime Forces' Combined Task Force 150 - UNTERM
    A multinational task force established by the Combined Maritime Forces (CMF) tasked with maritime security and counter-terrorism over two million square miles ...Missing: operations 2002-2014<|control11|><|separator|>
  71. [71]
    [PDF] U.S. Navy in Operation Enduring Freedom, 2001-2002
    Oct 16, 2025 · protracted “global war on terrorism” that encompassed offensive and counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan and Iraq for more than a decade.
  72. [72]
    [PDF] The Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa - DTIC
    Mar 28, 2008 · The CJTF-HOA mission is to conduct unified actions in the combined joint operations area of the Horn of. Africa to prevent conflict, promote ...
  73. [73]
    Canada assumes command of Combined Task Force 150
    Dec 14, 2016 · The activities of CTF-150 directly influence events ashore, denying international terrorists the use of the seas as a venue for attack or to ...Missing: 2002-2014 | Show results with:2002-2014
  74. [74]
    Combined Joint Task Force – Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA)
    CJTF-HOA is the US Africa Command organization that conducts operations in the region to enhance partner nation capacity, promote regional security and ...
  75. [75]
    [PDF] Combined Joint Task Force- Horn of Africa From Crisis ... - Army.mil
    Jan 19, 2023 · CJTF-HOA provided planning; logistics; and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support to multinational counterpiracy operations ...
  76. [76]
    Countering Terrorism in East Africa: The U.S. Response
    Nov 3, 2010 · The United States government has implemented a range of programs to counter violent extremist threats in East Africa in response to Al ...Missing: precursors | Show results with:precursors
  77. [77]
    [PDF] The Rise and Fall of Mogadishu's Islamic Courts - Chatham House
    Apr 2, 2007 · Eritrea,10 as well as the global 'war on terror', had a role to play.11. The US government is convinced that non-Somali terror suspects were ...
  78. [78]
    United States Actions To Counter Piracy Off the Horn of Africa
    Sep 1, 2009 · Actions By Naval Forces: The U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard have contributed ships and aircraft to NATO's counter piracy operations and Combined ...
  79. [79]
    Anti-Piracy Efforts Along Africa Coast Show Some Success
    May 12, 2009 · Efforts to blunt maritime piracy off the coast of Somalia in the Gulf of Aden are beginning to show some success, but there is an ...Missing: OEF- HOA
  80. [80]
    The United States Response to Piracy off the Coast of Somalia
    The U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard support and contribute to the Combined Maritime Force's Task Force 151 to undertake counter-piracy operations in the region.
  81. [81]
    [PDF] The United States in the Horn of Africa: The Role of the Military
    3 Moreover, the DOS has backed African and. Somali partners to defeat al-Shabaab and reconstitute a state in Somalia, an action that would put an end to a ...
  82. [82]
    The U.S. Government's Approach to Countering Somali Piracy
    Oct 25, 2012 · Critical to the decline in piracy has been the deployment of naval forces. ... International naval forces have thwarted pirate attacks in ...
  83. [83]
    [PDF] Somalia - Hidden Threat to our Homeland - DTIC
    Jun 15, 2012 · In the interest of our homeland security, Somalia cannot continue to serve as a safe haven for terrorists. This thesis will identify the issue ...
  84. [84]
    - OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM - GovInfo
    We work to support Afghan forces as required, and we continue to conduct and support civil military operations in an advisory capacity in the country of ...
  85. [85]
    Anaconda Over, but Operations Continue in Afghanistan - DVIDS
    Mar 7, 2025 · ... Operation Anaconda is over, but Operation Enduring Freedom continues. ... "We have debilitated and degraded to a certain extent the al Qaeda ...
  86. [86]
    The Evolution of Terrorism Since 9/11 | FBI - LEB
    Sep 1, 2011 · ... Operation Enduring Freedom in October 2001 have degraded al Qaeda's abilities, resulting in the loss of key leaders and trainers and making ...
  87. [87]
    Were Drone Strikes Effective? Evaluating the Drone Campaign in ...
    Jan 11, 2022 · ... operations branch, which began to degrade in quality by 2008. ... 206 Several assessments indeed describe the continued degradation of al-Qaeda's ...
  88. [88]
    Al Qaeda and Affiliates - National Security Archive
    ... operations appear to have degraded the core's capacity for conducting large catastrophic operations similar to the attacks of September 11 2001 During the ...
  89. [89]
    GAO-03-165, Combating Terrorism: Interagency Framework and ...
    * Make it increasingly difficult for the terrorists to use Afghanistan freely as a base of operations. ... U.S. government response to a terrorist incident ...<|separator|>
  90. [90]
    Two Years Under the Taliban: Is Afghanistan a Terrorist Safe Haven ...
    Aug 15, 2023 · Two years into Taliban rule, the question of whether Afghanistan would once again become a safe haven for international terrorism remains alive.
  91. [91]
    DOD Needs to Determine the Future of Its Horn of Africa Task Force
    ... on Terrorism. While AFRICOM is also supported by military service component commands (Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force) and a theater special operations ...
  92. [92]
    Operation Enduring Freedom - Defense Casualty Analysis System
    U.S. Military Casualties - Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Casualty Summary by Casualty Category ; Killed in Action, 999, 78 ; Died of Wounds, 329, 6 ; Died of ...
  93. [93]
    Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Military Deaths
    U.S. Military Casualties - Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Military Deaths ; TOTAL, 1,663, 127, 460, 100 ...
  94. [94]
    War in Afghanistan | National Army Museum
    Britain's latest war in Afghanistan began in the wake of '9/11' - the terrorist attacks on the United States that took place on 11 September 2001.
  95. [95]
    Afghanistan statistics: UK deaths, casualties, mission costs and ...
    Dec 9, 2024 · Over the 20 years that British troops were deployed in Afghanistan, there were 457 deaths of UK armed forces personnel. The number of fatalities ...
  96. [96]
    Operations in Afghanistan - GOV.UK
    UK forces were deployed to Afghanistan in support of the UN-authorised, NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission and as part of the ...
  97. [97]
    National Monument to Canada's Mission in Afghanistan
    May 30, 2025 · While in Afghanistan, 158 Canadian Armed Forces members, a diplomat, four aid workers, a government contractor and a journalist lost their lives ...Missing: OEF | Show results with:OEF
  98. [98]
    Vale | Australian Army
    In memory of the 41 Australian soldiers who died during operations in Afghanistan.
  99. [99]
    [PDF] Afghanistan statistics: UK deaths, casualties, mission costs and ...
    Dec 9, 2024 · In October 2001, US, UK, and other coalition forces began conducting military operations in Afghanistan in response to the terrorist attacks on ...
  100. [100]
    [PDF] Direct War Deaths in Major War Zones, Afghanistan & Pakistan (Oct ...
    Sep 1, 2021 · ... afghanistan-security-casualties-taliban.html. In December 2017, the DOD reported that the “number of. ANDSF casualties suffered while ...Missing: leaders | Show results with:leaders
  101. [101]
    Airstrikes and Civlian Deaths in Afghanistan: Map of Afghanistan
    As a result of OEF and ISAF airstrikes in 2006, 116 Afghan civilians were killed in 13 bombings. In 2007, Afghan civilian deaths were nearly three times higher: ...
  102. [102]
  103. [103]
    The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror ...
    $$686 billion (43%) for Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) for Afghanistan and other counterterror operations received;; $815 billion (51%) for Operation Iraqi ...
  104. [104]
    The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other
    JavaScript is disabled. In order to continue, we need to verify that you're not a robot. This requires JavaScript. Enable JavaScript and then reload the page.
  105. [105]
    [PDF] Summary of Challenges Impacting Operations Iraqi Freedom ... - DoD
    Jul 18, 2008 · After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, military operations began Operation Enduring Freedom, which takes place principally in and ...
  106. [106]
    GAO-04-547, Military Operations: Recent Campaigns Benefited from ...
    This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-547 entitled 'Military Operations: Recent Campaigns Benefited from Improved Communications and ...
  107. [107]
    The People Are the Key: Irregular Warfare Success Story in the ...
    Apr 15, 2025 · After the 9/11 attacks, the United States government faced a threat posed by not just one terrorist group but by a global network of associated ...
  108. [108]
    McChrystal issues directive on civilian casualties - Stars and Stripes
    Jul 7, 2009 · Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, has issued a new directive aimed at avoiding civilian casualties, ...Missing: ROE | Show results with:ROE
  109. [109]
    Spike in battlefield deaths linked to restrictive rules of engagement
    Dec 5, 2013 · Of 13 U.S. forces at Ganjgal, five were killed. The Afghan National Army lost eight soldiers. ... Another soldier said in the same after-action ...
  110. [110]
    Soldiers Say Rules Of Engagement Hinder Them - NPR
    Dec 2, 2009 · Some soldiers from Fort Campbell, Ky., say they are concerned about how they can battle the Taliban with so much focus on diplomacy.
  111. [111]
    Rules of Engagement Need Reform - National Review
    Dec 21, 2015 · The U.S. military is fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at an extreme disadvantage due to our overly restrictive Rules of Engagement.
  112. [112]
  113. [113]
    Afghanistan 20/20: The 20-Year War in 20 Documents
    Aug 19, 2021 · ... mission creep” as a counterterror effort against al-Qaeda morphed into a nation-building war against the Taliban; Washington's attention ...
  114. [114]
    How to avoid another state-building failure after Afghanistan
    Sep 1, 2021 · The expansion of the mission in Afghanistan from counterterrorism to a counterinsurgency-inspired state-building effort can be understood in ...
  115. [115]
    The Causes and the Consequences of Strategic Failure in ...
    Aug 15, 2021 · The inherent weaknesses of the Afghan state met over-stretch was compounded by “mission creep” and strategic impatience in the West. Counter ...
  116. [116]
    [PDF] What We Need to Learn: Lessons from Twenty Years of Afghanistan ...
    The U.S. government has been often overwhelmed by the magnitude of rebuilding a country that, at the time. Page 18. SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AFGHANISTAN ...
  117. [117]
    [PDF] From Uncertainty to Strategic Failure: U.S. Military Interventions and ...
    Based on the foregoing, this article examines the eventual failure of the US military strategy in Afghanistan, focusing not only on the Taliban's takeover in ...
  118. [118]
    What the US Didn't Learn in Afghanistan, According to ... - ProPublica
    Aug 19, 2021 · A lacerating report this week was the 11th in a clear-eyed series that revealed the US failure to reconstruct Afghanistan over two decades.
  119. [119]
    [PDF] SIGAR 23-05-IP Why the Afghan Government Collapsed
    Nov 1, 2022 · 35. 24 SIGAR, Collapse of Afghan National Defense and Security ... Failure in Afghanistan”; SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR. 2021-QR-4, p ...
  120. [120]
    [PDF] THE FACTORS LEADING TO THE COLLAPSE OF THE AFGHAN ...
    Mar 2, 2023 · told SIGAR that the failure of the international community to hold the Afghan government ... the collapse of the Afghan National Defense ...
  121. [121]
    DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS - SSRN
    In the context of foreign intervention, this dynamic can manifest itself in a manipulation of available metrics, careless spending, and mission creep that draws ...
  122. [122]
    The Nation-Building Experiment That Failed: Time for U.S. to Leave ...
    Mar 1, 2017 · Concluded SIGAR: “If after 15 years and so much blood and treasure invested in Afghanistan, we cannot be honest about our successes and failures ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  123. [123]
  124. [124]
    At war with the truth - The Washington Post
    Dec 9, 2019 · The interviews also highlight the U.S. government's botched attempts to curtail runaway corruption, build a competent Afghan army and police ...
  125. [125]
    U.S. officials misled public on Afghan war, according to ... - NBC News
    Dec 9, 2019 · A trove of government documents shows that US officials systematically misled the public about the war in Afghanistan during three presidential administrations.
  126. [126]
    When casualties increased, war coverage became more negative
    Sep 15, 2014 · As the number of U.S. casualties rose in Afghanistan, reporters filed more stories about the conflict and those articles grew increasingly ...
  127. [127]
    Debunking the Myths of the War in Afghanistan - War on the Rocks
    Feb 12, 2019 · After Vietnam, the U.S. military failed to dispassionately analyze the lessons of its failure in that long and bloody war. Instead, it buried ...
  128. [128]
    Statement by the President on the End of the Combat Mission in ...
    Dec 28, 2014 · Our combat mission in Afghanistan is ending, and the longest war in American history is coming to a responsible conclusion.
  129. [129]
    Operation Enduring Freedom comes to an end | Article - Army.mil
    Dec 28, 2014 · President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel each issued statements today marking the end of the combat mission in Afghanistan.
  130. [130]
    Operation Freedom's Sentinel - Defense Casualty Analysis System
    Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States executed Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan, targeting al Qaeda ...Missing: multinational | Show results with:multinational
  131. [131]
    Operation Freedom's Sentinel and our continued security investment ...
    Oct 5, 2015 · On 1 January 2015, U.S. Forces-Afghanistan (USFOR-A) formally ended its combat mission, Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF), and commenced its new ...
  132. [132]
    Freedom's Sentinel - DVIDS
    Freedom's Sentinel, the follow-on to Enduring Freedom, is the continuing US effort to train, advise and assist Afghan security forces.
  133. [133]
    Lead Inspector General for Operation Freedom's Sentinel - DoDIG.mil.
    OFS has two complementary missions in Afghanistan: U.S. counterterrorism operations and U.S. support for NATO's Resolute Support capacity building effort. Our ...
  134. [134]
    Air Power Against Terror: America's Conduct of Operation ... - RAND
    Dec 12, 2005 · This report describes and assesses the planning and execution of Operation Enduring Freedom against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan ...
  135. [135]
    Strange Victory: A critical appraisal of Operation Enduring Freedom ...
    In two short months Operation Enduring Freedom transformed the strategic landscape of not only Afghanistan, but also Central Asia, South Asia, and the Middle ...Missing: evaluation | Show results with:evaluation
  136. [136]
    The Taliban in Afghanistan - Council on Foreign Relations
    The Taliban are a predominantly Pashtun, Islamic fundamentalist group that returned to power in Afghanistan in 2021 after waging a twenty-year insurgency.Missing: 2002-2006 | Show results with:2002-2006
  137. [137]
    USDOJ: Ten Years Later: The Justice Department after 9/11
    Ten years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. ... U.S. government has reduced terrorists' capabilities to perpetrate spectacular attacks on American soil.Missing: OEF | Show results with:OEF
  138. [138]
    Lessons from Afghanistan - RAND
    Sep 3, 2021 · Sifting through the ashes of America's 20-year intervention in Afghanistan, lessons might be learned by viewing it in a wider context.
  139. [139]
    [PDF] Learning Lessons from Afghanistan: Two Imperatives - USAWC Press
    It has been accepted for inclusion in The. US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters by an authorized editor of USAWC Press. Page 2. SPECIAL COMMENTARY.
  140. [140]
    S.Hrg. 108-654 — ``LESSONS LEARNED'' DURING OPERATION ...
    ``LESSONS LEARNED'' DURING OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM IN AFGHANISTAN AND OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM, AND ONGOING OPERATIONS IN THE UNITED ...
  141. [141]
    [PDF] Lessons from Operation Enduring Freedom - RAND
    Supporting Expeditionary Aerospace Forces: New Agile Combat. Support Postures, Lionel Galway, Robert S. Tripp, Timothy L. Ramey, and John G. Drew (MR-1075-AF).
  142. [142]
    Operation Enduring Freedom Medal of Honor recipients - Army.mil
    Operation Enduring Freedom Medal of Honor recipients, citations, and other resources concerning the nation's highest medal for valor in combat.
  143. [143]
    MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPIENT MICHAEL P. MURPHY - Navy.mil
    ... Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. On June 28, 2005, Lt. Murphy was the officer-in-charge of a four-man SEAL element in support of Operation ...
  144. [144]
    Staff Sergeant Clinton L. Romesha | Medal of Honor Recipient
    Former Staff Sgt. Clinton L. Romesha (pronounced Row-ma-shay) was born in Lake City, California. Romesha enlisted in the Army in September 1999, as an M1 armor ...
  145. [145]
    Edward C Byers Jr | War on Terrorism (Afghanistan) | U.S. Navy
    U.S. Navy Chief Edward C Byers Jr was presented the Medal of Honor for military valor during the War on Terrorism (Afghanistan).<|separator|>
  146. [146]
    Earl D. Plumlee | War on Terrorism (Afghanistan) | U.S. Army
    U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Earl D. Plumlee was presented the Medal of Honor for military valor during the War on Terrorism (Afghanistan).
  147. [147]
    Army - Distinguished Service Cross Recipients
    Distinguished Service Cross recipients are listed by conflict. Click on the conflict listed below to view a PDF list of the recipients.Missing: Enduring Freedom
  148. [148]
    Global War On Terror - Distinguished Service Cross - Home of Heroes
    Listed below are the recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross awarded for valor during the War on Terror which commenced in September of 2001.
  149. [149]
    Afghanistan OP defense leads to Army's second-highest decoration
    The Distinguished Service Cross has been awarded to more than 13,000 U.S. servicemembers since its inception in January 1918. Since the global war on terror ...
  150. [150]
    Army - Silver Star - U.S. Military Awards for Valor
    A. Sergeant, Operation Enduring Freedom. Roundtree, Cliff, NMI, Sergeant First Class, Operation Enduring Freedom. Rowell, Frederick ... Medal of Honor, Service ...
  151. [151]
    Navy - Silver Star - U.S. Military Awards for Valor
    RECIPIENTS OF THE SILVER STAR MEDAL For Actions Since September 11, 2001 ... Operation Enduring Freedom. Brown, Adam, L, Chief Special Warfare Operator ...
  152. [152]
    Afghanistan Campaign Medal - Air Force Personnel Center
    To be eligible for the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, a service member must be assigned or attached to a unit participating in Operation ENDURING FREEDOM for 30 ...
  153. [153]
    Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal
    BACKGROUNDIn March 2003, President Bush approved the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal for award to Air Force active duty, Reserve and Guard ...<|separator|>
  154. [154]
    SAS soldiers awarded rare presidential honour - NZ Herald
    The citation said it was for "extraordinary heroism and outstanding performance of duty in action against the enemy in Afghanistan". The SAS were deployed into ...
  155. [155]
    NZSAS to Wear Presidential Award | Scoop News
    Jun 8, 2006 · Members of the NZSAS who served with the CJSOTF are now able to wear the ribbon of the United States Navy Presidential Unit Citation on their uniforms.
  156. [156]
    US Army Honours British Soldiers Over Kabul Attack | Forces TV
    Sep 29, 2015 · Nine British soldiers have received the U.S. Army Commendation Medal in recognition for their quick actions during a green-on-blue attack in ...
  157. [157]
    Meet the British Royal Marine awarded a Bronze Star by the US ...
    Jun 25, 2020 · On June 3 the U.S. Marine Corps awarded a British Royal Marine a Bronze Star for his “instrumental” role as an operations officer with the ...Missing: OEF | Show results with:OEF
  158. [158]
    U.S. Awards to UK Service Personnel
    Generally, Her Majesty's Government does not allow Crown Servants (which includes the military) to accept or wear foreign awards without permission.
  159. [159]
    Medals: campaigns, descriptions and eligibility - GOV.UK
    Details of the medals awarded to serving members of the armed forces, veterans and MOD employees; and who can receive them.Missing: OEF | Show results with:OEF