Talk:Military history of the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Warbox

This is an attempt to translate the battlebox format to a warbox format for U.S.-related wars. Do not force this box on pages where the users reject it. It is encouraged, but totally optional, and will often not work perfectly with a specific conflict--WWII, for example, would be difficult to fit into this paradigm.

Do not add the warbox to:

• the Barbary Wars, see First Barbary War talk for reasons.

Working Example

Military history of North Korea Military history of South Korea Military history of the United States
Conflict	Korean War
Date	1950–1953
Place	Korean peninsula
Result	Partition of Korea
Battles of the Korean War
Combatants Anti-Communist South, U.S., Australia, Canada, UK, other allies Communist North, People's Republic of China, USSR Strength unknown unknown Casualties 44,000 U.S. soldiers 600,000 Koreans

Code

{| border=1 width=300 cellpadding=2 cellspacing=0 align=right style="margin-left:1em;margin-bottom:1em"
|-
|colspan=2|
|-
!colspan=2 bgcolor=#ffff99|[[Military history of North Korea]]<BR>[[Military history of South Korea]]<BR>[[Military history of the United States]]
|-
|Conflict||'''Korean War'''
|-
|Date||1950–1953
|-
|Place||Korean peninsula
|-
|Result||Partition of Korea
|-
!colspan=2|'''[[Battles of the Korean War]]'''
|-
|colspan=2|
{| border=1 width=300 cellpadding=2 cellspacing=0
|-
!colspan=2 bgcolor=#ffff99|Combatants
|-
| width=50%|Anti-Communist South,<br>[[United States of America]], [[Australia]],[[Canada]], [[United Kingdom]], other allies
| width=50%|[[Communist]] North,<br>[[People's Republic of China]], [[Soviet Union]]
|-
!colspan=2|Strength
|-
|unknown
|unknown
|-
!colspan=2|Casualties
|-
|44,000 U.S. soldiers
|600,000 Koreans
|}
|}

Color scheme

Provisional color scheme to be used in the warbox template for U.S.-related conflicts as described at Military history of the United States. This is for WARS only. Specific battles should use the battlebox described at Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles

Notes:

1. Naval or air war should be used for any war/operation with no land component.

Color	Locality	Definition	Example
bgcolor=#ffcccc	North America	Alaska, Canada, US, Mexico	American Civil War
bgcolor=#FDEEF4	Central America
bgcolor=#ccffcc	South America
bgcolor=#ffff99	Asia	Including Philippines, see also Oceania	Philippine-American War
bgcolor=#cccccc	Europe	West of the Urals, not Turkey
bgcolor=#eeddbb	Africa	Incl. Egypt	Second Barbary War
bgcolor=#99CC99	Middle East	yes Turkey, no North Africa, no Caucasus, no -stans
bgcolor=#DDFFFF	Caribbean		Operation Urgent Fury
bgcolor=#ffccaa	Oceania	Aus, NZ, Pacific Islands and Papua New Guinea
bgcolor=#CCCCFF	Air war		none
bgcolor=#99CCFF	Naval war		Quasi War
bgcolor=#ffccff	Fictitious war
bgcolor=white	Other/Unknown/World war	War with multiple theaters, wars on the moon, Antarctica, etc.	none

Warbox Talk

Should Oceania use the same colour as its battle? That is, swap Middle East or Caribbean for Oceania? Geoff 01:08, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Um, yes? No? Maybe? :) Sorry--could you clarify the question--I'm kinda slow. :) jengod 01:11, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry. In Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles Oceania uses bgcolor=#ffccaa (orange). The warbox colour scheme uses orange for the Middle East and bgcolor=#99CC99 for Oceania. I just thought it would make sense for the battles and wars to use the same colour. Also, is there a definition for the Middle East? I would have prefered a separate colour for that region in the battlebox but couldn't get agreement on where exactly it was. Geoff 01:17, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Duh! My bad. Does it match now. Added definitions. Lemme know whatcha think. jengod 01:32, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Once the war colour scheme is settled, I'll incorporate any new ones (Middle East and Caribbean, etc.) into the battlebox colour scheme. Trying to come up with a definition of the Middle East makes me afraid... Geoff 01:42, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Couple of comments. The Central American colour is a bit dark compared to the others (I had this some problem of consistency when doing the battles colours). The best suggestion I can come up with is #ddddaa which is a sort of dirty yellow. Also, is this proposal for US wars only, or can it be adopted by Wikipedia:WikiProject Wars? If it is for general wars, then the "fictitious" colour (#ffccff from Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles) should be included. Just my thoughts. Geoff 02:55, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How about the really pale pink? Is that too gay for a war? :) If you don't like, just drop the dirty yellow in there. And this proposal was originally for U.S. but you are welcome to port it over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Wars if you think they want it! :) There may be additional dispute, etc., etc., both here and there, so we'll have to see. :) jengod 03:29, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with pink. I've add the "fictitious" colour. It's been used in a few battle articles so it should at least be made unavailable in the warbox to avoid confusion. I can't imagine this proposal being a problem for the wars project (though I'm not a participant). Geoff 03:47, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War

Individual Americans volunteered to fight in the Spanish Civil War -- as did citizens of many nations. But, I am not aware of any official involvement of the US government. So I don't think this qualifies it as a US conflict.

Lynching epidemic

OK. Someone explain how the US military was remotely involved with the lynching epidemic in the South? That smells like a cheap slur. --Penta 01:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't meant as a slur. See the intro: " Not all of these events were military, some were not even violent, but together they delineate the reappearance of the martial spirits in the life of the United States." Several of the items on the list aren't military, but were local conflicts. Removal makes sense tho. jengod 01:29, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Missing links

should link to Military History and list of wars possibly to History as well as to the United States of America as well as foreign relations of the United States and the central Military of the United states entry...Dwarf Kirlston 20:56, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Format

I think the current format of this article, a very comprehensive list, is not something that can be expanded. Despite being a COTW, there have been no serious edits to this article beteeen Sunday and Thursday. I will move this current list to List of military actions of the United States. I propose this article be organized by theme, e.g. "Role within the government". 119 21:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Good. I was under the impression that all the good military history articles are by theme, not lists. Too bad about the lack of edits. --Dmcdevit 23:12, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I was under the impression that this article was being rewritten at Military history of the United States/Temp. Shouldn't something of substance created there before you relocate this entire article? Furthermore, if you want to organize this article by theme, there's no reason that can't be done at the top of this article, above the list of conflicts and wars. jengod 01:54, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Um... It's only been copied, not relocated, see for yourself at List of military actions by or within the United States.--Dmcdevit 00:56, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Yep. Thanks. jengod 01:09, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Page overhaul

I've done some extensive overhauling of this page by combining various "temp" files created by others into this main article; and by moving the list to a separate page. It needs LOTS of work. Now, I hope folks can feel free to add to and modify this article. DAVODD 03:52, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Also totally lacking in citation, actual supported facts instead of broad generalizations: The Military history of the United States spans a period of less than two and a half centuries. Over the course of those years, the United States grew from an alliance of thirteen British colonies without a professional military, to the world's preeminent military superpower.

The origins of the United States military lies in civilian frontiersmen, armed for hunting and basic survival. These were organized into local militias for small military operations, mostly against Native American tribes but also to resist possible raids by the small military forces of neighboring European colonies. They relied on the support of the British regular army and navy for any serious military operation.

With the independence of the United States established, military efforts then focused on ensuring a dominate role on the continent. The Indian Wars became more offensive rather than defensive. The Mexican-American War was one of conquest, to promote America's "Manifest Destiny". These efforts were successful; the United States felt there were no significant local threats. It became traditional to almost completely disband the military after a war was over.

The American Civil War caught both sides unprepared. Not only did the military have to be recreated after the war had started, but it was found that no quick drive to gain some territory would end the war. This was a war for existence, and the vast resources of the new America would consumed before the issue was decided. This is sometimes called "the first modern war" due to the use of mass conscription, military railroads, trench warfare, submarines and ironclads, but mostly because it introduced the modern world to the horrors of total war.

The scope of the Civil War was as great as many of those in Europe, and the United States now began to see itself as potential player on the world stage. With the country now stretching to the Pacific, eyes turned to overseas. The drives behind the Spanish-American War and US involvement in the Boxer Rebellion were a mixture of attempts to dismantle European colonial empires, and attempts to create an American Empire to rival them.

But it was the United States growing commercial, rather than colonial, strength that led to American being dragged reluctantly into World War I. Although initially dismissive of the United States military, the European powers were forced to admit that it could be a significant force even in European affairs. While victorious in battle, the United States gained little from the war, except a deepened sense of war's futility. The US resumed its standard peace-time policy of severe military reductions.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor shocked the United States. Virtually overnight, the US went from isolationist to the driving force of the Western Allies in World War II. Struggling to fight a massive two-front war in Europe and the Pacific simultaneously, US military industrial might eventually exceeded all expectations. At war's end, the former major powers of Europe and Asia were left devastated, while the United States was stronger than ever.

The United States became a superpower, and assumed the role of international guardian of freedom, to counter the threats of the rebuilding USSR. Determined to never again be caught unprepared in war, US military might did not wane to previous peace-time levels, but instead kept ready for war at a moment's notice. This lead to the Cold War, a war fought with the economic intensity of a real war, but without a direct confrontation between the two main superpowers. The threat of mutual assured destruction by nuclear warfare limited the actual combat of the Cold War to campaigns against allies of the USSR, such as the unsuccessful Korean War and Vietnam War.

After the collapse of the USSR under economic pressure, the United States became the world's only superpower, and the sole target of any general dissatisfaction of the current world status. Like Pearl Harbor, the 9/11 attacks galvanized the United States to a rapid military response, triggering the ongoing War on Terrorism.

• I agree with the POV-ness of the sections you've highlighted, go ahead and change them. (maybe "American leaders believed...") --Dmcdevit 06:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry for the POV problems. I was working slowly, basically alone on (I thought) a forgotten article, but suddenly it's COTW. This moves a lot faster than I'm used to. I intended this just as just a general introduction, to be supported and referenced later in the article. It would have taken weeks to months for me to finish this, a bit at a time. Others have taken this and gone beyond that now, which is a good thing. Feel free. --A D Monroe III 13:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I removed the NPOV tag from the main article since all the issues raised about User:A D Monroe III's original text have been addressed. DAVODD 21:09, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Latin American and other interventions

Mention should be made of US military interventions in Nicaragua, Guatemala, Grenada, Panama, El Salvador etc. See here for details. AndyL 03:49, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see your request but I added the significant military operations of the Cold War era. I'm not sure each of the interventions/occupations above merits its own paragraph (in an article of this scope); they could all be summarized together. They were much more significant politically than militarily. --Dhartung | Talk 21:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bush carrier speech

Surely there's a better image to illustrate the military history of the US than this PR event which took place thousands of miles from the conflict? --Dhartung | Talk 21:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I replaced the Bush image with one showing tanks in Baghdad. I considered several battle photographs but these had several failings (perhaps indicating choices the Pentagon makes for what is available), such as showing too little context (a soldier with a gun), or damage only (no American presence), or broadly just a lovely photograph of a helicopter against a sunset. None of these seemed really appropriate, but the one I chose shows American occupation duties, which is quite appropriate, while showing both American equipment and an unambiguously Iraqi setting. --Dhartung | Talk 04:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)\

good choice. i agree. Bonus Onus 04:41, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Bosnia, etc

this article goes right from the gulf war to the war on terror. we were certainly involved in other military incidents in between '92 and '01. we should include the (NATO?) operation in bosnia, as well as, perhaps, the continued sorties over iraq, no-fly zone, etc. Those are the only two militarily related things i remember, as i was quite young at the time. Also, there was prolly some CIA stuff, which we should consider adding. hopefully someone who knows more about these things (and who was not a kid at the time) could write about them. Bonus Onus 04:45, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect page move

Article was just moved to incorrectly capitalized title (Military History of the United States) by User talk:Brendenhull, who has been moving pages without knowing what he's doing. --Kevin

To give the benefit of the doubt, I concur. Otherwise its either malicious or juvenile pique.

Why does the Liberian Intervention warrant a mention, when the Haitian Intervention does not?

Both are very relevant in my opinion. In both cases, dictators were ousted and a better outcome ensured (not perfect, mind you) - but the Greater Good achieved.

"TV disease"

Many articles are plagued by it. Each of the wars has its (more or less) comprehensive page and it should be addressed with a few lines here, mostly about the context, the premises and the consequences and less about actual evolvement. While Yugoslavia war has to few data on this page (why it took place? what were the results? how come Korean war has a lot of talk about allies - the enemies are enumerated twice in to consecutive phrases, and there's no word about the allies againt Milosevic?), the Iraq stories are really too long (while repeating stuff seen on TV by everyone who has a TV set). There's a bit of cleaning needed on the stories which don't involve the American governement in any way. As mentined earlier, the Spanish Civil War should then be mentioned on half of the countries' history pages. I would try to address these issues, but I fear that cutting would be felt as Anti-American and quickly reversed. Then adding reasons to attack Yugoslavia, once again, will be felt as an attack on the American history (which is described as short by this article, but, strangely, it has more text than Roman Empire's military history already, thanks to TV disease). I guess the article needs a stronger person.--Luci S 08:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not really clear what you mean by "TV disease" but I'll try to address your specific concerns first. The Korean War section could use some minor edits but overall I think it's fine. Yugoslavia could certainly use some more detail, and reasons for the conflict (as stated by the US) should definitely be mentioned. You can state those reasons without being anti-American: just find a cite for Clinton or other members of the US administration at the time. The Spanish Civil War was actually mentioned on the talk page before. It is not an "American" conflict, but we also aren't talking about a handful of Americans who went to Spain. There was a fairly large and organized involvement on the part of American citizens, on BOTH sides, so I think a short summary of American involvement is appropriate. The length of the Roman Empire's page is not our concern.

My contributions here include WW2, Korea, Vietnam & both Gulf Wars, and I tried to meet some stylistic goals in those sections, which I think are reasonable goals for every section of this page. The first para is the summary: who, when, where and why. The second para gives some brief background, describing the events that led up to the conflict. The third para provides a brief military summary of the key battles (or of the entire conflict, if it's short), and the fourth para covers the aftermath of the war and political and military ramifications. I think the WW2 and First Gulf War sections, although perhaps a bit too long, both reflect these stylistic choices. I also like the Vietnam section. I'll concede that my writing may be America-centric, but I try to be NPOV. This page is specifically about the US and its military history, and I think it's reasonable to focus primarily on the US in our writing here.

Finally, whether things are or were "on TV" is totally irrelevant. World War II was covered in great detail by every newspaper of the time; does that mean we shouldn't also cover it here? Our job should be to provide a reasonable starting point for people who are looking for a summary of the conflict. We cannot assume that all our readers are TV news junkies, and we must provide them with basic, "obvious" information. I believe this article as a whole is probably too long, but that should be resolved by splitting it into multiple articles to cover the various periods of American history, not by stripping every section down to the bare minimum. There are far too many sections of this article that simply say there was a war at some time. Right now, the American Civil War section doesn't even say who won! That's a pretty important fact that belongs in any summary of US history, regardless of how obvious it is or whether it's mentioned elsewhere. Yes, there's a very nice page dedicated to the Civil War, but there is still a place here for a 2-3 paragraph summary of the war. The summary here should give the reader an idea of the conflict's strategic importance in US history. Simishag 19:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Strength in Numbers

I'm inclined to add a mention of the importance to USCW of mass production of weapons, notably the Springfield which was increased about 12:1, but I can't find the source I found it in... Can anybody source, confirm, & include? Trekphiler 19:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

potential redirect.

should US military history be a redirect? i would do it myself, but i cant figure out how. Saganatsu 22:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Done--Looper5920 23:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Korean War

Does nobody read a book any more? The portion of the summary about MacArthur is in error. Way too much of everything I come across about the US military in Wiki is "conventional wisdom", which usually means its incomplete, half-truths, author's POV, or simply wrong. The era doesn't matter. Or else its taken at face value off some poorly done web-site. I try to correct when I come across them, but there's only 24 hours in a day! I would urge those that feel as I do to please help.--Buckboard 08:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Proportional attention

Why is the section on the Gulf War (now 4,959 bytes of text) longer than the section on World War II (4,925 bytes) and Vietname (3,125 bytes)? Formal US involvement in WWII lasted 46 months, involvement in Vietnam lasted 11 years, but the Gulf War was just 100 hours. Given that there is a comprehensive article on the Persian Gulf War, this seems unnecessary. --Dhartung | Talk 21:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

War children (soldiers and their illegitimate children)

I want to link this article withWar children in the category section however I cannot for some reason. This article needs work it is bias. I am sure a whole article could be written on the American soldier and they sexual delights during World War I & II. However this article in an attempt to protect the dignity of the USA has left out a great deal of information on the American soldiers. I know there is enough information about GI children in Korea and Vietnam, however it is not hear. I see this article is very bias.--Margrave1206 (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is relevant to this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bheidinger (talk • contribs) 05:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Army history vs. US military history

I'm going to propose that some of the content of this article be split off to create History of the United States Army. All four of the other branches (Navy, Marines, Air Force, & Coast Guard) have thier own individual history articles; certainly the Army has just as much history. The scope of this article is too broad to allow sufficient detail of the changes to the Army without becoming unfair/unbalanced. It would also allow this article to be pruned a great deal.

I know that one of the first objections would be that this would create duplicate information... certainly has some merit. After all, there is very little military history in the US that doesn't involve the Army in some way. However, I feel that a good split would prune out a lot of the excessive duplication and provide a more comprehensive look at US military history. As well, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and we can afford to have a little bit of redundancy.

Any thoughts? bahamut0013♠♣ 19:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethiopia/Somalia?

Is it possible to mention the involvement of AC-130 Gunships and other personnel in the war in Ethiopia/Somalia? I don't know enough detail to do it myself, but I know it's an underreported conflict that involves relatively significant US military and political resources. Thanks, Nick 75.74.78.111 (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What about the war on drugs?!

What about the war on drugs?! posted by 69.140.251.156

Assuming you're serious, I imagine it warrants a brief mention. --Dhartung | Talk 15:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I think he was being sarcastic. It is pretty moronic to have a "war on terror" listed under the military history of a nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.100.173 (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

not if that idea has lead to actual conflicts... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.140.242 (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Colonial link

I see no link to a list of wars prior to nationhood (colonial period). I'm not sure which article to link to, but I think some readers would likely use such a link if provided. NoSeptember ^talk 11:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It also needs to be mentioned how there were fifteen original British colonies- only thirteen rebelled. (Unless I'm wrong, but a decent amount of research should clear this up.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.236.5.169 (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Bay of Pigs

I have removed this section. There are two primary reasons. No United States forces were involved. There are arguments as to whether or not there should have been. But that is not the purpose of an encylopedic article. Any references to the Bay of Pigs really belongs under topics relating to CIA operations. The Second reason, is based on the sentances about the JFK assasination and the RFK assasination occuring shortly thereafter. That is wacky conspiracy ideas which do not belong in an encylopedic article! Claffey27 (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)claffey27

You beat me to it :)--Koakhtzvigad (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

General of the Armies

Interested users may wish to visit the current dispute resolution at Talk:General of the Armies. This is an interesting rank from a historical point of view. -OberRanks (talk) 09:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Invasian of America

The following was removed from the article:

It was the only WWII (and most recent) battle to be fought on American soil. This is not counting invasion and occupation of non-continental U.S. territories including Guam, Wake Island, and Philippines.

Presently it list the most recent invasion of U.S. territory as the Battle of Attu. Perhaps this should be readded? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Overview alienates Coast Guard

"As of 2011 the branches of the military are" should read all five branches outright, not just the four DOD branches--and then mentioning the Coast Guard later... 152.121.17.254 (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Losing "Stub-hood"?

How does an article grow out of stub-hood? I can see how to do it. As an author am I allowed to?
Ref: United States Submarine Operations in World War II
Thanks JMOprof (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not a stub anymore. --Alatari (talk) 07:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Iraq is technically part of the War on Terror

Iraq is technically part of the War on Terror Whether you want to accept that or not, the President of the United States defines theses kinds of things. As a result it must be put under the same context as Afghanistan which is still on going as well. This article is slanted based on media coverage, not actual reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monorprise (talk • contribs)

That issue is being vigorously debated at Talk:Iraq War. It's true that the Pentagon formally considers them together, but it's not clear that the public or historians agree. Wikipedia does not represent just one single point of view. --Dhartung | Talk 01:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I took out that little disclaimer and I am probably going to get in trouble, especially since I am a new user. But the US military is conducting Operation Iraqi Freedom as part of the Global War on Terror. Analysts have disagreed with military decisions in every war-- but they are still considered part of that war.--Cbambrick 01:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If the uniter, not a divider, was merely a Wikipedian and not in temporary authority, his contributions would require serious scrutiny to meet Wikipedia's NPOV and Verifiability standards. Then again, there was Peleliu. Debate amongst yourselves. MMetro (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's definitely part of the "war on terror" because it's part of ops conducted under that heading. We can argue about whether this administration has made serious tactical errors in its campaign against global Islamic terror - like invading a country that wasnt a base for Al Quaida and overthrowing a leader who Al Quaida hated (hell just about everyone hated Saddam so it cuts both ways I suppose). But that op is definitely conducted as part of "war on terror" ops and so theres a connection. Kid Zed (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Kid_Zed

The President doesn't "define" sh*t. He's not a dictionary. The president can make claims and present assertions, but every bit of what that simple man says is subject to debate and when he is proven wrong, what he said ranges from being defined as his mistake, to being defined as his treason. In this instance, Bush including Iraq in a war on terror, where Bush stoked terror in IRAQ, terror that before was WHOLLY nonexistant in Iraq and from where no history of exporting terror existed; and where Bushes making such war and bogus declaration of Iraq as a terrorist state, served TOTALLY NO INTEREST OF THE USA. Thus what Bush said and did regarding Iraq is TREASON for his carrying the US into a senseless needless war of aggression characterized by extreme avarice and callous. Treasonous individuals have the right to swing from the fkn gallows, not assert definitions. Get it correct before you find yourself in his company, defined as a fkn traitor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielvincentkelley (talk • contribs) 13:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Critisism

Sorry, but in my opinion there need to be a critisism-section! Particularly because at the present time there are a lot of very critical voices concerning the military. Furthermore, please add the original doctrine of the armed forces as an "ultima ratio". Thank you =) --111Alleskönner (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

See WP:CRITICISM. Such content should be integrated into the article, preferably. However, as this is just a compilation of other articles, with the main articles of those specific topics (may or may not include criticism sections), than this article would only contain summaries. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, think you're right, but nevertheless I think the fact that war or abroad missions were originally the "ultima ratio" (/last choice) is very important to mention! --111Alleskönner (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

A criticism section on an article detailing American Military History? That seems like a terrible idea. The criticism of each individual conflict goes on its own page.--68.8.14.28 (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

War On Terror- Pakistan

Should Pakistan be added as a front for the War On Terror? It seems about as valid is the Phillipines. There is a massive air campaign conducted with Predator Drones aimed at killing terrorist leaders, many of which end up accidentally killing Pakistani soldiers and civilians in the process. In addition, there have been raids in Pakistani territory by American special forces. --68.8.14.28 (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

National Guard & border

I don't know if this is appropriate for this article but I'll leave it for now. Are there any other NG operations that deserve mention in this article? I don't think, for instance, that a section about NG & Hurricane Katrina belongs here. Simishag 06:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No, because that is a non-military role (even if you count the active-duty involvement). To cite a roughly comparable example, the military gave broad support to the space program, but that isn't something that belongs here. On the other hand, it had occurred to me before that there should be something in the Cold War section about satellites, SAC, DEW, and ICBMs. --Dhartung | Talk 07:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Not military? According to former congress woman Cynthia Mckinney, 5000 bodies were dumped in a Louisiana swamp by US military, 1 of whom confided that to his grand mother who made inquiry with Cynthia McKinney requesting an investigation that never happened. There were reports in the early hours after the storm, that a squad of US military had intentionally exploded the Levy system and that the police had caught 1 group of them and had a firefight with them that the police won. That story was in the media for a week or so following the storm, then all reference to it disappeared. Gun confiscation in America where the CONSTITUTION protects gun rights, not a military situation?! Dhartung, your comment is nonsensical, propaganda and if you're American treasonous. If you're a foreigner it's offensive and observe Iraq and Afghanistan that you be brought to understand the extremes to which Americans will meander in dealing with foreign offensives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielvincentkelley (talk • contribs) 13:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow - talk about silly conspiracy theories! That one takes the cake.

On the earlier point, the Civil Air Patrol also received no mention despite being an active military combatant (they even sunk a few subs) - it was demilitarized after World War 2.NiD.29 (talk) 07:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

POV and lack of citation

I believe that this article is written from an American POV and that needs addressing.There are some spurious claims in it and it has hardly any citations at all.Looks like one person wrote most of it.Owain the 1st (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it with lots of new cites and also materials on Canadian and Mexican viewpoints. Rjensen (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The article needs more citatons, there are whole pieces without even one citation and also the article is not NPOV, it is clearly from an American point of view and not inline with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.The piece on Grenada is spurious to say the least as are other pieces on this page.It fails on Wikipedia:Verifiability and you are not allowed to remove the tags until the discussion here is finished.I suggest you put them back.You are also edit warring over tags which is against the rules of wikipedia.Owain the 1st (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The overview section has no cities at all so does the Early national period and many other pieces.Owain the 1st (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Most of these sectons are summaries of the main articles regarding the conflict, and at times almost direct copies of their leads. This article is not meant to be a comprehensive article about each and every event which involved the United States military, nor should it be.

Although it can be argued that this article is not very well cited, I don't believe that there is a serious POV issue regarding this article.

Please see WP:AVOIDYOU. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I have not made any personal attacks, thank you. This article has very few citations for its length and is just an American POV therefore not NPOV as it falls on the American version of events.Owain the 1st (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is based on over 100 books and articles, and if there is a gap amywhere please identify it. Rjensen (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There are loads of gaps and you are edit warring and I have left a warning on your talk page about it.You have also removed npov tag which you should not have until this discussion is complete.Owain the 1st (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This piece you have put in the Grenada article is untrue,In October, 1983, a violent power struggle threatened American lives in the small Caribbean nation of Grenadait is also a POV..You have also reverted my academically sourced piece on that article and turned it into a propaganda piece which is not npov. Owain the 1st (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place to insert off-beat theories about peaceful Grenada. Rjensen (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not an off beat theory, it is what actually happened.The guy is a scholar.What you have replaced it with is just a pov piece.You have broken the 3rr rule here and you are just posting propaganda for America.You are not including any other opinion only America which is not npov.Owain the 1st (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

you cited a self-published article that had no footnotes, and ignore two major scholarly books. That's blatant POV and very bad use of citations by someone who is so hypercritical of other editors who cite scores of scholarly books. (the author you cite is an American in California--you have not cited anyone else) If you want to make a credible case you have to do a lot more work --read some books. Rjensen (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Your books are not scholarly at all, my article was as it it written by a scholar.One of your books is written by an army guy and there is another army guy on amazon reviews who was there as well saying his book is not a good account.Your army guy is not a scholar.Your other book is by a guy who seems to have written one book and there is nothing else about him. My source is not just an American in California, he is a scholar unlike your authors.He is Professor of Politics at the University of California for starters, he has written more books than your two guys put together. I tend to read well researched books not trash thanks.Owain the 1st (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Citing what appears to be an advocacy group, even if the individual claims to be a professor at an educational institution does not mean that the source falls under WP:RS, one can argue that it can be considered a WP:SPS, and therefore is not cite-able. Perhaps this globalpolicy.org needs to be checked by the community at WP:RSN

After reading the above, it appears that Owain the 1st is not following WP:AGF, and maybe violating WP:CIVIL.

Rjensen has appeared to provided citations for the majority of sections that did not have citations before, however, not all are accessible online, but that doesn't mean that they are any less valid. One can ask that the sources be verified, and there is a tag for that. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with first poster - this entire page is almost un-redeemably POV. Wording is POV, with a major distinction being made between our allies and their collaborationists, causes of wars are omitted or replaced with the US version of events (particularly when the US has instigated wars - ie Korea, Vietnam, etc). Sounds like this page has been hijacked by the patriots who will hear no bad - and good luck finding good sources in English since most of it will by default be biased. This page should be locked to anyone editing from within the US until some balance has been attained.NiD.29 (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Claiming that those editors from the US should not be allowed to edit does not assume good faith of editors. Additionally, adding content not supported by the referenced reliable source is not something I would support either.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

If you actually believe that the US "instigated" the Korean War, you must be self-delusional.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Stalin "planned, prepared, and initiated" the invasion of South Korea, creating "detailed [war] plans" that were communicated to the North Koreans. See: David Dallin, Soviet Foreign Policy After Stalin (J. B. Lippincott, 1961), p60; Douglas J. Macdonald, "Communist Bloc Expansion in the Early Cold War," International Security, Winter 1995-6, p180; John Lewis Gaddis, We Know Now: Rethinking Cold War History (Oxford University Press, 1997), p70; Sergei N. Goncharov, John W. Lewis and Xue Litai, Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao and the Korean War (Stanford University Press, 1993), p213; and William Stueck, The Korean War: An International History (Princeton University Press, 1995), p69. South Korea was militarily unprepared for an attack. It's extraordinary that intelligent people would choose to create outlandish theories about "peace-loving" North Korea or North Vietnam, and cite blogs to support them, claiming that all English-language mass media is "inherently biased". Unfortunately, much of Wikipedia is written by such editors. This is actually one of the most neutral articles you can find here on US foreign policy.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL - I harbor no delusions about "peace loving" - I am 3rd generation military and know every government grabs anything it can, any time it can. Ours AND theirs. The Soviet position in the late 40s and 50s on the other hand was dictated by having to rebuild after most of the country had been destroyed, while the US howled about a Soviet threat that it ultimately succeed in creating through its frequent threats, illegal overflights and terrorism. US media conglomerates are owned by the primary financial benficiaries of any war the US engages in so can hardly be expected to be unbiased. Leaked memos from Fox (CNN, NBC etc have similar policies) dictate exactly - including specific adjectives - how various individuals and entities are to be portrayed. Reporters may only present investigations that match head office's position. Blogs are important not for what they might say (which is POV), but for their references.

Russian archival sources show that Kim requested support for a war which Stalin gave only with extreme reluctance. Once given, the Russians had experience and equipment Korea lacked. Your sources ignore the Russian archives, and therefore reflect only the US side and are therefore POV. Deluded indeed.

Suggested reading:

Lashmar, Paul, "Stalin's 'Hot' War," New Statesman & Society, vol. 9, no. 388, Feburary 2, 1996

Korean War: how it started, Mark Jarvis 30 Aug 95

Soviet Aims in Korea and the Origins of the Korean War 1945-1950: New evidence from Russian Archives, Kathryn Weathersby, 1993

These give a more balanced account of the conflict (including why Russia was interested in Korea (radioactive isotopes), why they provided support (threats of ROK invasion and to unify Korea) and why it ended (Stalin died). Nuclear threats had little to do with it. I recall another document I can't presently find which put Kim Il Sung's position in response to US supported guerrilla attacks (which were well documented elsewhere, including East Germany - poisoning milk indeed).

WP:AGF has already been violated when nearly every war is discussed exclusively from the US point of view. WP:RS we can work on.

Most neutral? How could it be less neutral? We can work on that though.NiD.29 (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Sory, however AGF is not violated by the content of the article. Not assuming AGF is presuming that bias is ingrained into a certain group of editors, and thus they should be banned from editing an article, as was suggested above.

Additionally, as I have stated in this talk page before this article is meant to only be a summary of the parent articles regarding those specific sections, and specifically focused on United States involvement in those conflicts. Any arguement about reasons/causes of those conflicts should be taken to that article. If there are improvements to be made in the article regarding the Korean conflict so be it, but that is to be brought up there, not here, IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, NP, idea dropped

The whole page needs to be pruned back to the bare bones perhaps - name of war (linked), dates (linked?), combatants (linked?), location (linked?), reason, and significance. A table might work best, especially as the page is basically a list anyway.

Conflict	Dates	Combatants	Location(s)	Reasons	Results	Refs
Colonial wars	1620–1774	UK, Amerindians, Netherlands, Spain, France	British North America, Atlantic	native expulsion, territorial competition	UK control of Atlantic seaboard.	TBA
War of Independence	1775–1783	British North America, United States, United Kingdom	United States and British North America	trade barriers, taxes, no voice in government	U.S. Independence	TBA

The first entry would of course have to be broken up into the individual wars, however I think this presents the general idea. This would ensure consistency across all sections, inclusion of all relevant information, while limiting space for both NPOV information AND wording and therefore room for conflict. The bare facts as it were, and in a format both resistant to vandalism and requiring little further maintenance once completed. Washington could then get his hurra (limited to the NPOV stuff) in the intro where it belongs.NiD.29 (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

George Washington

A link to Washington and brief comment I can understand but a full blown hagiography with its own section seems a bit over the top. He did not win the war by himself, nor was he a major player afterwards.NiD.29 (talk) 10:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Washington created the army, trained it, set its standards and traditions. He played the #1 role as president (for example leading the army against the Whiskey rebels) and in 1798 was again made head of the army during the war scare with France. That makes him far and away the most important person in Am military history -- as many historians have recognized. Rjensen (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The whole section is referenced by (and lifted from) severely POV grade school teachers notes that are less reliable than a blog. Furthermore they go far beyond the facts. Excellent organizers or administrators do not nearly lose entire armies through frostbite and starvation and then blame it on others - they find solutions. He worked with congress etc well because he got the job through his policial connections, had nothing to do with the army being idealistic (something that helped cover many of his mistakes), and being a battlefield tactician is a significant part of the job of being a General. The "Patriots" were doing just fine controlling the population before he came along (it doesn't take much to kill women and children or burn people's houses down) and do we really care if he proudly watched the Royal Navy sail off into the sunset? Drivel aimed at school children. Nor do I suspect that most of the world was surprised when he stepped down - though I am sure the Britsh wouldn't have minded if he hadn't. Most of the Loyalists went north to Canada even if a select few had the opportunity to go to the UK.

Say what you've just said here (suitably referenced), but it still doesn't justify a paragraph on what is supposed to be a brief overview of the subject.

The text comes straight from the History of the United States article which is a paraphrase of the George Washington article and is based on dozens of scholarly citations. (the EDSITEMENT website was not the basis.) The screed about GW's mistakes is out of place...he did not lose his army (it was Cornwallis and Napoleon who surrendered.) As for being a great battlefield strategist--well Robert E Lee was much better at it than GW (note that Lee surrendered too). There seems to be a lot of misinfo in the screed--for example, 80% of the Loyalists remained in the USA and did not go to Canada. Yes, the world was surprised when he stepped down, say the historians (and indeed that's what George III said). Statements like "had nothing to do with the army being idealistic" are simply contrary to what the scholars say. (he had Tom Paine read to his troops, for example.) "it doesn't take much to kill women and children" is what drivel sounds like. The point tha the critic has missed is that GW founded and shaped the US military far more than anyone else and his influence is still powerful. They still teach him at West Point (I taught myself at West Point and can confirm that.) Rjensen (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that the students at West Point are going to get anything that remotely diverges from the (POV) party line, and I can find lots of scholarly articles that are complete bunk. I am also aware that there are two histories in the US - the official line and the one that gets discussed quietly amongst professional historians. The latter doesn't make it into the books despite the evidence unless someone is willing to sacrifice their career or they want to retire. Remember the Alamo? there was no defiant last stand down to the last two men - a bunch of them surrendered and were executed for their treason - the archeological evidence is more than conclusive but that will never get taught at West Point, or appear in books in the US until those archeologists retire, and unlikely even then. Every section of US history is similarly full of half truths and your being a West Point lecturer leaves me less than impressed.

Neither Cornwallis or Napoleon have been strangers to my reading list, and am unlikely to have confused Washington with either. I was referring to Valley Forge and the march to it, where he was saved more by the incompetence of the British than any skill of his own. I am also aware that even the most succussful general makes major errors (Napoleon's was a deusy), however Washington's success rate seems somewhat on the low side, even for a British General. You might want to check out "On the Psychology of Military Imcompetence" by Norman Dixon, although it is from a British perspective and mainly covers British failures.

George the 3rd was hardly a man on the ball even then - quoting from the wiki page - he "suffered from recurrent, and eventually permanent, mental illness". The real question is - were his generals surprised? If they were all it says is that they underestimated the strength of revolutionary idealism in the US - which would seem to be clear from the outcome of the war anyway.

The army believed in what it was fighting for (and were therefore already idealistic) - all Washington had to do was not dispel their illusions. Having Paine recited to them is just a way to maintain the morale they already had. The British troops in contrast were unenthusiastic at best and it showed.

Drivel only if you weren't one of the victims, or the survivors - I guess you never wonder why so many people left since you seem to think the exodus didn't happen. It wasn't merely a difference of opinion - they had their lives and property threatened and quite a number of people were murdered who didn't get the new religion quickly enough, and hadn't decamped in a hurry. I have spoken with dozens of people descended from the original Loyalists and nearly all of them had tales of persecution. I would be surprised it if HAD made it into the reading list for a West Point prof - the US is very good at denying its atrocities and its war crimes. The province of Ontario was almost entirely populated by Loyalists who fled the persecution you dismiss, and the maritime provinces saw their populations skyrocket. From 1775 to 1805 StatsCan's estimate of the Canadian population went from roughly 90,000 to 457,000. (a 500% jump in 20 years) That is a lot of people who would not have made the trek into Canada unless they really, really, had to. The US during the same period grew from 2.1 to 5.3 million (a 253% increase). Neither seem to have been the recipient of large scale overseas immigration from Europe. Canada was never the recipient of either large numbers of slaves as the US continued to be, nor of criminals being deported and it was too expensive for most to make the trip otherwise. That Canadian population growth was double that of the US, despite otherwise similar cultures and the importation of large numbers of slaves for American plantations suggests a large scale exodus north at the same time that the US was expanding west fast enough to have absorbed the growth without forcing people north for economic reasons. The numbers don't lie - learned scholars on the other hand usually know which side their bread is buttered on and it doesn't pay to bring attention to the lies that have already been told.

I don't doubt his influence on the US military was profound since they now insist on making all the same mistakes his opponents made - such as over estimating the likely support from an invaded population, expecting the population to be grateful for their presence, lacking even the first clue as to their opponents motivations, expecting to win through sheer brute force, torture, random killing, etc - though the US military has since added a severe lack of discipline and incomprehension of the local language to their todo list during their periodic invasions of countries barely out of the stone ages.NiD.29 (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

This rambling rant raises serious questions about whether NiD.29 is really here to have a political debate rather than a discussion of article content, if his edits are truly intended to make the page more encyclopedic, and if he is even capable of NPOV on this subject—Indeed, if he is willing to accept Wikipedia policy as regards reliable sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources are fine. I don't regard class notes as reliable sources, and much the page isn't even sourced, nor is any more than about 50% NPOV as it is, and a lot of statements even when factually correct need to be reworded to make then NPOV.NiD.29 (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I merely recognize that a page this blatantly POV can only be fixed by drastic measures, and by showing the opposite POV. Both need to be presented, and in a balanced format. I recognize that many Americans have trouble with the concept that sides other than their own can be valid as well, and can only hope those interested in editting this page can see that. I couldn't care less about your politics and have no interest in a political debate and merely wish to see some balance. The "rant" was merely a refutation of a number of misconceptions the previous poster had, support for which is to be found in books likely not available at the West Point library.NiD.29 (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see above at the bottom of the "POV and lack of citation" section for my ideas for developing this page. I would appreciate your comments.NiD.29 (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:Undue weight

Although The Bay of Pigs should be mentioned, it clearly wiolates the ploicy on Undue Weight. I wish to have a discussion on this topic before the section is trimmed. The entire section is larger than several sections combined. The Bay of Pigs hgas its own article so this part of this particular artical only needs to briefly explain the operation and supply a link. It does not need so much detail.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

First Gulf War

similarly, why is the summary of Gulf War 1 significantly longer than the other entries? It is half again as long as WWII. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.102.178 (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Indian Wars

Hi all! I just expanded one of the stubs for this US Military History entitled the Mendocino War. Check it out and feel free to give feedback or make any edits! Bellitan (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The article seems to have missed the bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998. I wonder how many more military conflicts are missing from this wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielvincentkelley (talk • contribs) 13:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Indian Wars

Hi all! I just expanded one of the stubs for this US Military History entitled the Mendocino War. Check it out and feel free to give feedback or make any edits! Bellitan (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox image

An infobox was added, including an image on 7 May. The image IMHO does not fully represent the United States military, it is heavily weighted towards the United States Army, and appears to be an image that is dated to something pre-digital uniform (possibly the mid 1980s due to the image of an Army AH-1F in the image background). Should this image be removed? And if it is removed, what images are good candidates to replace it, if any replacement occurs at all.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This image is not bad, but IMHO still too army-centric.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)