Talk:Timeline of United States military operations

WikiProject Military history

(Rated B-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): American Civil War task force World War I task force World War II task force

List of U.S. military history events

• First paragraph:

The use of the term; 'ethnic cleansing',(a lexiconic political psuedo-euphemism), had not evolved as of that time in world history and is only used here in as a veiled attempt at revisionism and anti-American social reingineering.

• I don't see (so I inserted) the Cuban Missile Crisis here which was an event in the Cold War where the Soviet Union placed nuclear missiles in Cuba that could get to US cities in 15 minutes. Rhe US Navy blockaded Cuba to stop delivery of additional missles. At the end of the Cold War, information came out that was not known at the time. The Russian commander in Cuba had operational control of operational nuclear artillery that would have been used had US troops invaded Cuba. AlMac|^(talk) 14:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see anything related to US actions in Liberia in 2004 (2003?) related to humanitarian efforts after the latest civil war in that country. I'm no expert, so I didn't add anything, but I thought that I would mention it for someone else to do! JD79 02:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see anything related to the US forced removal of the Native Americans within the southern states to Oklahoma in 1838. (TGP) Template:205.144.218.66

WP:Be Bold folks, add the information yourself, dont be shy. If you make a mistake, someone else can correct it. In my experience, if you dont do it, no one ever will. Travb (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Formatted links -Quallah Battoo and Muckie (Mukki)166.214.155.103 (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)DLM

New Orleans

A added a reference to the article about military involvement in the events in New Orleans after Katrina (Civil disturbances and military action in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina). It is now listed under "Miscellaneous". I know this is not the best place, but I could not find any other appropriate category.

Some left-wing commentators on the web have indicated it could be listed under "Ethnic cleansing and control" as The Siege of New Orleans [1]

What do you suggest?

-- Petri Krohn 17:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs and feel that even putting it on this page is highly POV. --Habap 19:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it belongs in a section on the use of the National Guard in areas that are non-military, such as when Eisenhower nationalized the National Guard to make sure young black children could get an education without deadly racial harrassment. AlMac|^(talk) 02:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that if we add every deployment of the National Guard for non-military reasons, this list will grow beyond usefulness. There's no entry for the deployment of troops after the Watts riots, for example. Nothing about relief efforts for other hurricanes, either. I think that Petri is pushing a POV by including it here. The comment about "ethnic cleansing" is disingenous. Almost like a politician saying "some say my opponent is a theiving, lying scoundrel, but I don't". --Habap 20:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I am removing Hurricane Katrina from here, since other Hurricane-related deployments of the Army and National Guard don't appear (Hurricane Ivan, for example) and Petri's notes above indicate that it is include for highly POV reasons. --Habap 14:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on Talk:List of alleged United States foreign interventions since 1945

Please see the discussion on Talk:List of alleged United States foreign interventions since 1945

Regarding:

• List of alleged United States foreign interventions since 1945,
• List of United States foreign interventions since 1945,
• Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad,
• List of United States military history events

....and a possible merge of all four....Travb 06:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Puerto Rico?

Counter guerilla operations in Puerto Rico since the 1950s? I'm no expert, but it's the first I've heard of it. And the linked article makes no mention of it. MK2 20:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Work still needing to be done in merge

Moved from newly merged page List of Military Involvements of the US

List of Military Involvements of the US has been merged into this article. Those incidents not listed need to be merged into the article.

This needs to be added to this page:

Since the beginning of the American Revolution the United States has participated in many wars, including civil wars of other countries. The United States has also seen numerous riots and rebellions in it's history. The following is a Timeline of United States military operations.

Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad A better list of the involvements

American Revolution, 1763-1789

Shay's Rebellion, 1786-1787

Whiskey Rebellion, 1794

Quasi-War, 1798-1800; "The Forgotten War," a undeclared naval battle between the United States and the French

Fries's Rebellion or The Hot Water War, 1799

Barbary Wars, 1801-1815; Includes the War of Tripoli and Algerine War

War of 1812, 1812-1814

Creek Indian War, 1813-1814

First Seminole War, 1817-1818

Black Hawk War, 1832

Texas Revolution, 1832-1836

Second Seminole War, 1835-1842

Aroostock War, 1838-1839

Anti-Rent War, 1839-1846

Creole Case, 1841-1842

Dorr Rebellion, 1842

Philadelphia Nativist Riots, 1844

Mexican American War, 1846-1848

Wakarusa War, 1855-1860 also known as Kansas Civil War or Bleeding Kansas

Mountain Meadows Massacure, 1857

A Plea for Captain John Brown, 1859, also known as Brown's Slave Rebellion

American Civil War, 1860-1865

Battle of Little Big Horn, 1876

Anti-Chinese Riot, 1877

Nez Perce War, 1877

Controversy of 1889, 1889

Sitting Bull, 1890

Mob in Valparasico, 1891

Committee of Safety (Hawaii), 1893; also known as the Hawaiin Revolution

Miners Riot, 1894

Samoan Civil War, [[1898]

Spanish-American War, 1898

The Banana Wars, 1898-1934

Philippine-American War, 1899

Boxer Rebellion, 1900

U.S. Occupation of Vera Cruz, Mexico, 1914

World War I, 1917-1918

World War II, 1941-1945

The Cold War, 1945-1991

Korean War, 1950-1953

First Lebonese Invention, 1958

Second Indochina War, 1956-1975 Includes: Vietnam War, 1964-1973 Cambodian Civil War, [[1970]-1975 Pathet Lao, Mid 1950s-1975

Johnson Doctrine, 1965-1966, the US involvement of Dominican Republic

Iran Hostage Crisis, 1979-1980

Second Lebanese Invention, 1982-1984

Greneda Invasion, 1983

First Persian Gulf War, 1980-1988

Second Persian Gulf War, 1991

Somalia Intervention, 1992-1993

Ocupation of Haiti, 1994-present

Bosnian War, 1992-1995

The War in Afghanistan, 2001-present

Third Persian Gulf War, 2003-present

Intervention in Haiti, 2004-present

signed:Travb (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

From other page

I moved this list from another wikipage to here, this list also needs to be incorporated into the larger list:

• The massacre or the forced diaspora of Native Americans, for example in the Trail of Tears (1831, 1838);
• The Mexican-American War of 1846-48 and subsequent annexation of Mexican territory;
• The support of the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani in early 1893, the attempt to reinstate the queen in late 1893, and the subsequent annexation of Hawaii in 1898;
• The Spanish-American War in 1898 and the resulting occupation of Cuba, annexation of Puerto Rico, and Philippine-American War (1899-1913);
• Numerous interventions and gunboat diplomacy in Latin America under the Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary in countries such as Haiti, the Dominican Republic and Nicaragua.
• Intervention in the First World War (1917-1918) and then subsequent invasion of Russia (1918-1920);
• Division of the world with the Soviet Union into zones of control after the Second World War, as enforced for example by intervention in the Greek Civil War (1946-1949) and in the Korean War from 1950-1953;
• Cold War covert operations in numerous countries including the removal of Iran's Prime Minister Mossadegh via the 1953 Operation Ajax and assistance in the overthrow of Chilean President Salvador Allende in 1973;
• The Vietnam War from the early 1960s to 1973 and the bombing of Cambodia during the war;
• Participation in NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s;
• Intervention in El Salvador and Nicaragua in the early 1980s, sanctions against Cuba, the invasion of Panama in 1989 and intervention in Haiti in 2005-6;
• Participation in the Gulf War in 1990-1991, intervention in Afghanistan from 2001, and participation in the Iraq War from 2003 onward.

cleanup-merge tag

re: {{cleanup-merge}}

List_of_United_States_military_history_events#Regular_military_interventions, part of the old List of United States foreign interventions since 1945 needs to be merged into the new comprehensive list:

• List_of_United_States_military_history_events#1945-1991
• List_of_United_States_military_history_events#1991-2006.

Signed: Travb (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

1818 -- Oregon.

1818 -- Oregon. The USS Ontario dispatched from Washington, landed at the Columbia River and in August took possession of Oregon Territory. Great Britain had conceded sovereignty but Russia and Spain asserted claims to the area.

Conceded sovereignty??? In 1818? Spain had conceded claims in the area to Russia and Britain, then Russia and Spain cut separate deals with the U.S. in order to screw up the concessions they made to the British. The US did not "take possession" of the Oregon Territory; they seized a coastal fort or built one or something to assert US claims over the Columbia District aka Oregon Country, but had no impact on the existing Hudson's Bay Company adminstration of the territory, or on the powers of the reigning chiefs/nations, who were undisturbed largely until the Stephens Treaties and Cayuse and Yakima Wars. The USS Ontario's visit was an intimidation, quickly withdrawn, as I recall, and there was no way one puny ship at Astoria could control the territory all the way to the Rockies; it remained empty of Americans virtually until the dawn of the Oregon Treaty in the 1840s; the Ontario is inconsequential anyway in terms of the long-range history of the region. I'll be back to rewrite this....Skookum1 06:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This majority of the list is from the US military. It is pro-US, choosing words which justify US empire abroad. I just merged this article from four different articles about 5 hours ago. I fear a POV war brewing, but expected it to start from the right, not the left. See the original military article I got the majority of this from. Repetitive bullshit. Four people worked on the article over four decades, the last person was a really, really, really poor writer, updating the list from 1999 to present. I majorily rewrote the original. It still has an empire justifying stink to it, but I am willing to keep that stench to avoid a protracted revert war. I suggest adding a link to the episode in 1818. Slightly modify the list and actively avoid POV terms. Just to make sure we are on the same page, the one condition I do have, which I won't budge on, is don't start deleting entries, rewriting entries for clairity in my mind, is much different than deleting entries. User:Travb

"take possession" is neutral--maybe to neutral for your taste, but much better than "indimidation". Please change it, but be actively aware of the competing ideas here.

"take possession" is COMPLETELY UNFACTUAL. Read your history. Competing ideas? Look, TravB, I appreciate your efforts to keep things from flying out of control; but obviously, given what I can see in the list, there's no control over facts at all. "Take possession"? Read your history, and tell anyone who bitches or reverts to do the same. The US rattled its sabre in 1818 based on the treaties finaglings with Spain and Russia, but the upshot was a joint administration of the region (Oregon Country to the US, Columbia District to the Empire/HBC) until 1846, although the US never installed an administration until 1848. 1848, not 1818, and "taking possession" didn't happen until Gov. Stephens was appointed to the territory from 1846 on. Skookum1 16:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I just want to avoid a revert war. I have a feeling this page was built and maintained by pro-military people by its tone. I am new here too--today was my first edit here. Despite this, together, I think we can all make this page the very best and most comprehensive encycopedic article ever written anywhere on List of United States military history events (It already is). Again, I want to avoid a revert war, and focus my energies on building an encyclopedia, not fighting about the meaning of one entry or another. I hope you understand. I welcome your edits, be bold, but be sensitive too. Thats all I ask. Travb (talk) 07:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This page is also monitored by people on the Wikipedia:Wikiproject Indigenous peoples of North America although I agree with you it appears to have been started by military buffs. That's fine, so long as they don't overblow their history or MAKE STUFF UP. Which is what that 1818 nonsense is about. I gather the actual sabre-rattling over the Oregon boundary in the 1840s, the San Juans war (Pig War), and the Alaska Boundary Dispute may not count because there were no actual troop deployments, just the threat of war; er, there's probably another list of US irredentisms somewhere; any one of the three incidents I just mentioned could overnight have flared to a major war, however; the US similarly could have (but didn't) intervene in the Riel Rebellions. But back to the point: there's a number of American things to do with Canada that aren't here; mostly War of 1812 stuff, but.....Skookum1 16:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

In the course of my editing described in the Cites section below, I have reverted this back to its original wording ("Britain had conceded sovereignty ..."). I recognize from the discussion above that this is disputed, but rather than have a revert war on this, can we report in the article that sources differ in their accounts of these events, describe the differing accounts, and cite sources asserting each differing account reported? -- 210.5.75.29 02:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Border Commission troops in the Pacific Northwest

Hmm; something just crossed my mind as I re-read this....thinking of those dot-dot-dots at the end, y'see. Because some of it has to do with American adventurists in a non-governmental way. Such is already the case with the 1830s filibuster in Nicaragua and other "proxy" actions. Not the same as the dirty wars exactly, as listed below, which were official and semi-official government operations; hmm haven't looked up Iran-Contra yet...a long digression/backgrounder on military activities and associated political crises in the Pacific Northwest that spins off this I've created a sandbox page for at BC & Pacific Northwest History Forum which I created to put my lengthy elaborations on for linking to, rather than cluttering up Talk pages; I invite you to read and consider in relation to the list overleaf here; it'll be referred to in other articles on the region's history but it's good rundown/intro; mostly to do with the US Border Commission troops and the adventurists in the Fraser Canyon goldfields, but a few other interesting tidbits also; another section I'll be adding of a different horse colour will be some stuff on British-Russian "relations and risks" right up until World War I, about which there's been a couple of interesting books btw.

To TravB; re-reading your replies above I came across:

I fear a POV war brewing, but expected it to start from the right, not the left."

As I tried to explain somewhere else, (maybe on my Talk page?) while I'm not meaning to be confrontational, I can't help be controversial because of the prior absence of the British POV on lots of Wiki pages, including the original Pacific Northwest, Oregon Country, Oregon Treaty and Oregon and Alaska boundary disputes and there's lots of missing details throughout that should be integrated, not for right/left reasons, of for UK->BC->Can/US ones either, but simply in the cause of telling the complete truth. Taking the side of the British Empire is hardly a leftist thing to do, either...Skookum1 03:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Kewl. Add what you wish. Just keep in mind that this page is a list, and no entry should be longer than a sentence. You can link to larger articles you create or expand, as you wish.

As I mentioned before, I know little about Canadian history. I will look at your new page you created. I honestly have little interest in Canadian/US relations, but maybe that will change. I am more interested in the overthrows and the chaotic countries to the South.

I am not familar with the Nicaragua action of 1830, but I do know that Costa Rica was overthrown by an American entrepreneur. Travb (talk) 03:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; got it wrong, it was the 1850s, althoug AIRC there was another campaign in the '30s; see Filibuster (military); the "Austrian" troops mentioned re the Fraser Canyon War on BC & Pacific Northwest History Forum were part and party of that; many of the Germans and French irregulars stayed on in BC, it seems (hard to see who had done what; it was a politically shady career for a foreigner in ostensibly British turf, although that goes unsaid and it's hard to know who was who and had done what; some of the key McGowan's War people were also veterans of Nicaragua, and there was a "Nicaragua Bar" among the placer-field gold-mining bars of the Fraser.Skookum1 04:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have had a lot of arguments with people who I later learn to respect, and we become friends of a sort. I appreciate your work, and hope that we can put out disagreements behind us, to make this page even more comprehensive. Travb (talk) 03:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't consider it an argument so much as a misunderstanding; I write in a polemical style, to be sure, and maybe a bit pompously because of my exposure to diplomatic histories and "high lit", and also having not a small sense of theatre. I remember in soc.history.what-if long ago I wrote something on either the Oregon Dispute or a "Imperial British Columbia" timeline something that quite raised hackles with another subscriber from Seattle; once he realized I was writing ironically/polemically he got the point and the humour; taking the really high ground and making it a campaign and a bit of a snake-oil show in the process; it's the problem with text without audio; you can't get the tone; and stuff that might sound aggressive, written from the British/BC point of view (less so Canadian, given the period and my own local loyalties/identity - screw the maple syrup, beaver, moose and Mountie thing, basically). Thing is in the Pacific Northwest the cross-border dynamic isn't largely understood by Canadian history because of its Central Canadian bias and the uncomfortable cross-border nature of the population and the politics; the War of 1812 and all that stuff, the 1837 Rebellion and so on, leaves me cold; the US seizure of Montreal and the Battle of Three Rivers (Trois-Rivieres, Quebec) is all interesting but I only relate to it at a level of overall imperial/continental geopolitics; in the PacNW it's a different matter and there's only now some academic and writing work done exploring the x-border nature/identity and shared history of the place; Americans tend to be more aware of the HBC's role in the lower Columbia District (Oregon Territory to you guys) than anybody in Canadian historiography; even at BC's own universities as I've discovered somewhat to my dismay and frustration. Long story....but all mine are.

Anyway, I think you get it now that it's just a stylistic thing, and that penchant for consuming detail I've got. Point form will be tricky but I'll try; maybe I can separate out some twine from that tangle of threads, we'll see; have to get the names of the US garrisons and regiments in place, and what detail I can get on related stuff; still have to write McGowan's War and the Fraser Canyon War articles (McGowan's is only a stub currently) and input stuff on Douglas' relationship to Stephens in the Yakima and Cayuse Wars articles; which I have yet to add to Indian Wars as I'd long ago intended; obviously multi-ADHD and with 500 topics on the boil on any given session ;-) Speaking of which, you get the idea; I'll sign off for now; it's the shared history here that counts; the idea that in this region it's not US-Canada relations but WA-OR-BC-CA relations; they're intertwined and to be told properly can't really be separated; and lots of themes have differing views, as with the Oregon and Alaska articles and more to come.Skookum1 04:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Dirty Wars Timeline

The following was cut and pasted from Foreign relations of the United States Travb (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello All,

This was drawn up for a class in Latin American history I took this year. It's the work of one Professor Van Gosse, who has written extensively on this subject. I think this area certainly deserves more attention than is currently given by wikipedia, but overall I think the present article is not overly biased. Perhaps when summer comes I'll have time to offer something myself. Tom J., Ireland.

THE DIRTY WARS

1961 1) April 17-19: the Bay of Pigs invasion fails 2) General Rafael Trujillo, pro-US dictator of the Dominican Republic since 1930, is assassinated; the CIA supplies the weapons, to avert another “revolutionary situation”

1962 1) The Cuban Missile Crisis 2) “Operation Mongoose” stepped-up

1963 November 22: JFK assassinated

1964 1) US-backed coup in Brazil against President Joao Goulart, LBJ congratulates junta’s “democratic rebellion,” military holds power until 1985 2) CIA and AFL-CIO organize a general strike in British Guiana to topple government of Cheddi Jagan prior to independence from Britain in 1966 3) Panamanians invade Canal Zone to protest US occupation and place national flag, fight with Marines

1965 1) LBJ sends 20,000 troops into the Dominican Republic under OAS auspices, after a military revolt by “Constitutionalists” to restore the elected president, Juan Bosch

1966 1) CIA organizes a “demonstration election” to bring Joaquin Balaguer to power in the Dominican Republic, a protégé of Trujillo; he represses the left, stays in power until 1978 2) CIA organizes counter-insurgency in Guatemala, revolutionary leaders killed 3) The Tricontinental Congress in Havana hears Che Guevara’s “Two, Three, Many Vietnams” message 4) Father Camilo Torres killed while fighting with guerrillas in Colombia

1967 Che hunted down and killed in Bolivia by US-led Rangers

1968 1) The Latin American bishops meet in Medellin, Colombia, declare a “preferential option for the poor” 2) Mexican army kills hundreds in Mexico City during demonstrations against government

1969 Castro mobilizes the entire country for a ten million ton sugar harvest, but fails

1970 Salvador Allende’s Popular Unity coalition of Socialists and Communists wins an election in Chile, CIA fails to block Allende taking power

1972 Center-left coalition led by Jose Napoleon Duarte wins elections in El Salvador; military coup in response

1973 1) September 11: After a campaign of subversion backed by CIA, the Chilean military led by General Augusto Pinochet overthrow Allende and institute massive repression; Pinochet remains in power until 1989 2) Military assumes power in Uruguay after defeating guerrilla movement, the Tupamaros, intensifies repression, stay in power until 1985 3) Populist former ruler Juan Peron (exiled since 1955) returns to Argentina, is elected president amid revolutionary chaos, dies within the year, succeeded by wife Isabel

1975 1) Cuba sends an expeditionary force to Angola to aid the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola after Portugal pulls out; in 1976 Cuban and Angolans defeat US-backed South African invasion force 2) The three factions of the Frente Sandinista de Liberacion Nacional (FSLN, the Sandinistas) unify, prepare to confront the Somoza regime 3) In the US Congress, major hearings are held (the “Church Committee” in the Senate; the “Pike Committee” in the House) to investigate abuses by the CIA and domestic intelligence agencies, including assassinations of foreign leaders and the overthrow of Allende 4) At a meeting in Chile, the secret police chiefs of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay (later joined by Brazil) organize “Operation Condor” to eliminate their enemies throughout the hemisphere; in 1976 exiled Chilean Foreign Minister Orlando Letelier is blown up in Washington DC, one of tens of thousands killed via Operation Condor with at least tacit US support

1976 1) Following a military coup in March, the “dirty war” begins in Argentina to wipe-out a powerful urban guerrilla movement, with 20,000 killed by 1982; Secretary of State Henry Kissinger tells Argentine Foreign Minister in October "the quicker you succeed the better" 2) In November, Jimmy Carter is elected president of the US, pledges to support human rights and end policy of aiding dictatorships, bans assassinations by US intelligence agencies

1977 Jimmy Carter and Panama’s President, General Omar Torrijos, sign a treaty in Washington formally ceding sovereignty over the Canal Zone to Panama in 1999, abrogating Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty of 1903

1979 July 19: the FSLN triumphs over Somoza after a six-month insurrection and massive repression and marches into Managua; Carter recognizes the new government

this should be integrated in the article - it is an essential part of the subject... a bit of updating would be nice to... --Boszko2 12:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussions on these military events not here

Discussions on these military events should take place on the respective pages, not on this list. Please limit the descrpition of these conflicts to one sentence.

I have been in edit wars with others since October 2005, and have been working on this page almost as long. Please see: Talk:List of United States foreign interventions since 1945 which I merged into List of United States military history events.

To avoid edit wars here, the perspectives on these conflicts should be left to their respective talk pages, not discussed on this list. Thank you. Travb (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Occupation of Akwesasne during Mohawk Civil War, spring 1990

"We" (Canadians) knew about this because of parallel disturbances on the Canadian half of the St. Regis-Akwesasne Reserve, which straddles the border and the St. Lawrence River at Cornwall, Ontario and Messina, New York. The Mohawk Civil War, as it was called in Canada, was a gunfight for control between various factions of the Mohawk people during the late winter/early spring of 1990; the events on the US side of the border were a bit mysterious but were "kept under control" by immediate occupation by US troops of the entire reserve. Don't know much more about it; army or reserves or marines or what, except that they came from the Messina US military base right there. No fighting, just a deployment/mobilization. Anyone else know anything about this? Apparently they were on red alert during the Oka Crisis and thereby no doubt helped things from getting too out of control on our side of the border.Skookum1 18:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest creating the page. Then linking to it in the see also sections, also add the applicable Special:Categories. "If you make it they will come". Travb (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I need to research it; and Mohawk Civil War could easily be a political flame-battle, as the divisions within the Mohawk community are not yet healed/solved. But I'll try; if you've not seen Oka Crisis have a look; although that's a different matter and more Canada/QC vs Mohawks and not at all Mohawk vs Mohawk as with the "civil war". What went on the US side of the line during it was reported briefly on Canadian media; maybe the local paper in Messina might have something, or in Cornwall; could take some digging....someday I'll have to tell you about troop mobilizations at the height of the Solidarity Crisis in BC in 1983, for which no one's written an article yet (Canadians are very good at not looking at stuff in their own recent history IMO: partly because it's still so touchy; more on tis privately or on the PacNW Forum if you like, rather than expound upon it here....Skookum1 08:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you can add Mohawk Civil War into the existing Oka Crisis page. I think if you post something on the right page (not on the talk page--people ignore the talk pages) then you will get more info. Try google.com/print Travb (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Man, you need to use google, here is a book on it, first hit in the search:

• "One Nation Under the Gun: Inside the Mohawk Civil War by Rick Hornung"

Google print, 11 hits mostly all references to Hornung's book.

You can buy it used at Amazon.com for $2.00 USD.

I have found 99% of the time asking questions on the talk pages gets no results, I wouldn't do it in the future unless you have exhasted all other avenues. I guess by answering your question, I just happened to make your question one of the 1%. Travb (talk) 10:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the question was actually did this belong here or not, not so much as to its details; but a book I can't afford anyway, i.e. never mind the $2 and shipping, I don't have credit/credit card; might be in the uni library near me though; I'll have a look, if it is, and see if the US-side events are covered.Skookum1 16:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

And as for the other thing I've mentioned; it was "just" a mobilization - manoeuvres officially - within striking range of the border during what might have been called a state of apprehended insurrection as with the FLQ crisis/'70; but there were no Canadian troops anywhere near BC when the Premier shot his mouth off about using troops (long story/background). Two divisions of Marines, though, in what would have easily been an overnight occupation of the Lower Mainland to thwart a General Strike that had all the makings of turning BC into a republic; or overthrowing the government anyway.....Skookum1 17:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

And no, there's no book on it; recent BC history books tend to be butt-kissing bios and retrospects by former political insiders (e.g. http://thetyee.ca/Books/2006/06/27/BennettReconsidered/, a page/forum which mysteriously enough is blank; looks like The Tyee has been hacked - it's our online independent rag, and a good one); objective accounts, even in journalism, are extremely rare. The history's too volatile, often as not; and the main sources (newspapers) are owned/controlled by the same corp, who are always on one side; it's an issue I might hold forth on in the BC&PacNW History Forum at some point, as it relates to the value of "primary sources" in BC history/politics.Skookum1

I have a passing interest in this subject at best, as probably most people who watch this page. I think you would get a better reception and response to your comments and inquiries at Oka Crisis. Do you mind if I move these comments there? Travb (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed items

• 1963 CIA supports a coup in Iraq against the democratically-elected Qassim government.
• 1968 CIA successfully supports a bloody coup in Iraq, bringing the Baath Party to power, with Saddam Hussein eventually taking the helm.

NYCjosh added these CIA actions yesterday, I added the {{fact}} tag yesterday, because to my knowlege there is little evidence supporting this theory, and the anon deleted them today. Signed: Travb (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Since the history of the 1963 and 1968 Iraqi coups and the CIA's role behind them are amply documented, I did not at first include citations. I added the fully-supportive citations now. Also, it wasn't clear to me where to include citations given the format of the list. Most of the items do not seem to have any citations. --NYCJosh 02:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Since the history of the 1963 and 1968 Iraqi coups and the CIA's role behind them are amply documented, I did not at first include citations. I have been attempting to dig up this role for some time, and was skeptical because I could not find good sources, thank you for the references. I know only that the CIA contacted Saddam in Egypt, when he was in exile, beyond that I know little.

it wasn't clear to me where to include citations given the format of the list I agree, unfortunatly the majority of these items do not have citations. This is a merging of four articles the largest portion is from http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl30172.htm.

I just noticed that many of the original events, from before I merged the four lists, are quite large, beyond a simple sentence or two. Maybe I will cut this down. I guess if no edit wars are caused by these sections, there is no need to do that right now. Travb (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is it so hard to leave out the CIA stuff? The CIA is NOT the military. This topic is about the MILITARY history. We can put the CIA stuff on a different page. Why do people keep insisting on putting events where the military was not involved under this topic? If the military wasn't involved, it isn't military history and does not belong.Niteshift36 23:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It might give the impression that the history of the US is cleaner then it is. Also, is it fair to classify the CIA as civilian? In most of the history pages in wikipedia, the things in the list seem under-represented. Anonymous 11:49 24 Jan 2009

• It doesn't give that impression if you read the opening paragraph, which clearly states that the article is only about events in which MILITARY members were actually deployed. And yes, it is fair to classify the CIA as civilian because it is factually true. Classifying them as military would be opinion. The CIA is not part of the Dept. of Defense, nor are they considered a uniformed service like the Coast Guard or NOAA. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm uneasy about making this distinction when it comes to CIA-controlled Predator drones bombing targets. 90% of the public would classify that as a military event. Bay of Pigs seems to me like it belongs here, as another example. Tempshill (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• If the military isn't involved, it isn't a military event, regardless of what popular opinion might be. You made the case against inclusion when you called them "CIA-controlled" Predators. The CIA buys them, arms them and flies them. The event properly belongs in articles about the CIA, not the military. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree with this. Tempshill (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina

Why is the Military action after Hurricane Katrina not mentioned? LCpl 22:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Because you have not added it yet, asking someone else to add material to a talk page is a dead end, 99% of the time. WP:Be Bold. Go for it.Travb (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Alleged_interventions

Of all the sections, this section should be referenced, List_of_United_States_military_history_events#Alleged_interventions because of the uncertain evidence of these accusations. Travb (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Humanitarian interventions

If the list includes deployments of the military for humanitarian reasons as in Lebanon it is worthwhile to mention the deployments to Pakistan of helicopters and C130 galaxies after the earthquake. The deployment of helicopters to INdonesia and other countries after the Tsumnami. THe use of military planes to ship rescue dogs such as for Turkey. THe current aid operation sending ships and helicopters to Lebanon. etc.Mrdthree 20:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hundreds of incidents

I have corrected your misspelling of the word "involvement." If you want to insist on misspelliing it, go ahead and do your "revert" operation again. I have also included the following, in order to prevent this article from being the America-bashing article that it was originally:

"Hundreds of incidents (the overwhelming majority) are included herein where U.S. forces never took military action, and were present strictly for humanitarian or other peaceful purposes: disaster relief, for example, or providing security for the evacuation of U.S. civilians during a civil war." AlyssaM 10:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alyssa, I appreciate your efforts on this wikipage. Thank you for pointing out and correcting the spelling error which maybe mine. I am a terrible speller, and my contributions are often corrected. :)

The reason I deleted this paragraph is the same reason I have deleted long explanations of each military event, pro or anti-US. Please don't take it personally. For example, I deleted the word "drug sales" addition a few days ago. [2] This came from a comprimise that User:CJK and I made a few months ago, when most of this page was on another page. We agreed not to discuss the different military events here on this page, and keep the military events short and concise, limiting them to one sentence at the most. (See:Talk:List_of_United_States_foreign_interventions_since_1945#Potential_ground_rules_on_the_list)

As I wrote to CJK, this list is not the place to argue whether American foreign policy is benign or not. CIA or History of United States overseas expansion and other pages in the Template:AmericanEmpire are better forums for this debate. I have consistently attempted to keep each entry short, and neutral. I would love some help with this, and welcome your future additions.

You also wrote on my talk page the following: If you are going to insist on misspelling the word "involvement," and if you're going to insist on America-bashing, go ahead and do another "revert." (See: User_talk:Travb#List_of_United_States_military_history_events)

if you're going to insist on America-bashing The majority of this list is from a Congressional list compiled over the last 31 years (since 1971), as it states in the first paragraph of this wikipage:

Portions of this list are from the Congressional Research Service report RL30172. "Congressional Research Service report RL30172". http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl30172.htm. Retrieved 2006-07-15. 

The list is from the airforce military site. Simply posting this list is not "America-bashing" unless you feel the US airforce and US Congress are "America-bashing" too. The large majority of this page is simply a historical list of US involvment throughout the world, compiled by congress and hosted on the airforce military site.

Thanks for your message and your continued contributions. I hope you can help me make the entries more neutral and concise. It is hard to keep up with this list. Best wishes, and welcome to wikipedia. Travb (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There are two factors at work here which create a perception of America-bashing. The first is that whenever US troops are sent overseas, no matter how peaceful or small the deployment, it is always made public. This creates a very long list. As you may have noticed, this article has been criticized for its excessive length.

The second factor is that there is no corresponding "List of Soviet Union military events," "List of Chinese military events" or "List of Cuban military events." Because those are secretive governments with no transparency, it would be difficult to compile a list of even the majority of their foreign deployments. But no effort at all has been made. The combination of these two factors creates the impression, however unintended, that this list has been created as ammunition for America-bashing.

The overwhelming majority of these foreign deployments consisted of very small numbers of troops for completely benign purposes. I would add that in general, it is better to give information than to delete it. AlyssaM (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I don't want to get into a discussion about US foreign policy here. I feel your statments are very common run-of-the-mill arguments, which I have addressed many time before, which I would be happy to address on other wikipages.

The overwhelming majority of these foreign deployments consisted of very small numbers of troops for completely benign purposes

Unfortunately, I would have to strongly disagree, and welcome your comments on other pages which I frequent, some of which I have created, such as Philippine-American War, Torture manuals, U.S.-Colombia relations, US history of exporting democracy, Nicaragua vs US, Waterboarding, Santa Marta Massacre, Psychological Operations in Guerrilla War, Plausible deniability, Operation Whitecoat etc.

American Empire is probably the best page to discuss these issues.

I would add that in general, it is better to give information than to delete it. I agree wholeheartedly, with caveats. In fact "give information than to delete it" was my major argument with someone just two days ago. User_talk:TDC#The_more_things_change... But if the addition will provoke edit wars, as has happened before in the history of these five pages which I merged into this one, then it is better to err on the side of caution.

I don't want to be dragged into a long discussion here, I could go on and on, but will not.

Again, I welcome your additions to this page. If you want to trim down these entries, that would be fabulous.

Again, welcome to wikipedia. I look forward to working with you some more.

Signed:Travb (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've visited the other pages you've mentioned. In general, I find a failure to achieve the NPOV desired by Wikipedia. There is an overall tone of America-bashing, with partial reliance on questionable sources to support the more damning accusations, that reflects what is apparently a dominant culture among contributors at Wikipedia. Also, these events didn't occur in a vacuum. US military deployments have universally occurred in response to threats, either honestly perceived or very real.

The typical deployment seems to be deployment of a few dozen or few hundred Marines to protect the lives of US missionaries and aid workers during a rebellion or civil war, or to provide disaster relief. Nothing could be more benign. For every Philippine-American War (1899-1913) there are at least three Liberias (1998), if not seven or eight. Provoking edit wars wouldn't bother me, as long as the end result is an accurate article with NPOV. AlyssaM (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I welcome your changes and additions on any of the above pages. Thanks for your hard work and dilegence, I appreciate you taking the time to read these articles. Travb (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Rwandan Genocide

Anon wrote:

Rwandan Genocide On April 6, 1994, extremist groups in Rwanda massacred 800,000 to one million people. UN forces were sent to intervene, but due mainly to the restrictions placed on them, failed to prevent the genocide.

How was the US involved? If part of UN force, need a short blurb stating this. Travb (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I am going to cut this down to one sentence, as we have done with all sections, maybe even delete it, since the anon never explained. *Deleted.* Travb (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Name of campaign?

RE: 1857 -- Nicaragua. - April to May, November to December. In May Commander Charles H. Davis of the United States Navy, with some marines, received the surrender of William Walker, self proclamed president of Nicaragua, who was loosing control of the country to forces financed by his former business partner, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and protected his men from the retaliation of native allies who had been fighting Walker. In November and December of the same year United States vessels USS Saratoga, USS Wabash, and Fulton opposed another attempt of William Walker on Nicaragua. Commodore Hiram Paulding's act of landing marines and compelling the removal of Walker to the United States, was tacitly disavowed by Secretary of State Lewis Cass, and Paulding was forced into retirement.

This section is getting to big, does anyone know the name of this skirmish, so that I can make a new article and link to it? Travb (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup and merge?

This page is currently two separate lists, one chronological, and one sorted by topic. It doesn't seem like all events are represented in both lists. It seems like we have two options:

• Split this into two pages, and try to post all incidents on both, sorted by type
• Integrate the by-topic list into the chronological listing. We could retain the "type" information by converting it into a table that has a "type" column with links to overview articles for that "thread" of American history.

-- Beland 20:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Operation Gladio allegation

The impression recieved by reading the part about alleged US support of operation gladio is that this organisation was primarily a terrorist organization that attacked civilians in peacetime. In reality it's main function was as a stay behind army to attack military targets, in times of war. It is quite apparent by reading the description and history of Gladio that this was likely the reason that it recieved US support. The fact that it commited atrocities against civilian populations seems to be a minor incident in the organisation's history, and these activities arguably do not represent US intentions, which were likely entirely strategic in preventing a soviet occupation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.216.191.182 (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

I went ahead and toned down this section. Arguments about content should be on the respective pages. This is simply a list of military events only, and to avoid edits wars here, each entry should be brief (no more than a sentence).Travb (talk) 06:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Bombing a country because of an insult??

"1854 -- Nicaragua. - July 9 to 15. Naval forces bombarded and burned San Juan del Norte (Greytown) to avenge an insult to the American Minister to Nicaragua." Is this a factual information? To me, it looks like an anti-American biased simplification of facts. The only source I could find which doesn't look as if it's been copied from the Wikipedia is the following:

"Because of the increase in traffic, in 1852, an American Naval frigate, the Cyane cruised Caribbean coastlines to protect American citizens settled in Caribbean ports, including Greytown. On July 13, 1854, the Cyane bombarded and destroyed Greytown when local authorities refused to make reparation or restitution for property stolen from American citizens and for an attack by a mob on the United States consul. Within weeks, news of the controversial bombing was reported around the world, including in the London Illustrated News. In 1855, the Río San Juan changed course and again Greytown was destroyed. " http://www.maritimeheritage.org/ports/centralAmerica/nicaragua.html

Malbi

Many of the CIA backed coups listed as "claims" are open acknowledge by the USA government. This article makes it seem like its just some nutty CIA conspiracy buffs.

Quoting from Congressional Research Service report RL30172, as posted by the Naval Historical Center: "1854 -- Nicaragua. - July 9 to 15. Naval forces bombarded and burned San Juan del Norte (Greytown) to avenge an insult to the American Minister to Nicaragua.". -- Boracay Bill 12:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Occupation of Akwesasne, 1990

Please see this.Skookum1 19:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Cites

It seems to me that this page has some problems related to citation of supporting sources. Many of the items in the Extraterritorial and major domestic deployments section are supported by the cited Congressional Research Service report RL30172. Some items are not supported by this source, and it is not clear which items are supported by this source and which are not. Putting <ref name="congress"/> cites on each item supported by this report would result in a too-long list of backlinks from the note in the References section (Note 1, since it occurs early in the article). Still, I think the items supported by this section should be marked in order to aid in identifying items in the article which are not supported by a cited source.

Dithering about this, I've come up with some alternative solutions, none of which make me very happy:

1. Include a statement near the article text mentioning RL30172, saying that items supported by that source are marked somehow (with ^[RL30172], say), the items might be so marked, and the note in the References section could be identified with a leading RL30172.

2. The supported items could be plaintext-tagged with something like this:^[1]

3a. Add {{note_label|RL30172|1|}} just after the <ref name="congress">, and

3b. Tag each item supported by this cite with {{ref label|RL30172|1|}}

This would have the effect of placing hyperlinks to the note at each item, without placing backlinks at the note in the references section. The hyperlinks would be labeled:^[1], but would be clickable.

4a. Add {{note_label|RL30172|RL30172|}}'''RL30172:''' just after the <ref name="congress">, and

4b. Tag each item supported by this cite with {{ref label|RL30172|RL30172|}}

This would have the effect of placing hyperlinks to the note at each item, without placing backlinks at the note in the references section and plaintext-labeling the note as RL30172. The hyperlinks would be labeled:^[RL30172], but would be clickable.

I'm leaning towards alternative 1 or 4. I sort-of like alternative 2, but alternatives 2 and 3 both have the disadvantage of fragility -- if another cite is later placed in the article at a point ahead of the present <ref name="congress"> declaration, the note number on that would change from 1 to something else, breaking all instances of alternatives 2 and 3. Comments? Suggestions? -- Boracay Bill 12:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I plan to start tagging items today, using alternative 4 above. There are too many items to do this in one edit, so it will be a series of edits. Along the way, I plan review external links and/or wikilinked pages mentioned in support of items and to tag items not supported by cites with {{fact}}s. I notice that there appear to be a lirge number of items mentioned in RL30172 which are not mentioned in this article. I plan to add those items as I come to them. If anyone has comments, objections, or suggestions as I do this, please mention them here. -- 210.5.75.29 01:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed when I got to the first item under 1820-1829 that my ref_label conflicts cosmetically with external links. To resolve this, I am going to add a subsection to the External links section and put these inline links down there with ref/note_label. Comments/suggestions/feedback here will be welcome. -- 210.5.75.29 02:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Did edits up to 1850. Deleted Bear Flag Revolt item because, from the cited wikilink, (1) it is not clear that this was an official act of the US Government (though it might have been) and (2) the Mexican-American War was underway at the time. The Mex-Amer war is listed as an item and if this revolt was an official action of the US Govt it would fall within the scope of that item. -- Boracay Bill 04:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Did edits up to 1900, inserting links to RL30172. Also:

• Removed 1854-58 -- Nicaragua Naval Battles The wikilinked page redirects to a page titled United States occupation of Nicaragua which discusses that subject during a 1909-1933 time frame.
• 1857-58 -- Utah War added info from wikilinked page.
• 1861-65 -- American Civil War added info from wikilinked page.
• Deleted 1865-77 -- Post Civil War Reconstruction -- From the info on the wikilinked page, I don't see how this relates to this article's subject.
• 1878-93 Mexico -- trimmed info.
• 1885 Panama -- trimmed info.
• 1895-96 Venezuela -- tagged with {{fact}}<
• 1898-99 Samoa -- info not verifiable from wikilinked page. Replaced inf with info from the wikilinked page.
• 1899-1913 Philippines -- toned down POV.

Did edits up to 1950, inserting links to RL30172. Also:

• 1909-1933 Nacaragua -- changed date to 1910 per RL30172
• 1914-17 Mexico Deleted broken wikilink to Dolphin affair and related text.
• 1913 Mexico - added
• 1914 Haiti - added
• 1914 Dominican Republic - added
• 1914-17 Mexico - added
• 1915-34 Haiti - added
• 1918-20 soviet Union - changed to Soviet Russia.
• 1936 Spanish Civil War (wikilinked to Abraham Lincoln brigade) - Removed. As I understand it, this was not an official action by the US Govt.
• 1945-49 Occupation of part of Germany improved wikilink.
• 1945-55 Occupation of part of Austria improved wikilink.
• 1945-46 Occupation of part of Italy - flagged with {{fact}}
• 1945-52 Occupation of Japan improved wikilink.
• 1945-46 Temporary reoccupation of the Philippines in preparation for independence flagged with {{fact}}
• 1945-49 Occupation of South Korea and defeat of a leftist insurgency flagged with {{fact}}
• 1945-91 Cold War - deleted; too unspecific.
• 1945-47 Marines, China flagged with {{fact}}.
• checkpointed work up to 1950 -- Boracay Bill 03:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Did edits up to 1970, inserting links to RL30172. Also:*1954 The CIA & Guatamala - Deleted; does not fit this section and duplicates entry in the Covert ops section

• 1955-63 Vietnam' - Changed to 1955-64 - Vietnam; replaced Diem-centric cite with more general cite; rewrote text
• 1963-64 CIA & Iraq -- Moved to Covert ops section
• 1964 -- Military coup in Brazil - deleted. Duplicates item in Covert ops section. moved cites, etc. to covert ops item.
• 1968 -- Capture of USS Pueblo - Deleted. Don't see how it fits in this Extraterritorial and major domestic deployments section. Perhaps the section should be retitled something like Significant extraterritorial and domestic operations, or Significant operations and events (??)
• 1968 -- Iraq. - moved to Covert ops section -- Boracay Bill 09:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Did edits up to 1990, inserting links to RL30172.

• 1971 Indian Subcontinent - flagged with {{fact}}
• 1973 CIA - deleted; duplicates item in Covert ops section
• 1987-88 Operation Earnest Will - added descriptive text
• 1987-88 Operation Prime Chance - added descriptive text
• 1988 Operation Praying Mantis - added descriptive text
• 1988 Operation Golden pheasant - added descriptive text
• 1988 -- USS Vincennes shootdown -- I don't see how this item fits into this Extraterritorial and major domestic deployments section, but I have left it in place. Perhaps the section should be retitled something like Significant operations and events (??)

• Did remaining edits in the Extraterritorial and major domestic deployments and Covert opssections through the 1950s, inserting links to RL30172. Also inserted some {{Fact}} and {{failed-verification}} tags and replaced a dead link with an internet archive link. Still have a little bit to do. -- Boracay Bill 11:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Reviewed items which I had put into the External links section during this series of edits. Moved those which I took to be References (i.e., had been used in preparation of this article) to that section.

In the Covert ops section:

• 1961 CIA, Trujillo - removed dead link
• 1981 CIA El Salvador - changed "military" to "CIA" in text to bring into line with cited source
• 1979 Mujadeen, etc. - flagged with {{fact}}
• 1990s Croatia - flagged with {{fact}}. Text says "Pentagon-contracted advisors". Operation Storm article says: "Croatian forces hired private US companies to help reorganize and train the army, but the extent of these companies involvement, as well as their link to the US government, remains unknown."

In the Alleged interventions section:

• 1967 Greece - flagged with {{fact}}
• 1982-83 Guatamala - flagged with {{fact}}
• 1960s Italy - changed a false flag operation to which has been accused of trying to influence policies through the means of "false flag" operations, per info in wikilinked source Operation Gladio.
• 1970 CIA & Golpe Borghese - flagged with {{Failed verification}}. Wikilinked source does not support CIA involvement.
• 1979-84 Yemen - Flagged with {{fact}}
• 1987 Fiji Flagged with {{fact}}
• 1990-91 Bulgaria - Flagged with {{fact}}
• 1991 Haiti - Flagged with {{failed verification}}. Wikilinked article does not speak of US support for ousting.
• 2004 El Salvador - Flagged with {{failed verification}}. Wikilinked article does not support assertions about US interference and threats.

Re-labeled the External links added during this series of edits.

Closing summary - I have taken a pretty close look at some sections of this article and not looked at other sections at all. In the sections I examined, I tried to move inline external links into either the References or the External links sections, to provide better citation information on the links,to look at the content of the cited item in relation to the assertion it was cited to support, and to flag problems which I saw. I suspect that I must have made a few unnoticed mistakes during this series of edits. I have tried to leave a useful overview of what I did in this talk page section. I hope that I have done some useful work here and left the article in a condition which is improved over the condition in which I found it. -- Boracay Bill 02:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Golpe Borghese

Information of this failed coup has come in public knowledge thanks to Freedom of Information Act. To make long story short US now recognise that they have know everything about coup. Still U.S.A. do not recognize that they have anything to do with it but that they have only know. Maybe after new 30 years they will recognize guilt ? -- Rjecina 21:38, 19 April 2007 (CET)

Reference for coup in Italy (Golpe Borghese) is "La Storia siamo Noi - Il golpe Borghese" Rai (Italian state television) - 5 december 2005. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rjecina (talk • contribs) 00:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Merger

Overseas interventions of the United States should be merged into this article since they both have lists of such interventions. Thus, any sourced material should be moved here.Ultramarine 13:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Strongly against. Overseas interventions and military events are two different topics. Griot 21:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

But this article also lists such interventions (and also has sources). Most of the interventions in the other article are already listed here.Ultramarine 21:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

strongly against this is a list only. We have tried to keep this list very brief (one sentence only) to avoid edit wars here. Whereas Overseas interventions is a more detailed article. 69.148.173.32 23:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Good argument.Ultramarine 00:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank ultra, really respect all that you do. 68.91.253.194 05:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I've suggested merging List of wars involving the United States into this page because, this list is more comprehensive and more clearly defined. The list of wars page doesn't define the word "war" and includes non-declared "wars" like the Cold War and unauthorized wars like the Korean war. Without a clear definition of a war is this list just seems more helpful.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the removal of a lot of information by one editor. I went back to November 16, 2007. After that time there were no significant changes to the article. Out of respect for other wikipedians work, I suggest that future editors, before removing all of this work of dozens of editors, please find a home for what you personally feel is "off topic" information.

Today I suggested merging the covert section with CIA sponsored regime change and spent 20 minutes moving and merging duplicate sections.

I am now going to restore the actual contributions to this article between November 16, 2007 and today. Trav (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel your reversion is totally inappropriate. This article is about US MILITARY involvement. If you want to do an article about the CIA, wonderful, please do so. But there is no reason for people to be confused by thinking that things the CIA did were the responsibility to the US MILITARY. They are completely seperate entities. I do not understand why this is not a black and white. Why continue presenting information in a false manner?Niteshift36 (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I still have not heard a good reason. You complain about undoing the "hard work" of other editors, yet undo my editing without a seconds hesitation. Not a single entry that I deleted was a US Military event. Why is this topic called "List of United States Military history events" if it is going to include events that the military was not involved in? Let's change the title to "Stuff involving someone from the US" if you want to include non-military history.Niteshift36 (talk) 1:3, 1 December 207 (UTC)

Zebulon Pike

His invasion of Mexico is confusing. It should be cleared up as to if he was really invading, and that the part of Colorado he was in was Spanish territory then. a platoon is not really an invasion. Rds865 (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, confusing. A bit more info is available at Zebulon Pike#Southwest expedition, and in the book The expeditions of Zebulon Montgomery Pike to headwaters of the Mississippi River, through Louisiana Territory, and in New Spain, during the years 1805-6-7 cited there (see [3]). I haven't seen the book myself, so cannot cite it here. Much detail on this is probably inappropriate to this article, but I've added a {{further}} link.

Deployment of 3rd Infantry Division (United States) 2008

This has now been reverted twice because of "lacking sources". What's wrong with the article in Army Times?--Oneiros (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• That's not why I reverted it. First, the 3ID is not deployed anywhere. They are at their home base of Ft. Stewart. Second, their current assignment has a long list of reasons. You are concentrating on a single line, while ignoring the rest of the duties. Looking at how you wrote this and the entry at the article about the 3ID, it is clear you want to emphasize the notion of pending martial law. I removed it because 1) there is no deployment (they are at home and 2) by failing to give the whole story, it looks like POV pushing. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Look at the list of duties from the article: an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks, to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.

Why is it not a "deployment"? Here is what the article you cite says: "but the soldiers with 1st BCT, who returned in April after 15 months in Iraq, will operate out of their home post at Fort Stewart, Ga., where they’ll be able to go to school, spend time with their families and train for their new homeland mission as well as the counterinsurgency mission in the war zones. Stop-loss will not be in effect, so soldiers will be able to leave the Army or move to new assignments during the mission, and the operational tempo will be variable. Don’t look for any extra time off, though. The at-home mission does not take the place of scheduled combat-zone deployments and will take place during the so-called dwell time a unit gets to reset and regenerate after a deployment." They just finished a deployment. They are not considered deployed. This is their down time.

"Training for homeland scenarios has already begun at Fort Stewart and includes specialty tasks such as knowing how to use the “jaws of life” to extract a person from a mangled vehicle; extra medical training for a CBRNE incident; and working with U.S. Forestry Service experts on how to go in with chainsaws and cut and clear trees to clear a road or area." But you don't mention this kind of thing.

There is also this blurb: The 1st BCT’s soldiers also will learn how to use “the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded,” 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.

The package is for use only in war-zone operations, not for any domestic purpose. "

While soldiers’ combat training is applicable, he said, some nuances don’t apply.

“If we go in, we’re going in to help American citizens on American soil, to save lives, provide critical life support, help clear debris, restore normalcy and support whatever local agencies need us to do, so it’s kind of a different role,” said Cloutier, who, as the division operations officer on the last rotation, learned of the homeland mission a few months ago while they were still in Iraq.

Some brigade elements will be on call around the clock, during which time they’ll do their regular marksmanship, gunnery and other deployment training. That’s because the unit will continue to train and reset for the next deployment, even as it serves in its CCMRF mission.

The article even ends with a correction note: "A non-lethal crowd control package fielded to 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, described in the original version of this story, is intended for use on deployments to the war zone, not in the U.S., as previously stated."

But in spite of all of that, you want to mention only the idea that they could be used in a martial law type scenario. You may not be POV pushing, but it gives that appearence. Bottom line: They aren't deployed. They are are STAND-BY and could POSSIBLY be deployed somewhere in the US in the event of a disaster or attack. Until then, they don't belong in the list. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Let's hope you are right.--Oneiros (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • Time will tell. But we can't predict it and call it fact. Sure, it's fodder for conspiracy theorists and for interesting debate, but that doesn't have a place in an encyclopedia, wouldn't you agree? I've had a personal interest in the topic of the military being used for this kind of purpose for over 20 years. I've seen MANY theories put forth and paniced (but probably well meaning) warnings. Everything from "secret concentration camps" being built underground in the Rockies to Operation Vampire Killer 2000. None of them have come to pass. So I tend to be cautious. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge

I have merged List of wars involving the United States with this place and will work on incorporating some of that article's elements into this one. They were both pretty much the same article, but this one is more detailed; if we work on this article we can build a good list of American military events. No sense in having two virtually-identical articles if one will do. PBP (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ramsey Clark list

This is moved from another article:

Ramsey Clark

In 2006, Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General under Lyndon Johnson, wrote: “ Both branches of our One Party system, Democrat and Republican, favor the use of force to have their way. Consider, (1) Regime Change in Iran (1953) the Shah replacing democratically elected Mossadegh; Eisenhower (R); (2) Regime Change in Guatemala (1954) military government for democratically elected Arbenz; Eisenhower (R); (3) Regime Change in Congo (1961) assassination of Patrice Lumumba, Eisenhower (R) (4) the Vietnam War (1959-1975), Eisenhower (R), Kennedy (D), Johnson (D), Nixon (R); (5) Invasion of Dominican Republic (1965), Johnson (D); (6) Contra Warfare against Nicaragua (1981-1988), resulting in regime change from the Sandinistas to corrupt capitalists; Reagan (R); (7) Attack and occupation of Grenada (population 110,000)(1983-1987) Reagan (R); (8) Aerial attack on the sleeping cities of Tripoli and Benghazi, Libya, (1986) Reagan (R); (9) Invasion of Panama Regime Change (1989-1990), George H. W. Bush (R); (10) Gulf War (1991), George H. W. Bush (R); (11) "Humanitarian" occupation of Somalia leading to 10,000 Somali deaths (1992-1993) George H. W. Bush (R) and Bill Clinton (D); (12) Aerial attacks on Iraq (1993-2001) Bill Clinton (D); (13) War against Yugoslavia (1999) 23,000 bombs and missiles dropped on Yugoslavia, Bill Clinton (D) (14) Missile Attack (21 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles) destroying the Al Shifa Pharmaceutical Plant in Khartoum which provided the majority of all medicines for Sudan (1998) Bill Clinton (D); (15) Invasion and Occupation of Afghanistan, Regime Change (2001-present) George W. Bush (R); (16) War of Aggression against Iraq and Hostile Occupation (2003)-present) George W. Bush (R); (17) Regime Change in Haiti (2004) Democratically elected Aristide for three years of chaos and systematic killing, George W. Bush (R). ”

Inclusionist (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Czech?

Under 1918-1920 there is mention of Czech armies and commanders, which is in my opinion wrong; Czechoslovak would be more fitting. 78.98.36.245 (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Czech is correct. That's not opinion. Here is a reference for you: [4] . I've reverted your changes. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

CIA

Since November 2007, an editor has been deleting CIA entries.[5] If this editor wants to continue to delete other editors contributions, I suggest a straw poll, because it is clear from the edit history that other editors disagree with this one editors deletions.

This is another example of an overly strict and narrow interpretation of wording as a reason to delete other editors contributions. Ikip

• Why don't you just name me Ikip? First, deletions aren't my ONLY contribution. Second, this article, very clearly specifies Note that instances where the U.S. gave aid alone, with no military personnel involvement, are excluded.. Third, the section that you are talking about many of these deletions from leaves the instructions: Before adding an event, please check and see if the item you want to add is already in the article CIA sponsored regime change, which they all were contained in that article. All of these events are CIA events. They aren't military events. The seperate article on CIA sponsored regime change contains those events. The CIA is not the military. Further, there is a seperate article on US foreign interventions since 1945, where these items would be better suited. There is nothing "overly strict" about deleting items where no military personnel were involved from an article about the history of US MILITARY events. Nobody is suppressing the information. It's in other articles about the CIA and US, articles that include that. This is an article about the MILITARY. Those items appear, and belong, elsewhere. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

All these removals seem appropriate. ClovisPt (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. I'll continue thread at bottom of this talk page because of all the spam that follows. Tempshill (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

16 November 2007 deletion of other editors contributions

===1950s===
* 1953 [[Operation Ajax]]: CIA and British [[MI6]] successfully orchestrate the removal of democratically-elected [[Iran]]ian prime minister [[Mohammed Mossadegh]], and installs the Shah as dictator.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html
|title=The CIA in Iran
|year=2000
|publisher=the New York Times
|accessdate=2007-04-18
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20050310032150/http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/montage.htm
|title=Wonderful World' Montage
|publisher=Bowling For Truth
|accessdate=2007-04-18
}}

===1960s===
* 1961 CIA involvement in the assassination of Prime Minister [[Patrice Lumumba]] of the [[Democratic Republic of the Congo]].
* 1961 CIA involvement in the assassination of [[Rafael Leónidas Trujillo]], ruler of the [[Dominican Republic]].<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://history-matters.com/archive/church/reports/ir/contents.htm
|title=interim Report: Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders
|publisher=History Matters website
|accessdate=2007-04-18}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://history-matters.com/archive/church/reports/ir/pdf/ChurchIR_3D_Trujillo.pdf
|title=Church Committee Report - Trujillo
|publisher=History Matters website
|format=pdf
|accessdate=2007-04-18}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=dominican_republic
|title=US-Dominican Republic (1959-2005)
|work=History of US Interventions
|publisher=cooperative Research
|accessdate=2007-04-18}}</ref>

* 1961 [[Bay of Pigs Invasion]]: US-sponsored failed invasion of [[Cuba]].
* 1961 - 1962 CIA and Department of Defense covert plans and operations against [[Fidel Castro]].
** [[The Cuban Project]]
** [[Operation Mongoose]]
** [[Operation Northwoods]]

*1963 -- Iraq.  The C.I.A. supports a coup in Iraq against the [[Qassim government]].<ref name = "tyrant"> {{cite journal
| first =
| last =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| year =2003
| month =March 14
| title =A Tyrant 40 Years in the Making 
| journal =New York Times 
| volume =
| issue =
| pages =
| id =
| url =http://readthese.blogspot.com/2003_12_15_readthese_archive.html 
}}</ref><ref name = "old"> {{cite book
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| year =1978
| title =The Old Social Classes and the Revolutionary Movements of Iraq
| publisher =Princeton University Press
| location =Princeton
| id =
}}</ref><ref name = " "> {{cite book
| last =Sluglett
| first =Peter and Marion
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| year =1990
| title =Iraq Since 1958
| publisher =I.B. Taurus
| location =London
| id =
}}</ref><ref name="church">Regarding the CIA's "Health Alteration Committee's work in Iraq, see U.S. Senate's Church Committee Interim Report on Assassination, page 181, Note 1.</ref>

* 1954 [[Operation PBSUCCESS]]: CIA-orchestrated overthrow of democratically-elected president [[Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán]] in [[Guatemala]].

* 1957 Operation ?: CIA-financed dominance of the conservative [[Liberal Democratic Party]] in the [[Japan]]ese [[Diet of Japan|parliament]].

* 1965 - Bombings in [[History of Peru|Peru]] and assistance to counter-insurgency operations <ref name=Blum> [[William Blum]], ''[[Killing Hope|Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions since World War II ]]'', 2003 </ref><ref> [http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Rogue_State_US/US_Bombing_Since_WWII.html US Bombing Interventions Since WW II], ''[[Third World Traveler]]'' </ref>
* 1965 CIA-backed coup deposes President [[Joseph Kasavubu]] of the [[Republic of the Congo]] and installs a [[kleptocracy]] ruled by the dictator [[Mobutu]].
* 1967 CIA-organized military operation ends in capture and execution of [[Che Guevara]] by the [[Bolivia]]n Army.

* 1963-64 CIA involvement in riots and violence in [[Guyana]] in order to undermine the [[Marxism|Marxist]] [[People's Progressive Party (Guyana)|People's Progressive Party]] and its leader, [[Cheddi Jagan]].

===1970s===
* 1970 [[Project FUBELT]]: US supported unsuccessful coup against [[Salvador Allende]]
* 1970s [[Operation Condor]], Latin America
* 1979 - 1989 CIA support for the [[Contra (guerrillas)|Contras]].<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/41/a41r031.htm
|title= Judgment of the International Court of ustice of 27 June 1986 concerning military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua: need for immediate compliance
|date=[[3 November]] [[1986]]
|publisher=United Nations General Assembly
|accessdate=2007-04-18}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=nicaragua
|title=US-Nicaragua (1979-)
|work=history of US Interventions
|publisher=cooperative research
|accessdate=2007-04-18}}</ref> (See [[Iran-Contra Affair]])

* 1949 CIA helps overthrow the [[democratically elected government]] of Syria, which brings in the dictatorship of [[Husni al-Za'im]]{{Fact|date=April 2007}}

*1961-63 -- Ecuador. [[Ecuador]]ian President [[José María Velasco Ibarra]] was overthrown by a military coup in 1961 and replaced with his vice-president Carlos Julio Arosemana, who in turn was overthrown in 1963 and replaced by a more consistently anti-Communist military junta.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3719/is_200507/ai_n14904094
|title=Post-transition Ecuador 2000 An essay in honor of Martin needler1
|publication=Journal of Political and Military Sociology
|year=2005
|accessdate=2007-04-18}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.doublestandards.org/blum7.html
|title=Ecuador 1960 to 1963: A Textbook of Dirty Tricks
|author=William Blum
|publisher=doublestandards.org
|accessdate=2007-04-18}}</ref>

*1967 -- Greece. CIA-backed military coup ushers in Regime of the Colonels in Greece.{{Fact|date=April 2007}}

*1960s-1970s -- Italy. CIA support for [[Operation Gladio]], which has been accused of trying to influence policies through the means of "false flag" operations. See Prime Minister Aldo [[Moro]].

*1970 -- CIA support for failed [[Golpe Borghese|coup]] in Italy.[http://www.misteriditalia.com/golpeborghese/Borghese(Lavicendagiudiziaria).pdf]  US [[embassy]] in Italy has been against this operation.{{Fact|date=April 2007}}. 

* 1973 [[Chilean coup of 1973]]<ref name="chile"> {{cite web
| title =Secretary of State Colin L. Powell Interview On Black Entertainment Television's Youth Town Hall 
| work =U.S. Department of State
| url =http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/02/dos022003.html
| accessdate=2006-07-15
}} <br>{{cite web
| title =Chile and the United States: Declassified Documents Relating to the Military Coup, September 11, 1973
| work =National Security Archive 
| url =http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm
| accessdate=2006-07-15
}} <br>
{{cite web
| title =CIA Acknowledges Ties to Pinochet’s Repression Report to Congress Reveals U.S. Accountability in Chile
| work =National Security Archive 
| url =http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20000919/
| accessdate=2006-07-15
}} <br>
{{cite web
| title =New Transcripts Point to US Role in Chile Coup
| work =Reuters 
| url =http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0527-01.htm
| accessdate=2006-07-15
}} <br>{{cite web
| title =The Kissinger Telcons National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 123
| work =National Security Archive 
| url =http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB123/index.htm
| accessdate=2006-07-15
}} <br>{{cite web
| title = 'Wonderful World' Montage Moore slams past American policy; blames U.S. for murder throughout history
| work =bowlingfortruth.com
| url = http://web.archive.org/web/20050310032150/http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/montage.htm
| accessdate=2006-07-15
}} <br>{{cite web
| title =Documents reveal U.S. funding for Chile coup
| work =CNN.com
| url =http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/americas/11/13/cia.chile.02/
| accessdate=2006-07-15
}}</ref>(Disputed, see the article)

*1976 [[History of Argentina|Argentine Military Coup]]{{Fact|date=July 2007}}

*1982-83 --Guatemala. Support for military dictator Efraín Ríos Montt in Guatemala {1982-1983.} CIA support for the coup that brought him into power.{{Fact|date=April 2007}}

*1990-91 -- Bulgaria, Albania Corruption of elections in [[Bulgaria]] in 1990 and in [[Albania]] in 1991.{{Fact|date=April 2007}}

*2002 -- Venezuela. CIA-backed and U.S. State Department-approved coup against democratically-elected President [[Hugo Chávez]].{{Fact|date=June 2007}}

*2004 -- El Salvador. Interference in [[El Salvador|Salvadoran]] presidential election.{{Fact|date=April 2007}} US threatened to take reprisals if the country would elect the socialist candidate [[Schafik Handal]].{{Fact|date=April 2007}

*2004 -- Equatorial Guinea. Support (along with Spain and Britain) for a failed coup plot against [[Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo]].

* 1987-88 [[Operation Prime Chance]]: Covert anti-[[Iran]]ian operations in the Persian Gulf.

* 1979–1989 [[Mujahideen]] vs. [[Soviet Union|USSR]] in Afghanistan.

* Pentagon-contracted advisors to [[Croatia]] prior to [[Operation Storm]] (1994)

*[[Damadola airstrike]] ([[Pakistan]]) (2006)

*[[Branch Davidian|USBATF Raid on Branch Davidians]] (1993)

*1987 --Fiji. Support to coup against [[Timoci Bavadra]], democratically-elected Prime Minister.{{Fact|date=April 2007}}

*1991 -- Haiti. U.S. Support for ousting [[Jean-Bertrand Aristide]].{{Failed verification|date=April 2007}}

*2004 -- Haiti. U.S. Support for ousting of Haitian President [[Jean-Bertrand Aristide]]. ''(See: [[2004 Haiti rebellion]])'' The U.S. government also threatened action against [[Jamaica]] in the event that Jamaica were to provide residence to Aristide.

* [[Greek Civil War]] (1946-1949)

*[[Green Corn Rebellion]] Oklahoma (1917)

*[[Wounded Knee incident]] Wounded Knee, SD (1973)

*[[Anti-Rent War]] (1839–~1844)

24 December 2007 deletion of other editors contributions

* 1949 CIA helps overthrow the [[democratically elected government]] of Syria, which brings in the dictatorship of [[Husni al-Za'im]]{{Fact|date=April 2007}}

*1961-63 -- Ecuador. [[Ecuador]]ian President [[José María Velasco Ibarra]] was overthrown by a military coup in 1961 and replaced with his vice-president Carlos Julio Arosemana, who in turn was overthrown in 1963 and replaced by a more consistently anti-Communist military junta.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3719/is_200507/ai_n14904094
|title=Post-transition Ecuador 2000 An essay in honor of Martin needler1
|publication=Journal of Political and Military Sociology
|year=2005
|accessdate=2007-04-18}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.doublestandards.org/blum7.html
|title=Ecuador 1960 to 1963: A Textbook of Dirty Tricks
|author=William Blum
|publisher=doublestandards.org
|accessdate=2007-04-18}}</ref>

*1967 -- Greece. CIA-backed military coup ushers in Regime of the Colonels in Greece.{{Fact|date=April 2007}}

* 1965 CIA-backed coup deposes President [[Joseph Kasavubu]] of the [[Republic of the Congo]] and installs a [[kleptocracy]] ruled by the dictator [[Mobutu]].

* 1967 CIA-organized military operation ends in capture and execution of [[Che Guevara]] by the [[Bolivia]]n Army.

* 1960s – 1970s Training and delivery of equipment to police forces in various countries, including Uruguay, by the [[Office of Public Safety]] (represented in Uruguay by [[Dan Mitrione]]) <ref name=Blum/>

* 1968 -- Iraq. The C.I.A. successfully supports coup in Iraq against the government of Rahman Arif to bring the Ba'ath Party to power, with Saddam Hussein eventually taking the helm.<ref name = "tyrant" />

* 1957 Operation ?: CIA-financed dominance of the conservative [[Liberal Democratic Party]] in the [[Japan]]ese [[Diet of Japan|parliament]].

29 December 2007 deletion of other editors contributions

* 1953 [[Operation Ajax]]: CIA and British [[MI6]] successfully orchestrate the removal of democratically-elected [[Iran]]ian prime minister [[Mohammed Mossadegh]], and installs the Shah as dictator.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html
|title=The CIA in Iran
|year=2000
|publisher=the New York Times
|accessdate=2007-04-18
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20050310032150/http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/montage.htm
|title=Wonderful World' Montage
|publisher=Bowling For Truth
|accessdate=2007-04-18
}}
</ref>

*1970 -- CIA support for failed [[Golpe Borghese|coup]] in Italy.[http://www.misteriditalia.com/golpeborghese/Borghese(Lavicendagiudiziaria).pdf]  US [[embassy]] in Italy has been against this operation.{{Fact|date=April 2007}}. 

* 1973 [[Chilean coup of 1973]]<ref name="chile"> {{cite web
| title =Secretary of State Colin L. Powell Interview On Black Entertainment Television's Youth Town Hall 
| work =U.S. Department of State
| url =http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/02/dos022003.html
| accessdate=2006-07-15
}} <br>{{cite web
| title =Chile and the United States: Declassified Documents Relating to the Military Coup, September 11, 1973
| work =National Security Archive 
| url =http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm
| accessdate=2006-07-15
}} <br>
{{cite web
| title =CIA Acknowledges Ties to Pinochet’s Repression Report to Congress Reveals U.S. Accountability in Chile
| work =National Security Archive 
| url =http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20000919/
| accessdate=2006-07-15
}} <br>
{{cite web
| title =New Transcripts Point to US Role in Chile Coup
| work =Reuters 
| url =http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0527-01.htm
| accessdate=2006-07-15
}} <br>{{cite web
| title =The Kissinger Telcons National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 123
| work =National Security Archive 
| url =http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB123/index.htm
| accessdate=2006-07-15
}} <br>{{cite web
| title = 'Wonderful World' Montage Moore slams past American policy; blames U.S. for murder throughout history
| work =bowlingfortruth.com
| url = http://web.archive.org/web/20050310032150/http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/montage.htm
| accessdate=2006-07-15
}} <br>{{cite web
| title =Documents reveal U.S. funding for Chile coup
| work =CNN.com
| url =http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/americas/11/13/cia.chile.02/
| accessdate=2006-07-15
}}</ref>(Disputed, see the article)

10 January 2008 deletion of other editors contributions

*1966 Support for a military Argentine coup
* Pentagon-contracted advisors to [[Croatia]] prior to [[Operation Storm]] (1994)


Due to the secretive nature of certain covert interventions, certain cases are a matter of dispute.
                
Due to the secretive nature of certain covert interventions, certain cases are a matter of dispute.
                        
        
===1940s===
* [[Greek Civil War]] (1946-1949)
         
                        
                        
1950s
In 1953, President Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax, and the CIA took the lead in overthrowing the Iranian Government
         
===1960s===
* 1961 CIA involvement in the assassination of Prime Minister [[Patrice Lumumba]] of the [[Democratic Republic of the Congo]].
* 1961 CIA involvement in the assassination of [[Rafael Leónidas Trujillo]], ruler of the [[Dominican Republic]].<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://history-matters.com/archive/church/reports/ir/contents.htm
|title=interim Report: Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders
|publisher=History Matters website
|accessdate=2007-04-18}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://history-matters.com/archive/church/reports/ir/pdf/ChurchIR_3D_Trujillo.pdf
|title=Church Committee Report - Trujillo
|publisher=History Matters website
|format=pdf
|accessdate=2007-04-18}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=dominican_republic
|title=US-Dominican Republic (1959-2005)
|work=History of US Interventions
|publisher=cooperative Research
|accessdate=2007-04-18}}</ref>
         
*1963 -- Iraq. The C.I.A. supports a coup in Iraq against the [[Qassim government]].<ref name = "tyrant"> {{cite journal
| first = | last = | authorlink = | coauthors = | year =2003 | month =March 14
| title =A Tyrant 40 Years in the Making | journal =New York Times
| url =http://readthese.blogspot.com/2003_12_15_readthese_archive.html
}}</ref><ref name = "old"> {{cite book
| last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | year =1978
| title =The Old Social Classes and the Revolutionary Movements of Iraq
| publisher =Princeton University Press | location =Princeton | id =
}}</ref><ref name = "pet"> {{cite book
| last =Sluglett
| first =Peter and Marion
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| year =1990
| title =Iraq Since 1958
| publisher =I.B. Taurus
| location =London
| id =
}}</ref><ref name="church">Regarding the CIA's "Health Alteration Committee's work in Iraq, see U.S. Senate's Church Committee Interim Report on Assassination, page 181, Note 1.</ref>
* 1964 [[Brazilian Military Coup]])<ref name="Brazil">{{cite journal | author= | title= Castelo Branco and the CIA's war games| journal= Brazil Latin America Political Report| year= January 21, 1977| volume= 3| issue= | pages= 19| url= }} The day before the coup, the CIA sent a message to Washington saying: 'President [[João Goulart|Goulart]] will be removed, and quickly . . . oil is a problem, the communists have the control of ports and railways but not of the roads . . . the democrats will be dependent on the port of Vitoria, which they can control, to get oil'. It was thus that 'Operation Brother Sam' was thrown into action to provide logistical support. A navy task force was sent to the Brazilian coast, consisting of one aircraft carrier, six destroyers, one helicopter carrier and four oil tankers. Beside the oil, a hundred tons of arms and ammunition were also to be provided; See also: [[João Goulart#The Military Overthrow of Goulart]]</ref>
* 1963-64 CIA involvement in riots and violence in [[Guyana]] in order to undermine the [[Marxism|Marxist]] [[People's Progressive Party (Guyana)|People's Progressive Party]] and its leader, [[Cheddi Jagan]].
* [[United States intervention in Chile]]

10 January 2008 deletion of other editors contributions

*1970 [[Project FUBELT]]: US supported unsuccessful coup against [[Salvador Allende]]
*1970s [[Operation Condor]], Latin America
*1976 [[History of Argentina|Argentine Military Coup]]{{Fact|date=July 2007}}
*1982-83 --Guatemala. Support for military dictator Efraín Ríos Montt in Guatemala {1982-1983.} CIA support for the coup that brought him into power.{{Fact|date=April 2007}}
*2002 -- Venezuela. CIA-backed and U.S. State Department-approved coup against democratically-elected President [[Hugo Chávez]].{{Fact|date=June 2007}}
*2004 -- El Salvador. Interference in [[El Salvador|Salvadoran]] presidential election.{{Fact|date=April 2007}} US threatened to take reprisals if the country would elect the socialist candidate [[Schafik Handal]].{{Fact|date=April 2007}}

31 January 2008 deletion of other editors contributions

*[[Conch Republic]] (1982)

Due to the secretive nature of certain covert interventions, certain cases are a matter of dispute. 

        
===1970s===
*1979 - 1989 CIA support for the [[Contra (guerrillas)|Contras]].<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/41/a41r031.htm
|title= Judgment of the International Court of ustice of 27 June 1986 concerning military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua: need for immediate compliance
|date=[[3 November]] [[1986]]
|publisher=United Nations General Assembly
|accessdate=2007-04-18}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=nicaragua
|title=US-Nicaragua (1979-)
|work=history of US Interventions
|publisher=cooperative research
|accessdate=2007-04-18}}</ref> (See [[Iran-Contra Affair]])
         

*1987 --Fiji. Support to coup against [[Timoci Bavadra]], democratically-elected Prime Minister.{{Fact|date=April 2007}}

*1965 - Bombings in [[History of Peru|Peru]] and assistance to counter-insurgency operations <ref name=Blum> [[William Blum]], ''[[Killing Hope|Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions since World War II ]]'', 2003 </ref><ref> [http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Rogue_State_US/US_Bombing_Since_WWII.html US Bombing Interventions Since WW II], ''[[Third World Traveler]]'' </ref>

*1990-91 -- Bulgaria, Albania Corruption of elections in [[Bulgaria]] in 1990 and in [[Albania]] in 1991.{{Fact|date=April 2007}}

*1991 -- Haiti. U.S. Support for ousting [[Jean-Bertrand Aristide]].{{Failed verification|date=April 2007}}

===1970s===

28 April 2008 deletion of other editors contributions

*1979–1989 [[Mujahideen]] vs. [[Soviet Union|USSR]] in Afghanistan.

[6]

25 July 2008 deletion of other editors contributions

User:SmashTheState contributions. 3RR violation:

1953 -- Iran. A CIA backed coup overthrows the democratically elected leader [[Mohammed Mosaddeq]]  in [[Operation Ajax]].<ref>Future Freedoms Foundation [[http://www.fff.org/comment/com0501i.asp]]An Anti-Democracy Foreign Policy: Iran </ref> 


1954 -- Guatemala. The CIA directs exile invasion after new government nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua. 200,000 people are eventually dead in a 36 year long [[Guatemalan Civil War|civil war]].<ref> Washington Monthly [[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_10_34/ai_93088744]] </ref>

17 February 2009 removal of other editors contributions

User:Armando Navarro contributions:

===1950s===
        
[[1953 Iranian coup d'état]]
        
[[1954 Guatemalan coup d'état]]
        
===1960s===
        
[[1964 Brazilian coup d'état]]
        
===1970s===
        
[[1973 Chilean coup d'état]]
===2000s===
[[1976 Argentine coup]]

[[2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt]]

*[[Damadola airstrike]] ([[Pakistan]]) (2006)

21 February 2009 removal of other editors contributions

User:Armando Navarro contributions.

===1950s===   
*1953 [[Operation Ajax|Iranian coup d'état]]: the [[Central Intelligence Agency|CIA]] participates in the overthrow of the [[democratically-elected]] government of [[Iran]].<ref>[[James Risen]]. [http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html “Special Report: Secret History of the CIA in Iran”]. [[New York Times]], 2000. </ref><ref> [http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/irtoc.html "Country Studies: Iran”]. [[Library of Congress]], March 7, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/index.htm “Muhammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran”]. Edited by Mark J. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne. [[Syracuse University Press]], 2004.</ref><ref>[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0004/19/i_ins.00.html “U.S. Comes Clean About The Coup In Iran”]. [[CNN]] Insight, April 19, 2000 (transcript of video).</ref><ref>[[David E. Sanger]]. [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D02E4DE123AF93BA25750C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2 “U.S. Ending A Few Of The Sanctions Imposed On Iran”], [[New York Times]], March 18, 2000. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright: “’In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh’”</ref> 


*1954 [[Guatemalan coup d'état]]: the [[Central Intelligence Agency|CIA]] participates in the overthrow of the [[democratically-elected]] government of [[Guatemala]].<ref>Nick Cullather, with an afterword by [[Piero Gleijeses]] [http://books.google.com/books?id=sp3IGB4csCQC “Secret History: The CIA's Classified Account of Its Operations in Guatemala, 1952-1954”]]. [[Stanford University Press]], 2006.</ref><ref>[[Piero Gleijeses]]. [http://books.google.com/books?id=mS7ZVKa6i3AC “Shattered Hope: The Guatemalan Revolution and the United States, 1944-1954”]. [[Princeton University Press]], 1992. </ref><ref>Stephen M. Streeter. [http://books.google.com/books?id=h17R_A0n-1MC “Managing the Counterrevolution: The United States and Guatemala, 1954-1961”]. [[Ohio University Press]], 2000. </ref><ref>Gordon L. Bowen. [http://lap.sagepub.com/cgi/pdf_extract/10/1/88 “U.S. Foreign Policy toward Radical Change: Covert Operations in Guatemala, 1950-1954”]. [[Latin American Perspectives]], 1983, Vol. 10, No. 1, p. 88-102.</ref>

Ikip (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of information to talk page

I removed the following:

The bombing was retaliation for the US embargo of scrap metal and gasoline exports to Japan and the embargo on Japanese access to the Panama Canal.^{[citation needed]} This in turn was a retaliation to the Japanese invasion of China during the Second Sino-Japanese War.^{[citation needed]} On December 11, 1941, Hitler and Mussolini, the respective dictators of Germany and Italy, declared war on the United States. The United States responded on the same day by declaring war on Germany and Italy. On June 5, 1942, the United states declared war with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania.

This page is a list, each entry should be no more than 2 sentences long. Please argue the different aspects of the war on the particular pages. Ikip (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(Some) CIA events belong here.

This article is "List of United States military history events". Just because an incident was run by the CIA and not the Army does not mean that it is not an event in military history. The Bay of Pigs is plainly a "military history event" that the US ran; just because it was technically not run by a branch of the US military does not exclude it from this article. I personally think that CIA-run Predator bombings also qualify, though I'm less certain about that than the Bay of Pigs, which plainly qualifies.

Above, one editor justified removal of CIA-run events from the article by citing the fact that a random person on the Internet edited this article and wrote in the intro paragraph that this article is about branches of the US military. Some random editor adding an opinion in the article does not make it the law for this article that a branch of the US military must be involved for an event to qualify.

I'm not claiming that the overthrow of the Shah, for example, qualifies as a "military history event" — my assertion is that military events qualify for this article no matter whether they are run by a branch of the US military or not. Tempshill (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

First off, what makes you think some "random editor" decided that an article about military events should actually include the military? Second, there is a seperate article about CIA regieme change and at least 2 different links to that article contained in this article. You're acting as if the information is being excluded or hidden. It's not. It's just in the article it belongs in and clear links to that article are here. Third, if you want to debate the merits of each event, fine. I'd actually say I could make a stronger case for inclusion of the Bay of Pigs than the Predator drone incident. I've asked for opinions over at the military history project, which this article falls under. Can you explain to me why you feel it needs included in this specific article and why the presence of a section about coups etc and a link to the CIA sponsored events article isn't sufficient? Lastly, if you want to talk about me, name me. Don't hide behind this "one editor" stuff and pretend you aren't talking about me. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

1. In 2005, the lead paragraph (at [7]) was about military events in a very general sense:

Not all of these events were military, some were not even violent, but together they delineate the periodic reappearance of the martial spirit in the life of the United States. The items enumerated here begin with the establishment of the states in 1776, and either are located within territorial boundaries of the United States or involve the armed forces of the federal government or the militias of the separate states and territories.

Then in June 2006, User:Ikip added, "Note that instances where the U.S. gave aid alone, with no military personnel involvment, are excluded." [8]. Indeed, one random person decided unilaterally that this article about military events should only involve (presumably) uniformed, official US military.

My argument is pretty obvious: it's that this article is not "Events in the history of the United States Military", but "List of United States military history events", with a small "m" in "military". Whether the CIA or the Army or a militia runs a military operation is not very important as far as this list is concerned; especially so from the viewpoint of a non-American.

2. I haven't gone down the list and tried to judge "yes, no, yes, yes, no"; I'll do that if you want me to; and by the way, I doubt that most CIA-supported coup attempts qualify as "military" events. My only desire here is that all known US military events appear in this article, no matter whence came the organization or sponsorship or troops. What irked me was Bay of Pigs being removed.

3. Didn't mean to offend you by not naming you; I had believed there was more than one editor who was opposing the inclusion of military events solely because they were run by the CIA, and didn't bother to scroll back and look up your name. Tempshill (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Every article cannot be a catch-all for whatever items one individual editor feels might be vaguely related to the article topic. A "military history event" necessarily involves the military. "Military" (small-m if you like) does not include government employees who are not members of the military services, even if they are carrying, even using, US government-issued firearms on foreign soil. I'm tempted to ask what part of "military" you don't understand.

On another of your points: Yes, one individual editor did decide when creating this article that the article should be about military history events and not about events on foreign soil involving armed US government employees not acting officially as a part of the US Military. That decision, made by whichever individual WP editor originally made it, stands—unless and until it is modified by consensus. One individual WP editor cannot unilaterally change that without first establishing consensus for the change here on the article's talk page. If you wish to change that, seek consensus here for the change. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• This whole issue might have merit if there was no article about CIA sponsored regieme change. But that article does exist. A link to it even exists in this article, so it's not too hard to find. My question, AGAIN, is why is there a need to force this information into this article when an article about the topic already exists? Instead of twisting, turning and doing the "well it looks military if you close one eye and look at it this way" routine, why not leave it about what the title says.... the military? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You are misreading the title of the article. It's not about the official US military; it is about generic "military" history. I'm going to venture that there's already consensus for this; there's a section about "bloody local feuds" in here, for example; clearly not related to the US military. It's fine with me if you feel the need (obsessive IMO) to break out CIA-led operations into its own section within this article, but the Bay of Pigs obviously is a military event in the history of the US. Tempshill (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it as obsessive, but rather supporting parameters of the article topic. I see no correlation between the CIA and the US Military; they are two different organizations that have independent leaders and department heads. When I read about the Bay of Pigs, I don't read about direct military involvement, but rather a group of "U.S.-trained force of Cuban exiles". Being trained by the US military is a separate issue. Should the US Military history then record every battle fought by separate nations that received training by the US military? This logic is full of holes. When I read about Edison or Einstein, I don't read about their accomplishments being assigned to their teachers of Math; do you? I think the article should remain focus solely on events where the US Military is directly involved. By US Military I mean the armed forces of the US; not the CIA or any other group unaffiliated with the military departments of Army, Navy, and Air Force. Just my two cents. --^StormRider 19:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Re the Bloody local feuds section, I took a look at the two articles listed there, and both of them mention the involvement of state militias. I haven't looked at the numerous other articles listed in the various other sections which contain lists of wikilinks. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Since we're going to share personal opinions Tempshill, I'll share mine. Despite the fact that the article parameters are clearly outlined, despite the fact that there is an entire article devoted to CIA activites, despite the fact that there is a link to that article here so that anyone interested in that type of activity can easily find the article, you feel the need (obsessive IMO) to force the actions of a totally seperate and independant entity into this article. I have asked a simple question over and over and you've dodged it over and over. I wonder why that is? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

American Revolutionary War ending date

I see that the edit summary for the recent edit where I changed the ending date for the American Revolutionary War back to 1783 got truncated. That edit summary was intended to read something like the following: Revert to date in the lead sentence of the linked article. OK, that article says, "the formal end of the war did not occur until the Treaty of Paris was signed on September 3, 1783, and the United States Congress of the Confederation ratified the treaty on January 14, 1784." it's lead sentence says "The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783) ...". -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved. The discussion here makes it pretty clear that a move is not supported by consensus. Rather, discussion has drifted towards splitting the article in various ways. However, there is no consensus yet (I think it's in reach) on what sort of split should be performed, although there is some support for reversing the previous merge that integrated List of wars involving the United States into this article. The discussion on the split/un-merge should be continued, but the renaming debate is closed. -- Aervanath (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

---

List of United States military history events → List of wars involving the United States — The List of wars involving the United States article was merged with this one back in October, but the merge was performed without discussion. The explanation for the merge was provided here. The explanation for the resulting title after the merge was simply that the "List of United States military history events" article was better developped at the time; this is not a proper reason for the corresponding title to be used. "List of wars involving x" is the more accepted naming format for articles listing wars involving a given country (see List of wars involving Argentina and List of wars involving France for examples). There is no reason for this list to depart from the established naming practice. — Neelix (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Stronly Oppose: This list includes many incidents that are not wars and wouldn't properly be included in an article about wars the US was involved in. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• What kinds of entries would not properly be considered wars? Can you delineate the different categories of entries on the article that are separate from war entries? According to the war article, a war is a "reciprocated armed conflict between political units aimed at a desired political end-state". Neelix (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Humanitarian deployments, peace-keeping deployments, uses in domestic insurrections, times where the US put troops or ships in areas to prevent problems, uses of the military against pirates. Is that enough or do you want more? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I didn't ask because I thought you were wrong; I asked because I wanted to know the categories being dealt with. If we can determine all the different 'things' that are listed here, then we can make sure that the title we use encompasses them all, or else we can split the article up into shorter and more comprehensive lists with appropriate titles. Neelix (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Why create more articles to talk about what is already here? The current title encompasses all of them and the list here is pretty darn comprehensive. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • There are two main problems. 1) The current list is too comprehensive; according to the definition you have suggested in the "Discussion" section, instituting a new training exercise for troops would count as a "United States military history event". 2) The term "military history event" is an awkward construction that is not commonly employed in the literature; Google books only picks up three hits with the term. Neelix (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Technically the Vietnam War was not a war, because congress never declared war. The same is true of the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan. How about using List of United States military operations?. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• See, this is what I mean. Now we get into the "techinically it's not a war" bit. And what would be the difference between the current title and the proposed "List of US military operations"? All we did is change the word events to operations. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Plus you get rid of the word "history". "Events" seems extremely broad. An event I remember was the time that the Navy tried to use Microsoft NT to operate a ship and someone entered 0 into a database, locking up the computer, and the ship had to be towed back to port to reboot the system. That's an event, but not an operation. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• And yet all this time, without explaination or instruction, nobody has entered a computer malfuntion as an event.Niteshift36 (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest we just revert to this version of the merged article previously at List of wars involving the United States, and clean up both. A revert might be the easiest solution for this article too, unsure. But it's not necessary to move or to split this article, we just need to revert the merge. Andrewa (talk) 05:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• I think List of conflicts involving the United States would be a better name. That inculdes "peacetime" military operations.--Patton^t/c 20:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Would humanitarian missions fall under that list of conflicts? Would peacekeeping missions? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • They most certainly do. If there wasn't a conflict, there wouldn't be a military mission. Both humanitarian missions and peacekeeping missions are dealing with conflict, whether they are seen as conflict resolution or otherwise. I think "List of conflicts involving the United States" is a great title. It's probably a more appropriate title for all the "List of wars involving x" lists because there's more agreement on the definition of 'conflict' than 'war'. Neelix (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sending Marines to deliver food isn't participating in an armed conflict. Using the Air Force to fly in aid after an earthquake isn't an armed conflict. Was there a shot fired during the Berlin Airlift? We flew unarmed planes into there. Fighting pirates wouldn't fit your definition if the pirates aren't part of a political group. In reality, parking a naval ship off the coast of an Oregon island to prevent other countries from staking a claim isn't actually an armed conflict. There is potential for one, but the conflict never occured. Sending US troops to Panama in 1912 to make sure elections were peaceful isn;t really an armed conflict. Evacuating Americans and Europeans from Lebanon wasn't an armed conflict. There was a conflict going on, but the US wasn't a party to it. They were simply evacuating people. And many peace-keeping missions aren't armed conflicts. US trrops are there to keep 2 other parties from having a conflict, but they aren't a party to it themselves. I think this article is fine how it is. Why create a new article to rehash the same stuff? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • At this point the article should really be split up since its nearly 100kb long. It may be a more profitable endevour to consider spining parts of this off into an independent article rather than move the whole thing someplace else. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Wouldn't it be simplest to just split the current article into a couple by time period rather then stretching the definition of war and farming other event s out all over the place? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • No, it would be more appropriate to split based on category rather than time. Analagous lists should be able to be created for all countries. Many countries already have a "List of wars involving x". Even if we switch the standard name to "List of conflicts involving x", the United States should be able to have a corresponding list of the same type. Neelix (talk) 10:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• If you split it based on event, you get into the debate about what is a war, what is an armed conflict blah, blah, blah. Date is a definate number where there is no dispute. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see that there would be dispute about what constitutes a conflict, but there would be dispute if it was left as "military history events". The number of possible 'events' that have affected the United States military is endless. We could create a long list about such events which have taken place in the last year alone. We need a term that can be properly delineated, one that is supportable in the literature, and one that can be applied to similar lists dealing with other countries. Neelix (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • We've already had one comment about "technically not a war". And I've shown examples of where your definition of conflict doesn't apply. I'm really not concerned about what list every other country has. The US military gets involved in much, much more than the military of Bolivia, so comparing the two isn't that valid. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't see why differences in quantity should result in a labelling difference. It has already been asserted that the list is becoming too long to be manageable. Devoting one list to conflicts and another to humanitarian aid would seem like a reasonable division to me. Neelix (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
        • If length is your concern, that is a bad idea of division. The list of conflicts would be much longer since humanitarian aid wasn't really much of a factor until about 50 years ago. Dividing by date seems much simpler and more effective at creating shorter articles but would still encompass all the types of missions. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
          • A list of conflicts should not be longer than what the current title encompasses, because all conflicts already fall under the current title. If the list of conflicts would still be too long, dividing into sublists by date would be a good idea. In that case, a "list of lists" called "List of conflicts involving the United States" would be required. Neelix (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

User:TomStar81's argument above for a split might be the best approach. Restore the succinct former "List of wars involving the United States" article and keep this article under whatever title is preferred as a more detailed look at the subject. Use the following as an example: 1985 -- Italy. On October 10, 1985, US Navy pilots intercepted an Egyptian airliner and forced it to land in Sicily. The airliner was carrying the hijackers of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro who had killed an American citizen during the hijacking. It was not a war in and of itself but it was (maybe) a noteworthy military action/event. — AjaxSmack 16:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree, see above. Andrewa (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Renaming suggestion

I think I have come up with a title that everyone involved will find acceptable: "Timeline of United States military operations". It's a more well-accepted format, a less awkward construction, and covers exactly the same ground as the current title. Are there any objections? Neelix (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Aside from the words at the top of the page, nothing changed. The article is the same as it was before, no better, no worse. So I'm curious what all this accomplished. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • As has been already expressed, the current title is follows "a more well-accepted format [and] a less awkward construction." The discussion also established that the list of wars involving the United States should exist on its own page. I would think that the discussion has accomplished a fair bit. Neelix (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• If you say so. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Prelude to war

Shouldn't the extensive bombing campagne of 2002-2003 of Iraq just before the invasion also mentioned in this article and i believe there is a wiki article about it somewhere i would be gratefull if someone could give me the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Operation deliberate force

"1995 – Bosnia. Operation Deliberate Force. NATO bombing of Bosnian Serbs."

\"NATO bombing of Bosnian Serbs\" --- please someone remove subjective description of the intervention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.201.142 (talk) 04:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Bias

There's some serious POV wording in this article, particularly the repeated use of the weasel phrase "CIA-backed" (or similar), in the covert operations section - a section which probably shouldn't exist in the first place, per the article intro. As the more detailed articles on these subjects make clear, CIA involvement in many of these "operations" was often extremely limited. Listing foreign regime changes in an article about US wars, while using suggestive phrasing like "CIA-backed", implies a larger involvement than actually existed. 98.26.172.210 (talk) 05:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)