Talk:Military history of the United States

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

Untitled

• /Archive1: March 2004 – March 2005

Overview alienates Coast Guard

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

What about the war on drugs?!

What about the war on drugs?! posted by 69.140.251.156

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

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

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

"TV disease"

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

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

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

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

Strength in Numbers

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

potential redirect.

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

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

Incorrect page move

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

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

Korean War

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

Proportional attention

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

National Guard & border

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

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

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

Colonial link

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

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

Iraq is technically part of the War on Terror

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reasons for USA's prolonged neutrality in WW2?

The silence, both in this article and the article on WW2, about US neutrality between September 1939 and December 1941 is positively deafening. The articles record the bare facts, and do not attempt to conceal the fact that both Japan and Germany initiated hostilities against the USA rather than vice versa. But there is no mention of why the USA should have chosen to sit out this glorious struggle for the survival of freedom, democracy, etc. etc., until it was forced to defend itself. Is this topic dealt with elsewhere? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.208.100.157 (talk • contribs) .

Please don't infer that the omission of something means anything significant. You've brought up a good point, and because the interwar period section was thin to begin with, I added some lines from relevant nearby articles to indicate this important era. As for answering your "why?" question, I'm not sure there's a simple answer. --Dhartung | Talk 22:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

War children (soldiers and their illegitimate children)

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

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

Army history vs. US military history

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

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

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

Ethiopia/Somalia?

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

WP:Undue weight

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

Bay of Pigs

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

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

General of the Armies

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

Invasian of America

The following was removed from the article:

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

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

POV and lack of citation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Losing "Stub-hood"?

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

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

Critisism

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

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

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