Jump to content

Talk:War on terror: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 135: Line 135:


:I feel I need to note that there is a significant difference between the term "Foreign-born" in the heading of this section and the word "foreign" in the quoted words. They do not mean the same thing. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 01:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
:I feel I need to note that there is a significant difference between the term "Foreign-born" in the heading of this section and the word "foreign" in the quoted words. They do not mean the same thing. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 01:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2024 ==

{{edit semi-protected|War on terror|answered=no}}
Add Donald trump to the list of leaders for the American coalition side. [[Special:Contributions/96.243.32.92|96.243.32.92]] ([[User talk:96.243.32.92|talk]]) 01:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:03, 19 March 2024


End of the war on terror?

As the lead states backed up by sources, the "war on terror" is not a conventional war but a series of efforts to combat terrorism. So how exactly do we define the end of this then? The date still says 15 Sep 2001-present, but it's clear to me that something at least needs to change. Obama himself officially declared the GWOT over in 2013[1] which is more official than anything saying the "war on terror" is ongoing since 2001.

What do other people think? WR 19:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "end" point can be in 2013, or after Biden withdrew from Afghanistan. After major withdrawals from the Middle East, it definitely isn't ongoing in any real sense — no more than the US is still in the Age of Imperialism with Latin America, for example. 136.167.247.40 (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not over by a long shot. Just because the US have largely given up doesnt mean it's over. It is fully active in Mala, Burkina Faso, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, China, Thailand and so on. We need to remove the end date and change it back to present. If we only define it as being over because of the US not being active anymore, it is in violation with the unbiased nature of wikipedia. 213.80.108.230 (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The War on Terror is an American concept, thus it is not relevant if there is terrorism elsewhere. Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I think it's pedantic to say that @Slatersteven.
"Terrorism" or "extremism", as a phenomena, existed always. It didn't required the United States to conceptualise it, though they're the only ones that have specialised about it assiduously over the decades, for obvious reasons why. It didn't went away and, most assuredly, we'll all live our final days with this problem still not resolved. For comparison, the [original] Cold War ended three decades ago officially, yet people that have been born, grown, and lived through it (regardless of the country) continue to be alive n' kickin'. The noted personalities involved in the acts of terrorism in the 2000s were the creatures of the Cold War. Even in 2023, all the people you see in positions of influence, are either old guards (Cold War era) or the first generation(s) to be affected by the early years of the Global War on Terror when they were young adults or middle-aged.
As for the timeline, hear me out @Weaveravel.
With organised global terrorism (tautology?), however, I think there's a perchance that it'll continue way passed its centenary starting point (or at least, the centenary of 9/11). We'll all be dead by then (with the noted exceptions), and still its effects lingering the world. If you want my realistic guesstimation, I think the current (re)iteration of organised global terrorism will evaporate in the early 2110s, respectively 2120s. That's just speculation on my part, I can't forsee what will happen with more serious actors, especially within the Muslim world's faction and sectarian conflicts.
Right now, in my opinion, the world is tackling the numbness of those intense years (2001-2013/2021), the long haul lingering effects that simply covered multiple generations, let alone the aftershock generations. Whatever terrorism we see and we'll see are the leftover scraps that haven't figured out the fight has ceased to exist – sort of like being late to the party, when the stamina turned down & everyone's casually chilling, not so energetic anymore. People are still affected and they'll still be thrown into metaphorical meat grinders in regional areas, to be sure, but apart from what Daesh was (which I think it was an attempt to revigorate anew the fight), we're in a stage of... waiting to die, basically, a gradual [not total] cooldown.
In conclusion, you and others are correct in your own ways: you are correct on focusing on the 2001-2013/2021 timestamp, others are correct to say it's still ongoing. Granted, when people search on Wikipedia about this, they'll not find a conclusive answer. I think, the results being inconclusive on a gradual cooldown phase is, at the moment, the best description to date. Trexerman (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But this article is not about terrorism, it is about a specific war, which was declared over. Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the way to resolve this is to define three "phases":
First phase would be the "Main phase" which would be from 9/11 to 2013, which was after the main "target" (bin Laden) had been killed and President Obama officially declared it over. The primary emphasis of this phase was the eradication of Al Qaeda from Afghanistan, and then retaliatory attacks against growing terror groups in Iraq. It's the "main phase" because it is the one directly tied to the stated mission of the Bush administration.
The second phase, which I don't have a good name for, would be from 2013 to 2021. This phase would be defined by the international coalition against ISIS and the capitulation of the U.S. to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Maybe one could call it the "resurgence", as it was a (somewhat) unexpected flare up that forced the U.S. to put more resources back into the region.
The third phase, which one could call the "cooldown" or something like that, would be from then until the present.
As for which would be the "end", I think the capitulation to the Taliban should be defined as the end. It's obvious that the priorities of the United States today are (depending on how you slice it) boxing in China in the Pacific and supporting Ukraine along with her NATO allies against Russia in Europe. The Middle-East is in third place at this point. Remember, the "war on terror" is not synonymous with "anti-terrorism" as a whole, it's a uniquely American initiative and precisely one which has largely left the American consciousness. The fall of Kabul signified the physical admittance that America has bigger priorities else where (in her eyes), and would risk giving up her entire two decade long nation-building project as a sacrifice for such priorities. One should not take that lightly. AsyarSaronen (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've gathered,the war on terror is an initiative, which refers to military altercations towards organizations/governments deemed as terrorist in the middle east and Northern Africa but it doesn't just refer to the declared wars,rather just military interferences broadly 2600:8801:FB13:6B00:2C74:717:1F33:8D2C (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the status of the war should be ongoing. As terrorism is still a threat being combated, it just the news dont't report it as often as they used to. Rager7 (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MAybe, but this was against a specific threat. Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well then the status should say coalition defeat. After, all the withdrawal from Afghanistan is considered the end date. Rager7 (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Cats

Hello @Aocloyalist: Why remove these? Invasive Spices (talk) 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The infobox is a mess

The number of participating countries should be reduced and limited to those that participated effectively and fundamentally. This is too much filling for a big encyclopedia. Any information without a source should not remain. Dl.thinker (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the infobox for this article is a big bloated mess. It should either be completely removed, or at least trimmed down significantly. I think the biggest problem with this infobox is just how incredibly misleading it is. For one thing, it lists a lot of countries and political/paramilitary factions that are hostile towards each other as if they were all on the same side and cooperating together, instead of the more complicated reality of them being rivals that fought for competing geopolitical interests. Never mind the fact that a lot of countries and groups listed here did not even ever directly participate in any wars. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Israel-Hamas conflict

Wouldn't the arming of the IDF by the Biden administration to "destroy Hamas" have some contribution of the war on terror? 2600:8801:FB13:6B00:2C74:717:1F33:8D2C (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the Biden administration or reliable sources consider it part of the war on terror, yes. Parham wiki (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the end date for the War on Terror to Dec 31, 2022 (last issue of National Defense Service Medal for conflict)

Hey guys, In my personal opinion, I think we should list Dec 31 2022 as the end of the War on Terror. The US military announcing that date as the last day the National Defense Service Medal would be awarded for the War on Terror is the most meaningful declaration the US government ever made of the War on Terror being over. As far as the US military is concerned, that date marks the end of the campaign. Also many notable events happened between August 2021 and December 2022 such as the end of Coalition combat operations in Iraq against ISIS (Dec 2021) and the killing of Al-Zawahiri in Afghanistan (July 2022). To use August 2021 as the end date feels premature. Additionally, to use the end Operation Freedom's Sentinel, which ultimately was a train/advise/assist mission, as a sign of the entire War on Terror being over seems disproportionate . OFS was one of several US operations and at the time of its ending, America was still actively conducting combat operations against ISIS in Iraq and Syria and Al-Qaeda off-shoots in Somalia. How is the War on Terror "over" in August 2021 if the US was still fighting the War on Terror in three countries and awarding the National Defense Service Medal for the conflict? To be fair, there is a case to be made that there should be no end date at all since America is still engaged in low-level fighting in Syria and Somalia against ISIS and Al-Qaeda.


What do you guys think? Jab1998 (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about changing the date for the "main phase" ? Yr Enw (talk) 07:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, sorry I should have clarified that. I believe the ending date of the main phase should be December 31 2022 Jab1998 (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion above on this talk page that also deals with the dating. I’m unsure myself because all measures seem to just be different editors engaging in WP:OR. I’ll try and have a look at what some reliable sources say, I’m sure then we can work something in that incorporates these different dates into the notes beside the “Main Phase” dates. But I’m currently stuck for a reason the article has settled on US Withdrawal as an end date. Yr Enw (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation "Prosperity guardian"?

Wouldn't "Operation "Prosperity" possibly fit the classification as a part of the "War on Terror"? 2A02:3035:600:D032:3349:AF33:D3E1:A614 (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No as the war on Teoorrt is over, Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Defense Contractors + Hiring Foreign-born Employees + Legislation

This was removed:

“On August 3, 2020 the White House attempted to reduce spending on hiring of foreign employees by American defense contractors.[1]

I believe it belongs somewhere. Twillisjr (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC) Twillisjr (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why, what does this tell us? Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I need to note that there is a significant difference between the term "Foreign-born" in the heading of this section and the word "foreign" in the quoted words. They do not mean the same thing. HiLo48 (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2024

Add Donald trump to the list of leaders for the American coalition side. 96.243.32.92 (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]