Talk:War on terror

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2
Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5

This article should be renamed "US War on Terrorism"

or US-led War on Terrorism. for accuracy. 172.132.85.194 06:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As opposed to what? There are many was, past and present, which could arguably be referred to as 'Wars on Terror,' but as far as I'm aware they are not. The term 'War on Terror' is generally accepted to refer to the current conflicts, even by those who have voiceferous objections to the term. It's an unnecessary clarification. Arrogant Papist 11:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"Global War on Terror/Terrorism" (GWOT) is the US government's official name for the conflict since 2001. See:

The Global War on Terrorism: The First 100 Days

The article itself cites a 2004 reference. I located this 2001 White House document with the term in the title and will add it to the references.

-- Petercorless 06:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don’t think it should be renamed the ‘US war on terrorism’, the term has been used a plenty by other nations. Chwyatt 10:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

New Intro

The intros used on this article have been relentlessly in violation of NPOV, by not acknowledging who exactly gave the name "War on Terror" and the fact that the words are disputed as an application to this particular campaign, even though they are the official name of it according to the US military. The intro needs to reflect the fact that this article IS largely about the US military-designated campaign referred to by that name (and thus gets a conflict infobox), without pretending that the only understanding of the words "War on Terror" refers directly to the US government and military's own conception of this campaign, or indeed without implying that all these wars are "REALLY" part of the same larger war, just because they have been designated as such. In fact, the common understanding and most frequent use of the words "War on Terror" even within the United States, does not include such conflicts as Iraq. A wikipedia article on this topic, therefore, unless it wants to violate NPOV and come out in support of a particular war or campaign, must explain which exact definition of the war on terror it is covering. I tried to do that.

Here is a new version of the intro which is slightly more detailed (necessary on this article- look at other articles on similarly huge and divisive events). Make any comments you choose.

The War on Terrorism or War on Terror can refer to several distinct conflicts, but it is most recently the name given by the United States of America and its allies to an ongoing campaign with the stated goal of "ending international terrorism," launched in direct response to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S., for which al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.

The campaign's stated goals include preventing those groups identified as "terrorist" by the United States from carrying out attacks and posing a threat to America and its allies; "spreading freedom" and liberal democracy, particularly to the Middle East; and putting an end to state sponsorship of terrorism in so-called rogue and failed states, beginning with the U.S.-backed 2001 overthrow of the Taliban government in Afghanistan, the first specific war associated with the campaign. The War on Terrorism is largely seen as focused on militant Islamist groups such as al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. Before its overthrow in Afghanistan, the Taliban had been harboring elements of al Qaeda and its leader Osama Bin Laden.

The campaign was launched by U.S. President George W. Bush, with support from NATO and other allies, particularly the United Kingdom and its Prime Minister Tony Blair. The "War on Terror" has taken many forms, such as diplomacy, going after "terrorist financing", domestic provisions aiming to prevent future attacks, and joint training and peacekeeping operations with a wide variety of nations. However, the phrase Global War on Terrorism (or GWOT) is the official name used by the U.S. military for operations designated as part of the campaign. Thus, the "War on Terror" as defined by this article is largely a military effort, and has been compared in both its unspecified, continuing duration and its multiple theaters of operation, to the Cold War. The war is also characterized as an ideological struggle, "involving both a battle of arms and a battle of ideas," and some have characterized it as a "clash of civilizations", or a "crusade" against Islam. Although the U.S.-led coalition that invaded Iraq in 2003 and toppled President Saddam Hussein was made up of allies in the "War on Terror", the current Iraq war and its alleged links to the larger campaign against terrorism have been highly controversial. The Bush Administration has been accused of acting in violation of both international law, human rights, and the U.S. Constitution in its prosecution of the campaign, particularly with regard to the internment of prisoners of war (or "illegal combatants") in its military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The U.S. government's articulation of military doctrines such as pre-emptive war and "regime change" as part of the War on Terror, as well as Bush and Blair's justifications for the war, have also been controversial. Both the larger concept of a "War on Terrorism", and the specific tactics used, have been subject to widespread criticism outside of the United States, and world opinion polls have shown limited support even in some nations whose governments and militaries are supportive. In addition, according to the U.S. government's own measures, international terrorist incidents have been on the rise since the campaign began. However, the U.S. and allies have claimed victories, such as democratic elections in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the capture of alleged 9/11 planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The War on Terrorism has resulted in high civilian and military casualties on both sides,, and is a "long war" whose planners expect to continue for the foreseeable future.

I disagree, especially since this doesnt seem to be researched much, while I appreciate your efforts at a rewrite, most of the operations in the WOT arent in the middle east, so its a bit odd reading, further most operations do not target al-qaeda and instead general militant islamist groups, and surely no major operations target hezbollah. The whole intro is also highly negative, you should seek the problems I mentioned, shorten the intro and make it less POV. Let me know on my talk page when you are done and I will read it over again. Also you go from Afghanistan -> Iraq skipping 3-4 other WOT operations and major attacks against the US and its allies. --NuclearZer0 18:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I hope you see what I was trying to accomplish there, even if it's very flawed. The current (if someone reverted)/old intro is not adequate because it simply parroted back the US/Bush Administration definition of the "war" (which if not for rhetoric, would be classed as multiple separate wars) without explaining that it was doing so. You may say it's NPOV, and it's certainly overlong, but hopefully expert Wikipedians can remove the irrelevant facts from it. Highly negative? The second paragraph makes a direct link between US actions in the war on terror and Al Qaeda culpability in 9/11. If it's POV it's too slanted toward the US.

The fact is, nearly all of the citations I made are directly to the White House and the US military's own web pages. The "war on terror" is defined by the speeches and rhetoric of President George W. Bush. That is why the intro as it exists in the old shorter version is inaccurate. For another thing the war did not start in October 2001 with the bombing of Afghanistan, but in September 2001 when George W. Bush declared a "war on terror" for the first time as a response to 9/11 and basically let everyone know this was going to take a military form as well as other forms. If you are going to say it's anti-American to characterize the war in the exact terms that the US government uses, then I don't really understand that.

I think the only solution really is to make two separate articles.

• One called Global War on Terror/ism (US-led military campaign) which would get a conflict infobox, and would be an umbrella article with only links and summaries of all the diverse operations officially designated by the US military as part of this "war", without any unique content for this article.

• And another article simply called US War on Terror/ism, which would be about the campaign in general. It would provide a summary of the military information in the other article but would also be about diplomatic aspects, going after financing sources, "freedom agenda" for the Middle East, war in Iraq, etc - how the war has been defined by its advocates (George W Bush or US generals in speeches, Condoleezza Rice position papers, Tony Blair, foreign leaders who are supportive etc) and also by its critics (human rights groups, international opinion, basically the 90% of people of the world who aren't American).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.85.194 (talk • contribs) 21:35, December 3, 2006 (UTC)

I think this intro is an improvement over the previous one, but it does seem to have a bit of a critical POV. Up to the phrase "operations with a wide variety of nations", I really like it, and I think it neutrally presents the WOT well. I'm not an expert on the WOT, so I don't know if all the facts presented are accurate (as NuclearZer0 alleges above), but facts are easy to change if they prove to be inaccurate. The overall tone and presentation is good, though, in my opinion.

I think the intro should end there. The rest should be moved to another section (maybe call it Ideology and Ramifications of the Global War on Terrorism, or come up with a less wordy and more accurate title). This portion could probably also be written a little more neutrally.

—P^urpleRA^IN 17:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

One other thing: within this article, it probably doesn't make sense to put the phrase "War on Terror(ism)" in quotation marks. It definitely gives an impression of POV. —P^urpleRA^IN 17:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is necessary for the intro to mention to comparison of the WoT to the Cold War (and the use of the phrase "long war"), which has been made both by planners of the war on terror and by opponents- it's pretty universally acknowledged. The quote about being a war both of ideas and battles is from the White House in fact. I also think it is necessary for the intro to mention the fact that including the war in Iraq under the war on terror is particularly controversial both within and outside the US, even if it doesn't go into details of why- if the intro does not mention this, but just explains the goals and aims of the war on terror in combating international terrorism, it will be POV, because for someone who doesn't read the whole article when they look at that conflict infobox on the right it will imply that the War in Iraq is an undisputed part of what is meant by the use of the phrase "War on Teror"- when most people of whatever political affiliation now credit that war with CREATING more terrorism and thus justifying its inclusion under "war on terror" in a tricky sort of way.

and it would be good, I think, that the intro namedrop things like "pre-emptive war", which were part of a new official strategy set out by the administration for the war on terror. and for the intro to mention the detainees controversy, which has been the main focus of opponents of the war on terror and yielded a Supreme Court ruling striking down administration policy in prosecuting the "war" as unconstitutional. if there is a way to mention these things without seeming POV, maybe someone could do it. notice that there is also a sentence about declared victories in the war, like the democratic elections and the capture of KSM. this was an attempt at non-POV. perhaps there could be another phrase about the lack of terrorist attacks on the US since 9/11.

finally, someone suggested that the article was misleading in singling out the Middle East. you're right most of the operations of the WoT have not been in the Middle East, although by far the largest ones have been. but Bush's "spreading freedom" agenda for the WoT did clearly single out the Middle East. I was also thinking, should other terrorist attacks be mentioned in the intro? like Indonesia, UK, Spain, Russia, Egypt, Israel, etc? I think the fact that major international terrorist attacks have continued since 9/11 needs mention in the intro (i.e. the phrase about attacks have increased), but I don't think they should be mentioned specifically, because even if the US has collaborated with certain countries in the WoT, it was not as directly related to these recent attacks on those countries, as much as a continuing response to 9/11. 172.132.85.194 23:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think geographically there is a misunderstanding, only Iraq is in the middle east. Afghanistan is not, Phillipines is not, Horn of Africa is not etc. Further the London bombers specified there attack was for revenge of what was going on in that region, so its pretty directly related. --NuclearZer0 00:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing that most of the things mentioned are important to mention, but an intro should be short and concise. It should state in (ideally) one paragraph the most basic description of the subject, which will be expanded upon in the rest of the article. Someone who wants the most basic overview of the WoT will want to know what it is, how it originated and who's involved. That's what should be in the introduction. The other stuff is important, but is not overview material. It gets into motives and justifications and opposition, which, again, is important to mention, but not in a brief overview. I'm not questioning whether this stuff is universally accepted or controversial; I'm just questioning whether it should all be mentioned in the intro.

It might make sense to have one sentence in there saying that there is a lot of controversy surrounding the motives/ideology/justification for these conflicts, but beyond that, I don't think the rest should be in the intro. People are quite capable of reading on if they need more detail.

—P^urpleRA^IN 17:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think the old one was better, short and concise. --NuclearZer0 17:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I think this intro is better than the old one; I just think that the last half or so should not be part of the intro (and needs a little POV filtering). —P^urpleRA^IN 19:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Start date of the war

I wanted to discuss the date when the war started. Curently the date is set as October 7 2001, the day tath the bombing of Afghanistan started, but I think that September 11th 2001 should be the start date, because that is the day the war actualy started, the day the terrorists actualy declared war on America and America on them, after all, America already did bomb Afghanistan that same night that they hit New York and Washington, Kabul was hit. So now who agrees with me.

Since this is not a conventional war by any means, it is hard to establish a "Start Date" of the war. Since the "War on Terror" does not just target groups or individuals responsible for the September 11th terror attacks, it would not be proper to say that war was declared by the terrorists involved with 9/11, but rather prompted war aimed at all terrorist groups and their supporters.

Kevcoles 06:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I agree...there really can't be a definite start date for this war. World War Two did not start on December 7th 1941. I've read some historians are now including the Spanish Civil War and the Japanese aggression in Manchurian as parts of WWII. so the start date for WWII would no longer be September 1st, 1939 but much earlier. I think the same is true with this war...if we're fighting Islamic Jihadists and the "we" is all non-Islamic Jihadists then the start date is somewhere in the 1970s.Culmo80 18:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)culmo80

Removed conflict infobox

In an effort to maintain a neutral point of view, and after having reviewing the discussion on this talk page, I have removed the conflict infobox.

The use of the conflict infobox strongly implies that the War on Terror is a single campaign. However, there are many who do not hold this view, particularly outside of the USA. For example, it could be argued that given the absence of any link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda, the US adminstration justified their invasion of Iraq by arbitrarily placing it under the banner of the War on Terror.

A review of versions of this article in other languages makes this clear. None of them use the conflict infobox, and, from what I understand, the German version labels the term "War on Terror" as propaganda.

Futhermore, it is irresponsible to provide definitive casualty counts when it is unclear exactly which conflicts are part of the larger War on Terror. For example, the article notes that the US government considers the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict as a front in the War on Terrorism, and goes on to include those casualty counts. By contrast, the government of Somalia also states it is battling terrorism in its current conflict against Islamist fighters, but that conflict is not included.

Given these facts, I have removed the conflict infobox. If you disagree with this action, then let's at least come up with a clear definition of which individual conflicts should be included before re-adding the infobox.

--Jonovision 22:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The "War on Terrorism" as defined here is the campaign the US began against those they see as "terrorists and state sponsors of terror." Its a designation that the operations in Afghanistan were begun under, the designation the Iraq war was begun under, and the designation that the war in Lebanon was begun under. Stuff like Somalia, while against terrorists, isnt involving anything under the WoT campaign. Many other languages never have infoboxes for anything, and its not surprising that they wouldnt have one for this. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, as pointed out before, the conflict is not as simple as what is shown in the conflict box. NATO is not involved in combat operations in Iraq so it's a major stretch to call it a combatant against the Iraq insurgency. The same is true of France, Germany, Israel, Canada, Pakistan, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Leave it up to the sub articles to record the combatants as that way you can have a proper accounting of who the combatants are. --Bobblehead 23:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

We already discussed this. I pointed out that not every nation listed as an Axis power went into combat against every nation listed as an Allied power. The infobox perhaps be clarified as "Targets" and maybe something like "Participants" to make it clear thats what the sides are if it wasnt already. The argument that every nation on one side has been in combat with every nation of the other (or in this case entity) was, and still is faulty. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Except the WWII example isn't applicable. There wasn't any question among the Allied countries that Japan was an enemy of their country and Britain was an ally. In the case of Iraq War that isn't applicable. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone in Canada, France, or Germany that considered the Iraqi insurgency an enemy of their country. Some even question whether or not the US is an ally. --Bobblehead 23:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The Axis powers generally hated each other but cooperated in areas for other reasons. The USA/UK didnt really trust the USSR and the sentiment was shared. I do not see how this holds any bearing on their participation in operations against nations on the axis side, or holding any bearing on axis nations participation in operations against nations on the allied side. Again, we already went over this. In no occasion is a nation on one side of the infobox siding against a nation on their side, and at most are neutral with the nation on the other side rather than in a state of conflict. All of the nations are obviously wartime allies with the USA as far as this is concerned, as they are either participating in a US aided mission such as that in Afghanistan on the side of the USA, or participating in an operation that was begun under the campaign without direct US involvement such as those started by NATO and Israel. Since they are begun under the campaign on the side of the USA they are wartime allies, and since Israel and NATO nations are allies with the USA already it is even clearer that they are in an alliance as far as this campaign goes. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't read all those languages, but I can read French, and that article makes it perfectly clear that the French authors view of the "War on Terror" as a concept. I don't read much German, but the gist of their version seems the same.

This goes against the NPOV policy, so unless you can figure out some way to tag the infobox itself as reflecting a US point of view, I am removing it for now.

Futhermore, the information in the box remains questionable. For example, why are Hezbollah or Lebanon not included as enemy combantants, while Israel is? While any uncertainity remains about the facts, we should not be summarizing them for people who might just glance at the article. --Jonovision 23:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia, or other languages of Wikipedia, are not valid sources for articles on Wikipedia. As to why Hezbollah isnt there, I dont know, someone must have removed it at some point in time as it used to be there. The lists of combatants are not meant to be all inclusive, and there is a link to "others" in one column though the other needs that added. It isnt a US point of view that there is a US led campaign being waged, this is factual and is occuring. The name of this campaign is the "War on Terror," it would be reasonable to think that in other languages "War on Terrorism" refers to the general idea of having a war on terror rather than this specific campaign. This isnt the way it is in the English language where the term has a rather specific identification with this campaign at this point. As we are the english encyclopedia, what things are in English as far as terminology is all that matters. Operations begun under the WoT campaign are the only ones that are parts of this, that includes Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and anything else that fits the aforementioned requirements. We have sources stating all 3 of these as being a part. Its not merely a POV. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to a subject as complex as the classification of wars, we encyclopedia authors can't simply rely on the sources to name them. Different sources have different names, and it's up to us to make choices. For example, the US government never officially declared war against North Vietnam, in an attempt to downplay it's significance, but we've come to (accurately) call it the Vietnam War. The Wikipedia policy says that nationalistic bias is not acceptable, and many would argue that the term "War on Terror" is used by the US to advance their own goals. As such, the article didn't conform to a NPOV. --Jonovision 00:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

War on Islam is a good example of an article that does not merit having a conflict infobox. --Jonovision 00:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

We dont seem to be operating on the same wavelength here. In the case of this, the "War on Terror" is being used as a proper noun, not a description. The thing this article is about is the US-led campaign that began after 9-11 and is being waged against organizations they see as terrorists and state sponsors of terror, as stated in the lead paragraph. Whether this is a "war" in the traditional sense doesnt matter, operations within wars have infoboxes, operations out of wars have infoboxes, campaigns have infoboxes, conflicts have infoboxes. By having an infobox on this, we are having it because this is a campaign. The reason this article is here is because 1. War on Terrorism is the common name for the campaign being waged, which is officially known as the "Global War on Terrorism" by the US government but the public calls it this more often, and 2. War on Terrorism most commonly refers to this specific campaign, I have suggested above that if one wants to make an article on the general concept of a "war against terrorists" than they could put it at "War on terror (Term)" or something to that effect and link to it at the top of this page. As far as War on Islam goes, it is not a campaign and is merely a term, like the 10th crusade, to describe perceived conflicts that are going on. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the term "War on Terror" is common in the US, but the same doesn't hold in other countries, particularly ones who participate(d) in the Afganistan campaign and didn't want anything to do with Iraq. It's a commonly held view that the US administration associated terrorism with the Iraq War for the purpose of gaining political support for the invasion. The Wikipedia policies insist on keeping a global perspective, which is hard to do when one uses politically-motivated and emotionally-charged terms like "War on Terror" without identifying them as such. --Jonovision 00:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I can understand your concern, however removing the infobox isnt the way to go about it. Do you agree that there is a US-led campaign being waged? Because this article is detailing this campaign - regardless of what the campaign is named. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a very good question. Let me preface my answer by saying that I believe the classification a key issue, since it casts many conflicts in a certain light.

I don't agree that all the conflicts mentioned in the article are US-led.

• The invasion of Iraq is led by the US and UK, with the US making the biggest contribution. The war in Afganistan is led by NATO, with the US again contributing the most.

• The US has not led, but directly supported other operations, including ones in the Phillipines and Pakistan. I'm not sure why US support against the Islamic Chechen insurgency isn't mentioned here. Perhaps because Russia considers them terrorists, but the US doesn't.

• The US did not lead, nor directly support Israel's 2006 invasion of Lebanon.

• Couldn't be more wrong. Actually, the US lead, and directly supported Israel's 2006 invasion of Lebanon. According to the US, Israel launched the counter-offensive to protect and defend itself against terrorism. American government officials and the public say Israel is doing America a favor by going after Hezbollah. In addition, Hezbollah and al-Qaeda are allies, as are the U.S. and Israel. The U.S.-Israeli partnership and military alliance is extremely close and strong. I'm sure they have each other on speed dial. --Shamir1 08:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I anticipated your response, so I clearly defined "direct support" as miltary actions and not simply political support. Also, please give me a source which says that the US "led" the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. --Jonovision 17:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I would qualify both of you comments, but first: i take GREAT exception to the assertion that the US directly supported isreal's involvement in the late war, we did not. We sent no troops, no arms, and no money. however, the Bush Administration did seem tocondone isreal's operation in lebanon, and certainly made little meaningful effort to stay isreal's hand while encouraging the Lebonese government to "do something" (i don't think any of us can be sure exactly what, frankly i doubt they know either). and the US does support (and has for many years) the state of israel, both financially and militarily. If that is what you mean, then say that, but do not oversimplify the issue by boxing it into and easily consumptable package aimed at decieving the virually illiterate masses. i can think of no one in politics that you sound more like than our dear Neo-Conservative Republicans, dispite your opposition to them.

• The US definitely was not involved in Saudi Arabia's fight against their insurgency. I don't know a lot about Saudi politics, but I'm under the impression that the government there was unhappy with US military presence, and told them to leave.

Note: by "direct support", I refer to military actions, rather than political support or sales of military hardware. --Jonovision 01:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been at a loss to explain which conflicts merit inclusion in this article, so I've come up with a set of rules. A conflict is part of the War in Terror if:

• it is labeled as such by the US government (explains the inclusion of the Afganistan War, Iraq War, Phillipines operation, Waziristan war, 2006 Isreal-Lebanon conflict)
• it involves al-Qaeda (explains inclusion of Saudi Arabia)
• it involves Islamic terrorists, specifically in Indonesia, but not elsewhere.

I think this article would benefit from having a clearer definition. I have a couple of suggestions:

• "The War on Terror is the worldwide fight against Muslim extremists"

pros: includes everything currently in the article. cons: we would have to add Malaysia, India, Chechnya, and a bunch of other conflict zones.

• "The War on Terror includes any conflict the USA has been involved in since 9/11"

pros: includes only US-supported operations. cons: doesn't include Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, or Indonesia, and potentially includes any future US operations.

Any better suggestions? --Jonovision 01:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as it appears you misinterpretted "US-Led." It does not mean that the USA is involved militarilly in every operation, but instead that the USA began the campaign, and other nations have joined on into the campaign since that point. Most of the first part of your response deals with how the USA does not always make the biggest contribution, this is true but irrelevant. Every conflict started by or participated in by the USA is not a part of the War on Terror, American operations in Haiti were done seperately for example. This would be a case of confusing the cause and effect, they are not part of the campaign because they happened after 9-11, but instead they happened after 9-11 because it was after this point the campaign began and thus everything in the WoT is post 9-11. The campaign is not any conflict fought against muslim extremists, as any nation could do that. This campaign is a specific campaign, the issue of what it is has already been dealt with in the article itself... it is US-led campaign, enlisting the aid of allies, against those designated as terrorist groups and state sponsors of terror. The Lebanon operations were begun by Israel under the designation, and both the Israeli government and the American government recognized it as such. THe Chechnya war began in 1999, 2 years before this campaign, and therefore could not have been begun under it. Iraq was begun as a part of the WoT, in the authorization of force it was done in order to "prosecute the War on Terrorism." It isnt our job to decide what is and what isnt part, or to set a criteria such as it has to be against muslim extremists. Whatever has been begun under ithis campaign, as identified by sources, is what we will include as being a part of the campaign. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You've made it clear how difficult it is to define the "War on Terror". Many of the conflicts currently mentioned in the article predate 9/11. The Saudi insurgency and the Phillipines' campaign against Islamic terrorists were both active in the 1990's. Israel's most recent conflict with Lebanon has roots that go back decades.

Just like the Chechen War, these conflicts began long before the US administration labeled them as being part of the War on Terror. It seems fair to say that the US didn't enlist the aid of some of these countries, but that after the events of 9/11, these countries saw a new US attitude towards terrorism, and asked for help.

Given that, I think we still don't have a clear enough definition of "War on Terror" to summarize it in an infobox. --Jonovision 06:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you simply continue to confuse what is being said. The conflict with Lebanon that began years ago is not the one that is part of this, it is specifically Operation Change of Direction, launched July 12th (or thereabouts.) It is this operation that was begun under the campaign. Likewise, every conflict that ever occured in Afghanistan, such as the Afghan Civil War (1996-2001), is not included in the War on Terror. Only the operations begun under the War on Terror, such as Operation Enduring Freedom, are part of it. The same goes for the Phillipines, only Operation Enduring Freedom is included as part of the WoT, not operations predating the campaign. Again, any operation began under the campaign is included in the campaign. Its not difficult, and claiming it is difficult is no justification to keep removing the Infobox. ~Rangeley (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that despite the fact that Israel has had operations against Hezbollah predating 9/11, and despite the fact that the USA military was not involved in the lastest Lebanon conflict, it is part of the US-led War on Terror? --Jonovision 22:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

In a further demonstration of the complexity of the subject, a recent editor has pointed out that Indian police have accussed Pakistan of planning terrorists attacks against India. How can we summarize this conflict in an InfoBox if the article itself says that two of the listed Allies may be in conflict? --Jonovision 22:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason that operations done before 9-11 and the War on Terrorism began is because for one it would be logically impossible for an operation to be part of something that had not yet been made. The War on Terrorism began on October 7th, 2001 with the commencement of OEF, the first operation carried out under it. The reason that Operation Change of Direction is part of the campaign is because it was begun under it, as stated by both the American and Israeli governments. I will point you to the section detailing Operation Change of Direction in this very article where sources are produced stating this. In World War Two, the Soviet Union invaded Poland. Yet both are considered allies. There have been far more peculiar things that have happened in the past in wars than this, and keep in mind that India has not participated in any operations of the War on Terrorism whereas Pakistan has. Pakistan and India have had trouble with each other since they became nations, that would not negate their cooperation in a given operation - if such a thing occured, which it has not yet. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You make good points about World War 2, but let me also point out that in such cases, we have time on our side to sort things out. It is, however, premature to summarize the War on Terror at this point, especially since there is still a bitter, ongoing debate about whether a conflict such as the Iraq War can legitimately be called a "War on Terrorism", or whether it was simply named that as a form of propaganda.

Futhermore, I have followed your suggestion, and read the sources (numbers 24-28). I find that the usage of the term "war on terror" is consistant with the view advanced by others that the war on terror is not a single campaign, but rather that is is a geopolitical concept (akin to "Cold War"). Here are the relevant quotes:

• 'US President George W Bush says the Lebanon war is part of a broader struggle against terrorism.'
• 'Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz said Wednesday morning that Israel is fighting a war of the free world against terror.'
• 'Bush said Hezbollah and its supporters in Iran and Syria were responsible for the 34-day war, and called that conflict "part of a broader struggle between freedom and terror."'

Note the use of "a war/struggle" as opposed to "the war/struggle". --Jonovision 04:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a similar discussion has already occured on this subject. There is a struggle of ideologies, akin to the Cold War, that is occuring. But this article is not about that struggle, but instead about a campaign that the USA and allies are leading in this "ideological struggle." For example, when terrorists launch an attack on the Madrid trains, this was obviously not carried out as an operation of the WoT, though its part of the ideological conflict going on between the western cultures and Islamic extremism. In the Cold War, there was not a large campaign waged, though there were many seperate ones, such as the Vietnam war, Korean war, etc. The difference here is that the USA and allies are putting together different responses into a single campaign, as noted in their military designations and operational medals. The issue of whether the Iraq War is part of the WoT campaign has been settled here already. Again, I point you to the section detailing the Iraq war. It has links to the original authorization of force which was done to "prosecute the war on terror," was stated before in speeches as being the "next step" and the US army gave WoT medals to soldiers who served in the Iraq War, same as they did for the Afghan war. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It's clear that the US administration refers to the Iraq War as part of the war on terror, but the fact remains that a significant number of people, foreign governments, and NGOs do not consider it to be part of the same campaign. The view that they are part of the same campaign is irrefutably a single point of view, held mainly by some in the US and UK. (For example, see [[1]] -- Poland admits its "ultimate objective" is to acquire supplies of Iraqi oil.) On Wikipedia, we don't name war articles by names given to them for nationalistic purposes ("Vietnam Conflict", "Great Patriotic War"), because that is a clear violation of the NPOV policy. --Jonovision 05:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

They may not consider it to be part of the ideological struggle, I think that is more or less what the debate going on is about. There is no debate that militarilly speaking, it was begun under the same campaign. To debate that is pretty silly as it is indeed straight forward. I find it interesting that you bring up the Poland point, as that reflects a misunderstanding of what it means to be part of this campaign. By saying its part of the campaign, that is not to say that the Iraq War was begun to fight terrorism. The campaign that this was begun under is not an attempt to describe the nature of the war itself, but instead is merely stating that the operation, Operation Iraqi Freedom, was begun under the larger campaign, as shown by the medals awarded by the US Army. Whatever the ultimate objective, this point stands.

So again, the issue of whether its the same campaign is not a debatable point, its a settled issue and is not the same debate going on in Washington, London, elsewhere. As to the name not being something nationalistic, this isnt always true. Generally the most popular name is used, the Vietnam War and Iraq War are good examples. They were not officially wars, but everyone called them wars at the time and since. The Korean War was legitimately a "police action" officially, as it was done by the United Nations, but people called it a war then and now. This campaign is most commonly referred to by this name in English, and thus thats where it is.

I again suggest making an article for the ideological struggle between the West and Islamic extremism, as that seems to be what you are confusing this with. ~Rangeley (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to be more specific about the phrase "begun under". When you say "the War in Iraq was begin under the War on Terror", the only interpretation of that which fits the facts is that the Iraq War was named to be part of the war on terror. It's well known that planning for the Iraq war goes back at least as far as 1992, with Paul Wolfowitz's document on the subject. Similarly, the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict has its roots in earlier events in that region. Our job as encyclopedia editors is to organize information to allow the reader to gain insight into the subject, not to parrot nationalistic slogans like "War on Terrorism", which have an inherent bias. --Jonovision 17:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, glad we are getting someplace. The operation named "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was started as a part of the campaign named "War on Terrorism." Lets look at an analogy, a writer puts together a series of books called "The Best Series of Books Ever." It has 3 books in the series, and each book was released under the above stated series. Lets apply some of your "points" to this. 1. The second book is about the main character travelling to Iraq, a concept the author originally envisioned in 1982 and planned as a stand alone novel before being canceled. Problem with this point: Who thought of it first, when the seeds were planted, and when it was first conceptualized holds no bearing on whether or not it was released as a part of the series. If the author released it as a part of the series, its part of the series. 2. The book series has a propagandistic name meant to elicit a reaction, and therefore it is not our place to parrot the author and say its part of the series. Problem: The name of the series holds no bearing on whether the book was released as a part of the series. It is not parroting the author to recognize the truth, that it was released as a part of the aforementioned series, as the author is the sole determinent of what is and isnt part of the series. When a series or campaign is made, its our job to recognize what is done under these in order to represent to our readers the true scope of such things. When said series or campaigns are named in propagandistic names, its still our job to state their names. When said series or campaigns include operations or new books, its our job to state this too. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with your analogy, but I'll expand on it for the sake of argument. Let's say this hypothetical series of books is written by an author named Bush. One day, another author, named Ehud Olmert, writes a similarly themed book, with a similar title. The author named Bush announces that this new book is also part of his series, despite the fact that Olmert hasn't ever said he was writing a new book in Bush's series. In fact, Olmert has been writing similarly themes books for decades before Bush really got involved in the genre. Does this make Olmert's book a part of Bush's series?

In any case, this analogy isn't very applicable, since works of an author inherently possess the authors point of view. On the other hand, wars are actual events, and, as such, it is up to us, the encyclopedia editors, to describe these events accurately. For example, the Nanking Massacre is still referred to by some in Japan as the "Nanking Incident", but, given the facts, the editors of that article have appropriately classified it as a "massacre".

Given that, I don't think we can disregard the fact that a significant number of people and governments feel that the Iraq War cannot be properly understood as part of a unified "War on Terror" campaign, but is rather best described as an element of a politically-biased, conceptual "war on terror". --Jonovision 21:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your persistance, however you have yet again missed the mark somewhat. Your expansion is true, if an author did not intend their book, or publish their book as a part of the series, it wouldnt be one. But if the author named "Bush" and the author named "Olmert" both said it was, than it would be. Thats where we are at now, even though Israel had many other "books" in this "genre," both the US and Israeli governments recognized it as a part of the campaign. Again, there are links provided in the Lebanon section to both Israeli and American officials stating it as such. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Earlier, you asked me to have a look at the links in the Lebanon section, and, as I noted, they do not say that Israel is part of a US-led War on Terror. The exact quote from the article is: 'Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz said Wednesday morning that Israel is fighting a war of the free world against terror.' Futhermore, that article (footnote 28) does not even mention the US. The usage of "war on terror" is, in this context, consistant with the view of the war on terror as a geopolitical concept, rather than a single campaign. --Jonovision 03:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're looking for exact wording, I suggest you look at footnote 26. In the headline and in the text of the article GWB says Lebanon is part of the "war on terror". --Bobblehead 16:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If this article is to reproduce what GWB says, then it must be clear from the beginning, from the title and the first sentence, where the reader is supposed to see what the article is about. DavidMarciano 16:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Bobble, I addressed that exact point earlier in the discussion. The quote from the article is: 'US President George W Bush says the Lebanon war is part of a broader struggle against terrorism.' Not part of "The War on Terror" or "Our War on Terror". Moreover, if the US administration announces that another country's conflict is part of a war on terror, that does not imply that conflict a part of a US-led "War on Terror", which is what Rangeley had suggested. --Jonovision 00:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Fine. 'Cause you know, people always use the proper name when talking about a war. I'm sure Roosevelt and Churchill made sure to refer to WWII as World War II in every speech they gave and never refer to it as the struggle against Nazi aggression. It's all semantics really. Anyways, here ya go link of GWB linking the war on terror to the Lebanon conflict using the words "war on terror". [2] --Bobblehead 02:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That's right, Roosevelt and Churchill didn't refer to the war as "World War 2", at least not until later in the conflict. In the USSR, the war was called the Sacred War, or later the Great Patriotic War. I don't know what it was called in Germany, but I'd bet they had some equally rousing and nationalistic name. We now use an accurate and politically neutral names to describe it. Nowadays, many people, and governments, especially outside of the US and UK, do not consider it accurate to classify the "War on Terror" as a single campaign, and see the term as being politically loaded. It's irresponsible to summarize the conflict in an infobox when the facts of the article are themselves under such intense debate.

In any case, I read your link, and in my opinion, it supports the view of the war on terror as a geopolitical concept, not a single campaign. His use of the words "a broader struggle between freedom and terror" instead of "The/our War on Terror" imply that Bush is referring not to a single, US-led campaign, but rather many individual conflicts, happening in many different places in the world, which share some of the same ideological underpinnings. --Jonovision 05:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is confusing. On the one hand, the argument is being made that "War on Terrorism" is a proper name; the name of the specific campaign involving specific conflicts. On the other hand the previous paragraphs seem to be saying that anytime "war" and "terror" are mentioned in relation to a conflict, it becomes a part of this campaign. You can't have both. Either this is a specific primarily-U.S campaign and should be labelled as such in the title, or this is a more wide-ranging ideological geopolitical concept, in which case the majority of the article text (including the infobox) doesn't apply. Perhaps an appropriate title for the current article would be "War on Terrorism (military campaign)"? --PurpleRain 16:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This is about the military campaign as that is what the War on Terrorism is more commonly reffering to. However as noted here, probably archived now, people are invited to make an article on the ideological struggle and name it War on Terrorism (ideological struggle) or whatever else they care to and make a disambiguation page or link at the top of this one. --NuclearZer0 16:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

the purpose of the Conflictbox is to simplify and clarify a war the box for this page however seems to have the opposite effect, on top of that the box is used by no other language in this page,with obvious reason its very nature precludes an effective use, it would be better to leave it out.Freepsbane 02:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is this "different languages dont have it" argument coming from? Once again, Wikipedia is not a source of information for Wikipedia articles, this is a campaign and campaigns can have infoboxes, lone operations outside of wars can have infoboxes such as Operation Desert Fox. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Basically what Rangeley says is that “War on Terrorism” is a name here. Rangeley simply disregards that it is chiefly a slogan. It being a “name” chosen by the Bush Administration, the latter is entitled to put whatever it wants under it, in Rangeley’s opinion. And Rangeley goes further by implying that Wikipedia’s job is just to reproduce whatever the “owner” of the name wants to put under it, no matter how other people see the issue. Does this need any elaboration regarding POV? DavidMarciano 20:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, the USA began a campaign in response to the 9-11 terrorist attack, this article details the campaign. The campaign has a name, and it is the "Global War against Terrorism," more popularly called the "War on Terrorism." As such, the article on the campaign is located here. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

2000s the worst decase?

The 2000s should be labled "The worst decade in the history of mankind, because they gave us the terrorism.213.240.234.212 15:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, friend; this could be an excellent label if terrorism was non-existant before the year 2000. 85.225.24.252 23:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

And if genocide, war, disease, pain and death had been invented by terrorists on Januray 1, 2000. EamonnPKeane 16:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism existed long before September 11th. It'd actually be hard to label any decade as the worst...you'd always have disagreement over that.Culmo80 18:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)culmo80

NPOV

NPOV dispute was never resolved. -- 130.126.138.6 21:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"used by the united states"

The intro says "the name used by the US". Shouldn't this be "the name coined by the Bush administration"? I'm not American, but from what I gather, even some of them don't buy into it. yandman 12:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It's used by more than just the Bush administration and permeates more than just the government. I am an American and can tell you that even those that disagree with Bush's policy use the term "War on Terrorism" or a similar variation to describe the conflict. So while the Bush administration may have "coined" the term, but it is used at all levels of American society. --Bobblehead 14:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Really? That I didn't know. Thanks for enlightening me. yandman 17:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I think it should probably changed to "a name used in the United States" to be more WP:NPOV. Anyone else agree? Hello32020 23:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"a name used mainly in the United States"? yandman 16:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That really isnt accurate though, it is the name of the campaign regardless of whether you live in the USA or Zimbabwe. It may not be what people call it everywhere, however. I edited the entire lead paragraph so that it sounds better as well as made it more accurate. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

subtle POV

What troubles me is the term "a campaign". I think that this in itself carries a certain subtle POV: that the different military actions carried out under this label are linked. For example, most countries agree that invading Afghanistan was justified. Far fewer believe that invading Iraq was. By arbitrarily putting these two wars under one campaign name, the US administration was trying to justify the latter by "bundling" it with the former. I think the intro should go: "a series of campaigns, grouped under the name GWOT by ..." Opinions? yandman 07:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Its not misleading or POV, it is a single campaign being carried out by the USA with help from allies. Some allies dont agree with some parts, some arent participating in some parts. But regardless of this, its still one campaign. Justifications dont hold any bearing on it. It isnt a series of campaigns, its a single campaign, which is a series of operations. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

<unsure> But the campaign was named retrospectively, wasn't it? From what I gather, they invaded Afghanistan first, and then in the run up to Iraq, they said it was all the same campaign.</unsure> yandman 07:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

When the afghan war began it was under the war on terror, it started as operation enduring freedom, this operation was then split into smaller operations, OEF-A, OEF-HOA, OEF-P, under this also falls NATO led Operation Active Endeavor, OIF (Iraq War), and I believe the Israel - Lebanon issue, as both Bush and Israel agreed. --NuclearZer0 20:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"both Bush and Israel agreed": That's the problem, isn't it? This is a "war" whose definition is unilateral. I'm not sure if we can apply the undue weight policy and ignore this, or not. yandman

Who else but the participants get to decide? I am not sure how its undue weight to say Israel attacked Labanon with military arms support from the US and both stated they did it because of the War on Terrorism ... Is Labanon saying its not true, I mean they would be the only side that can deny the claims to argue undue weight. --NuclearZer0 13:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It is multiple campaigns, clearly. I prefer the suggested wording. Kevin Baas^talk 16:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, I think you are misunderstanding what a campaign is. Its by no means the same operation, hence the different operation names, but they have all been carried out under the larger campaign. And yandman, the WoT is a campaign, which can be unilaterally defined. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Campaigns are part of a war. It was a campaign to topple the Taliban. It was a campaign to topple Saddam. They're part of the overall War. Now I disagree with the phrase "War on Terror" because you can't fight a word. It should be "War against Islamic Jihadists" or something like that. And trying to pretend that Iraq isn't part of the overall war is silly. Saddam did work with terrorists, just not Al Qaeda. But that's besides the point. Currently, Iraq is the hotspot for terrorists. Hezbollah is training them, Iran is training, Al Qaeda is there...if it's not at least a part of this war, then what is it? And trying to exclude Iraq is like saying the battle to retake the Philipines was not a part of WWII because the US went in relatively alone.

Death toll

The Lancet study on the number of deaths in Iraq seems to be peer-reviewed and well-grounded in solid statistics. Any objections to it being put in as an alternate figure? (The official count should stay included as well, of course) -Xiroth 15:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I am jut wondering why the death toll listed here makes note of the Middle Eastern deaths, yet fails to mention how many casualties there have been recorded for the Western nations fighting in this war? Is it perhaps a number the United States & their allied governments would like to keep quiet in an attempt to fool the public into thinking we're actually making progress here?

Don't be silly, it's not about "fooling the public" at all. And what are you talking about, we are reminded daily how many casualties we take by the media. And progress isn't measured in blood. Just remember, the bloodiest year of the US civil war was 1864...the bloodiest year of WWII was 1945...I'm not saying we're about to win in Iraq, but we don't measure success in blood. Culmo80 18:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)culmo80

This article is grossly biased and questionable

This does in way mean that I support the Baath in Iraq, but they are not international terrorists. Neither are Hezbollah and Hamas. There must be neutrality in this article. The Baath are acting in resistance to occupation or whatever you want to call it. 69.196.164.190

As stated in the article itself, the campaign is being waged against those seen by the USA as terrorists and state sponsors of terror, which they are indeed seen as. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Hezbollah IS an international terrorist group. They have bombed Israel buildings in South America and the very fact that they cross several borders in the Middle East make them international...hence the root....inter and then national. And the definition of terrorist is what? Whether or not we could address the former Baathists is another topic; the fact that they use terrorist tactics sure should make it clear what they are, right? If you rob banks, you're a bank robber, you don't get away with saying you're freedom fighters...sorry.

The case of India and Russia

So what does the term War on Terrorism really mean? Does it mean the war the U.S. is fighting against terrorism or does it have a more general meaning? For example, India and Russia have been fighting against terrorism for a long time now. India has lost more civilians due to terrorist activities than any other country. Groups like Jaish-e-Muhammad and Lashkar-e-Toiba are a part of the larger Al-Qaeda network. And then there are the Chechen rebels. These groups have claimed more innocent lives than Al-Qaida but yeah most of those killed weren't Americans. Just because these groups are not involved in terrorist activities against the U.S. doesn't mean they aren't important enough to be mentioned. Just because India and Russia refuse to be a part of the American military operation in Afghanistan and Iraq, doesn't mean that their own war against terrorism be disregarded. --Incman|वार्ता 20:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the US-led campaign, not the general idea of a war on terror, which deserves its own article. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, when I read the first four lines of the article, I was able to conclude that. However, when I saw Israel as one of the participants I got confused. Now, as far as I know, Israel has not directly taken part in the so-called War on Terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq and Philippines.--Incman|वार्ता 21:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

One more point, shouldn't the lead-in para clearly state that this article refers to the US-led campaign against terrorism? The title itself is misleading. Thanks --Incman|वार्ता 21:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The US-led campaign is not limited to those three locations, and includes all operations which are stated both by the USA and the respective government as being a part of it. The Waziristan War, for instance, involved no US troops, but was a part of this campaign. The war in Lebanon had no US troops, but was also a part of this campaign. The lead paragraph does state it was launched by the USA with help from allies. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... makes more sense now. Thanks for the insight! --Incman|वार्ता 05:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

IEDs and Terrorism

I have removed IEDs from the list of terrorist tactics in the narrow infobox at right-hand side of the page. According to the Wikipedia page, terrorism is "...violence ... committed (or threatened) against civilians". According to the Wikipedia page on IEDs, "...insurgents have made the IED (often referred to by the press as roadside bombs) one of their main weapons against coalition forces." (emphasis added) Nowhere in the IED article is there any mention of these devices being used against civilians. How then are they a tactic of terrorism? They are simply another type of bomb, much like land mines, cruise missiles or nuclear bombs. PurpleRain 21:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

IED's are often an insurgent weapon I would say, however considering the nature of IED's they seem to be non standard explosives, which would constitute much of the bombs used in the country. I personally would classify it as an insurgent weapon/tactic, not necessarily a terrorist tactic/weapon. --NuclearZer0 21:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations please

Investigations have been started through many branches of many governments, pursuing tens of thousands of tips. Thousands of people have been detained, arrested, or questioned.[citation needed] Many of those targeted have been secretly detained, and have been denied access to an attorney. Among those secretly detained are U.S. citizens. [citation needed]

Thanks ManicParroT 22:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

2003 Istanbul bombings missing on main events section

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Istanbul_bombings

i fee las if this is going for the good i thing this is reasonable what the discussion is about

Added "Weasel words" template

Just a few examples:

"many have seen the US definitions as ideologically motivated"

"many deny terrorist affiliations, and many perceive the War on Terror as a "Clash of Civilizations" or as a "crusade" against Islam"

"The war has also been perceived by some as an attempt by the U.S. government to "reform" several political regimes"

"The war has met with criticism even from some supporters of its general aims, who claim the rhetoric is too broad and too influenced by "neo-conservative" ideas to remake the Middle East in a certain image"

--PurpleRain 14:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for change in infobox

Since the infobox is probably the most often and most easily read part of the page, I think there is one important thing that should be changed there. My proposal is: instead of the two lists that list "combatants" on one side or the other ("participants" vs. "targets"), maybe it would be more accurate to rather create just *one* list of conflicts or "sub-conflicts" that are part of the US war on terror. For example two items of this new list would then read: "NATO vs. Taliban (Afghanistan)" and "US,UK&Allies vs. Ba'athist-Iraq (Iraq)" etc... I find this important, because now, readers that are not so well-informed about world politics will think that the US war on terror is a simple two-sided conflict. Where in fact, there are several, mutually unlinked (sub-)conflicts, and each of these (sub-)conflicts has its very special features, pre-history and so on. What these conflicts have in common is that they are part of / taken under the roof of this bigger, global campaign by the USA. What do you think? (Sorry that I haven't created a wikipedia account yet) 84.148.76.63 04:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)--Mor

Why it's not a war on Islam

According to Rush Limbaugh, the whole reason why the conflict is labeled as the war on terror is because it would essentially be titled as a war on Islam if all of the specific enemies of the USA where listed. Quite a few of them have Islam this or Muslem that in their name, so I can understand this. Then again only about 20 million Americans trust Limbaugh so I thought I would stirr up discussion and see if more knowledgable people than myself had more answeres.

I noticed that in other places in the discussion section, it has been noted that who is and who isn't a terrorist in this conflict is defined by the USA. Because of that, I suspect that a lot of people actually know what I'm talking about here (especially the people talking in the The case of India and Russia' discussion). Anyways, it couldn't hurt to look into why George W. Bush didn't just declare a war on Al Queda, or Afganistan instead of ALL terrorism.

Any real discussion of this would be hopelessly OR.

The short answer is: he did. There is no actual official "war on terror", no official declaration of war (compared to, of course, the actual declaration of war against Afghanistan). The "War on Terror" is presumably named after Nixon's "War on Drugs".

The long answer is a long discussion of political tactics and ideology which would inevitably be OR and POV. - Che Nuevara 00:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Because when you declare war under all the rules of war, you declare war against nations only. It's impossible to actually declare war against individuals. We fought Nazi Germany, not Hitler. Since most Islamic terrorists are international terrorists, it'd be impossible to declare war against them, especially since they own now land and fight under no flag and wear no uniform. The War on Drugs and the War on Poverty were slogans...obviously you can't wage war against something like that just like you can't wage war against a technique...terrorism. We're in a war alright but the old laws really don't apply because there's nothing written for this sort of conflict. Yes, it's a war against Radical Islam and yes it wasn't called that for politically correct reasons. Finally, this is a global war and it's been going on for a lot longer than what most people think. You could really say it started sometime in the 70s with the real first battle being fought during the Lebanonese Civil War. Russia, India, nearly all of Europe...just about every nation has been hit by terrorists all screaming "Allahu Ackbar!"

Maybe you're in a bigoted and imperialist war with Islam mate, but I'm not, and neither are tens of millions of those Americans and Brits who actually happen to be sane. So please, define "we" next time. Also, do yourself some credit and research the term "Allah Ackbar". If any of your so-called "terrorist" buddies were actually fundamentalist Muslims, they would know that "Allah Ackbar" is not what a Muslim is supposed to say before he or she meets his end. Shame that, eh? Coconuteire 22:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh. Because, you know, it turns out there are many non-Islamic terrorism organisation that are active. Animal rights activists in England, abortion-clinic bombers in the US, nationist organisations across Ireland, Spain, France, India, Sri Lanka, etc. It really irritates me when people try to pretend that all terrorists are Islamic, or even worse, when they say that all terrorists base their terrorism on Islam (Lebanon/Palestine for example is basically a nationalist movement of people who happen to be Islamic). Limbaugh is not credible in any way, shape or form. Oh, and using the cut-off of "20 million Americans believe it" is a pretty low bar ;) We'd have to rewrite wiki to say the sun revolves around the earth ;) Sad mouse 05:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Causalities

Might be more accurate to write "Some Causalities"? SolitaryWolf 06:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(It may just be me, not looking properly but:) Casualties have been stated. These stated numbers are suppossed to be up to date or correct, as of what date? User: cs1kh

Vandalism

Seriously guys, who the fuck vandalises an encylopedia Thats low.

Somalia -- Part of GWoT or not?

There has been some argument about whether Somalia is part of the Global War on Terror. You can discuss it here (instead of reverting and re-reverting changes). Some articles to get you started:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20060513/ai_n16369653

• "It's a well-established fact for the last few years that U.S. counterterrorism officials and other intelligence officials have been working through Somali partners to fight extremists..."
• "American operatives were paying the warlords to help track down and apprehend those in Somalia suspected of being members of al-Qaida."

http://www.georgesoros.com/war-on-terror

• "George W Bush says...'The first concern, of course, is to make sure that Somalia does not become an al-Qaeda safe haven - it doesn't become a place from which terrorists can plot and plan...'"
• "Since the 11 September attacks on the United States...Somalis have feared that their lawless country could become the setting for a battle between US-backed anti-terror forces and al-Qaeda sympathisers."

http://againstwot.com/2006/06/united-states-and-somalia-who_07.html

• "The Council on Foreign Relations...published a brief on Somalia explaining that the Bush administration was afraid of terrorism in Somalia..."
• "The threat the United States poses to Somalia far, far outweighs any threat Somalia poses to the United States."

—P^urpleRA^IN 16:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Are there any sources that state it is? Thats all I am looking for before someone adds it back. --NuclearZer0 17:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not that clear-cut. You probably won't find a source that says, "The conflict in Somalia is a part of the Global War on Terrorism." Nonetheless, it seems that there are anti-terrorism activities sanctioned by the U.S. government occurring in Somalia (see the first article above). When does a conflict "officially" become part of the GWoT? It's hard to say. —P^urpleRA^IN 20:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

When someone involved in the WoT says so, meaning of that particular side and with enough ability to state it is so. Such as Bush stating Lebanon was, and Israeli Prime Minister agreeing. NATO declaring the operation part of it etc. If sources are not stating its part of the WoT, then there is probably a reason for that. --NuclearZer0 22:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's nice that American operatives are paying warlords for information to track down members of al-Qaeda, but that has nothing to do with the War in Somalia (2006-present). It is a civil war, like there are more in Africa. Not every war is a war against terrorism. Therefore, imho, it should be removed.

Van der Hoorn 13:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

World War III?

Is it too early to call GWOT World War III? And if it is too early, are the conflicts taking place in the Middle East, combined with increasing aggression, nuclear ambitions, and support for terrorism by Iran and Syria, setting the world on a course toward a third world war? Also, is Hugo Chavez's totalitarian regime in Venezuela attempting to start a new "Domino Effect" in the Western Hemisphere? User:wxstorm 12:23, 11 December 2006

It is until it's generally regarded as such. It's likely you'd be able to a find a pundit or two who refers to it as WW3, but otherwise no. Also we're the wrong people to ask about "domino effects" etc. Find reliable sources talking about these issues and then we can discuss whether they merit mention. <<-armon->> 00:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez's "regime" (he was recently re-elected with the results certified by international observers) is barely more totalitarian than Bush's, and certainly much less of a threat to the rest of the world and his own people. It really takes someone who does not have any concept of what is going on this decade to suggest that Venezuela would be part of the enemies in the "war on terror." If there is a conflict between the US and US allies, and Venezuela, it is completely different and more comparable to a continuation of the Cold War, i.e. capitalism vs socialism- this can be seen today in strained US relations with a number of new social democratic governments in Latin America, which are not adhering as closely to the "Washington consensus" that drove their people further into poverty. And of course that's all completely irrelevant to the article. You do realize Venezuela continues to happily supply huge amounts of oil to the US as well? 172.129.141.181 12:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Add a disambig for the game?

Earlier today, I added a disambig line for "War On Terror", since it is also the name of a game (and, since there's no reference from the War On Terrorism page to this game, it would be easy for people to assume no such page exists). Thoughts? 64.81.138.223 05:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Usage of the term "War on Terror(ism)" outside the US

I might be a bit dim here, but the opening paragraph states:

The War on Terrorism or War on Terror....the name given by the United States of America and its allies to an ongoing campaign with...

and the supporting reference is [[3]], as a resident of the UK, I find it difficult to accept that the term is used outside the US, could someone explain to me how this reference supports this claim? It has been added twice by two different editors, so it must have merit, but unfortunately, I can't see it! (Thanks in advance for explaining this to me)86.12.249.63 19:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You can read more here [4], shows it being used by NATO and Canada, Germany I think and another country. Some links may be down, made that some time ago. Feel free to pull some of the NATO ones for there if you please. --NuclearZer0 20:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it'll take me a while to go through them! 86.12.249.63 20:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Copperchair sockpuppets

This page is a favorite of Copperchair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his sockpuppets. Copperchair was placed on probation and banned from editing certain types of articles by the Arbitration Committee. He was blocked from editing Wikipedia for repeatedly violating his restrictions on editing. He was finally blocked for 366 days on March 12, 2006. At that point he began using sockpuppets to evade his ban. Below is a list of his sockpuppets. If new editors appear on this page with editing patterns that are similar to the sockpuppets below, please let me know on my talk page or by e-mail so that I can investigate fully.

1. Esaborio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Varese Sarabande (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. SPECTRE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. Tony Camonte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. The end is near (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. Don't fear the Reaper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
7. Bad Night (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
8. Ossara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
9. Warrior on Terrorism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
10. Osaboramirez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thank you. TomTheHand 14:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Casualties section is basically US propaganda

The casualties section presents the lowest estimates I've ever seen, as if they were indisputed facts. This section needs an urgent rewrite, including information we've got for Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003 amonst other things. Damburger 07:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Then.. Umm.. rewrite it. Requests for rewrites are generally not very successful in getting the section in question rewritten. --Bobblehead 07:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not really a request for a rewrite, more a notice that I'm going to do one. I find it best to approach terrorism-related topics cautiously. I'm giving people chance to object. Damburger 08:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the addition of "Iraq - between 51,000 and 658,205" to the casualties section - this is kind of inaccurate as only the Lancet study measures all the excess deaths from the invasion, the other estimates for civilian casualties by their own admission only measure subsets of the death toll. I am going to change this range to the range estimated by the Lancet study (392,979 to 942,636 deaths) Damburger 23:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Where are the Terrorist Casualties?

Usually in an article on a war you have casualites listed by side. I see the US and other allied side casualties and the (supposedly) innocent bystander casualties. Where is the Terrorist and sympathizer body count? How many of the innocent bystander casualties was caused by the Terrorists and how many by the US and allies? Seems a fair thing to ask. Otherwise its pretty meaningless to tally the losses, keeping score on one side and not the other. Asiaticus 03:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

But this isn't a traditional war - not in any sense. How do you tell who's a terrorist, who's a sympathizer, and who's innocent when no one's wearing any uniforms? It's not like Al Qaeda keeps tallies with the International Red Cross. --Brasswatchman 15:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you know them by their actions. Caught or killed in arms or in aid of doing terrorist acts that seems pretty clear. They must have some estimates at least. Asiaticus 06:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are the Combatants listed as they are?

The US and Allied anti terrorist coallition is listed as ones conducting Operations while the Islamist Jihadi/Terrorist side are ones being operated on, as if they were just standing around idle, doing nothing, getting beat up on? Last I saw they were operating pretty well themselves. How about calling them by their names: Anti Terrorist Coallition and Islamist Jihadi (unless Osama & Co. has a prefered name)Asiaticus 04:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source on what Al Qaeda has been up to in the last few years, you should be talking to the FBI, not Wikipedia. --Brasswatchman 15:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats not an answer to my question.Asiaticus 01:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The answer to your question is that 1. They arent all Jihadist groups, 2. They arent all necessarilly working together, 3. They are being targetted in operations. This doesnt mean they are passively sitting by, the War on Terrorism is a campaign against these groups, and the groups being attacked will obviously fight back in the ways they do. Its the only label that can accurately represent whats going on. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That isn't necessarily true, I think a lot of people would argue that the Ba'athist insurgency and the Al-sadr's army in Iraq have almost nothing to do with the originally stated goals of the war on terrorism (and are thus not combatants in it but rather a separate conflict from the war on terror). It's only an opinion that Iraq is part of GWOT, an opinion that was recently removed from the Iraq War article itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.58.28.162 (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

As stated on this article, the "War on Terror" is a specificly defined campaign being waged by the USA and allies. This has been discussed, and things stating the Iraq War to be a part of the campaign have not been removed via discussion. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The user that removed them claim he did so in accordance with a "poll", I have no idea where or what this poll was but it was your user name that added it back. 68.58.28.162

Yes, I saw his edit summary. For one thing, polls are non binding, for another, the last poll was held in June 2006 and 24-4 agreed with the thesis that the United States can define what is and is not a part of a campaign it wages. While this in itself was not binding, the discussion eventually yielded a consensus. The "WoT" is not a war, its not a conflict, its a military campaign - ie a super operation. Within this super operation are other smaller operations, such as Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom. People do occasionally remove it from the infobox, and it is either reverted or they begin a discussion which goes on for a while before its finally decided to re-add it. Its probably the least interesting yet most common issue one has to deal with when working on these articles. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rangeley generally on this. Many of the same people who want to make it clear that the Bush Admin. declared and defined the WOT (true), perhaps too broadly and carelessly (POV) as Rumsfeld recently acknowledged, and then expanded it to include the war in Iraq (they did), are the same people who also want to say the Iraq war is not part of the WOT (POV and more important - logically inconsistent with the prior point as part of factual encyclopedia article). I think the most accurate and neutral thing to do in this article and similar ones is to make it clear that the terminology and the expansion to include Iraq were the choice of the Bush administation, for better or worse. See for example, the edit I made earlier today to the "Killed in..." section and heading.-JLSWiki 03:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of anywhere that lists even estimates on terrorist casualties. While it's an interesting point, there is no way to correct it so I don't think it can be expected to be put in there. Al-qaeda rarely releases tapes concerning their own casualties (apparently they agree with retired General Tommy Franks about body counts?) I'd be interested to here more on this but I don't think the US military does terrorist body counts and Al-qaeda statements are rare. The best I was able to find was a Netscape article [5] claiming 4,000 al-qaeda dead from the Iraq campaign. Whoblitzell

9/11 as cause needs POV check, citation

While this is taken for granted as a fact in America, a lot of the world doesn't feel that the 'war on terror' began with 9/11 but rather that it began with the US invasion of Afghanistan and/or prior covert activities in the region. This view has been notably expressed by Noam Chomsky in many of his writings. The view that 9/11 was caused by US foreign policy gone awry is also presented in Michael Moore's movie and numerous others. I think something a little more objective than the 9/11 attacks being listed alone without a citation can be forged out. I also believe OBL's issue of a declaration of jihad might also be considered the start of the war or perhaps the first WTC attacks. In short, to simply list 9/11 because it is the most common American POV, well thats not right.

"It all started on 9/11" is, more or less, an American perspective of GWOT, but not a global opinion. It seems sort of POVish to me and I think an alternate cause should be listed, however it seems to be routinely removed. I think we need a non-government citation for something like this.

Please note that this article does state that this campaign began on October 7th, 2001. Casus Belli is the justification put forward for a military campaign, or the stated cause. It was definately the stated cause for beginning this campaign. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I see, that was a vocabulary problem on my part -- disregard previous message. Thanks