Talk:Timeline of United States military operations/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

(Some) CIA events belong here.

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

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

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

First off, what makes you think some "random editor" decided that an article about military events should actually include the military? Second, there is a seperate article about CIA regieme change and at least 2 different links to that article contained in this article. You're acting as if the information is being excluded or hidden. It's not. It's just in the article it belongs in and clear links to that article are here. Third, if you want to debate the merits of each event, fine. I'd actually say I could make a stronger case for inclusion of the Bay of Pigs than the Predator drone incident. I've asked for opinions over at the military history project, which this article falls under. Can you explain to me why you feel it needs included in this specific article and why the presence of a section about coups etc and a link to the CIA sponsored events article isn't sufficient? Lastly, if you want to talk about me, name me. Don't hide behind this "one editor" stuff and pretend you aren't talking about me. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
1. In 2005, the lead paragraph (at [1]) was about military events in a very general sense:
Not all of these events were military, some were not even violent, but together they delineate the periodic reappearance of the martial spirit in the life of the United States. The items enumerated here begin with the establishment of the states in 1776, and either are located within territorial boundaries of the United States or involve the armed forces of the federal government or the militias of the separate states and territories.
Then in June 2006, User:Ikip added, "Note that instances where the U.S. gave aid alone, with no military personnel involvment, are excluded." [2]. Indeed, one random person decided unilaterally that this article about military events should only involve (presumably) uniformed, official US military.
My argument is pretty obvious: it's that this article is not "Events in the history of the United States Military", but "List of United States military history events", with a small "m" in "military". Whether the CIA or the Army or a militia runs a military operation is not very important as far as this list is concerned; especially so from the viewpoint of a non-American.
2. I haven't gone down the list and tried to judge "yes, no, yes, yes, no"; I'll do that if you want me to; and by the way, I doubt that most CIA-supported coup attempts qualify as "military" events. My only desire here is that all known US military events appear in this article, no matter whence came the organization or sponsorship or troops. What irked me was Bay of Pigs being removed.
3. Didn't mean to offend you by not naming you; I had believed there was more than one editor who was opposing the inclusion of military events solely because they were run by the CIA, and didn't bother to scroll back and look up your name. Tempshill (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Every article cannot be a catch-all for whatever items one individual editor feels might be vaguely related to the article topic. A "military history event" necessarily involves the military. "Military" (small-m if you like) does not include government employees who are not members of the military services, even if they are carrying, even using, US government-issued firearms on foreign soil. I'm tempted to ask what part of "military" you don't understand.
On another of your points: Yes, one individual editor did decide when creating this article that the article should be about military history events and not about events on foreign soil involving armed US government employees not acting officially as a part of the US Military. That decision, made by whichever individual WP editor originally made it, stands—unless and until it is modified by consensus. One individual WP editor cannot unilaterally change that without first establishing consensus for the change here on the article's talk page. If you wish to change that, seek consensus here for the change. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • This whole issue might have merit if there was no article about CIA sponsored regieme change. But that article does exist. A link to it even exists in this article, so it's not too hard to find. My question, AGAIN, is why is there a need to force this information into this article when an article about the topic already exists? Instead of twisting, turning and doing the "well it looks military if you close one eye and look at it this way" routine, why not leave it about what the title says.... the military? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
You are misreading the title of the article. It's not about the official US military; it is about generic "military" history. I'm going to venture that there's already consensus for this; there's a section about "bloody local feuds" in here, for example; clearly not related to the US military. It's fine with me if you feel the need (obsessive IMO) to break out CIA-led operations into its own section within this article, but the Bay of Pigs obviously is a military event in the history of the US. Tempshill (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see it as obsessive, but rather supporting parameters of the article topic. I see no correlation between the CIA and the US Military; they are two different organizations that have independent leaders and department heads. When I read about the Bay of Pigs, I don't read about direct military involvement, but rather a group of "U.S.-trained force of Cuban exiles". Being trained by the US military is a separate issue. Should the US Military history then record every battle fought by separate nations that received training by the US military? This logic is full of holes. When I read about Edison or Einstein, I don't read about their accomplishments being assigned to their teachers of Math; do you? I think the article should remain focus solely on events where the US Military is directly involved. By US Military I mean the armed forces of the US; not the CIA or any other group unaffiliated with the military departments of Army, Navy, and Air Force. Just my two cents. --StormRider 19:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Re the Bloody local feuds section, I took a look at the two articles listed there, and both of them mention the involvement of state militias. I haven't looked at the numerous other articles listed in the various other sections which contain lists of wikilinks. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Since we're going to share personal opinions Tempshill, I'll share mine. Despite the fact that the article parameters are clearly outlined, despite the fact that there is an entire article devoted to CIA activites, despite the fact that there is a link to that article here so that anyone interested in that type of activity can easily find the article, you feel the need (obsessive IMO) to force the actions of a totally seperate and independant entity into this article. I have asked a simple question over and over and you've dodged it over and over. I wonder why that is? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

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

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

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

Survey

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

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

  • What kinds of entries would not properly be considered wars? Can you delineate the different categories of entries on the article that are separate from war entries? According to the war article, a war is a "reciprocated armed conflict between political units aimed at a desired political end-state". Neelix (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Humanitarian deployments, peace-keeping deployments, uses in domestic insurrections, times where the US put troops or ships in areas to prevent problems, uses of the military against pirates. Is that enough or do you want more? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I didn't ask because I thought you were wrong; I asked because I wanted to know the categories being dealt with. If we can determine all the different 'things' that are listed here, then we can make sure that the title we use encompasses them all, or else we can split the article up into shorter and more comprehensive lists with appropriate titles. Neelix (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Why create more articles to talk about what is already here? The current title encompasses all of them and the list here is pretty darn comprehensive. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • There are two main problems. 1) The current list is too comprehensive; according to the definition you have suggested in the "Discussion" section, instituting a new training exercise for troops would count as a "United States military history event". 2) The term "military history event" is an awkward construction that is not commonly employed in the literature; Google books only picks up three hits with the term. Neelix (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Technically the Vietnam War was not a war, because congress never declared war. The same is true of the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan. How about using List of United States military operations?. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • See, this is what I mean. Now we get into the "techinically it's not a war" bit. And what would be the difference between the current title and the proposed "List of US military operations"? All we did is change the word events to operations. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Plus you get rid of the word "history". "Events" seems extremely broad. An event I remember was the time that the Navy tried to use Microsoft NT to operate a ship and someone entered 0 into a database, locking up the computer, and the ship had to be towed back to port to reboot the system. That's an event, but not an operation. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • And yet all this time, without explaination or instruction, nobody has entered a computer malfuntion as an event.Niteshift36 (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • I think List of conflicts involving the United States would be a better name. That inculdes "peacetime" military operations.--Pattont/c 20:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Would humanitarian missions fall under that list of conflicts? Would peacekeeping missions? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
    • They most certainly do. If there wasn't a conflict, there wouldn't be a military mission. Both humanitarian missions and peacekeeping missions are dealing with conflict, whether they are seen as conflict resolution or otherwise. I think "List of conflicts involving the United States" is a great title. It's probably a more appropriate title for all the "List of wars involving x" lists because there's more agreement on the definition of 'conflict' than 'war'. Neelix (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Sending Marines to deliver food isn't participating in an armed conflict. Using the Air Force to fly in aid after an earthquake isn't an armed conflict. Was there a shot fired during the Berlin Airlift? We flew unarmed planes into there. Fighting pirates wouldn't fit your definition if the pirates aren't part of a political group. In reality, parking a naval ship off the coast of an Oregon island to prevent other countries from staking a claim isn't actually an armed conflict. There is potential for one, but the conflict never occured. Sending US troops to Panama in 1912 to make sure elections were peaceful isn;t really an armed conflict. Evacuating Americans and Europeans from Lebanon wasn't an armed conflict. There was a conflict going on, but the US wasn't a party to it. They were simply evacuating people. And many peace-keeping missions aren't armed conflicts. US trrops are there to keep 2 other parties from having a conflict, but they aren't a party to it themselves. I think this article is fine how it is. Why create a new article to rehash the same stuff? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • At this point the article should really be split up since its nearly 100kb long. It may be a more profitable endevour to consider spining parts of this off into an independent article rather than move the whole thing someplace else. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't it be simplest to just split the current article into a couple by time period rather then stretching the definition of war and farming other event s out all over the place? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • No, it would be more appropriate to split based on category rather than time. Analagous lists should be able to be created for all countries. Many countries already have a "List of wars involving x". Even if we switch the standard name to "List of conflicts involving x", the United States should be able to have a corresponding list of the same type. Neelix (talk) 10:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • If you split it based on event, you get into the debate about what is a war, what is an armed conflict blah, blah, blah. Date is a definate number where there is no dispute. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't see that there would be dispute about what constitutes a conflict, but there would be dispute if it was left as "military history events". The number of possible 'events' that have affected the United States military is endless. We could create a long list about such events which have taken place in the last year alone. We need a term that can be properly delineated, one that is supportable in the literature, and one that can be applied to similar lists dealing with other countries. Neelix (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
      • We've already had one comment about "technically not a war". And I've shown examples of where your definition of conflict doesn't apply. I'm really not concerned about what list every other country has. The US military gets involved in much, much more than the military of Bolivia, so comparing the two isn't that valid. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't see why differences in quantity should result in a labelling difference. It has already been asserted that the list is becoming too long to be manageable. Devoting one list to conflicts and another to humanitarian aid would seem like a reasonable division to me. Neelix (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
          • If length is your concern, that is a bad idea of division. The list of conflicts would be much longer since humanitarian aid wasn't really much of a factor until about 50 years ago. Dividing by date seems much simpler and more effective at creating shorter articles but would still encompass all the types of missions. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
            • A list of conflicts should not be longer than what the current title encompasses, because all conflicts already fall under the current title. If the list of conflicts would still be too long, dividing into sublists by date would be a good idea. In that case, a "list of lists" called "List of conflicts involving the United States" would be required. Neelix (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Agree, see above. Andrewa (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Renaming suggestion

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

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

Prelude to war

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

List of U.S. military history events

  • First paragraph:

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

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


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


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

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

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

Bias

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

Removed items

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

Since the history of the 1963 and 1968 Iraqi coups and the CIA's role behind them are amply documented, I did not at first include citations. I added the fully-supportive citations now. Also, it wasn't clear to me where to include citations given the format of the list. Most of the items do not seem to have any citations. --NYCJosh 02:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Although years old, I still feel the need to chime in here: It would horrible if anyone read this and thought conspiracy nut NYCJosh was actually telling the truth. "Amply documented"? "Amply" "documented"? So "amply" documented that no sources are needed? Huh. That sure is strange, because no major historian of Iraq, from Con Coughlin to Charles Tripp, has ever made the claim. (NYCJosh must know better.) The only Western source claiming a US role in the 1968 coup is a single unsupported sentence repeated in a few editorials by a delusional conman, Roger Morris. One would think that there would be more evidence, if it were true. David Wise, who Morris cites, denied the claim. James Philips argued there was no evidence for American involvement, as did David Morgan. Coughlin, Dreyfuss, and even Cockburn agree that the US vehemently opposed the coup. Ba'athists involved in the coup have claimed it was backed by the KGB. Nobody ever even suggested that it was supported by the CIA--until 2003. The US refused to recognize the new regime, had no diplomatic relations with Iraq from 1967 to 1984, and actively armed rebels against the Ba'athists from 1972-5. Why would the US have helped overthrow the very regime it allegedly "installed" in 1963--only to refuse to recognize the new government? CIA officer James Chritchfeld described (to PBS) the CIA's "surprised" reaction to the "counter-coups" waged by "a radical movement within the Ba'ath". Since every CIA action is approved by both the President and Congress, there should be some paper trail. A Freedom of Information Act request recently made all CIA activities under Richard Helms completely declassified. None of the records support NYCJosh's conspiracy theories. Further corrections: As Coughlin notes, the 1968 coup was a military coup in the purest sense, and a bloodless one, in contrast to the (bloody) popular uprisings against the monarchy and Qasim. Qasim was a brutal, murderous dictator; nearly a million Iraqis fled the country after he came to power. "Democratically-elected"? What? Did he even hold fake elections? I think conspiracy nut NYCJosh would do well to read actual Iraqi history books. What if I went around accusing the USSR of being behind every coup I didn't like, by citing an unsupported sentence here or there in an editorial by a notorious right-wing extremist--with no corraborating evidence? As for the 1963 coup, think Indonesia in 1965: The US had previously attempted to oust Qasim and had advance knowledge of the coup (and there are mountains of evidence to support this claim), but ultimately neither the CIA nor the UK could "take much credit for it" (to quote the memo Komer wrote JFK on the night of the coup). It's also highly unlikely (although not impossible) that US officials met with a young street thug named Saddam Hussein who had nothing to do with the coup and was on the run from the law while he was living abroad in Egypt and studying the works of Joseph Stalin--but that's another story.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Since the history of the 1963 and 1968 Iraqi coups and the CIA's role behind them are amply documented, I did not at first include citations. I have been attempting to dig up this role for some time, and was skeptical because I could not find good sources, thank you for the references. I know only that the CIA contacted Saddam in Egypt, when he was in exile, beyond that I know little.
it wasn't clear to me where to include citations given the format of the list I agree, unfortunatly the majority of these items do not have citations. This is a merging of four articles the largest portion is from http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl30172.htm.
I just noticed that many of the original events, from before I merged the four lists, are quite large, beyond a simple sentence or two. Maybe I will cut this down. I guess if no edit wars are caused by these sections, there is no need to do that right now. Travb (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Why is it so hard to leave out the CIA stuff? The CIA is NOT the military. This topic is about the MILITARY history. We can put the CIA stuff on a different page. Why do people keep insisting on putting events where the military was not involved under this topic? If the military wasn't involved, it isn't military history and does not belong.Niteshift36 23:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It might give the impression that the history of the US is cleaner then it is. Also, is it fair to classify the CIA as civilian? In most of the history pages in wikipedia, the things in the list seem under-represented. Anonymous 11:49 24 Jan 2009
  • It doesn't give that impression if you read the opening paragraph, which clearly states that the article is only about events in which MILITARY members were actually deployed. And yes, it is fair to classify the CIA as civilian because it is factually true. Classifying them as military would be opinion. The CIA is not part of the Dept. of Defense, nor are they considered a uniformed service like the Coast Guard or NOAA. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm uneasy about making this distinction when it comes to CIA-controlled Predator drones bombing targets. 90% of the public would classify that as a military event. Bay of Pigs seems to me like it belongs here, as another example. Tempshill (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


  • If the military isn't involved, it isn't a military event, regardless of what popular opinion might be. You made the case against inclusion when you called them "CIA-controlled" Predators. The CIA buys them, arms them and flies them. The event properly belongs in articles about the CIA, not the military. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I disagree with this. Tempshill (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations/Archive_2&oldid=1092065155"