Talk:Military history of the United States/Archive 1

message: should link to Military History and list of wars possibly to History as well as to the United States of America as well as foreign relations of the United States and the central Military of the United states entry...Dwarf Kirlston 20:56, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing links

message: I think the current format of this article, a very comprehensive list, is not something that can be expanded. Despite being a COTW, there have been no serious edits to this article beteeen Sunday and Thursday. I will move this current list to List of military actions of the United States. I propose this article be organized by theme, e.g. "Role within the government". 119 21:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Format

message: Also totally lacking in citation, actual supported facts instead of broad generalizations:
The Military history of the United States spans a period of less than two and a half centuries. Over the course of those years, the United States grew from an alliance of thirteen British colonies without a professional military, to the world's preeminent military superpower.
The origins of the United States military lies in civilian frontiersmen, armed for hunting and basic survival. These were organized into local militias for small military operations, mostly against Native American tribes but also to resist possible raids by the small military forces of neighboring European colonies. They relied on the support of the British regular army and navy for any serious military operation.
With the independence of the United States established, military efforts then focused on ensuring a dominate role on the continent. The Indian Wars became more offensive rather than defensive. The Mexican-American War was one of conquest, to promote America's "Manifest Destiny". These efforts were successful; the United States felt there were no significant local threats. It became traditional to almost completely disband the military after a war was over.
The American Civil War caught both sides unprepared. Not only did the military have to be recreated after the war had started, but it was found that no quick drive to gain some territory would end the war. This was a war for existence, and the vast resources of the new America would consumed before the issue was decided. This is sometimes called "the first modern war" due to the use of mass conscription, military railroads, trench warfare, submarines and ironclads, but mostly because it introduced the modern world to the horrors of total war.
The scope of the Civil War was as great as many of those in Europe, and the United States now began to see itself as potential player on the world stage. With the country now stretching to the Pacific, eyes turned to overseas. The drives behind the Spanish-American War and US involvement in the Boxer Rebellion were a mixture of attempts to dismantle European colonial empires, and attempts to create an American Empire to rival them.
But it was the United States growing commercial, rather than colonial, strength that led to American being dragged reluctantly into World War I. Although initially dismissive of the United States military, the European powers were forced to admit that it could be a significant force even in European affairs. While victorious in battle, the United States gained little from the war, except a deepened sense of war's futility. The US resumed its standard peace-time policy of severe military reductions.
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor shocked the United States. Virtually overnight, the US went from isolationist to the driving force of the Western Allies in World War II. Struggling to fight a massive two-front war in Europe and the Pacific simultaneously, US military industrial might eventually exceeded all expectations. At war's end, the former major powers of Europe and Asia were left devastated, while the United States was stronger than ever.
The United States became a superpower, and assumed the role of international guardian of freedom, to counter the threats of the rebuilding USSR. Determined to never again be caught unprepared in war, US military might did not wane to previous peace-time levels, but instead kept ready for war at a moment's notice. This lead to the Cold War, a war fought with the economic intensity of a real war, but without a direct confrontation between the two main superpowers. The threat of mutual assured destruction by nuclear warfare limited the actual combat of the Cold War to campaigns against allies of the USSR, such as the unsuccessful Korean War and Vietnam War.
After the collapse of the USSR under economic pressure, the United States became the world's only superpower, and the sole target of any general dissatisfaction of the current world status. Like Pearl Harbor, the 9/11 attacks galvanized the United States to a rapid military response, triggering the ongoing War on Terrorism.
*I agree with the POV-ness of the sections you've highlighted, go ahead and change them. (maybe "American leaders believed...") --Dmcdevit 06:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Mention should be made of US military interventions in Nicaragua, Guatemala, Grenada, Panama, El Salvador etc. See here for details. AndyL 03:49, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see your request but I added the significant military operations of the Cold War era. I'm not sure each of the interventions/occupations above merits its own paragraph (in an article of this scope); they could all be summarized together. They were much more significant politically than militarily. --Dhartung | Talk 21:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Latin American and other interventions

message: Surely there's a better image to illustrate the military history of the US than this PR event which took place thousands of miles from the conflict? --Dhartung | Talk 21:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced the Bush image with one showing tanks in Baghdad. I considered several battle photographs but these had several failings (perhaps indicating choices the Pentagon makes for what is available), such as showing too little context (a soldier with a gun), or damage only (no American presence), or broadly just a lovely photograph of a helicopter against a sunset. None of these seemed really appropriate, but the one I chose shows American occupation duties, which is quite appropriate, while showing both American equipment and an unambiguously Iraqi setting. --Dhartung | Talk 04:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush carrier speech 

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

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

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

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

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

message: I'm going to propose that some of the content of this article be split off to create History of the United States Army. All four of the other branches (Navy, Marines, Air Force, & Coast Guard) have thier own individual history articles; certainly the Army has just as much history. The scope of this article is too broad to allow sufficient detail of the changes to the Army without becoming unfair/unbalanced. It would also allow this article to be pruned a great deal.
I know that one of the first objections would be that this would create duplicate information... certainly has some merit. After all, there is very little military history in the US that doesn't involve the Army in some way. However, I feel that a good split would prune out a lot of the excessive duplication and provide a more comprehensive look at US military history. As well, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and we can afford to have a little bit of redundancy.
Any thoughts? bahamut0013♠♣  19:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Army history vs. US military history 

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

message: What about the war on drugs?! posted by 69.140.251.156
: Assuming you're serious, I imagine it warrants a brief mention. --Dhartung | Talk 15:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the war on drugs?! 

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

message: I have removed this section. There are two primary reasons.  No United States
forces were involved. There are arguments as to whether or not there should 
have been. But that is not the purpose of an encylopedic article. Any references
to the Bay of Pigs really belongs under topics relating to CIA operations.
The Second reason, is based on the sentances about the JFK assasination and the
RFK assasination occuring shortly thereafter. That is wacky conspiracy ideas which
do not belong in an encylopedic article! Claffey27 (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You beat me to it :)--Koakhtzvigad (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bay of Pigs 

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

message: The following was removed from the article:
Presently it list the most recent invasion of U.S. territory as the Battle of Attu. Perhaps this should be readded? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Invasian of America

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

message: How does an article grow out of stub-hood?  I can see how to do it.  As an author am I allowed to?
Ref: United States Submarine Operations in World War II
Thanks JMOprof (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a stub anymore.  --Alatari (talk) 07:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Losing "Stub-hood"? 

message: Iraq is technically part of the War on Terror
Whether you want to accept that or not, the President of the United States defines theses kinds of things.
As a result it must be put under the same context as Afghanistan which is still on going as well.
This article is slanted based on media coverage, not actual reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monorprise (talk • contribs) 
:That issue is being vigorously debated at Talk:Iraq War. It's true that the Pentagon formally considers them together, but it's not clear that the public or historians agree. Wikipedia does not represent just one single point of view. --Dhartung | Talk 01:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took out that little disclaimer and I am probably going to get in trouble,  especially since I am a new user.  But the US military is conducting Operation Iraqi Freedom as part of the Global War on Terror.  Analysts have disagreed with military decisions in every war-- but they are still considered part of that war.--Cbambrick 01:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the uniter, not a divider, was merely a Wikipedian and not in temporary authority, his contributions would require serious scrutiny to meet Wikipedia's NPOV and Verifiability standards. Then again, there was Peleliu. Debate amongst yourselves. MMetro (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's definitely part of the "war on terror" because it's part of ops conducted under that heading. We can argue about whether this administration has made serious tactical errors in its campaign against global Islamic terror - like invading a country that wasnt a base for Al Quaida and overthrowing a leader who Al Quaida hated (hell just about everyone hated Saddam so it cuts both ways I suppose). But that op is definitely conducted as part of "war on terror" ops and so theres a connection. Kid Zed (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq is technically part of the War on Terror 

message: Sorry, but in my opinion there need to be a critisism-section! Particularly because at the present time there are a lot of very critical voices concerning the military. Furthermore, please add the original doctrine of the armed forces as an "ultima ratio". Thank you =) --111Alleskönner (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:CRITICISM. Such content should be integrated into the article, preferably. However, as this is just a compilation of other articles, with the main articles of those specific topics (may or may not include criticism sections), than this article would only contain summaries. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, think you're right, but nevertheless I think the fact that war or abroad missions were originally the "ultima ratio" (/last choice) is very important to mention! --111Alleskönner (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

text: A criticism section on an article detailing American Military History? That seems like a terrible idea. The criticism of each individual conflict goes on its own page.--68.8.14.28 (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critisism 

message: Should Pakistan be added as a front for the War On Terror? It seems about as valid is the Phillipines. There is a massive air campaign conducted with Predator Drones aimed at killing terrorist leaders, many of which end up accidentally killing Pakistani soldiers and civilians in the process. In addition, there have been raids in Pakistani territory by American special forces. --68.8.14.28 (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  War On Terror- Pakistan 

message: Although The Bay of Pigs should be mentioned, it clearly wiolates the ploicy on Undue Weight. I wish to have a discussion on this topic before the section is trimmed. The entire section is larger than several sections combined. The Bay of Pigs hgas its own article so this part of this particular artical only needs to briefly explain the operation and supply a link. It does not need so much detail.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First Gulf War
similarly, why is the summary of Gulf War 1 significantly longer than the other entries?  It is half again as long as WWII.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.102.178 (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:Undue weight 

message: Hi all! I just expanded one of the stubs for this US Military History entitled the Mendocino War. Check it out and feel free to give feedback or make any edits!
Bellitan (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian Wars 

message: Hi all! I just expanded one of the stubs for this US Military History entitled the Mendocino War. Check it out and feel free to give feedback or make any edits!
Bellitan (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian Wars 

message: An infobox was added, including an image on 7 May. The image IMHO does not fully represent the United States military, it is heavily weighted towards the United States Army, and appears to be an image that is dated to something pre-digital uniform (possibly the mid 1980s due to the image of an Army AH-1F in the image background). Should this image be removed? And if it is removed, what images are good candidates to replace it, if any replacement occurs at all.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This image is not bad, but IMHO still too army-centric.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox image