Talk:War on terror/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

NATO dispute

I invite Travis505 to discuss their concerns here. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC) :Thank you for letting us discuss this, I am simply changing it as authority wise they are not a leader of NATO the only person who could be considered leader is the Secretary General Jen Stoltenberg.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Travis505 (talk • contribs)

As I indicated, the US contributes the most troops and the most funding to NATO; as such, it is not unreasonable to call the US a leader of NATO. More specifically, the "leader" refers to the fact that the US is leading most antiterror operations. 331dot (talk)`

There is no fixed leader of NATO it is a joint effort not ran by the US or any other country, just because the US has the biggest armed forces does not make them the leader of NATO, by your logic if NATO membership is dictated by a country's armed forces size then Iceland doesn't deserve to be in NATO as they do not have an armed forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travis505 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no claim that the US is the "fixed leader" of NATO, just that the US is "a leader" of NATO and most antiterror operations. No claim is made that the size of a nation's armed forces determines its membership, but there is little point to NATO without the power of the US military, which has the largest budget in the world. You will have to obtain consensus for the change you wish to make, which does not seem to jibe with most evidence. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand it now they're not "the" leader of NATO but they are a leader of NATO so let's meet in the middle and edit it so the top three contributors to NATO's efforts will be title as leaders.Travis505 (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the "war on terror", a good portion of which is conducted by the US. That's what the 'leader' largely refers to here, not NATO in general. You might be able to make an argument that the UK also plays a 'leading' role given their Afghanistan involvement, so I won't remove such an addition next to the UK on this article, but I obviously can't guarantee others will keep it there. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you I am glad we could come to an agreement. Travis505 (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I am going to keep changing the page so it doesn't say the US is the leader is everyone OK with that decisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travis505 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course not. You've been reverted by 6 other editors (including me) and have made 7 reverts in under 5 hours (3 are allowed per 24 hours) after being warned multiple times to stop. GABgab 16:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I am probably going to get banned from putting the right information in this page unbelievable just because the majority say something doesn't make it correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travis505 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Allied Casualties total numbers ?

I can not see any mention of allied casualties numbers, only American. That is not acceptable. Mortyman (talk) 10:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

North Korea (and countries that were listed in the Axis of evil)

Could we consider adding North Korea to the War on Terror list as well as the countries that were added to the United States terrorist list? According to George W. Bush's speech on January 29, 2002, Iran and North Korea were added to the Axis of evil list. Wrestlingring (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

After asking for the opinion of others, it might have been a good idea to wait for more than 8 minutes to see if a consensus could be reached. The linking between those states and the "War on terror" would have to be reflected in the main text, not only in the infobox. And the linking would have to be sourced to reliable sources. As it is presented now, it seems to be original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. One point: The current text actually says "the War on Terror does not include Sudan" in clear contradiction to the proposed addition. --T*U (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Are they a battleground?Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on War on Terror. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Title

Why War on Terror with no qualifiers from those on the receiving end such as Reign of Terror or US aggression? Keith-264 (talk) 09:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Simplification of the infobox

War on Terror
Clockwise from top left: Aftermath of the September 11 attacks; American infantry in Afghanistan; an American soldier and Afghan interpreter in Zabul Province, Afghanistan; explosion of an Iraqi car bomb in Baghdad
Clockwise from top left: Aftermath of the September 11 attacks; American infantry in Afghanistan; an American soldier and Afghan interpreter in Zabul Province, Afghanistan; explosion of an Iraqi car bomb in Baghdad.
Date11 September 2001 – present
(22 years, 7 months, 2 weeks and 5 days)[note 1]
Location
Global (esp. in the Greater Middle East)
Status
Belligerents

 United States
 United Kingdom
 France
 Russia

 China

al-Qaeda
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Taliban
Commanders and leaders
Donald Trump
Theresa May
François Hollande
Vladimir Putin
Xi Jinping

Osama bin Laden  †
Ayman al-Zawahiri
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi
Mohammed Omar  †

Hibatullah Akhundzada

The infobox on the article seems to be a bit overcrowded, so i'm proposing an idea to simplify it the same way as the infobox on the World War II article. Any thoughts? 135.23.144.238 (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Precursor to the September 11th attacks

The section about the pharmaceutical plant is not introduced well. It talks about how the US plans to strike, but doesn't explain the sudden jump to the skepticism surrounding the pharmaceutical plant and why it is important. Separating the sentences about Operation Infinite Reach and the plant as well as some rephrasing would make this much clearer. Immichaelotoole (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference Help

Also linking Osama bin Laden's Wikipedia Page would be helpful for those looking to read more. Immichaelotoole (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Please update this article to Include Donald Trump's offences against ISIL and new developments in 2017

Donald Trump has said multiple times before and after his inauguration that defeating ISIL is the highest priority of his administration and he will ake other offences against ISIS. After his administration a statement from white house also said "'Defeating ISIS and other radical Islamic terror groups will be our highest priority. To defeat and destroy these groups, we will pursue aggressive joint and coalition military operations when necessary". He also issued visa bans o 7 countries known to produce terrorists, which is yet to be approved in cour. He has also launched some new missions, like he latest airstrikes on ISIS strongholds in Syria. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/22/dozens-dead-in-us-led-syria-airstrike-al-mansoura). Trump is also sending more troops and aircraft and renewing he war on terror with tighter actions. US and Russia under Trump will also carr joint actions against ISIL held territories. The following articles records some of his stances:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4142134/Trump-vows-wipe-face-Earth.html www.cnn.com/videos/politics/.../trump-tracker-defeating-isis.cnn http://time.com/4652696/president-trump-isis-review/ www.spokesman.com/stories/.../trump-orders-isis-plan-talks-with-putin-and-gives-/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/22/trump-expects-to-speak-sunday-with-israel-leader-netanyahu.html https://www.c-span.org/video/?422418-1/president-trump-tells-cia-get-rid-isis

here are more numerous sources. This is a crucial article and is very backdated. I think the new strategies of the Trump administration and Donald Trump's promised and ongoing contribution to the war on terror in 2017 is a vital update that this crucial article needs to include. Terrorism is a global crisis, and is sadly far from over, new error attacks are happening almost regularly, so this war on error needs to continue and is continuing. I hope you consider the points I have made seriously, and include the new events in the war on terror in 2017 and include Donald Trump's role, promises, comments and operations being carried out under him. The war on terror is ongoing and needs to be updated after Donald Trump's announcements for further commitments to it, so the position of Donald Trump in the war on terror and the new developments in 2017 are vital and should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.230.107.22 (talk) 07:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we need to wait until he does something new, not just talks about it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Subscripts in infobox

Under the commanders and leaders, there is a small subscript/caption describing who that person is. I am proposing this be removed because anyone can find out who that person is by simply clicking the bluelink. The captions are cluttering the infobox and making it look messy. CatcherStorm talk 15:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

North Korea conflict and Obama era rejection of 'war on terror' label

Obama rejected the term "War on Terror" during his administration, including on 23 May 2013.

Kim Jong Un took power in 2011 during the Obama administration. North Korea tested nuclear weapons, and also missiles, in 2013 and onwards (2014 North Korean missile tests, 2013 North Korean nuclear test).

Describing Obama administration's foreign policy in the Korea conflict as a "War on Terror" may not be supported by reliable sources, especially those that specialise in foreign relations or military subjects. The Daily Express is generally rejected by RSN.

I would be for removing Daily Express sources as not reliable (per RSN consensus) and only using Bush speeches that use the term "War on Terror" (not the media using the phrase loosely). -- Callinus (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean the Mirror rather than the Daily Express? I'm not sure Obama's word is gospel. But the Mirror article cited in the infobox doesn't even use the term "War on Terror", and just speculates on a potential alliance between North Korea and Islamic terrorism. I think if the Korean conflict is included here, it would need a lot of reliable sources to back it up, not just stray articles. The bulk of scholarship does not analyse the conflict in that way at all.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on War on Terror. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Is this type of infobox relevant?

Methinks, the type of infobox used in the article is misleading, and perhaps creates a bias, as it presents the ideological/propaganda cliche cum metaphor as a real military conflict complete with belligerents, etc. Same goes for categorisations. Frankly, at this stage, i would much rather refrain from any proposals, but I urge every one interested to have a fresh look at what this article is about.Axxxion (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I am inclined to have this info box removed altogether, without any substitute. The article is essentially about the propaganda cliche, as i have said, the use of which had been officially abandoned. Likewise, e.g., we do not have any info box in Cold War. Accordingly, the content ought to be trimmed significantly, as it has been done to Cold War II.Axxxion (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I came to talk specifically to make that point. "War on Terror" is essentially a short-ish lived term used by US Bush administration, but the infobox implies that every western/muslim or islamist conflict since then has been part of that 'real/hot war'. The term was always treated sceptically in Europe. This is like using a conflict infobox for 'cold war'. The balance of good sources would simply not describe most of these conflicts as part of the "War on Terror". Pincrete (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
It is also bizarre to use descriptions like "a metaphor of war" and the term was "never used as a formal designation of U.S. operations in internal government documentation" and then later list in the infobox and text, every country who has at one time or another been in an actual anti-muslim conflict and every leader of those countries as though we are all 'allies' with the US beyond limited, immediate common strategic interests and though all these conflicts fall within "War on Terror", a term disowned outside Bush-era US. Is the term a "metaphor of war" coined by Bush to describe US policy, but never formally adopted even by his admin, or is it the proper name for a series of actual conflicts since that time? I suspect the former would be what sources would say, but at present the latter is the impression a reader would get.
The factual info about these conflicts may be correct AFAIK, what appears to be missing is any reason to think these conflicts as part of the "War on Terror". Pincrete (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Categories of participants in infobox

Currently the infobox lists "Main participants", "NATO participants", "Non-NATO participants" and "Other participants". Aren't the latter two categories the same? Is the fourth category meant to be countries who participated in a non-combat role? — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 11:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree, other and non-NATO should be combined (unless its non-combat, in which case it should be changed to that)Garuda28 (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
What no one seems to be addressing is the issue in section 1 (Is this type of infobox relevant?). What are the criteria for inclusion here, since this is a term which was never adopted outside the US and has been largely disowned within the US since Bush left office. Pincrete (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I see no issue with this info box what so ever. You can disagree with the term, however it is still in use and refers to a conflict with several umbrella conflicts beneath it. Garuda28 (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Even the treatment in the article isn't consistent. Is this simply a 'metaphorical term', employed mainly in US and solely in Bush era, or is 'War on Terror' the COMMONNAME for a series of conflicts atarting around 9/11 and continuing (as infobox claims) into 2017. I think the evidence of the article itself is the former, this is a briefly used term which was largely used in US to cover conflicts up to end of Bush era. It would be news to any UK reader that the UK took part in the 'War on Terror', since the term never gained acceptance in Europe. In UK the name of each conflict (Afghanistan, Invasion of Iraq etc) tends to be employed. One of the problems is when and how would we ever know the 'War' was over? Is it when politicians and journos stop using the term or is someone going to declare it over? (When every terrorist organisation is destroyed?). How do we know something is part of 'War on Terror', do we simply decide that anti-'rogue-state' action anywhere in the world is included ?Pincrete (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Its a term commonly used, and not just in the us. Literally just did a search, and these all come up for recent uses of the term in news (https://www.nbcnews.com/video/global-war-on-terror-memorial-honors-u-s-soldiers-1078190147593; http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/10/05/is-us-relying-too-heavily-on-african-partners-in-war-on-terror.html; http://tass.com/world/972021; http://aa.com.tr/en/politics/us-europe-not-supporting-turkeys-war-on-terror/943385), moreover the U.S. currently awards the global war on terroism medal (service and expidtionarhexpeditionary) (https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/605412/dod-authorizes-global-war-on-terrorism-medals-for-operation-freedoms-sentinel/; http://www.afpc.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/421912/global-war-on-terrorism-service-medal/; https://www.militarytimes.com/2015/03/17/eligibility-is-extended-for-global-war-on-terrorism-medals/; http://prhome.defense.gov/Portals/52/Documents/RFM/MPP/OEPM/docs/GWOT-E%20Medal%20-%20Approved%20AOEs%20for%20Ops%20-%202015%2003%2011.pdf). Bottom line is that this is not just an outdated term (it is commonly used) or U.S. only term (and even if it was that's not an issue). I agree that this article needs a cleanup, but the GWOT medal criteria provides a good insight into the conflict that the U.S. considers part of the global war on terrorism (and in this context it's not a metaphor).Garuda28 (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
"even if it was (a US term) that's not an issue", well it IS an issue if it is being presented as the term the whole world uses, or even presented as the term used by those countries (inc UK) that have at one time or another cooperated with US. I'm not implying, that real war hasn't happened, clearly it has, with real deaths, but is "war on terror" the common name used by historians to describe these conflicts in the post-Bush era? I note in the article that Obama officially declared an end of the w-on-t, whilst the UK has hardly ever adopted the term. I don't know how to remedy this, but I can't imagine an ordinary conflict where different participants, essentially on the same side (eg US and UK), don't agree on what to call it or when it started + finished, and even people within the U States don't agree what it is, whether a rhetorical term for a certain set of objectives or an actual specific conflict.
I suspect that we aren't going to agree on this, which could partly be because we live in two countries, one of which regards the term as 'natural', the other one of which would never dream of using the term in this way. Pincrete (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Its alright not to agree, no hard feelings. My point is that even though it is an internationally used term (and is still officially used by the U.S. government), that it doesn't matter if others don't use that term, since I can't find any Wikipedia policy that has an issue with that. We can rehash in the article that it is a primarily American term for this conflict and I think that should help address the international concern you have. Garuda28 (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on War on Terror. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on War on Terror. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Wrong Leaders for Pakistan

The Leaders section for Pakistan erroneously lists the Army Chiefs instead of Presidents and Prime Ministers of Pakistan. Pervez Musharraf I understand, because he was both President and Army Chief but why are Raheel Shareef and Qamar Bajwa listed there as leaders instead of Asif Zardari, Nawaz Sharif and Shahid Khaqan Abbasi? I corrected the names and flags (From Standard of Pakistan Army to standards of Presidents and Prime Ministers) but the changes were for some reason reverted by SlaterSteven and Garuda28. Is there some specific reason for that? It is inconsistent even in that, because it misses General Ishfaq Kiyani who succeeded Musharraf as Army Chief. --Aeg0n94 (talk) 09:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I have corrected it again since SlaterSteven has not responded to the reply to his post for days now. -- Aeg0n94 (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Pakistan

Would anyone care to explain what is going on?Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

If you mean the edits that you reverted in the leaders section, then the edits were made to reflect that Army Chiefs are not leaders of Pakistan, they are government employees. Musharraf can be listed among the leaders by virtue of being a former President but not Qamar Bajwa and Raheel Shareef. Instead of them, we should list Asif Zardari (Pres.), Nawaz Sharif (PM) and Shahid Abbasi (PM) in that order. -- Aeg0n94 (talk) 09:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The purpose of such flags is to give a quick visual clue on who is what. While the previous flags may not have been fully correct, the current ones are unrecognizable to most readers, and thus fail the point of having the flags in the infobox. If we can't come up with some compromise, infobox guidelines will require us to remove all flags. --A D Monroe III(talk) 17:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Then lets remove them, just the flags and have a discussion about everything else.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Or just use national flags to identify leaders only. It's clearly identifying and fulfills the original purpose. Garuda28 (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I'd also favor leaders only, based on nationality, not office. That would fulfill the infobox purpose. --A D Monroe III(talk) 15:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Military or political?Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
The purpose is recognition -- military flags generally don't do that as well. --A D Monroe III(talk) 21:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
So either way it should be the national flag then. Garuda28 (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Would like to add that Poland's entry in leaders section still uses the standard of Polish president instead of the Polish national flag. Maybe we should take care of that as well while we are at it? Aeg0n94 (talk) 08:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Costs

Just recently, the Costs of War project at Brown University’s Watson Institute offered a new estimate of what America’s wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Pakistan will cost the country through fiscal year 2018 and it’s a figure ― $5.6 trillion ― that should make your head spin. It certainly leaves Lindsey’s and Daniels’s estimates in a ditch somewhere on the road to Baghdad. Put another way, we’re talking at a bare minimum about a cost per American taxpayer since September 12, 2001, of more than $23,000. Good for the economy? Hmmm. And the Costs of War report’s estimate doesn’t even include interest on the borrowing that’s taken place to pay for those wars, which, it suggests, is “projected to add more than $1 trillion dollars to the national debt by 2023.”

The link in the above quote goes here:

As of late September 2017, the United States wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria and the additional spending on Homeland Security, and the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs since the 9/11 attacks totaled more than $4.3 trillion in current dollars through FY2017. Adding likely costs for FY2018 and estimated future spending on veterans, the costs of war total more than $5.6 trillion. This report focuses on US federal budgetary costs and obligations for America’s wars since 9/11.

This Google search pulls up more articles:

Various articles use the above total cost to come up with the number of $23,000 per taxpayer. It would be more accurate to say per adult U.S. resident. $5.6 trillion divided by $23,000 equals 243.5 million people. See: Demography of the United States: "There were about 125.9 million adult women in the United States in 2014. The number of men was 119.4 million." That totals 245.3, close enough for government purposes. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

When did the war end?Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on War on Terror. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Obama quote in Etymology section

No other president has been so significantly quoted as former President Obama in the section about "history of use of the phrase...". A summary of the former president's usage would be better, and fit with that administration's preferred term. Additionally there is no information about the current administration's usage policy.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

UK role in torture and kidnap of terror suspects after 9/11 revealed

This new article may be helpful here

John Cummings (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hijacking of Airplanes

In view of the hijacking of four airplanes of US Airways and American Airlines, the airlines published the photos of the crew members in the newspapers, and also published the boarding cards of all passengers, incl date of birth, in the print media, before the 11 October 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiseWiso (talk • contribs) 05:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Placement of Hezbollah and Iran

The list of participants shows the Hezbollah on the one side but Iran on the other. Iran supports Hezbollah and yes Hezbollah is a terrorist organization but they sometimes fight other terrorist organizations. Iran also combats some terrorist organizations directly, but does support Hezbollah. Due to the complex nature of the issue might it be better to make a note specifically labeling Iran as supporting Hezbollah and another note specifically labeling Hezbollah as combating other terrorist organizations beside Iran while also conducting terrorism? While you are at that it might be good to also make a note clearly stating the fact that the organizations labeled as terrorist do not all like each other and fight each other. E.G. al-Qaeda's disagreement with ISIL and etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.20.45.140 (talk) 00:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

What about the US and it's allies aren't they terrorists too? They used violence & killed far more innocent people than all what listed here as terrorist groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.166.91.31 (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

China's role as a main participant

To justify China's place as a main participant in War on Terror, The provided references are woefully short. One is about Philippines' invitation to China for combating Abu-Sayyaf Group's piracy network and the other one is just a link about Chinese persecution of the Ethnic Uyghur minority in Xinjiang (China confiscating their passports). How does that make China a main participant in this war? It's War on Terror, not War on Muslims so state persecution against Muslim minority doesn't really make you a *main participant* in War against Terror. The Chinese haven't undertaken any major commitment so far against Terrorism globally since 2001. Even a small country like Afghanistan has contributed more to the War on Terror than China has. Instead of listing the permanent members of the Security Council as main participants, I propose that we should list the countries who are actually the largest contributors and main participants in the war which would be US, UK, France, Russia, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan and Afghanistan. -- Aeg0n94 (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

A good point. When did Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council all get listed in the infobox? What is the consensus of that change (made some point after 15 June 2015)? What verifies that all nations are "Main participants"?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree. China is a major participant. Framing China's activities as something else is bias.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I accept the mission for China as a main partcipant Ericrashm (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Wich 'mission', can you explain?Shadow4dark (talk) 09:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree, are there any sources that support China's role in this 'war'? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
We need more sourcesShadow4dark (talk) 09:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Agreed with @Shadow4dark:, if there are not reliable sources that support China as a significant participant in this conflict, they should be removed per WP:BURDEN.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 03:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@RightCowLeftCoast:, china is fighting only internal conflict and this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Mali_conflict Further they have no more role against terrorism Shadow4dark (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

belligerents

Why is Russia mentioned twice, why is the golden dawn not under terrorists, why is this such a mess?Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it is a mess now.

It should be revert back to below version. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_on_Terror&oldid=898144129 Shadow4dark (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Well if no one can give a good reason I shall go ahead and make changes.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Can someone move Hamas out of ISIL?

I'm talking about the list in the infobox. I tried to do it myself multiple times, but I'm getting a 404 error. Thanks. William2001(talk) 18:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll move Hamas out of ISIL. 156.209.118.201 (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Location of Hamas

Hello. I accidentally reverted an IP edit because I failed to see the edit summary. I have corrected the mistake, but I do want someone with knowledge on this subject to check the location of Hamas to make sure it is not misplaced. Thank you. William2001(talk) 01:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Oxymoron

The term War on Terror is an oxymoron since war itself involves terror. The big governments which has waged the war are themselves the terrorists, possessing immense military and using cruel means to achieve domination like Asymmetric Warfare, Torture Chambers etc. The term, similar to the terms peacekeeping missile, preemptive strike etc., is meant to mislead the people of the world and gain their support for world domination. With over 10,00,000 recorded casualties caused by the proponents of the War on Terror, if indeed the war has to be carried on terror, it has to be waged back on those who have caused the damages in its name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.156.40 (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Reference: David Morley, Director of the Warwick Writing Programme, leads you through a series of creative writing challenges designed to help you develop your creativity and talent as a writer and reader.
The Campaign for Real Language - Creative writing's capacity for the creation of illusion-as-truth can make it a dangerous tool.
https://warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/podcasts/media/more/writingchallenges/?podcastItem=writing8.mp3

soapboxing.Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Argentina Not Involved

Hey, Argentina is not involved. --Misionense12 (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Please remove Argentina from the list. If their armed forces do not participate in anything. This has no sources nor references, so it cannot appear in the list. By other part, Argentina is neutral. --Misionense12 (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Lets give people a chance to source it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Casualties

Please add casualties of both sides Ryan Okhla (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

According to whom? This would be an area where definitions would be multifarious and reliable sources highly debated. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

But atleast add something Ryan Okhla (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Axis of Resistance

Okay, I think it violates the neutrality of Wikipedia's policy. It seems like the US political perspective, not a common one. And I want to ask why they add that paramilitary groups? If we start adding all paramilitary groups, then it is unlimited. My opinion is that we should delete that part and I think we could give more information in the main article. 웬디러비 (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Belgium

Why is the Prime Minister and King of Belgium mentioned as among the principal leaders in the infobox? Considering that that is one of 3 places Belgium is mentioned at all in the whole wiki page, it seems Belgium has no important contribution to the War. Spykryo (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:War on Cancer which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Material copied to another Wikipedia page

Material from this page has been copied to Wikipedia page 2010s political history.Michael E Nolan (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

"Bush's folly" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bush's folly. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

2011 war in Libya

The section on Libya does not explain why the 2011 military intervention in Libya is included in this article. The article for that war in Libya also does not identify it as part of the "war on terror". The later American intervention in Libya (2015–present) seems to fit because it is part of International military intervention against ISIL. I propose we remove the 3 paragraphs on the 2011 war. I am open to adding a sentence about the 2011 war in the paragraph about the 2015-present military intervention as background, although I'm leaning against it (I don't think it is necessary, especially as the main article does not mention it). BananaCarrot152 (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Neonorange (talk · contribs) You have reverted my edited implementing the change I proposed here several days ago. Please join this discussion. I would be thankful if you can explain you reasoning a little more. Thank you, BananaCarrot152 (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
In my view, a few days is not enough time to allow for discussion of changes, especially when no discussion has actually taken place. In an effort to kick-start a discussion, I am placing a very short statement pointing to the article talk page. an existing article linking Libya with an act of terrorism, Pan Am Flight 103 (21DEC88, Lockerbie, Scotland), indicating a long standing involvement of Libya in state-sponsored terrorism. The article War on terrorism certainly has weaknesses, but it needs to more comprehensive, not less. In the next few weeks I will try to broaden the discussion. — Neonorange (Phil) 03:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I see now that I acted too quickly, I'm sorry. I'll try to explain in more detail why I think the 2011 war in Libya is not part of the "war on terror". I think this is a complex topic about which reasonable editors may disagree.
  1. Sources do not appear to link the cause of the war to Libyan-sponsored international terrorism, direct Libyan terrorism in other countries, or Libyan support of terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. This is also reflected in the pages about the war 2011 military intervention in Libya, Operation Odyssey Dawn, or Libyan Civil War (2011), none of which link the 2011 intervention with the "war on terror". Some sources even discuss the possible presence of al-Qaeda among the rebels fighting against Gaddafi (see Libyan Civil War (2011)#Composition of rebel forces and [1] quoting a US military official). I am not arguing the the United States and allied countries were in Libya to support terrorist groups, but only that there is no clear link between Libya and Gaddafi, and the terrorist groups the US was fighting at the time.
  2. Reliable sources show the United States[2] and United Kingdom[3] had viewed Libya as a partner in their "war on terror" (although I doubt either the US or UK would have called Gaddafi a partner in the fight against terrorism in 2011). However, the US did remove Libya from its list of state sponsors of terrorism in 2006 and never added it back. This leads me to think the past links to terrorism (like Lockerbie) were not key to the US intervention in 2011.
  3. The United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing the intervention does not mention a connection between the Gaddafi regime and terrorist groups or terrorism by the regime (see full text [4]). Instead, the resolution cites Gaddafi's attacks on Libyan civilians and states that these "may amount to crimes against humanity".
BananaCarrot152 (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I would still like to remove the section on the 2011 war in Libya from this page. I feel I have addressed the argument given by Neonorange. Does anyone still object? I prefer consensus, but if there are no further objections, I will try to remove that section on 17 May 2020. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Insurgency in Aceh

What has this to do with the war on Terror?Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

Too much of leaders, former leaders of every single involved country fighting within it's own relevant front. I'm going to trim the box soon. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 07:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

In the section above End date - 2013 or ongoing we began discussing whether to remove the infobox entirely because the traditional military conflict infobox doesn't fit the article. If you have thoughts on this and want to join, please do. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
We may have consensus later to determine whether infobox should be there. But better don't undertake such a major edit without consensus. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 13:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
You should delete all non participants. Kosovo etc,,Shadow4dark (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The infobox is used in descriptions for conflicts like the World Wars, I don't see it can not be used on the page here. User:Coolmans97 —Preceding undated comment added 06:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems people edit here on American pov point? Shadow4dark (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Move to "War on Terror"

Reliable sources do refer to it as "the War on Terror" (note capitalization), making it a proper noun. Similarly, note the capitalization of "Vietnam War", "World War II", etc. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Just adding that this was discussed on another page where the consensus was to lowercase the noun in "war on" constructions when the noun is not a proper noun (like "poverty" but unlike "Vietnam"). See also MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Some sources capitalize it, but per MOS:CAPS, only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. A Google search shows that a large proportion of sources don't capitalize it, and Google Ngrams shows that a substantial majority don't: [5]. Unless there's good reason and consensus for an exception, the title should remain as it is, and usage in the article should be made consistent with it. I've changed the lead sentence. --IamNotU (talk) 03:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2020

Add new bullet point with reference below in 'Further reading' section:

Mikulaschek, Christoph and Jacob Shapiro. (2018). Lessons on Political Violence from America's Post-9/11 Wars. Journal of Conflict Resolution 62(1): 174-202. Owl of Minerva 21 (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as kinda spammy. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Unagreed Removal of military infobox

I object to the removal of the military conflict infobox. The "War on Terror" is clearly a military conflict, so why did the infobox get removed? The removal was also premature - a few users in favor of an opinion does not constitute a consensus. We have infoboxes for protracted, extensive miltiary conflicts, such as the Afghanistan conflict (1978–present) and Iraqi conflict (2003–present), so we should re-instate the infobox for this article. Without the infobox, it is difficult, if not outright impossible, to present a visual summary of the statistics and the main developments of this conflict. If the infobox had a problem, it could have been fixed without throwing out the whole thing. An infobox in this article is better than having none at all. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@EkoGraf, Greyshark09, TheNavigatrr, Paolowalter, Parsecboy, and CentreLeftRight: I would also like to hear the opinions of other editors who have been active in articles related to the various wars in the "War on Terror". LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
@LightandDark2000: I disagree with the removal of Template:Infobox military conflict from this article and many of the interpretations of what a war is in the previous discussion. In academic circles and even casual conversation there are many different ideas of what a war is, but I think it's universally understood that the definitions of "war" and "military conflict" are not exclusive to a conflict between only multiple state actors and formal militaries. Such a narrow definition would exclude several guerrilla conflicts in the 20th century and almost all the wars before the modern era (and by "modern" I mean after the 17th century). Or perhaps the objection to the idea that this is a war stems from the methodology used by the West—most major Western powers (US, UK, France) have done more drone strikes and bombings in the past decade than traditional on ground combat like in the US invasion of Iraq. In my opinion that interpretation is a very simplistic understanding of what a war is. Wars aren't just countries declaring war on other countries and sending their soldiers to fight at the frontlines; war has evolved past formal battles like those in World War II. But even if you support removing the infobox and disagree with everyone I've said up until now, what is the replacement? What will serve as the visual aid in its place? The action taken after the discussion should be the replacement of the infobox with a different one, not the removal of all and have no further discussion for a month. This is lazy debate. CentreLeftRight ✉ 21:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Actually, it would be close to "War on Terror (2001–present)", since the US-led military campaign against radical Islamist organizations began in October 2001. It has never ended since; the US hasn't stopped fighting the Taliban, al-Qaeda, or ISIS/ISIL, and probably won't for maybe a decade (definitely as long as they remain a viable threat). But I personally think that there is no need to rename the article, since this US-led campaign is the only military conflict that is acknowledged to have this name, and also since almost everyone out there who knows about this conflict is aware that it began in 2001, shortly after the 9/11 attacks. However, perhaps we should make the scope and the nature of this military operation more clear in the article lead. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I would second this. We should scope it just to U.S. and Western campaigns. There is little to no relationship with Russia and China’s conflicts. Garuda28 (talk) 03:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
As mentioned by Garuda, you are combining the US campaign which ended in 2013/4 and general counter-terrorism concept. Over the past several years, some editors tried to transform this page from its original purpose to something else - changing from "War on Terror" to generic "War on terror", adding Russian and Chinese anti-terror campaigns, adding most world countries into infobox under the excuse that they "fight terrorism". So let's decide - whether this page is about US campaign (which ended) or is it about counter-terrorism and then we should merge those articles.GreyShark (dibra) 20:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I would disagree with the notion that the U.S. campaign ended in 2014. The U.S. military considers the GWOT ongoing, and includes OIR as part of it. Other than that, I would second much of what you’re saying. Garuda28 (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

End date - 2013 or ongoing

This is a section for, what I will anticipate to be, a debate over if the war ended in 2013. The sources I have found indicate that President Obama attempted to declare and end to the WOT in 2013, however that did not happen. Global War on Terrorism linked conflicts continue to this day in Afghanistan and against ISIL. The following are a sampling of sources that indicate that the WOT is ongoing, and also linked to ISIL.

I would encourage any user who wishes to contest this to do so here, rather than in the article space. Garuda28 (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

According to the US (who proclaimed the war using this very specific term), it's over, and has been succeeded by OIR. That's made clear in the introduction. Konli17 (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
The War on Terror page covers a number of states, including the U.S. We need to be careful to ensure that we don’t fall into a U.S. bias on this page. I’ll also note that although at the time the U.S. attempted to declare the war on terror over (specifically President Obama), this is not the case from a de facto perspective, as U.S. counter Terrorism campaigns are well and alive in Afghanistan and Syria (the hallmark of the GWOT). Beyond that, the U.S. military is still issuing the Global War on Terrorism Service medial, which is a small thing but seems to indicate that the Defense Department considers the GWOT still alive today. And beyond all that, we have independent third party sources still saying it’s being fought today. Garuda28 (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
These tensions in the US establishment will make interesting reading when we tease them out. I agree about the bias, all of these perspectives should be noted. Konli17 (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I took a look at the intro section and I understand why you read it that way. I then looked at a revision from a few months ago and it flowed much better. Today it reads Obama declares the war over. Full stop. Then OIR happened. The old reading said Obama declares the war over BUT THEN OIR happened. The second seems to be the more accurate from the sources I’ve read myself. Garuda28 (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Given that "war on terror" is not a "war" in the traditional sense, I think it doesn't make sense to give it start and end dates. Instead I think the "war on terror" is a term that Bush first used on 20 September 2001 to describe the US response to 9/11, and that was also adopted by news and other sources to refer to various US military campaigns (e.g. war in Afghanistan (2001-present), Iraq War) and paramilitary campaigns (e.g. CIA extraordinary rendition). "The naming of the campaign uses a metaphor of war to refer to a variety of actions that do not constitute a specific war as traditionally defined"(article lead). Some of these wars are still ongoing, and like Garuda points out, reliable sources still us the term "war on terror" to describe certain US actions. So to try an summarize my thoughts, I think given that this is not really a distinct "war", I don't think it can have a meaningful start or end date. That isn't to say that the historical context is irrelevant, it's not and the article does and should discuss it, but I don't think it makes sense to say that a concept has a start or end date; for instance war on drugs, war on gangs, war on cancer, and war on poverty don't have such dates. (I also noticed that the start date in the infobox (11 September) is unsourced, and given the definition in the lead, "an international military campaign launched by the United States government after the September 11 attacks," it seems that 20 September (Bush's speech to US congress) or 7 October (start of the war in Afghanistan) would make more sense since those dates reflect a declaration of war and the start of US military operations.) BananaCarrot152 (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree on it being similar to other War on's, in that it's generally more like an idea or policy than an actual conflict or war, as in a metaphor. While true that actual real-life conflicts took place unlike other such named wars, grouping it together as a single war is perhaps oversimplifying the whole thing. I would myself call for the removal the infobox entirely (or at the very least the military conflict infobox). Ummi10 (talk) 09:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
But this was (and as far as I was aware is) about the US war on terror.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Ummi10 (talk · contribs), I agree about removing the infobox (or at least the military conflict infobox). What do others think about this? Slatersteven (talk · contribs), I'm not sure I understand what you are reply to, perhaps to Garuda28's comment about US bias in the article? BananaCarrot152 (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
It was a general observation, this was (and remains) a US thing.Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I propose we remove the infobox. I don't think that the conflict infobox is appropriate here, I couldn't find a better type of infobox (but remain open to suggestions), and getting rid of it will also resolve the discussion on the end date because I think the article text itself makes no statement about the war having ended. Unless someone objects, I will remove the infobox on 12 June. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Agree on removal. Despite its name, it's not actually a military war, but a sort of focus on a worldwide social problem. The fact the infobox has gotten so bloated is a result of it not being fit for this subject. --A D Monroe III(talk) 20:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs) This is the discussion I referenced in my edit removing the infobox. So far, nobody has given a reason why we should keep the infobox, so I decided to be bold. I welcome more discussion. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
BananaCarrot152 Infobox essentially summarises info of topic and shouldn't be removed unless fronts of war are beyond that scope. The thing we have to do is to time country list. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 22:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I think the infobox should be removed because this article is not about a single definable war (or military conflict) and therefore the military conflict infobox is not appropriate and the infobox on this page doesn't actually summarise the page. The issues around the start and end dates and the country list are symptoms of this bigger incompatibility. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Any suggestions on how to move forward? I think so far Ummi10, A D Monroe III, and I have supported removing the infobox (at least the military conflict infobox), and Aman.kumar.goel has opposed. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Agree. Like the "War on drugs", this subject does not fit the definition of a war, as it's not against a military force. There is indeed some military involvement, but only in isolated incidents; these can each individually use infobox military conflict in their respective articles, but one single infobox to rule them all doesn't fit here. It literally doesn't fit, as the current infobox goes on for pages, completely contrary to the purpose of an infobox to readily list the most important terse undisputed facts for the readers' quick and easy use. The only actual ongoing conflict here will be between editors over how to try and shoehorn vague assertions and subjective opinions about the subject into this infobox designed for something else; the end-date is just one example of this.
Maybe there's some infobox-like summary we could make, specifically designed for this unique subject alone. But don't start with the current infobox; it's easier to design an airplane from scratch than to start with modifying a train. Delete to get a clean slate. --A D Monroe III(talk) 19:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Are there any remaining objections to removing the infobox? If not, I think we have consensus and will attempt to remove the infobox again on 1 August. Please let me know if you think I should not do this. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Agree on removing the military infobox, it's a shame that a vague and liquid piece of rethoric tied to the Bush administration gets unjustly qualified as a proper war by Wikipedia. It implies, moreover, that the US was not fighting "terror" before 2001, and since there will be always terror groups, it's a war that has no possible end, and thus counter-terrorism and War on terror become synonims from then on. Polmas (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2020

I will write what you need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.221.111 (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Insufficient coverage of criticism

I don't think the section War on terror#Criticism adequately summarises information from Criticism of the War on Terror and maybe United States war crimes. --Tslawrk (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Domestic Terrorism

Ever since the Capitol Riot of January 6th, right-wing groups have been labeled as "Domestic Terrorists" by the federal government. It's been almost a month since the event and perhaps domestic terrorism ought to be included in the discussion of this article. W.C Cross (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

This article has become a WP:COATRACK

No sources are presented showing why, for example, Operation Pacific Eagle should be considered part of the War on Terror declared by George W. Bush in 2001. Logically, not every conflict by the US against terrorists is part of the War on Terror. At least setting the end-date in 2013 allows a much easier identification of what should be included in the article - as it is every instance of terrorism might be included here. FOARP (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The origin of the expression 'War on Terror'

The US president was not the first, after 9/11, to invoke the term on September 16. And open letter was issued to Senator Feingold on the USENET on September 13 calling for a formal declaration of war on terrorism, here https://groups.google.com/g/alt.radio.talk/c/rzyBpaqSef8/m/scbDSbUXPbAJ, using language that was later mirrored in the President's speeches, a few hours before Congress took up discussion of a possible declaration, before settling on an authorization under the War Powers Resolution on the 14th. The President's remarks were also made on the 18th, as part of the process of signing the act of Congress, S.J. Res. 23, into law.

Other attributions post-dating the attack preceding President Bush's announcement and Congress's response might also exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:AA4D:C5B8:0:F7E5:9DA4:9E8C (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Article name change

It is the "War on Terrorism" not the "War on terror"! Blockhouse321 (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

It was called the war on terror.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
With respect, it was and is called the War on Terrorism. Terror is not the same as Terrorism. Blockhouse321 (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
OK, provide an RS that calls it the war on terrorism.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
In the popular domain and amongst the general public, Global War on Terror seems to predominate, but government sources (especially during the Bush era) appear to use both. Here is an example of Global War on Terrorism: https://2001-2009.state.gov/s/ct/rls/wh/6947.htm Simurghistan (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I remember Uppercase Terror beating out lowercase terror, but yeah, however it's styled, those three words outperformed any official, non-English or code name (at least in what I read). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2021

Mexico should be added to the list of nations involved in the War on Terror since it's been involved in counter-terror operations especially during the Mexican Drug War. 172.58.27.6 (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

You need an RS linking this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2021

Update dates for War in Afghanistan Dman677879 (talk) 05:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 07:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2021 (2)

Change List of military operations in the war in Afghanistan (2001–present) to List of military operations in the war in Afghanistan (2001–2021) since the war is officially over Dman677879 (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: There's a lot of places the US doesn't have trips on the ground where they still execute military operations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2021 (3)

It says on that page that the date is (2001-2021) and that all of their troops were pulled out on Aug 30th! Dman677879 (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done I see now you meant the wikilink, fixed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Minor infobox error

I'm on mobile but there is a minor typo in the infobox about the War in Afghanistan. It reads "evaluation" instead of evacuation. vegaskukichyo (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

☑ Corrected. vegaskukichyo (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2021

SomethingIAm (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Change "20 years, 1 week, 1 day" to "20 years, 2 weeks, 5 days", or "20.05 years".

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK Talk 21:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Capitalisation of "Al-Qaeda"

I'm noticing some inconsistencies with the spelling of Al-Qaeda. Is the first A capitalised or not? There's one section in the middle of the article that uses exclusively "al-Qaeda" but the rest is mostly "Al-Qaeda". FudgeMobile 08:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Good observation. Convention should be to *not* capitalize it (or any word with "al" for that matter), since "al" is the definite article marker in Arabic. The International Journal of Middle of East Studies, for example, has "al" uncapitalized. However, the convention on Wikipedia, at least in terms of the main al-Qaeda article, seems to be capitalize it. So, in that sense, I think we are stuck with it. Simurghistan (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
In an edit from a while ago, I attempted to fix all of the capitalization errors within the article, so the issue should be resolved. Kaleb David (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
There's no real reason why the "a" in al-Qaeda should always be capitalized when you factor in the role "al-" plays in the Arabic language. Unless it's at the start of a sentence, the "al-" should not be capitalized, in general. But that's my opinion. RopeTricks (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

End date

What is Wikipedia's opinion on the formal end date of the war? --WR 14:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Has it been declared formally over?Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Whether declared over or not, I think it is fair to say that the utilization of the war's tactics and techniques in the same theaters of operations (e.g. drone strikes in Yemen) as during the GWOT's "heyday" is still ongoing. Simurghistan (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
It has not been declared formally over by anyone involved (and the main modus operandi since 2001 has not changed much) so why should we? RopeTricks (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Immichaelotoole, Rosi3fish.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Article Name Capitalization

As a definitive historical event/series of events, the War on Terror should be capitalized, no matter the fact that it is a 'war' on a concept. Kaleb David (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree, plus common parlance capitalizes Terror in the phrase War on Terror.

Hussierhussier1 (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Here is the requested move discussion on the talk page of War on cancer that decapitalised War on Terror. It required some digging, and I've replaced the unnecessarily ominous "consensus" template with a list of all the moves I could find among the boxes at the top of the talk page. 93 (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Image Captions

All of the captions are complete sentences, but some have a period at the end and some do not. I would change it, but i'm not sure if that is by design. Some feedback would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.254.222.252 (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is the relevant style guide from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Formatting and punctuation:
  • Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely sentence fragments, which should not end with a period or full stop. If any complete sentence occurs in a caption, then all sentences, and any sentence fragments, in that caption should end with a period or full stop.
    • The Conservatory during the festival (No final period or full stop for lone sentence fragment), not The Conservatory during the festival.
    • The stage was spotlit for the festival. (Period or full stop ends complete sentence)
    • The Conservatory during the festival. The stage was spotlit for the occasion. (Period or full stop on each when they appear together)
I am seeing many sentence fragment image captions in the article, which should not end in a period, while sentences obviously should, or alternatively changed to be worded as fragments. There are some inconsistencies that can be copy-edited. 93 (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2022

Change "On 20 September 2001, during a televised address to a joint session of Congress," to "On 22 September 2001, during a televised address to a joint session of Congress,".

This speech was given on the 22nd of September, not the 20th.

https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/september-22-2001-address-us-response-attacks-september-11

I submit this link as proof. Editor40209 (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: whitehouse.gov and cnn disagree. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Casualties and refugees

The "War On Terror" is estimated to have killed at least 6 million. This seems to be more or less covered in the article, but refugees seem to not be mentioned. The 2015 "refugee crisis" in Europe was caused by the WOT. But it's just a small part of the total number of refugees.

"The U.S. post-9/11 wars have forcibly displaced at least 38 million people in and from Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines, Libya, and Syria. This exceeds those displaced by every war since 1900, except World War II. [...] 38 million is a very conservative estimate. The total displaced by the U.S. post-9/11 wars could be closer to 49–60 million, which would rival World War II displacement." https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2021/Costs%20of%20War_Vine%20et%20al_Displacement%20Update%20August%202021.pdf

The article isn't necessarily bad (other than what's already mentioned on the article), but it fails to present the enormous scale of the war, in my opinion. This war seems to rival at least WWI in scale and magnitude.

If the war was over by 2013, as implied in the introduction, who won? And what war has been fought since? 89.253.73.146 (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Needless to say, the methodology of that study is extraordinarily questionable as it simply blames the U.S. for all refugees created by wars in which it was tangentially involved (e.g., the Somali Civil War (2009–present) and the Syrian civil war). Of the two major U.S.-led wars, the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) resulted in repatriation for large numbers of Afghan refugees, who prior to 2001 already constituted one of the largest refugee populations in the world.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
The United States tanked the Syrian economy and provoked the war. The United States currently occupy a third of Syria and starve the population, because starving half a million Iraqi children to death was just a good start.
Or the wanton destruction of Libya. Everything that has happened in the region since 2003 has been our choice. All of it easily avoided. 89.253.73.146 (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The lead section is POV

Hello. I noticed the lead section is pretty much about just criticism, like there never was any terrorists so it is just one side doing bad stuff like there never was any Islamic state group for example. Some stuff should go to the Criticism section, some stuff should be removed and sources checked (for the example, the Hill source in the lead section, is opinion just) as the lead is pretty undue weight. Especially for the lead section care is needed to be balanced. For example there is mention of torture, and extraordinary rendition, and drone strikes but no any mention of the Al Qaeda and the Islamic State crimes and even huge atrocities Genocide of Yazidis by the Islamic State, to almost whole Middle east was under threat in 2014. Also health and enviro. effect just caused by one side hmmmm how nice. Sometimes is not enough to some scholar for example write something but that what he/she wrote needs to have impact and to be accepted by wide community. Balance needs to be established and nonsense pov content must to go out of the lead section or if notable to criticism section as it is now just one side undue weight things in the lead. 178.223.34.96 (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2022

I want to add Sri Lanka to the participants list of War on Terror. 2402:4000:2381:C522:9DEE:DC56:323E:4E98 (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
At least April 21 suicide bombings in Sri Lanka did occur back in 2019. 2402:4000:1242:FF58:1:0:8AF8:EE89 (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
That does not mean they are party to the war on terror. Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Rationale for cleanup tag

I removed the rationale from the article head, and am copying it here; I do not take credit or blame for this message, but do not believe the average user needs to see this: "Multiple theaters are described yet none are particularly detailed, and definitions of terrorism related activities must be tightened up." ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 18:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Taliban position

It feels a little weird to add taliban to the terrorist group list while the Taliban is not really recognized as one internationally isnt it? ProgrammerinEZ (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I might be wrong about this but tmk its not in there ProgrammerinEZ (talk) 07:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Major combatants and the map

Annika

Hello @Slatersteven: My text names the specific government, a specific body of that said government, the specific type of threat and the source names specific agents which are of concern. The source is certainly WP:RS. I did not name the specific agents because that would probably be excessive detail because there are several. Invasive Spices (talk) 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but this article is about "the war on terror" and not terrorism. Does the source link it explicitly to the war on terror? Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
It does. Note the extensive use of Crutchley "Agroterrorism: Where are we in the ongoing war on terrorism?"[6] — Invasive Spices (talk) 9 December 2022 (UTC)
That is not the source you used. Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
It is cited by the source I did provide. Therefore it was provided in my edit. It is incumbent upon me to provide Annika then after that I have fulfilled my part. It is then incumbent upon you to read Annika before reverting. Invasive Spices (talk) 9 December 2022 (UTC)
No (please read wp:v) the source you cote has to say it. Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Please explain what you think the source does not say. Invasive Spices (talk) 11 December 2022 (UTC)

MNNAs are another thing

Major non-NATO allies they are something else and have nothing to do with this. Many of them never even sent troops and never made official support to the War on Terror. For example, countries such as Argentina never fighted in this war. And, by the way, we also need to cite sources supporting that. If we include MNNAs, we also need to include all NATO global partners. Henderson Grumicker (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

And no other version of Wikipedia (none in other languages) places countries in this article even without having participated. No other Wikipedia put Argentina on this list and without sources. --Henderson Grumicker (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay I understand that but I disagree with you due to war on terror and Argentinas supportive actions in the war on terror as a major non-nato ally also you cannot just go and revert the edits until we come to some type of situation and if I am being honest it seems that you have some poltiocal motivation behind these edits due to some of your previous edits. You also cannot use IP address to back up your point to make it seem like you have more people supporting you then you do WP:SOCKPUPPET. DiSantis19 (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I had mistakenly used the IP without my main account... Now, by another part, Colombia is also "NATO global partner", an superior status to Argentina, and they participated in the Operation Enduring Freedom – Horn of Africa, while Argentina did not even participated in that operation. Just view and read each of the articles about battles that are part of the so-called "War On Terror": Argentina does not appear in any of them. ——Henderson Grumicker; 03:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2023

In the first sentence of the lede, change the "is" to "was," as the infobox has an end date of 2021. For conformity. 2601:85:C100:46C0:456E:4EAE:503E:6EA1 (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC) 2601:85:C100:46C0:456E:4EAE:503E:6EA1 (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Infobox states that the main phrase has ended not the War on Terror has ended. Lightoil (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

On recent deletions in Lede (July)

So on 11 July 2023, there was a revert removing important content from the Lede backed up in the body of the article. The user (Richard-of-Earth) who did the deletion claimed "The lead should be a summary not a restatement of the body to make some WP:POV point."

This is ironic since MOS:LEAD clearly states that lede should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". Apparently, the deletions removed contents related to casualties of the war and controversies regarding it. Check the article of other wars like Second World War or Iraq War; casualties and controversies are clearly mentioned in the lede. These are all noteworthy points to be included in the lede.

Moreover, this is written as a summary, not as a close paraphrase/copy-pasta from the body.

The user also asked "Discuss on the talk page before making this drastic a change to the lead". This is ironic since it was the user who made "drastic changes". The contents were in the long-standing version of the page. So it is the user who should have started the discussion before he blatantly removed large-amounts of content removal of Reliably sourced material. Also take a look at WP:CENSOR. "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable"

Thank you. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

It looked to me that with this edit you added a bunch of stuff, but I do not see where it was removed from or who removed it. Also the citations are a mess of duplications from the article. It is also not a summary, but seems to be a cherry picking of factoids, some in the article, some not or at least that is the way it seems. If the article is well supported by citations, then the lead as a summary should not need any citations and should not include such details. What I feel needs to happen is most of the lead should be removed and facts not in the body, added to the body and the whole lead re-written. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
The content was present in the lede until another editor moved many contents of the lede to the article body during this edit.
I summarized some of the noteworthy contents (related to casualties and controversy/criticism) into a para and edited that in the lede. And no, it wasnt a "cherry picking of factoids" ( be it WP:OR or WP:SYNTH ). The contents are in the article body (you can check in the above diff) and the lede info I edited in is well-sourced. Its Verifiable.
Also, casualties and controversies are essential for the ledes of any war article, even more so for the article of an ongoing 2 decade long global war. To remove that content from its lede is disruptive, and lowers the quality of the article. See MOS:LEDE Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Well adding excessive content to the lead is disruptive as well. See MOS:LEADLENGTH. But I will need to make a more in-depth study of the article before I make any other changes. I do not believe you have improved the lead. I think people will be put off by it the way it is now. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Bizarre claim. The lede has a pretty standard length for an average war article, if not even smaller. See the ledes for World War II, World War I, Iraq War, Gulf War, etc.
MOS:LEADELEMENTS:

All but the shortest articles should start with introductory text (the "lead"), which establishes significance, includes mention of significant criticism or controversies, and make readers want to learn more. The lead has no heading; its length should be commensurate with that of the article, but is normally no more than four paragraphs

And no, readers wont be "put off" because casualties and controversies are summarized in the lede. Writing Better articles:

The lead should establish significance, include mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more... The following paragraphs should give a summary of the article. They should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, including its more important controversies

Furthermore, "Excessive content" was not added, it's noteworthy content and part of the long-standing, stable version. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 06:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

"911 War" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 911 War has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 14 § 911 War until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 12:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Relevance of the "Anti-terror campaigns by other powers" section

I stumbled on this article while researching another subject, but the "Anti-terror campaigns by other powers" section doesn't seem relevant to the article itself.

It does not provide any information on the war on terror itself and seems fairly out of place, especially calling "war on terror" operations by other countries which can be confusing for readers and presents these operations as being implicitly similar to the war that is the subject of the article.

I didn't want to outright remove it without asking what the community thinks of this, though, hence this message. MrTimscampi (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

If I'm reading the sources correctly, they do seem to describe these conflicts as "China's war on Terror" and "Russia's war on Terrorism", and comparing it with the article topic, so with that in mind, I'm not so sure I think that removing it completely is necessary. I do agree that it should be reworded though to clarify that this is an interpretation and that they are not widely considered to be part of the same conflict "China has also been engaged in its own War on Terror" in wikivoice is misleading and it should be rewritten to state that it has been described by some as such. Fanatizka (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The infobox is a mess

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

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

End of the war on terror?

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

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

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

References

  1. ^ https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/05/23/obama-global-war-on-terror-is-over

Israel-Hamas conflict

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

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


Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_on_terror/Archive_11&oldid=1216907023"