Talk:War on terror

Cats

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

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

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

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

Are you talking about changing the date for the "main phase" ? Yr Enw (talk) 07:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Yep, sorry I should have clarified that. I believe the ending date of the main phase should be December 31 2022 Jab1998 (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a discussion above on this talk page that also deals with the dating. I’m unsure myself because all measures seem to just be different editors engaging in WP:OR. I’ll try and have a look at what some reliable sources say, I’m sure then we can work something in that incorporates these different dates into the notes beside the “Main Phase” dates. But I’m currently stuck for a reason the article has settled on US Withdrawal as an end date. Yr Enw (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Operation "Prosperity guardian"?

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

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

American Defense Contractors + Hiring Foreign-born Employees + Legislation

This was removed:

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

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

Why, what does this tell us? Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

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

References

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2024

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

I'm really struggling to decide who should and should not go in the Commanders and leaders field, especially on the American coalition side. Template:Infobox military conflict/doc#Parameters says "For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed," but there doesn't seem to be consensus on who are the notable leaders in the War on terror. In the worst case scenario, we could list all the heads of state/government of the involved countries during this period, creating a long list like the one in the Gulf War infobox. Liu1126 (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Once a clear consensus has been reached, reactivate the request by changing the "Answered=yes" parameter to "Answered=no" Shadow311 (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

If Biden is to be included, then Trump should also be included. It's not reasonable to include the vice president in such list, therefore if Biden is included, it would be in his capacity as president. Kk.urban (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

War on Terror in Africa missing?

there is no mention of the war on Terror in Africa. This is a major front of the war and it should be present 39.43.167.117 (talk) 07:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes we do have sections on Afica. Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Infobox leaders

Zinderboff, SavagePanda845, Goszei, Shadowwarrior8, Gehirnstein, Cinderella157, Skitash. Hi everybody, I think we should start a discussion regarding leaders included in the infobox. I sincerly don't understan why we have John Howard of Australia and not, for example, Tony Blair, who was much more involved in the war. Moreover, I think we should include also Donald Trump, who was in charge when al-Baghdadi was killed. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is for summarising key facts from the article, we don't write the article in the infobox and the article should remain complete without the infobox. The commanders field of the infobox is for key or significant commanders/leaders, as supported by the body of the article -ie the body of the article should evidence why they were a key or significant commander. Where Trump was recently added to the infobox, I have reverted the addition with the edit summary: Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE - the article does not support inclusion of Trump - ie the article does not mention Trump at all, let alone evidence that he was a key or significant commander/leader. Tony Blair is similarly not mentioned in the article at all. John Howard is at least mentioned in the article. Whether this mention is sufficient to support his inclusion as a key or significant commander/leader is a reasonable question. I have no significant issue with his removal by Nick.mon based on this being a single passing mention. As well as Trump, Nick.mon has also added Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Mullah Omar, which are also not supported by the body of the article. P&G tells us that an article should be complete within its self. A link is neither a source nor a substitute for content in the article. A name in the infobox unsupported by the body of the article fails to tell the reader why they are a key or significant leader/commander in the context of the article. It is a disservice to our readers. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your clear explanation. I understand your point of view, supported by Wikipedia's policy, but I think we should also be a bit more flexible, otherwise we could give a distorted views to readers. I mean, Trump was president during the peak of US fight against ISIL, I don't know why he isn't mentioned at all in the article, but I think he should be. Omar was the leader of Afghanistan during the beginning of the war, while al-Baghdadi was the main leader of ISIL during its peak, I think that if we mention Talibans and ISIL in the infobox, it would be useful to readers to mention also their respective leaders. Regarding Howard I think that listing him in the infobox is a bit confusing. Australia played an important role in the fight against terrorism, but not so different than the one of UK, Italy, France or Germany. Moreover he's mentioned only once ("Howard stated that Australia would invoke the ANZUS Treaty along similar lines."). Is it enough to list him among the main commanders? I fear it's not. -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

A name in an infobox without any context in the article to evidence why they are considered key or significant commanders/leaders is meaningless. Trump being president at a particular time does not ipso facto make him key or significant in the context of this article. Compare his lack of mention with Bush and Obama, who are clearly key and significant, as evidenced by the article. If those you would add are indeed key and significant, then the course is clear - edit the article such that the how and why they are key and significant are evidenced by the article. Then, their addition to the infobox will actually be meaningful. [W]e don't write the article in the infobox and the article should remain complete without the infobox. As to Howard, I have no issue with his removal (as should be clear from my earlier post). I have only stated that there is at least some justification for his inclusion per the article, as opposed to those for which there is no justification within the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)