Talk:List of wars involving the United States

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2024

Hello Mr Wikipedia could you please let me edit pages like this one. Thank you! DharMannMan (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Currently, the article is set to be Wikipedia:Protection policy#Comparison table to help prevent possible vandalism to it. To edit this page, you need to have an account that is at least 4 days old and have made at least 10 edits elsewhere on Wikipedia. However, you are more than welcome to request an edit to the page in the form at "Change X to Y" or "Add X" as long as you also provide a secondary reliable source for the change. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay then DharMannMan (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Rationale for Israel-Hamas war inclusion

I am about to make an edit that will add the Israel-Hamas war to this list. This comes following the closure of an RfC that ruled in favour of including America as a belligerent in the war alongside Israel. this should be added to reflect the new consensus Genabab (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a good call Genabab, but you did not change the part where it says "Four military engagements encompassing three wars, all of which are interventions, currently involve the US: the Yemeni Civil War, the Somali Civil War, and the Syrian Civil War."

Also there is a yellow flag at the bottom next to Iran with no combatant name attached to it.

Otherwise it looks good. Historyguy1138 (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Added the proposed edits Genabab (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Good edits Genabab. Looks great. Historyguy1138 (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Should we add the USS Liberty Incident during the Six-Day War?

I mean I think it would classify as a conflict, but many historians believe this was just an accidental attack on the Liberty. Still 34 men died and 171 were wounded. What does everyone think?

Six-Day War USS Liberty Incident

Historyguy1138 (talk) 08:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Accidental or not, its just one attack. And not a wider campaign or conflict. It's like saying the bombing of the one ship in the 90s by al-Qaeda was a conflict. Not very appropriate terminology imo Genabab (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean I think I agree with you but for different reasons. It just seems to me that these were accidental attacks that the U.S. did not counterattack in.

There are several incidents on this page where the U.S. were involved in only one battle. And the article says "List of wars involving the United States" while the first line says. The United States has been involved in 115 military conflicts. Moreover it was a part of a wider campaign or conflict in that it was an attack during the Six-Day War.

If it was maybe something like the 2012 Benghazi attack I think I would agree with you. 1 because there was no U.S. military involved unless you consider U.S. mercenaries U.S. military and because it was it was not considered part of a wider conflict.

Do you think we should not include it more, because it was accidental though? Historyguy1138 (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this list is just for the overall wars. Individual attacks/military campaigns are listed at Attacks on the United States. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks Weather Event Writer (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

For anyone reading this the article Attacks on the United States is being updated. Historyguy1138 (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Move to draftspace: Draft:List of attacks on the United States. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Weather Event Writer Historyguy1138 (talk) 02:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

(Vandalism???) I noticed that KRD deleted the Logo of the Islamic Army in Iraq

Specifically it says that

Removing Logo_of_the_Islamic_Army_In_Iraq.svg; it has been deleted from Commons by Krd because: No permission since 23 December 2024.

Islamic Army in Iraq

A few things here. Last time I checked the logo for a now defunct terrorist group is automatically considered public domain. It would be similar for groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS. Can anyone confirm?

Also I checked Krd and it redirects to wiki commons

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Krd/gallery2025&action=edit&redlink=1

The link says that "

• If this page used to exist, it may have been deleted. Check for Krd/gallery2025 in the logs and/or in deletion requests.: So assuming that KRD no longer exists I am wondering if we are enchanting a case of Wikipedia Vandalism here. If so how do we confirm? Can we reverse the deletion of the Logo? Is not I have actually saved it and can restore it. But how do we prevent it from happening again or ask someone higher up to help us investigate? Thank you. (:

Historyguy1138 (talk) 05:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

US Intervention against Assad government

Ok so As we all know the Assad government has fallen. there is a section here listing a war that involves the united states as America's intervention against Assad's government. However it's currently listed as ongoing which is a bit ridiculous since how can it be ongoing when the government doesn't exist anymore. What I want to do now is to open a discussion on how this should be handled.

There are three possibilities here that we can consider:

1. listing it as an American victory. Personally I'm against this, because America's actions didn't result in the overthrow of Assad. America didn't even support Tahrir al sham, which was the main militant group that actually overthrew Assad. American strikes weren't launched against Assad in 2024, and America didn't really do all that much to facilitate his downfall. However technically Assad did fall so maybe we could say this.

2. listing it as an American defeat: now this one does sound strange since of course Assad did fall, however the main interventions done by America against Assad were many years ago. And all of them failed to bring about any lasting change regarding the regime in Syria. I don't think anyone would argue that trump launching some air strikes resulted in Assad's fall in 2024. So theoretically one could argue that since Assad survived the American intervention he technically won and America technically lost because America failed to topple him. It was just somebody else that ended up toppling Assad in the long run.

3. inconclusive: I think this is probably the best response to the situation. It combines the fact that Assad ultimately fell but America wasn't the reason for that so I think maybe we should do that. Genabab (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)