Talk:List of wars involving the United States/Archive 2

Orphaned references in List of wars involving the United States
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of wars involving the United States's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ISIL confirmed to have presence in Afghanistan": From Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant:  From War in Afghanistan (2015–present):  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on List of wars involving the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110501142902/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40257752 to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40257752

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of wars involving the United States
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of wars involving the United States's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "CIA": From Viet Cong:  From Costa Rica:  From Paraguay:  From Haiti: CIA World Factbook, Haiti entry, accessed 1 June 2012.</li> <li>From Armenia: </li> <li>From New Zealand: </li> <li>From Austria: </li> <li>From Mexico: </li> <li>From Soviet Union: </li> <li>From Dominican Republic: </li> <li>From South Korea: </li> <li>From Bangladesh: </li> <li>From Lithuania: </li> <li>From Tripoli: </li> <li>From Germany: </li> <li>From Communist insurgency in Thailand: </li> <li>From Iran: </li> <li>From Belgium: </li> <li>From Thailand: Thailand, The World Factbook.</li> <li>From China: </li> <li>From Bahrain: </li> <li>From Croatia: </li> <li>From Qatar: </li> <li>From Romania: </li> <li>From Morocco: </li> <li>From France: </li> <li>From Syria: </li> <li>From Bosnia and Herzegovina: </li> <li>From European Union: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Definition and clarity
Could we discuss and establish a clear definition of what should and should not be included in this list. First off, going by Wikipedia's own definition, as well many dictionaries definition of war; n.	A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. There is a clear basis that numerous listings here are invalid. This is due to numerous reasons, including but not exclusively, the brief duration of hostilities (see: Bombardment of Greytown - removed by myself already), the fact that a state of war was not declared (see: First Fiji Expedition, Second Fiji Expedition, First Sumatran Expedition, Bomabardment of Qui Nhơn and more), or the lack of any real conflict as evident in the minimal loss of human life (see: Winnebago War, Utah War, Whiskey Rebellion, Formosa Expedition, and more).

The sheer lack of any sound basis for the inclusion of such listings begs many questions. Furthermore, the fact that they almost have been listed as a 'victory' seems to smack of an overwhelming desire to compile a list of as many 'victories' as practically possible, whilst unintentionally diluting the academic validity of this article. Bias is understandable, and no doubt in many ways, natural. However, I firmly believe it has no place in Wikipedia.

Second Opium War could be considered dubious as a listing, but the fact it was most certainly a war, and it most certainly involved the United States to some small degree, means that as per the page title (List of wars involving the United States) there is a sound basis for its inclusion in the list.

--Yorrkshaa (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

2 Wars in Afghanistan
By any definition the War in Afghanistan should not be considered 2 different wars. (2001-2014 and 2015) If the War in Afghanistan is still ongoing or over is a question for another day, but saying that a completely new war started in 2015 is not accurate whatsoever and suggests that a completely new enemy has arisen, which is not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfpack40351 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on List of wars involving the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110501142902/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40257752 to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40257752

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 14:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Yemen Civil War (2015-Present)
According to international law (in my mind, a good measuring stick) the United States is a belligerent in this war. For this reason, it should be included in the 21st century section. 84.214.85.159 (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Adios

Cameroon
Should US deployment to Cameroon be included. American military intervention in Cameroon. Koonter (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't believe so, the deployment is similar to US non-combat missions globally that we also don't include on the list. - SantiLak  (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

War in Pakistan is a War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_North-West_Pakistan#United_States_role

Have you actually read the article? From what Ive reard, we are very much involved in the war and not just having "operations". The drone strikes, we have Special Forces in the country, and we have even lost casualties.

I honestly think that this should be on the list. We can't just leave out articles that "aren't as important" simply because the list is "too long".

Seems like current operations in Yemen and Somalia should be included. Also the ongoing assistance relating to the insurgency in the Phillipenes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:5101:2200:81EF:D3A8:98C0:7D64 (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Guatemala 1954
Perhaps the intervention in Guatemala in 1954 could be included. Quite similar to the Bay of Pigs incursion into Cuba by a US trained force of expatriates seeking to topple the government. The desired result was accomplished and a right wing dictatorsip was installed and supported by the US for years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat I do lack the skills to produce such an addition, so decline the opportunity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.195.49.84 (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect photo in Northern Pakistan Conflict section
Photo in the section of the article about the conflict against insurgents in N. Pakistan has a photo of the Islamabad Marriott bombing; however, the caption of this photo incorrectly suggests that this is a US airstrike against insurgents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.1.37 (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

not answered in the article
Not answered is why the Afghanistan War I and II are separate.

Also not addressed is what is Victory. Libya is considered a victory. Really? If so, I hate to see defeat. Is there an alternative? Defeat or not defeat?

How about who started the war? No column for that.

Also missing is what wars were declared wars?

Thank you. Lakeshake (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

MISSING Pig War
Missing is the Pig War (1859) between the US and Britain. See Pig War (1859) Lakeshake (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a war, just a boundry dispute.XavierGreen (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Not listed in article
The amount of casualties for each war is an important fact that is not listed in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C1:8600:C9C3:B81E:F1DB:606D:2CB9 (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

add new
I recently added the Philippines in the Section of WW-II, because the philippnes are one of the Allies of the United States at that time.

Since this is an article listing the "Wars involving the United States" and not "involving the US military" can we not also include the "War against Drugs in Mexico" and President Trump's "War against the media"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.71.183.28 (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Unless the "war against the media" includes actual operations against media people, I doubt it counts as a war. How many journalists have been killed in the United States? Dimadick (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Libya Raid 1986
What about Operation El Dorado Canyon - the US bombing of Libya in response to the killing of American soldiers in 1986? I realise that listing every air raid might add even more entries. But this was a real stand-alone intervention. Not just an air strike in continuation of the Gulf War or the Afghanistan War etc. Certainly, more American forces were involved than in the Congo in 1961. TrendBronco (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, how to classify the outcome of this operation? It was not victory, because Muammar Gaddafi stayed in power. It was not defeat, because Lybian defense was very limited. It was not stalemate, because USA could continue the raids if wished. Probabbly a new category: voluntary retreat. 217.197.140.220 (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not every war aims to depose the leadership. Operation El Dorado Canyon was a victory. All the US wanted to do was inflict a revenge bombing and they succeeded. I'll add it myself at some point, if no-one else has.TrendBronco (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC) I have now added it. TrendBronco (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of wars involving the United States. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513074927/http://www.hiik.de/en/konfliktbarometer/index.html to http://www.hiik.de/en/konfliktbarometer/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria; subdividing
This is an unwieldy but helpful list. It seems to have no canonical criteria for inclusion, which is one reason there have been the disputes on this page. Without trying to solve the deeper issue, I want to make the following comments. First, putting the War in Vietnam under the Cold War makes this war, probably one of the pivotal events in late-20th-century US history, hard to find.

Second, there are a number of skirmishes, small conflicts etc. that not on here perhaps because they were internal or not violent (enough) or considered associated with something already mentioned. Still, I would like each of the following to be considered for inclusion: + Aroostook War - British-American unarmed and undeclared conflict over Maine and adjacent Canada in which fisticuffs were involved. + Toledo War - Conflict between Michigan Territory and Ohio, in which armed groups from each side confronted people and in which fisticuffs were involved. + Battle of Columbus -- Actually preceded (and precipitated) the U. S. incursion into Mexico to attempt to catch Pancho Villa.

- (This is a different person) I wouldn't add the Battle of Columbus because it was an isolated battle. I also wouldn't add the Toledo War because other state v state wars aren't on here such as Walton War. However I will include the Aroostook War, it did involve the capturing of soldiers are two British Soldiers were injured. (Wmpetro (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC))

Libya Civil War
Should I add the Libyan conflict that began in 2014 following up the fall of Muammar Gaddafi? Our involvement has increased dramatically since his fall. Drone strikes and raids should be counted as a conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dg777714 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Ummm...Hello?
Does nobody care about this article anymore? Seems like no ones even contributing into completing or removing material — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.36.217 (talk) 05:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Victory?
I really have to ask what criteria people are using to determine a "victory". I see that the 2011 Libyan War is called a 'victory' even though the country is essentially a failed state in civil war; the intervention in Afghanistan is similarly called a 'victory' even though the war continues. By these criteria, it appears to be consistent to call the Indochina War and Korean Conflicts "victories" too. I think we need a little more objectivity here. 208.91.70.138 (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It seems to be plain patrotism. At least it's not as bad as it was before where everything was in green. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Libya is listed as a victory because that's what the war article lists it as and they obviously have had discussion in regards to that, when it comes to Afghanistan for the 2001-14 war, it would make sense to change it to indecisive, but besides that one war, there is no real need for a POV tag. - SantiLak  (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The Libyan intervention did achieve victory over Gaddafi. Other belligerents have emerged in Libya since then that the US has not yet gone to war with. I have more of a problem with the 1982 intervention in Lebanon and the 1992 intervention in Somalia being listed as "victories". In both cases, the US forces were withdrawn because of unacceptable casualties- including the horrible US Marine barracks bombing, and a UN-assembled force took their place. You could say that US forces succeeded in dispensing humanitarian aid in Vietnam while they were there, but that doesn't make the Vietnam War an American victory.TrendBronco (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, The US and allied intervention in the Russian Civil War was clearly a defeat. The US had no involvement with the independence movements or the Soviet westward offensive. TrendBronco (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The Iraq War entry lists "The Islamic State in Iraq" as one of America's enemies, but still calls the war a "victory", even though this is the same Islamic State that has taken over half of Iraq and is currently being bombed in a new intervention. You could argue that there was a brief period after the US withdrawal from Vietnam when the South had not yet been overrun by the North. How long a gap is long enough to declare "victory"? TrendBronco (talk) 11:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems like the condition for victory is whenever the United States flees from the region. I completely agree that there needs to be a non-partial assessment and agreed consensus to definitively declare victory, defeat, or unanimous draw.

I'm with TrendBronco, how is the Iraq war considered a "victory"... simply because Saddam was disposed? How about all of the other insurgency parties that are still occupying the country? The country was left in a complete and utter mess, with no functioning government, and then fell into civil war - there was no wider military victory here. John arneVN (talk) 05:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "No functioning government" is a bit of a dubious POV statement - see Politics of Iraq. I suggest the Iraq war be split into two - 2003-2011 as a victory and 2014 onwards as ongoing. By 2011 the US government had achieved its war aims of eliminating the Baath government and establishing a new regime which appeared to be able to handle the war against the insurgency unaided.  Only afterwards did the insurgency/ISIS start fighting back hard and giving the Iraqi government trouble and the US had to come back and bail them out. Otherwise we shall have to consider World War I as inconclusive too because it led to Hitler and the US ahd to go back to Germany too to fight him.62.190.148.115 (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree, because the US was certainly already fighting the group that became ISIS during the original 2003-11 war. If the US had left Iraq (in ruins) immediately after toppling Saddam Hussein, then it might be different. This is why I would have to call the Libya War a US victory, if not necessarily a victory for many Libyans. But once the US made the attempt to defeat 'Al-Qaeda in Iraq/Islamic State in Iraq' (as it then was) on behalf of the new Iraqi Republic, then we have to include that struggle in any verdict on the War. Whereas, Nazism may have been stirred up by WWI, but the US didn't actually fight Nazis in WWI.TrendBronco (talk) 03:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The US felt at the time that it had the proto-ISIS contained enough to leave the al-Maliki government to finish the job off. It's not like it threw up up its hands and scarpered from unmanageable situation a la Vietnam.  Of course it afterwards turned out that they were wrong about the former al Zarqawi "Al Quada in Iraq" organisation and they had to return to finish it more thoroughly, which is still ongoing, but since there was a break I would still class it as a new war from the US's perspective.
 * And yes there were no actual Nazis yet in 1914-1918 but there had been Prussian militancy since time immemorial and a Prussian hegemony (the 1871-1945 German state) and a strongly counter-enlightenment culture in the Ostelbien of castle-dwelling Junkers and their German underlings lording it apartheid-style over Slavs, Poles and the rest, so yes, the US and its allies in WWI were fighting the same counter-revolutionary culture from which Nazism sprung as a more defined ideology. Demilitarising the Rhineland (weakening Prussian power over the cultured, liberal western half of Germany), demanding reparations and toppling the Kaiser (the old Prussian royal family) was a job unfinished, and like a poorly-weeded garden, it all grew back to bring chaos anew. It took splitting Germany entirely, dissolving the state of Prussia and ethnically cleansing most of the Ostelbien of its German population to finally destroy the beast.62.190.148.115 (talk) 09:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether or not Prussian militarism and Nazism can be considered parts of the same ideology, which I think would require an article debate of its own, they were not formally the same organisation. ISIS merely changed its name several times. The US did publicly claim the peace agreement with North Vietnam was a success on withdrawing, whatever they thought privately. And did the US really believe that ISI/AQI was contained? They publicly sought a Status of Forces Agreement while committing to the Surge in 2007/08. They must have suspected that ISI/AQI would just wait for US forces to leave. Perhaps that was good enough for Bush et al with an election year looming. For me, the comparison with Vietnam in 1973 is still too strong. That's about my argument in a nutshell. TrendBronco (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * >"which I think would require an article debate of its own"
 * If I may recommend ... : 95.148.201.110 (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The one significant difference between a Fascist state (of whatever precise variant) and a pre-Enlightenment absolute monarchic/absolute aristocratic state such as Tzarist Russia, ancien regime France and Prussia (until about 21 years before German unification and even then a sham system) is that the former operates that way as a matter of ideological choice while the latter simply evolve/corrupt organically and gradually into that whole blind alley of crown chuch and lords ruling. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * p.s. Don't you mean Obama et al? Bush was gone by then. 95.148.201.110 (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't. See the dates. TrendBronco (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

At what point will it be acceptable to list Operation Inherent Resolve as a Victory? Just asking in light of the news that ISIL has been finished off in Iraq. I suppose the time will come when Daesh is dispelled from Syria. Shockabrah —Preceding undated comment added 14:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would call it a victory, if only because the war aims were much more modest than in 2003, and therefore more achievable. TrendBronco (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Although the 2003 invasion's goals might have been broad, I'd say they were mostly achieved, at least in the short term. There were no WMDs (at least not of nuclear nature) to be found, when finding them was underscored as a primary objective, but Saddam Hussein's regime and funding of extraregional terrorist groups were ended, and the Iraqi people were freed (how they used that freedom Civil War does not indicate defeat more so than it does writing destabalization in the results list. And yes the argument can be made that the ISI evolved into ISIL and took over the region for a time, but that was after the conflict had ended. Our return to Iraq was for different reasons as you and I know, and we fought a different enemy. It was a different war. Writing inconclusive for the Iraq War makes more sense than a stalemate, as we didn't just keep fighting Iraq and then come to a mutual "peace" like in Korea, we won quickly, and stayed to oversee and defend development of a new government until we saw fit to leave. But even then, we won; 2 of three goals were achieved, and the 1/3 that wasn't couldn't have ever been because there were no WMDs. It's like the invasion and occupation of Nicaragua during the Banana Wars in this sense. We went in and achieved our goals, but then stayed afterwards for around a decade until we saw fit to exit. The one fundamental difference is that in Iraq everything collapsed in the three years we were gone, but our return was to fight in a separate conflict for different reasons against a different enemy. Shockabrah (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There's never been a peace agreement with North Korea, they simply stopped fighting as soon as the US declared they would do the same. In that sense, it is very like Iraq in the 3 years before the withdrawal of 2011. The Iraqis were oppressed with controlled violence by Baathists before 2003 and with uncontrolled violence by Baathists after 2003, only then in competition with Ayatollists and others. Civil War is not freedom. I've heard a number of American commentators describe the insurgency as 'how they used that freedom'. Why not blame the original dictatorship on Iraqis abusing their freedom? How successful does a paramilitary movement have to be before it's no longer blamed on the people caught up in it? And the 2014 return to Iraq was very clearly against the same enemy for much the same reasons. It was separated from the 2003-11 war only by the waxing and waning of the American will to fight. TrendBronco (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * When ISIL is defeated in Syria should we merge it with the 2014-2017 Iraq intervention and list it as the "War on ISIL" Or do we wait for the entire entangled conflict in Syria to end and keep them separate? Shockabrah —Preceding undated comment added 03:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding involvement
Would like to propose some further guidelines to help structure and expand on this article, and especially relating to questions of what is involvement and what is not involvement. In the above I have argued that this list is incomplete, and onesided, and that there are several wars, e.g. Nepalese civil war, where US was involved that is not on the list.

Two editors have argued that Nepalese civil war not be included, citing that "United States was not a belligerent power in the Nepali Civil War". However, they do not back this up with any sources. From sources in the main article on Nepali civil war, it is quite clear that the U.S. was involved in this war. See also U.S. Army analysis Maj. T.R. Kreuttner (2009) on these matters:
 * "Despite military assistance, education, and training from the US, Nepalese security forces were unable to defeat the insurgency decisively."
 * "US and other foreign training and material support to Nepal were helpful militarily, but insufficient because they did little to address the political, social, and economic problems unique to Nepal." (Kreuttner, 2009: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a505200.pdf)

Also worth noting:
 * "2002 ... The United States Congress approves US$12 million to train Royal Nepalese Army officers and supply 5,000 M-16 rifles."
 * "2003 ... January: The United States military officials conduct joint drill with the RNA."
 * "September 13: U.S. Peace Corps suspends operations and non-essential U.S. Embassy personnel were evacuated." (Reliefweb, 2006: https://reliefweb.int/report/nepal/nepal-chronology-decade-long-conflict)

Allthough the extent of U.S. involvement in Nepal may be debated, de facto involvement is beyond dispute.

Further, one of the editors argues that we should not list Nepali Civil War, because "then there would be many more conflicts, such as the Soviet-Afghan War, on this list". This argument, however, I find very curious. With reference to my post above, my suspicion is that such argument stems from a one sided and subjectivist view of what "involvement in war" is and what it is not. If the editor is familiar with the Soviet-Afghan War-history, and sources related to this, he/she would know that the U.S. was de facto involved, and even planning both militarily and politically for Soviet-Afghan war long before it even broke out (and along with a majority of afghan people, rightfully, celebrated the defeat and withdrawal of the Soviet invading forces through 1988-1989). U.S. involvement in Soviet-Afghan War is as indisputable as their involvement in Nepal. I can not see any grounds to exclude the Soviet-Afghan War from the list, unless the above mentioned "feldmarschall"s propose we rename the article "List of wars that the U.S. have fought and won, except wars that the U.S. have won but not fought (see seperate list)". I hope the "feldmarschall"s instead will realise that such an approach is absurd.

The same way war result can not be reduced strictly to operational results alone, as argued above, also war involvement can not be reduced strictly to operational involvement. There are allways both political and social aspects, tied both to involvement and to outcome. If we roughly follow international convention here, my proposition is to use thte following categories as a rudimentary guide:


 * Belligerency: Engaging in military conflict as recognized under national and/or international law of war. (Involvement)
 * Co-belligerency: Cooperating with or providing military operational support, formal or informal, to belligerent group or party engaged in war. (Involvement)
 * Non-belligerency: Not actively engaged in military operation, but providing economic, material or other support to belligerent group or party engaged in war (Involvement)
 * Neutrality: Neither engaging with, cooperating with or supporting, formally or informally, belligerent group or party engaged in war. (Not involvement)

(Note that non-belligerent parties risk being considered belligerent if it aids or supports a belligerent in a way that is proscribed by neutral countries. Likewise, neutral parties risk being considered belligerent/co-belligerent, if it enters alliances, formal or informal, with belligerent group or party.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belligerent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-belligerence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-belligerent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_country

Based on this rough guide it should be clear that U.S. role in both Nepali Civil War and Soviet-Afghan War qualify as co-belligerent and non-belligerent involvement respectively. Best, JonHaaka (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This list should list only those conflicts in which the United States government itself engaged in combat (or issued a declaration of war), that is the general standard for all of the "List of wars involving (insert country name)" articles. Merely providing weapons or having a few defense attaches present is not a sufficient basis for adding a particular conflict to this page.XavierGreen (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, XavierGreen. I refer you to the list name, which is "List of wars involving the United States", and not "List of wars declared by the US". Would again also refer you to the categorizations above of what involvement and non-involvement is, as defiend by a host of other wiki-articles on the subject.JonHaaka (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * See also article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations for list of strictly military operations, and article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States for list of wars that U.S. have declared and not declared.JonHaaka (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The term belligerent refers to the participants in a war, under no circumstances should any conflict in which the United States was not a belligerent be listed here, it would go against the very purpose of the page to list any other conflict here. There is a reason why there is a separate Timeline of United States military operations page, it has different criteria than this page. This page is only intended to list armed conflicts that the united states engaged in combat operations in. This is merely one of a whole slew of similar articles that fall under [|Lists of wars by country], they should all have uniform inclusion criteria. The United States was never a belligerent power in Nepal, and the Nepalese Civil War page itself reflects that. As for the Aroostook War, that page itself says that the term "war" is only used rhetorically when referring to the border dispute in question, and that no actual war occurred.XavierGreen (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that there should be a more uniform and clear criterions for inclusion/exclusion on the Lists of wars. However, this has up to now (as far as I can see) not been set forth, which is why I proposed the guide above. Beyond this I fail to see your argument. It seems to me that you define both belligerency and involvement in a very different way than what is projected in the wiki-articles on the subject. Also, if you examine the different List of wars, I think you will find that (allthough not completely consistent) they do not follow a very strict or peculiar definition of war, belligerency, involvement, etc. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_Kingdom; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_wars_and_battles) Reason beeing that very strict and peculiar definitions - be it of war, belligerency or involvement - makes not only for completely unsensible categorizations and unlexical articles, but potentially also to gross historical denialism and revisionism. If you can come up with a more sensible and accurate definition/guide for belligerency and involvement than what I have proposed above, I encourage you to come forth with this. JonHaaka (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * More simply put, presenting a list as "List of wars involving..." and then listing only strictly operational engagement is falsification of history. In the event that other wiki-lists also make this error, it is not an argument to make the falsifications deliberate, it is and argument to correct those wiki-lists as well. JonHaaka (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The chart on the page clearly has the term, "Combatants" listed where the parties to the conflict go, Combatants are groups that take part in....Combat. Merely providing advisors or aid does not make one a "Combatant" or a Belligerent, one must engage in combat to be such. The United States did not engage in combat in the Nepali Civil War, no source in existance argues as such, to list it as such is original research, and thus the Nepali Civil War should not be listed on this page. Any conflict (or dispute, ect) where the United States did not engage in armed conflict and actual combat should be removed from this page.XavierGreen (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "The chart on the page clearly has the term, 'Combatants' listed". Correct. "Merely providing advisors or aid does not make one a 'Combatant' or a Belligerent". This is not correct, again I would like to refer you to other wiki-articles on the subject, regarding combatant and non-combatant see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-combatant respectively. Claiming U.S. was not belligerent/combatant in Nepal is analogues to claiming U.S. was neutral in Nepal, which according to U.S. Army scholars and U.S. congress it self it was clearly not. Hence, unless you can prove or argue U.S. congress and U.S. Army scholars wrong and that they were in fact not belligerent/co-belligerent but neutral, excluding Nepali Civil War from the list is falsification. JonHaaka (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You have provided no source which states that the United States was a combatant or a belligerent, your own analysis of the facts is original research and thus insufficient to warrant the inclusion of the Nepali Civil War on this page.XavierGreen (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, this is wrong. From the sources I have provided both U.S. congress and U.S. Army scholars expressedly state they have provided military assistance, military training and weapons aid, which in no uncertain terms implies co-belligerency and not neutrality. If your claim is that U.S. was in fact not providing military assistance, training and aid, and that they were in fact neutral, then I think it is up to you to document this - because I can not find any sources suggesting U.S. neutrality in Nepal. On a sidenote, if you are unhappy about any particular aspect of U.S. government war efforts, or their outcome, I suggest that you as U.S. citizen take it up with your own government and not with editors on wikipedia. JonHaaka (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You said a key word there that proves my point exactly, you said your source "implies" what your stating to be true. That means you yourself are interpreting the source to come up with your conclusion and not reiterating what the source itself states. The you provide do not state that that United States is a belligerent, co-belligerent, combatant, or engaged in combat. You yourself are synthesizing "co-belligerency" out of what you feel are implications in the sources. That type of synthesis explicitly barred from use here, see [Wiki:SYNTH](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material).XavierGreen (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Again you are factually wrong. This is not synthesis nor original research, and it is not me making the implication. Again, I strongly advise you to read the articles that I am referring to, because it seems clear that you have not read these:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belligerent
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-belligerence
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-belligerent
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_country
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-combatant
 * JonHaaka (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * These lists were made to begin with so that users could easily navigate the military histories of countries. Separate articles can be made for weapons sales or training missions. Unless American troops fought in Nepal, the Nepalese Civil War does not belong here. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Your claim is that military training, funding and weapons aid is not part of the military history? If so, how is this not gross misrepresentation and falsification of history? Or is your main concern that including co-belligerent and non-belligerent participation in war will make the list less easy to navigate for users? JonHaaka (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Result Categories
Official Result Category Guide:
 * Ongoing: US troops are still fighting.
 * Victory: The US and allies clearly gained more than they lost.
 * Partial Victory: The US and allies clearly gained more than they lost, but not all objectives are completed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shockabrah (talk • contribs) 02:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Defeat: The US and allies clearly lost more than they gained.
 * Stalemate: Both sides tried and failed to change much by force, without much diplomatic agreement either.
 * Compromise: A roughly equal diplomatic settlement was reached, especially when armed force was not much of a factor.
 * Blunder: Operational failure not involving enemy resistance.
 * Mixed: Operational successes on both sides results in no clear victor.


 * Hello, I agree for the most part that this guide is a good starting point. However, as is clear from debates below and from the editing of this article, perhaps this needs to be elucidated a bit further? Firstly, over focusing on strictly military operational aspects I think is very one sided. There are allways going to be both political and social aspects of war, in addition to the military aspects. Allthough emphasizing primarily on operational aspects may be well and good for the odd online "feldmarschall", for the purpose of wikipedia as a objective, general encyclopedia and for its users, I would argue that such over emphasis is not good. At the same time I have to disagree with the attitude that some of the editors here argue that we should get rid of results classification completely - in the case that this is a compromise stemming from the fact that these matters are controversial, I think this is a bad compromise and that goes against the fundamental wikipedia principles of accuracy and reliability. I think it is both possible and necessary to classify results of war in an accurate and objective way, at the same time being sensitive and humble towards the fact that it often takes a long time (often decades!) to piece together enough information to make an accurate assessment of events and their outcome. On these grounds it seems absolutely ridiculous to me that some of the people editing this article insist on classifying results of a war that is obviously not even over yet. To classify US war involvement in Iraq as "ended" and even "victorious", when the war is clearly not yet over - neither militarily, politically or socially - is obviously an error. Secondly, going through this list I find that many wars that US has been involved in, is not even on the list. The Nepalese Civil War being one of them from more recent years. This I think is yet another example of onesidedness of this article, and I think it would be much more fruitfull if editors expanded more on list itself and related articles, rather than engaging in petty edit wars over poorly sourced and assessed result classification. Best, JonHaaka (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shockabrah (talk • contribs) 01:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC) This page surely needs to follow the article structure. It can be only be two different wars here if there are two different pages in Wikipedia. Also, there should probably be more standardisation of the result titles. How about these five?...
 * Ongoing: US troops are still fighting
 * Victory: The US and allies clearly gained more than they lost
 * Defeat: The US and allies clearly lost more than they gained
 * Stalemate: Both sides tried and failed to change much by force, without much diplomatic agreement either.
 * Compromise: A roughly equal diplomatic settlement was reached, especially when armed force was not much of a factor.

TrendBronco (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC) 'Resolution' and 'Withdrawal' are not proper headings. Both of those things happen one way or another whoever wins. TrendBronco (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm very impressed with the new contributions to the 21st Century Wars, but 'Operations Successful' just seems like a needlessly long-winded way of saying 'Victory'. And 'Operations Ceased' is a complete non-statement. As above, that comment would still apply whether the US won, lost or drew. The US reached a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq, but they reached no agreement with the various insurgents- who simply waited for them to leave before renewing their attacks. I would call that a 'Stalemate'.TrendBronco (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And how the hell is the 1867 Formosa Expedition 'Inconclusive'? Is that a joke? The US Marines achieved none of the objectives, inflicted no casualties, lost their Commanding Officer, and then retreated from Formosa. That's about as conclusive a defeat as it gets. TrendBronco (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * At this point I'd say I agree on Formosa. I wasn't informed enough on the topic to draw an accurate conclusion. Very impressed with the recent expansion of the article and the updates and restructuring of the 21st century section. Shockabrah (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, how about 'Blunder' as a new heading for an intervention that failed, but not because of enemy resistance. This could describe Operation Eagle Claw and Operation Infinite Reach, but nothing else as far as I can tell. TrendBronco (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 September 2018
Now that I've been banned from making edits to this page, despite the fact that everything I've ever done for this page has been constructive, I need to request edits. Recently, there's been a bit of an edit war between "JonHaaaka" and I (and those in my camp) over certain very important aspects of this page. I request that the section for "Nepali Civil War" be removed, because it is blatantly clear that the US was not a belligerent in the conflict, only supplying a side with weapons and funding, and therefore the war- by this page's very definition- should not be included on the list. The result category for "Tanker War" should most definitely be changed to Victory. As indicated by its dedicated section on the page "Iran-Iraq War," the US achieved all military goals it sought to achieve. In the War in Bosnia during the Yugoslav Wars, Nato achieved its goals in ending the deadly conflict, and therefore the US based coalition won the war; its simply indisputable. The same applies to the Kosovo War, for reasons that are made quite obvious on its dedicated page. The section for "Operation Eagle Claw" should most definitely be removed; we, and likely every scholar and historian on the planet can agree, that Jimmy Carter's mission to save the hostages, was not by any stretch of the word, a war, let alone a "War Involving the United States." And at last, the central point of this controversy, and one that has been dealt with many a time on this page; the Iraq War. I, and many before me, have time and time again stated our position on this during various editing controversies on this page. The United States very clearly won the War in Iraq, and achieved in a literal sense, every goal it sought achieve, save for the discovery of weapons of mass destruction, of which every major intelligence agency on the planet believed existent. The US deposed Saddam Hussein, who was promptly put to death. The US then occupied until 2011, when it felt that a stable democracy had been established. The actual military conflict ended very quickly in decisive US victory, and though sectarian violence was soon to break out, the fact that the US eliminated the Baath Party, occupied, and established democracy, is beyond indicative that the conflict was an operational success. And the War on ISIS in Iraq that's often cited as the reason we failed, is an entirely separate conflict that broke out 3 years after the occupation ended, and that war too, ended in US victory last year. Given that, If one was to suggest that these conflicts were one and the same (they aren't) then based on the results of the ISIS war, we have achieved complete and total victory in Iraq. I implore you to make the edits that I have suggested above, so that future readers will have access to the most accurate information regarding this issue, and I highly suggest that this page be reopened to general editing, or at the very least registered editing, so that we all can have a fair chance at making constructive edits to an important directory, and so that we don't need to send messages like this to the administrators of this page. Shockabrah (talk) 04:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

First, you did not provide sources in support of your assessments. Second, if you are a Wikipedia editor for several months now, why is it that you don't have a user page? Has it been deleted? Dimadick (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Several (not all) of Shockabrah's points can be backed up by sources from the main articles. The current version reeks of original research, and while the earlier version was far from perfect, it was certainly better. We should limit the scope of this list to only include conflicts in which the United States fought, then focus on adding sources (and leave out anything that can't be backed up). --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, Mikrobølgeovn. I wonder if you perhaps can be more spesific on which of the points by Shockabrah above you claim is backed up by sources? Also, can you elaborate on how presenting a list as "wars involving" and only including "fought wars" (how ever you define this) is not historical falsification? Or do you suggest we change the name of the list to "List of wars fought by the U.S."? JonHaaka (talk) 06:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't propose a change of the title, as its meaning has been pretty obvious to everyone for several years now. The historical falsification is the current inclusion of the Nepalese Civil War. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you check the edit history of this article you will see that there are many wars both added and removed from the article since first published, and typically without referring to any clear criterions as to why add/remove. This suggests to me that meaning of involvement/non-involvement is far from "obvious". If you look on the main article on Nepalese civil war, it lists U.S. as supporting country, which from documents I have presented above will back up, showing U.S. defacto involvement in the war. Claiming that inclusion of Nepalese civil war is historical falsification is thus to claim that U.S. congress and U.S. army scholars are lying about their involvement in Nepal - unless you can produce sources to back up this claim, then your claim should be categorically dismissed. JonHaaka (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is meant to be a timeline of wars fought by the United States. The United States may have supplied weapons and training, but it did not fight in the Nepalese Civil War. There is a huge difference between supplying weapons and sending troops. The changes you suggest would alter the face of dozens of articles, and see conflicts such as Internal resistance to apartheid appear on List of wars involving Norway because Norway gave weapons to the ANC. Do you think that would increase the quality of these articles? Is that something you really want? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not a timeline of wars fought by the U.S. it is a timeline of wars involving the U.S. And allthough it is a difference between sending regular troops to fight, and to send military advisers or trainers, and to send material and/or finacial support, it is by international convention regarded involvement, as you can see from wiki-articles I have allready referred to (on "belligerency", "co-belligerency", "non-belligerency" and "neutrality"). And yes, allthough norwegian material support to ANC does not qualify as belligerent involvement on part of norwegian government in the anti-apartheid conflict, it clearly qualify as non-belligerent involvement. Should you have usefull sources on the matter I don't see any principled reason why leave this out from the article on the subject (for example by specifying type of involvement (support/co-belligerency/other) under "belligerent"-section, as is allready done in many articles/infoboxes relating to war/military conflict). Allready the 'List of wars involving the U.S.' specify this on several wars (Quasi-War, 1811 German Coast Uprising, Philippine–American War, Laotian Civil War, etc.), I don't see how this is an impediment on article quality, on contrary I think it substantially improves on it. JonHaaka (talk) 09:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Each of the conflicts you mentioned (the Quasi War, Phillippine-American War, Laotian Civil War, and the German Coast Uprising) saw the united states actively engaged in armed conflict as a combatant, they are entirely apart from the Nepali Civil War where the United States did not engage in combat whatsoever. Going back through the talk page archives and edit history of this page, its clear that a consensus has formed that this page (and others like it) are intended to list only armed conflicts in which the United States undertook combat operations in.XavierGreen (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that you are missing the point. Quasi War, Phillippine-American War, Laotian Civil War, and the German Coast Uprising, etc. all list countries/parties that are not just strictly belligerent, but include both co-belligerent and other supportive involvement. Not lessening quality of the article but improving it. Also, again and again you repeat "engage in combat", but you don't define it, and you don't elaborate on how this is a usefull criterion for inclusion/exclusion from list.JonHaaka (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are indeed arguing for a list of strictly combat engagement then this list is already in existance as "Timeline of United States military operations", I can see no objective reason to have two seperate lists with only marginally different criterions for inclusion/exclusion.JonHaaka (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A Co-Belligerent is a combatant, the ones listed were belligerent powers in the same conflict as the United States but were not allied with the United States, no countries [or other entities], which did not take part in combat are listed, your assertion is false. The List of United States military operations scope includes all military operations undertaken by the united states, whether involving combat or not. It also is not a list of wars, it is a list of military operations of which there can be multiple during each individual war.XavierGreen (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, this is completely counter-factual. Look again. Both German coast uprising, Phillipine-American war, Vietnam war, War in Indochina, do indeed list countries and other entities that did not necesserily take part in operational combat, but still had a supportive role or was involved as non-belligerent or co-belligerent. Either you are searching badly or you are deliberately making false assertions. Further, see for example the article "What countries involved in the Vietnam War?" via vietnamwar.info, on how this article treats the subject:
 * "In total, there were at least 21 countries* reported to get involved in the entire wars in Vietnam"
 * And further:
 * "Most of the communist allies hardly disclose any details of their activities during the conflict although their involvement in Vietnam was apparent. Some countries such as Cuba and Taiwan provided secret supports to their respective allies while others such as Czechoslovakia, East and West Germany although did not officially participate offered military advisors, engineers and doctors in their allies’ forces. There were also members of the International Control Commission (ICC) and International Commission of Control and Supervision (ICCS) who albeit supposedly neutral took sides and even offered aid to them such as Poland and Canada. Therefore, their roles and involvement remain unclear."
 * The article thus lists both Soviet Union, Cuba, Taiwan and ICC-members as "involved", even though these countries were predominantly providing financial and material aid. Note also mention of East-/West Germany, by not regarded "involved" as their sending medical or similar technical personell per legal convension is non-combatant/neutral personell and not combatant. (See again Combatant,non-combatant,Neutral country) To summarize, you systematically misread, make false assertions, and source after source proves you are wrong. JonHaaka (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That would completely alter the purpose of a category consisting of 156 articles. Not to mention it is ridiculous to say the US was "defeated" in a war in which it did not fight. Tell me, what would your stance be on a separate table for non-combat involvement? Would that be an acceptable compromise? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this could definitely be specified more consistently within the existing table, this I am all for. My suspicion is still that without clear criterions on what involvement is and not, then general consensus will be lacking and inclusion/exclusion made arbitrarily/subjectively. So again, my question is how to establish involvement and noninvolvement? Therefore the rudimentary guidelines proposed above ('regarding involvement').JonHaaka (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if you were right about the definition of "involvement", that would not change the fact that these articles were created as timelines of wars fought by a given country. "Involvement" can mean a lot of things (some would say Sweden was "involved" in the Vietnam War because some of its politicians criticized the US involvement there). In the case of this article, involvement is meant to refer to wars actually fought by the United States. You're masking this as a debate over definitions, while in reality you're proposing to change the entire purpose of 156 articles. With that change, this article would cease to be a timeline of US military history. Let's not go down a slippery slope where everyone is "involved" everywhere, and stick to a simple definition that everyone can understand. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you agree on the proposed definitions of involvement, then from my understanding you would also have to agree that either the article is mislabled and should be retitled to "..fought by.." and not "..involving..", or the article should be developed further in order to more accurately project timeline of U.S. military history. Further, my argument is not to relativize involvement/non-involvement, but precisely the opposite. (Whether one swedish politician express criticism of Vietnam war or another politician express support for it, this does not change the fact that by international legal and political convention swedish position on Vietnam was neutral, hence not noteworthy in a List of wars involving..). I nowhere propose that "everyone is 'involved' everywhere", this is plain strawmanning. More to the point, as stated above: the argument that 'if we change this article then we also have to change a lot more articles', is not a good argument. Pointing to other articles making same error should not be argument to make the errors deliberate, but to fix these errors too. In this sense it is most definetly a slippery slope I am arguing for - as is the entire encyclopedic tradition or indeed "knowledge".JonHaaka (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly clear: If in fact Mikrobølgeovn, XavierGreen and Shockabrah here for more than 20 years collectively of wikipedia-editing have held a counter-factual understanding of what war and war involvement is and what it is not, then this is of course very unfortunate, it is however the risk one runs by engaging in encyclopedism, and should certainly not be taken as an incouragement for them to continue counter-factual editing for another 20 years. JonHaaka (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this about renaming the article, or changing its purpose? Would you put this to rest if I move all 156 articles this afternoon? (Again, there's no right or wrong answer on what constitutes "involvement" - it depends on the context, and also where you subjectively draw the line. Regardless of any of that, these articles were created with a clear purpose, and the entire point disappears if we go down this road.) --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 08:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I respectfully have to ask you to read what I am writing. You show no sources. You have no arguments beyond 'we have done it this way so far, and should therefore continue to do it this way'. When confronted with sources and arguments you pretend not to read it or deliberately misread it. My proposition for solution set forth above ('regarding involvement') you still disregard completely, yet you have not provided any alternative to it. I strongly urge you to reflect on how this behaviour should not be considered utterly disruptive and thoroughly contemptuous of all that wikipedia stands for, let alone the purpose of its articles! JonHaaka (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? I'm explaining the purpose behind this article, which you are suggesting to alter. I don't disregard your proposition, I disagree with it and have explained why. This is not about a subjective interpretation of the word "involvement", it is about the purpose of this article and the other 155. It is not wrong, only different from what you're suggesting. There is nothing wrong with having a timeline of a country's military engagements without including conflicts it did not participate in. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Again you don't seem to read what I write. Allready there is one timeline of U.S. military engagements titled Timeline of United States military operations.JonHaaka (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * That list includes any operation, including non-wars. It serves a different purpose than this list. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The purpose of these lists is per your own admission practically the same. Both employing strictly "operational engagement" as criterion for inclusion, but without this ever being actually defined, just assumed subjectively to be obvious to all of wikipedia users and editors (which it is of course not). Again: 1) there is no objective reason to have two seperate lists with only marginally different criterions for inclusion/exclusion, 2) basing military history lists/articles on strictly operational engagement only, is historical falsification. JonHaaka (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The list of operations is chronological, while this list is structured very differently. Both are useful for different reasons. And there is no historical falsification in singling out a country's war history, which is miles away from just providing weapons and advisors. What about a separate list of non-combat involvements, rather than having one list that puts a weapons supply to Nepal in the same category as World War II? This is not a mather of either-or, and I'm not disregarding the importance of what you're bringing up, but I think mixing things up would change the purpose of this article, as well as confusing our readers. How about keeping them separate, but including both? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not historical falsification to single out a country's war history in and of itself, however, excluding funding, military training and/or material aid (not including medical aid) from military history is falsification. Which is why as pointed out to XavierGreen above for example vietnamwar.info article "What countries involved in the Vietnam War?" include countries and parties with supportive roles, allthough not strickly belligerent, in their list of countries involved in Vietnam war. Leaving out these countries and parties from the history on Vietnam war would be misleading and historical falsification. On a side-note: Non-combat parties are per legal and political definition not militarily involved, and should therefore if we follow my guide above not be considered as involved in war/military conflict. See separate wiki-articles on these definitions. As I see it there are two alternatives here. 1) Further develop the "List of wars involving the U.S.", with involvement criterions as defined by the guidelines above, or 2) Rename the current "List of wars involving the U.S." to "List of wars fought by the U.S.", and create a new page titled "List of wars involving the U.S." that projects U.S. war involvement as defined by the guidelines above. Allthough one could make the argument that adding another list will make it easier to navigate U.S. military history, I think there is a bigger risk of confusing users with yet another separate list on U.S. military history rather than structuring and developing the allready existing lists in a more balanced and consistent way, and through a common set of expressed guidelines on how to assess what is involvement, results, outcome and what it is not. My proposition is therefor to go with the first of these two alternatives, I see it as the best overall solution. If general consensus is rather to go with the second alternative, I of course respect this solution.JonHaaka (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * That does not change the intention behind these articles. Non-combat involvement is not excluded per se, but is left out in accordance with the criteria of this article - which focuses on the combat history of the American military. My problem with your proposal is that it basically equals a single arms delivery with a war that killed millions. How about we systematically rename every article and change the name of the category, then we make separate lists for non-combat involvement? I'd be happy to contribute to such a category, as the topic interests me. I already have some ideas for a layout. What do you think? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My point is that either way the intention of these articles would benefit from stating the article's intention expressedly and through a clear guideline for what events should be included and not. Allthough renaming the articles hopefully can do away with the current misrepresentation (descrepancy between involvement and belligerent engagement), without expressed guidelines then clear criterions for inclusion/exclusion will still be missing and desicions to include/exclude made practically arbitrarily. Also, non-combat actors are not synonym with co-belligerent or non-belligerent actors in war. Allthough I don't see anything principally wrong in also making articles/lists for non-combat actions (typically anything from providing medical assistance/humanitarian aid to participation in peacefull, legal civil action), my main concern is not events or actions of non-combat nature, my main concern is excluding non-belligerent and co-belligerent involvement in war. I don't see how this is equalling funding/training/operational support with operations/wars killing millions - again, as this list allready does one can specify this ("support", "co-belligerent", etc.), or as article referred to above (vietnamwar.info) one can elaborate explicitly what the nature of involvement is and the difference between support, co-belligerency, belligerency.JonHaaka (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have now tentatively tried renaming the current page to "List of wars fought by the United States" and made a new list on the previously redirected page titled "List of armed conflicts involving the United States". Hopefully this can be a livable solution for all editors, and make it easier to further develop and structure the pages, and less confusion and disagreement on part of users and editors alike.JonHaaka (talk) 10:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this discussion actually has led to something we both can consider an improvement, which is quite an achievement considering we disagreed on just about everything in the beginning. I might do something about the layout of "List of armed conflicts involving the United States" when I have time. I had something like this in mind, using the Yom Kippur War as a random example:


 * What do you think? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, will of course require a bit of work to put in and to maintain good accessibility, but something along these lines I think definitely would be a big improvement on both accuracy and overall lexicality of the list.JonHaaka (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm actually thinking of leaving out the "opposing party" column, as this can be quite tricky in conflicts where the US gave support to both sides (such as the Iran-Iraq War). What would you think about marking conflicts that involved combat deployment in bold? Also, we need to establish some clear criteria, where hard evidence of US involvement is a mus (no "alleged by..." or anything like that). --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

What happened to the timeline?
I followed a link to the article, "Timeline of United States at war" (accessed on 10 Feb 2016) and was redirected to this quite different article ("List of wars involving the United States"). Unfortunately, the informative chart that appeared in the "Timeline" article is missing from this current article. Does anyone know where I can find the chart (timeline) that appeared in the "Timeline" article? It provided at a glance a great variety of useful comparative information, which is completely lacking in this current article. (There is a significant need for both types of articles; that is, narrative information and graphical information.) PlaysInPeoria (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Was redirect here because the timeline was not sourced.....it can still be seen here on this old copy.--Moxy (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Victory / Defeat cell background color
I propose that we add a slight background color to the outcome column. Victory could be something like #c4f7c3, and defeat could be something like #f7cac3 Mapmaker345 (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Iraq War outcome
Before this turns into an edit war, let’s all just agree on the outcome of the Iraqi conflict from 2003—2011. In my view, the result cannot be a considered victory. As the Islamic State of Iraq continued its insurgency against the government of Iraq. There were mass casualties on both sides, including mass civilian casualties. Not to mention that Iran got its way and is now an influential partner for Iraq. “Victory” is not the best choice for a result.

I might add, to avoid such discussions and debates. Why don’t we remove all the “Defeats”, “Victories”, “Stalemates” and “Blunders” and only include descriptive results. Whether the person sees the conflict as a win or loss is on them. Also, they could just see the actual article for a more in depth conclusion. Dg777714 (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I see the Iraq War as a victory because the coalition achieved its goals originally set forth before the invasion. Although no WMDs were found, Saddam's regime was toppled and free elections were held in the state. The al-Queda insurgency was repressed and, yes, the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq led to the rise of ISIS, but Iraq was a free state in control of its own fate both militarily and politically. Sure, the rise of ISIS led to the US and others getting re-involved in Iraq some years later, but that is a separate issue from the 2003-11 conflict. Iraq was not embroiled in war when US forces left the nation like it had been in the early 2000s. The coalition achieved its goals, but its departure left a space for ISIS to rise up (which now, they've been all but defeated, but that's a different story). I think the conflict should be classified as a victory because I think the 2003-11 conflict and the War on ISIS are two separate conflicts with separate results. Looking at the outcome of the conflict in 2011, I think it's hard not to say the US won.

Jmake2016 (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * No, it's not hard to say the US lost in Iraq at all. The US forces failed to clear the country, failed to secure the border, failed to prepare for counter attack, then spent the next eight years relearning the same lesson every rotation. The initial invasion was basically a dash to Baghdad and then sit around waiting for somebody to call End-Ex because they didn't know, train, or have a plan for what to do next. Also, the war on ISIS is NOT a separate conflict, just a new name. The same Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi that fought the US in 2004 is the leader of ISIS today (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi). I would hesitate to even say the enemy even changed group names, since ISIS is an English Acronym, and not an Arabic one.

DiesPhantom (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The Iraq War is only a victory to those who think the removal of Saddam Hussein is all that matters. The war was declared just as much against al-Qaeda and its sympathisers in Iraq, and these were exactly the people who took over before the coalition could stop them. The insurgency died down only when the US declared in 2007 they would leave if a SOFA was agreed, under the duress of an upcoming election: just as Nixon was ready to sign a Peace Treaty with North Vietnam in 1973. Once the US withdrew, the fighting re-escalated in both wars. It only took 2 more years for the NVA to walk into Saigon, whereas ISIS didn't take over Sunni Iraq until 2015, with the help of a civil war in neighbouring Syria. ISIS was not an after-effect. It was one of the enemies that the US stayed nearly 9 years to try to defeat- without success.

TrendBronco (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

May I suggest we describe the outcome as "mixed" Ianp18 (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Mixed" is such non-statement. You might as well not have outcome headings at all. "Mixed" is not a contradiction of "partial victory", "stalemate", "compromise", or "blunder". It's not even a contradiction of most "victories" or "defeats". You could say the US victory over Japan in WWII was "mixed" as the US failed to secure unconditional surrender, instead agreeing to "preserve" Emperor Hirohito. From 2004, Iraq had a whole lot of fighting by insurgents and coalition forces that achieved a whole lot of nothing. "Stalemate" seems best. Though the eventual takeover of northern Iraq by ISIS makes a case for "Defeat". TrendBronco (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How about if we just put "Result Disputed" or "Outcome Controversial" as the heading for the Iraq War, or any other conflict whose verdict is likely to be argued over for some time yet. This is my peace offering. TrendBronco (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

MNF Lebanon 82
I deleted the "expulsion of the PLO" outcome which misleadingly suggests that this was achieved by the Multinational Force, when the force was assembled partly to protect the evacuating PLO members from Phalangist death squads. The IDF and their Phalangist allies are undoubtedly what caused the PLO to agree to their withdrawal from Beirut. The same agreement, signed off by US Envoy Habib, called for evacuation of Syrian forces from Lebanon. But the MNF ran away before this could be achieved. This war was a clear "Defeat" for the United States. TrendBronco (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC about Outcome Headings
How do we end the daily-to-weekly edit wars over whether certain US conflicts, especially the Iraq War, were victories, defeats, or stalemates etc.? How about we use a special heading for "Outcome Disputed/Controversial", or similar, and leave it at that. TrendBronco (talk) 06:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The result field in Template:Infobox military conflict is limited to "Victory X", "Inconclusive" or "See section". Unlike this list, it is not intended (though it does happen) for dot-points of what resulted from the conflict to be included in this field. The infobox is intended to be a brief summary and a adjunct to the lead. To this extent, it is more restricted than a list article. In a list article such as this, summary points under this column do appear appropriate, since we have no main body of the article to direct the reader to for further detail. Where the result is other than victory or defeat, I would suggest "Inconclusive" or "Inconclusive/other". Any nuance as to the result would then rely on the dot-points that follow. This obviates any conflict as to choosing a term that might otherwise describe the result, particularly where choosing a term may result from speculation or interpretation of sources (ie WP:OR or WP:SYNTH) rather than what a majority of sources specifically say. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Do I understand you correctly Cinderella157? Following the Template more closely would mean deleting all the bullet-pointed notes from every infobox except those with Inconclusive" as it's heading. DeepSolstice (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The infobox is similar to entries in the list table. I am suggesting a solution to the issue here, which is based on the guidance given for the infobox. However, while the infobox guidance does not allow for dot-points in the result (even though it does happen) I do think that such dot-points are unreasonable here. I had not really considered if they should only be used for "inconclusive". I am not advocating that that should be the case. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I get it now. I mixed up what an infobox is. I like the simplicity of the "X-victory" or "Inconclusive" idea, so I'm going to try it out until someone complains. I'll prune some of the more redundant bullet points. Maybe we should consider deleting the others too. DeepSolstice (talk) 01:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

War of 1812
Hi Matthewq4b! That's a pretty controversial edit to make, regarding the accepted outcome of a war 200 years ago. What sources are you using to declare a victory for the British?  Orville1974  (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A person or group of people keep coming back to change the American Revolutionary War, War of 1812, and World War 2 outcomes to obviously false results. It's probably the same vandal or group. Zimm82 (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. Thank you for the heads up.  Orville1974  (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * See the talk page notice at Talk:War of 1812:
 * This page is for discussions about changes to the article. There has been considerable debate over "who won the war" (please refer to Archives 8 and 9 for the most recent discussions). Historians and the editors have various viewpoints on which side won, or if there was a stalemate. For more information, see the section *Memory and historiography, Historian's views*. However, the consensus, based on historical documentation, is that the result of the war was per the Treaty of Ghent, i.e., status quo ante bellum, which, in plain English means "as things were before the war."
 * For a summary of the real-world debate, see the War of 1812. The result of the war per the consensus of historians was "Status quo ante bellum". In other words, neither side was the winner. EdJohnston (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The consensus among Historians surrounding the War of 1812 is not unanimously a draw. Johns Hopkins University professor Eliot Cohen has stated as much. Additionally The consensus among American historians is it was drawn. But such is not the case with non-American historians as stated by Eliot Cohen. Professor Eliot Cohen has stated, “ it was the last point at which the United States thought really seriously about trying to take Canada by force of arms.” Furthermore “U.S. forces failed in achieving their objectives of conquering Canada, and the nominal causes for which (the Americans) had fought the war had advanced not an iota by the time a peace treaty had been signed and hostilities ended in early 1815" Additionally "if the conquest of (Canada) had not been an American objective when the war began, it surely had become such shortly after it opened,” The U.S did not achieve ANY of the objectives for starting the war. The whole reason for the U.S invasion of Canada was to force the U.K to recognize American Maritime rights. The Americans failed to invade Canada and failed to secure legal recognition of maritime rights in the treaty of Ghent. In summary, the U.S failed to achieve or secure ANY of the major objectives for starting the war. That by any measure constitutes a loss. The British retained the territory of Canada, successfully preventing American Annexation and did not legally have to recognize the maritime rights of the U.S. That is a Victory for the British by any measure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewq4b (talk • contribs) 08:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Matthew, if you disagree with how War of 1812 summarizes the consensus of historians, consider making your argument at Talk:War of 1812 and try to persuade the other editors. It is unclear how your quotes from Eliot Cohen change the analysis; everyone seems to agree that at least *some* Americans wanted to conquer Canada. EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Blatant misrepresentations and pro-usa-warmonger pov
The article contradicts other pages in wikipedia, mischaracterizing outcomes to pro-american warmongering pov, even in conflicts usa role was marginal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.84.11 (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Care to point them out instead of making vague statements that have no merit?2601:49:1:5316:7CBB:DC06:D02E:D02F (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Several things that are definitely not "war" listed under this article
So I'm thinking the title of this should either be "military actions of the US" or that there should be several things removed from the list as they don't meet the definition of a war.

In the very first section you have shay's and the whiskey rebellion. Fighting was involved in both, but neither were wars.

Would anyone be opposed to me removing these from the list? If so why? Clown Tiddies (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree completely that a lot of the things listed in this article do not count as war. The Civil War in Yemen does not fully involve the United States as the United States is not directly supporting Saudi Arabia militarily. The recent tensions between the United States and Iran do not count as a war either as there have been no clashes other then a U.S RQ-4 Global Hawk getting shot down. Iran brought down a U.S RQ-170 in 2011 and that did not constitute as a war. Neither should the current conflict. I think several of the minor clashes in this article need to be removed. UnknownLegacy 11:54, 18 September 2019 (EDT)

Invasion of Iraq and Iraq war listed as same war.
This must be a mistake. The invasion was a sweep victory with under 200US casualties. Iraq war on the other hand saw +4,000 US casualties, ended in withdrawal and emergence of ISIL, what was the victory in it? In the article Iraq War there is no word of being a victory or defeat. I'll do the same here. KasimMejia (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2019
Minor formatting fix:

In the '21st century wars' section, for 'War in Afghanistan' and 'American led intervention in Iraq', New Zealand should be listed on a separate line from Australia. Probably just a line break tag that got missed. 198.166.92.192 (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)