Jump to content

Talk:War on terror

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THE WAR ON TERROR

[edit]

THE WAR ON TERROR IS NOT OVER TO THIS DAY THE WAR ON TERROR GOES ON. THE WAR ON TERROR PAGE NEEDS TO BE UPDATED. ALSO THE WAR ON TERROR TIMELINE PAGE ALSO NEEDS TO BE UPDATED. ~2025-43810-47 (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it, the USA (the nation that launched it) says it is. Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The war on terror is not over; it has simply evolved into more targeted methods of counterterrorism intervention. Plus, the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001 remains in effect.
It is a diffuse war, similar to the war on drugs, which is why it cannot have a very clear end, and the times its "end" has been invoked have been very ambiguous. H1ldeberg10 (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm

[edit]

israel and hezbollah/hamas etc so should we add ~2026-12356-70 (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
this is mainly a discussion on weather counter-terrorism measures done by other countries than the USA count as the war on terror, like Israel, Russia, and India. personally, I believe they should. MrRandalTea (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It depends entirely on what the WP:Reliable Sources say. Can you find some that include these states' policies within the War on Terror? From memory, I've read some sources that talk about how the rhetoric of the WoT enabled states like Russia and Israel to legitimise their domestic campaigns against political enemies. Yr Enw (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable academic sources indicate that the Global War on Terror (GWOT) has often been understood as more than a collection of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. A substantial body of scholarship describes it as a broader international counterterrorism framework that other states adopted, invoked, or incorporated into their own conflicts with militant and insurgent groups after 11 September 2001.
For Russia, John Russell's Chechnya: Russia's 'War on Terror' (Routledge, 2007) explicitly examines how the Kremlin reframed the Chechen conflict within the post-9/11 War on Terror paradigm. Russell devotes an entire section of the book to "9/11, Chechnya and the War on Terror," arguing that Russian authorities increasingly presented the Second Chechen War as part of the global struggle against terrorism rather than a separatist conflict.
For India and Kashmir, Rhys Machold's article India's Counterinsurgency Knowledge: Theorizing Global Position in Wars on Terror (2022) situates Indian counterinsurgency doctrine within broader transnational "wars on terror." Rather than treating Kashmir as an isolated conflict, Machold analyzes how Indian strategic thinkers positioned their counterinsurgency experience within global counterterrorism networks and debates that emerged after 9/11.
With respect to Israel, scholars have frequently argued that the post-9/11 War on Terror framework enabled Israeli policymakers to present ongoing conflicts with Hamas and Hezbollah as part of a wider international struggle against terrorism. Academic works such as Asa Kasher and Amos Yadlin's Military Ethics of Fighting Terror: Principles (2006) discuss Israel's campaigns against Palestinian militant organizations within a broader theory of democratic states fighting terrorism, while numerous studies of post-9/11 security discourse examine how Israel's conflicts with Hamas and Hezbollah became increasingly connected to global counterterrorism narratives.
Taken together, these sources suggest that reliable scholarship does not always limit the GWOT to direct U.S.-led military operations. Instead, many academics describe it as a wider international counterterrorism framework whose rhetoric, doctrines, and political legitimacy were adopted or invoked by states such as Russia, India, and Israel in relation to Chechnya, Kashmir, Hamas, and Hezbollah. MrRandalTea (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. I don’t think this would be opposed if added. Yr Enw (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose it for the reasons stated below. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 15:52, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of those sources explicitly state that those actions were part of the "Global War on Terror"? Not that they could be interpreted as being positioned as part of it, but were they ever explicitly and directly claimed as being part of it? If not, then it is WP:SYNTH for us to suggest otherwise. I don't see any of these as being particularly good examples: Russia's actions in Chechnya were a domestic anti-separatist conflict in actual practice despite how their propaganda machine attempted to frame it. Similarly, in India and Kashmir, while Indian strategic thinkers may have "positioned their counterinsurgency experience" a certain way, again it was a purely domestic counter-insurgency action with no broader connection to the *Global* war on terror and no significant joint participation to globalize its nature. Israel is perhaps the closest argument -- however again, that action is again not particularly "global" in nature and more akin to a counterinsurgency operation post 10/7, with the only significant foreign involvement coming in the form of defensive aid and support against Iran in the (separate) 2026 Iran War, which is itself not part of the GWOT. So unless any of those sources say explicitly "These actions were part of the GWOT" by name, then it's WP:SYNTH for us to say it ourselves. The fact that we have to say "Taken together, these sources suggest...." should be a big red flag warning that we're combining sources to collectively say something that none of them individually support. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 15:51, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To early to do now, would require new sections in the body, but once finished this would probably work:
War on terror
Part of the post-Cold War and post-9/11 eras

Photographs, clockwise from top left: U.S. servicemen boarding an aircraft at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan; explosion of an Iraqi car bomb in Baghdad; a U.S. soldier and Afghan interpreter in Zabul Province, Afghanistan; Tomahawk missiles being fired from the warships at ISIL targets in the city of Raqqa, Syria
Map: Countries with major military operations of the war on terror.
DateMain phase: 14 September 2001[1] – 30 August 2021[2][note 6] (19 years, 11 months, 2 weeks and 2 days)[note 7]
Location
Global
Status Major wars ended, ongoing in small operations[3]
Belligerents
Counter-Terrorists:
and others ...		 Main opponents:
Commanders and leaders
Casualties and losses
Per Costs of War Project:
  • 4.5–4.6 million+ people killed[note 8][a]
  • (937,000+ direct deaths including 387,000+ civilians, 3.6–3.7 million indirect deaths)[note 9][b]
  • At least 38 million people displaced[c]
MrRandalTea (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is commendable work. I do agree it would be a larger edit that will need to work into the body as opposed to just tacking something on at the beginning and end. Or perhaps a specific section dedicated to this particular aspect of using the WoT framework outside the US context? Yr Enw (talk) 07:43, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've logged issues with this above, as I do not believe the sourcing actually supports this change. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 15:51, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
https://web.archive.org/web/20150923221732/http://www.cfr.org/china/chinas-war-terror-september-11-uighur-separatism/p4765. This article supports how the September 11th attacks led to the war on terror within China, which the USA was uninvolved in. Not every front of the war on terror needs the USA in it. Also, we have already discussed how the 2026 Iran War is apart of the war on terror, because the 2001 Authorization of Force against Terrorism is being used to conduct it, and how it's framed as a war against the "number one state sponsor of terror". Going back to the articles before, the ones covering Russia at least definitely include the Chechnya conflict as a part of the GWOT. MrRandalTea (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Counterterrorism, generally, is not the same thing as the Global War on Terror. Unless reliable sources explicitly are stating that a thing is part of the GWOT, specifically, it's not part of the GWOT. The CFR piece explicitly offsets China's action as being something similar but independent and uses the term as a neologism in scare quotes (China has launched its own "war on terror.") to refer to a domestic counterinsurgency that is mostly a police action against dissidents. That's not the same thing, and the article goes on to discuss that: The Chinese government has tried to equate America's fight against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda with its own battle against the separatists of Xinjiang. Beijing is signaling to Washington that it wants a free hand in dealing with what it perceives to be foreign-sponsored terrorists on its soil, just as the United States is doing at home and abroad. The Bush administration, however, has been reluctant to equate the fight against "terrorists with global reach" with domestic crackdowns against separatists in China and elsewhere. Rather, Washington has made it clear to the Chinese that nonviolent separatist activities cannot be classified as terrorism. "The war on terror" is specifically referring to the U.S.-led GWOT, not counterterrorism (or repressive domestic police actions) generally. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 05:35, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Isnt the point being raised, though, that the US-led military operation has given rise to this wider rhetoric? Yr Enw (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, the point being raised was rewriting the lede to say, among others, "Reliable academic sources indicate that the Global War on Terror (GWOT) has often been understood as more than a collection of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq." Which I'm pointing out is not correct; the GWOT is understood as a collection of U.S.-led or supported military operations worldwide (not just Iraq and Afghanistan) defined by both the 2001 AUMF, EOs, and DOD regulations outlining the GWOT service era); but that it is not the same thing as the generic concept of counterterrorism, nor are countries participating in generic domestic counterinsurgency operations (especially ones that are politically repressive and anti-democratic in nature) part of the GWOT. We can say that they "have been described as a 'war on terror' by <X>" but we cannot say they are part of the GWOT unless reliable sources specifically call them part of the GWOT, because the GWOT is a specific, discrete concept that is different than the generic concept of counterterrorism or counterinsurgency, even when framed metaphorically as a "war on terror." And as such they're not really appropriate for the lede, the purpose of which is to summarize the most important points of the article body -- an article that is from it's very first sentence about the GWOT specifically. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 15:40, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, unless I've significantly misread the above discussion, the quote you present was @MrRandalTea's message, not their suggested re-wording of the lede. Admittedly the half-statement that started off this thread does make the matter a bit confusing. To clarify, I would not support including these in the infobox, which is certainly excessive, because this definitely isn't the primary way WoT is used (which is, like you say, the US-led military operations). I realise my earlier message gave rise to the interpretation that I did (because it added, for eg, Chechnya). If it is going to be mentioned in the lede, a single sentence will probably do, otherwise the matter could be dealt with in a separate section.
I also don't disagree with your point that the WoT is not the same as the generic concept of counterterrorism, but I don't think that's what @MrRandalTea has said. And it's not what I'm saying either. The relevant question is whether it's warranted to include sources that locate those non-US-centric insurgencies within the wider discourse of the "war on terror". You seem to dispute that this is the case, and say that they are more appropriately described as a "war on terror", but the cursory sources provided suggest that isn't quite true, and I'm not sure it's true of wider literature also. In fact, there is a quote from Richard Jackson in the article making the point that particular insurgencies in places like Russia and Israel, for example, were subsumed under this specific banner.
Of course, you might argue that what states say doesn't mean that's what they are, but that verges on original research. Yr Enw (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not part of the proposed rewrite? It's honestly hard to follow at this point, because we have commentary, followed by "Sounds good to me. I don’t think this would be opposed if added." that seems to diverge from the other text added, so it's rather unclear to me who's agreeing to what content, being modified for what portion. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:20, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I certainly didn't think I was agreeing to specific wording, just the notion of including this aspect of the WoT more prominently within the article Yr Enw (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^
    • "Human Cost of Post-9/11 Wars: Direct War Deaths in Major War Zones, Afghanistan & Pakistan (Oct. 2001 – Aug. 2021); Iraq (March 2003 – Aug. 2021); Syria (Sept. 2014 – May 2021); Yemen (Oct. 2002–Aug. 2021) and Other Post-9/11 War Zones". The Costs of War. Brown University. Retrieved 10 September 2021.
    • Berger, Miriam (15 May 2023). "Post-9/11 wars have contributed to some 4.5 million deaths, report suggests". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 29 May 2023.
    • Savell, Stephanie (15 May 2023). "How Death Outlives War: The Reverberating Impact of the Post-9/11 Wars on Human Health" (PDF). Costs of War. Watson Institute of International & Public Affairs. Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 June 2023.
  2. ^
  3. ^
  1. ^ The Islamic State was sometimes in conflict with al-Qaeda and the Taliban, see: Al-Qaeda–Islamic State conflict and Islamic State–Taliban conflict.
  2. ^ First Islamic Emirate until 2001 and the Taliban insurgency until 2021.
  3. ^ The Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations were widely disputed and now largely believed to have been false.
  4. ^ Engaged in direct military confrontations with the US and Israel in 2025 and following the 2026 escalations.
  5. ^ The regime was accused of having ties with Cartel of the Suns, an alleged criminal organization designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the US in 2025, triggering military operations under Operation Southern Spear.
  6. ^ The war on terror was also officially declared over in May 2010 and again in May 2013, but small-scale operations are ongoing as of 2021.
  7. ^ Origins date back to the 1980s.
  8. ^ The Costs of War Project report defined post-9/11 war zones as conflicts that included significant United States counter-terrorism operations since 9/11, which in addition to the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, also includes the civil wars in Syria, Yemen, Libya and Somalia. The report derived their estimate of indirect deaths using a calculation from the Geneva Declaration of Secretariat which estimates that for every person directly killed by war, four more die from the indirect consequences of war. The report's author Stephanie Savell stated that in an ideal scenario, the preferable way of quantifying the total death toll would have been by studying excess mortality, or by using on-the-ground researchers in the affected countries.[4]
  9. ^ The definition of "indirect" is paraphrased by the Washington Post as "caused by the deterioration of economic, environmental, psychological and health conditions". Savell says it includes "mounting poverty, food insecurity, environmental contamination, the ongoing trauma of violence, and the destruction of health and public infrastructure, along with private property and means of livelihood".[4]

References

  1. ^ Multiple sources:
  2. ^ Multiple sources:
  3. ^ Multiple sources:
  4. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference washingtonpost20230515 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Iran War

[edit]

As with the war in Gaza, no RS is calling the Iran War part of the GWOT, yet. I am curious to wait and see if the term has a resurgence, given Iran's funding of many of the terror groups the US was fighting in the GWOT. The Nation recently put out an article (paywalled) linking the term to Trump's domestic policy in his second term, but stopped short of making a connection with Iran currently. Something to think about, I suppose. LVMH11 (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

War with Iran's proxies already is explicitly categorized under the GWOT for the purposes of eligibility for the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, e.g. Operations Pandora Throttle, Poseidon Archer, and Prosperity Guardian. It's almost a certainty that Operation Epic Fury will likewise qualify, but it's too soon for those orders yet. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:25, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Date for GWOT Changed

[edit]

We could change the date to: 14 September 2001-present, then have the main phase listed below. (Main Phase: 14 September 2001-30 August 2021) ~2026-33316-31 (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

well its not agreed upon that the war on terror began on 14 September 2001, as some include operations that date back to the 80s. The main phase definitely began then through, and lasted until 2021 when the last ground troops left (unless "major" includes arial and naval missions, than Venezuela and Iran are included). MrRandalTea (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

why Iran included

[edit]

The article listed years from 2001-2021 the war on terror. and it was offically ended on 2021 august. but why Iran is included? and the notes says "Engaged in direct military confrontations with the US and Israel in 2025 and following the 2026 escalations." Whoisdis14 (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are still using the 2001 authorization for force against terrorism (the primary GWOT bill) to carry out the war in Iran (and Venezuela) MrRandalTea (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
it got reverted Whoisdis14 (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding Israel, Iran and Venezuela to the infobox

[edit]

Operation Southern Spear, the Twelve day war and the 2026 Iran war were not part of the Main Phase of the War on Terror (Sep 14 2001 - Aug 30 2021), whilst the Main Countries and Opponents were highly active during the main phase. Additionally, they keep adding them without a talk in the talk page. whoever keeps doing this, JUST STOP!! Josephguy15 (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What should constitute major opponents? If it's major operations then Iran and Venezuela should be included. If it's boots on the ground operations, Venezuela at least should be included. The "Main Phase" could be proven to be outdated itself, as clearly the war hasn't ended and the 2001 authorization of force is still being used to fight terrorist organizations or state sponsors of terror. MrRandalTea (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The war on terror is over, there are just wars against terrorism. Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say that? The article body considers Venezuela and Iran a part of the GWOT, because from an unbiased perspective it would be. MrRandalTea (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Main phase: 14 September 2001[1] – 30 August 2021[2][note 6] (19 years, 11 months, 2 weeks and 2 days)[note 7]". Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's just the main phase, the war is still ongoing. If anything, the "main phase" could just be removed, as we clearly are still fighting terrorism in wars causing major global ramifications. MrRandalTea (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but do RS say these were part of it? Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn’t point to a specific source offhand, but the article body already discusses Iran and Venezuela-related operations within the context of the GWOT and cites reliable sources for doing so. More broadly, if the article recognizes post-2021 operations as part of the broader GWOT framework, then limiting the infobox strictly to opponents active during the 2001–2021 “main phase” may not fully reflect the scope described elsewhere in the article. Also, the war on drugs is considered a part of the war on terror, and Venezuela is the primary opponent on that front. MrRandalTea (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have had my say, unless RS say it was part of it, we do not include it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RS like "* TIME: “Trump’s Caribbean Bombing Campaign Brings War on Terror to the Americas”
  • The Guardian: “The US ‘war on terror’ has killed millions. Now Trump is bringing it to Venezuela”
  • NPR: “Trump’s approach to cartels mirrors the global war on terror, officials say”
  • NPR: “With ‘drug boat’ strikes, Trump leans into war on terror tactic against cartels" are listed along with many others are listed in the body. MrRandalTea (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
[[1]] Apart from the headline, this seems to question whether the attacks on Venezuela are even legal. The rest do not say it is part of the war on terror. Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The body of the article places Iran and Venezuela as part of the GWOT. On this basis, they should be in the infobox. However, if the relevant sections of the article are (per sources) misrepresenting that they are part of the GWOT, then both should be removed (ie the sections of the article and the infobox). Cinderella157 (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Legality is irrelevant here, they are still a front that was fought in the broader war on terror MrRandalTea (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lakers96, you have removed them with this edit [2] while this discussion has been happening. Your edit also creates an inconsistency with the body of the article - a reason given when you first removed them and were subsequently reverted. I would suggest you revert you edit until the matter is resolved. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 June 2026

[edit]

change "File:Major military operations of the War on Terror.svg" to "

A map of the major counter-terrorism operations during the Global War on Terror, as well as the major participating nations.

" to match the updated infobox. MrRandalTea (talk) 07:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: As the changes to the infobox are being discussed and actively disputed above. The WP:STATUSQUO should remain pending the outcome of the discussion. Day Creature (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_on_terror&oldid=1361267294"