Jump to content

Talk:United States military deployments

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 4 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Icarrion1224, Sara.moore2020, Juliastephens, The Squirrel Genius.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't Djibouti in Africa?

[edit]

"Not including Djibouti, there are about 2,400 American troops stationed in Africa." Why isn't Djibouti included? 79.138.147.208 (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further note from a different editor: This comment is correct - Djibouti hosts Camp Lemonnier, a large US Naval base which serves as the center of the US Drone programs. Also the #1 source for the whole page is broken. 05:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I updated it with Djibouti, i will update the other's as well, I don't know which source you are referring to, the main sources for the page aren't broken. - SantiLak (talk) 08:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Security Guard

[edit]

It appears that most of these entries are Marine Security Guards that guard embassies and consulates hence their small numbers in so many countries. This article will be more helpful if they are removed. --Countakeshi (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scary as hell

[edit]

The entire world is engulfed by the military presence of the U.S.

-G

How else are we supposed to keep the world in check? Spartan198 (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph originally said the US had 1.5 million people serving outside the US alone, but most other sources (including Military of the United States) said there were 1.4 million total, at home and abroad. I used the numbers on the PBS Frontline link and came up with 328,300. Because the numbers are apparently a year old and, as the article admitted, doesn't have information on the number of personnel in Afghanistan, I figured 325,000 was a nice, round number for a floor.

I also used the word "personnel" to be consistent with Military of the United States, apparently since "soldier" is usually used to refer to the United States Army in specific. David Iwancio 22:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to the first paragraph there are 1.4 million active duty troops in the US military. I can find no better number for this. What I find questionable is if that number is correct then how can there be almost 2million troops in the US and its territories, of which 1.8million are in the contiguous US? That would mean that there are more active duty troops in the contiguous US alone then are there are troops available. According to http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883073.html, that number was 894,921, "As of Dec. 31, 2005." According to http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/hst0709.pdf, that number was 882,201 as of September 30, 2007. I have changed the numbers on the website the the siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil stats as I think they are the most accurate.

Severe limits to usefulness

[edit]

This page is far less useful than it might be. Each number should have a citation and an "as of [DATE]" tag. Some of these are changing dramatically over the course of months or even weeks. Bbpen 17:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to revise the page, with no numbers (as they change rapidly). Just look at the official DoD link: [1]. I think it would be best to just list the countries and what the US troops are doing there. PBP 21:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's a helpful document. It raises the question: should we include those 2005 numbers and mark them with the date? I think that might be better than leaving them out. Bbpen 23:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. We could put a notice at the top saying "as of 2005", along with a link at the bottom to the DoD page. We wouldn't really have to update it until the next official release. PBP 23:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. I suppose if word arrives of changes to deployments in individual countries, we could mark those updated lines with "as of DATE". Bbpen 19:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

South/Central America

[edit]

What about bases/deployments in Nicaragua, El Salvador, etc.?

Template

[edit]

We should make a bottom of the page template, for all US Military related deployment articles. Each one could have a flag picture of the country involved.

"Deployment" in US military lingo only refers to deployment to combat zones

[edit]

It's not considered "deployment" unless you're in afghanistan or Iraq.--Goon Noot (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Deployment is getting any orders to send you anywhere, for any military purpose what so ever. You can be deployed within the United States, even. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.227.251 (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also heard that. This is confusing, and should be clarified. Benjamin (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Romania

[edit]

[2] Don't tell me this user has never heard that there are 1,000 US soldiers in Romania! others say 1,500 Marc KJH (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canada

[edit]

Canada's shown on the map but not mentioned. Needs explanation of US troops in Canada or an updated map. --208.38.59.163 (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland

[edit]

The U.S. has no bases or personnel in Iceland anymore. The map needs updating Einsiol (talk)

The map is purported to be from 2007, but yes US forces in Iceland left in the spring of 2006.-130.208.165.5 (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updating

[edit]

It seems to me that the numbers here should be updated from this source [3], which I believe is the most up-to-date DOD report. Do the regular editors of the article have any thoughts? ClovisPt (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These numbers are very old now. Its misleading. Especially in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan which have certainly seen quite a large difference in troop strength. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.82.198.24 (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be edited

[edit]

The opening paragraph states that we are in 150 countries. The number of countries listed is about 45 or so. There is an explanation that countries with less than 25 personel are omitted from the list. Two things about this: 1) there are a handful of countries on the list that have less than 25 personel 2) if we're going to make the claim of 150, can we see all of them? Does that information exist and can it be included? Aecooper1 (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The source explicitly says 40. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.164.254 (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be edited

[edit]

The opening paragraph states that we are in 150 countries. The number of countries listed is about 45 or so. There is an explanation that countries with less than 25 personel are omitted from the list. Two things about this: 1) there are a handful of countries on the list that have less than 25 personel 2) if we're going to make the claim of 150, can we see all of them? Does that information exist and can it be included? Aecooper1 (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On this point please see Washington Post "Fact Checker" dated Feb. 9 2012. —Mathew5000 (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

add honduras?

[edit]

pretty sure this one is missing, no? 68.193.173.240 (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graph is not useful

[edit]

I propose deleting the graph; it is not useful, and is not well explained. What the heck is the black line here? Why is it important to have it separate?

The graph shows the troops deployed in units of "percent". It would be useful to have a graph showing troops deployed in units of numbers. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global Research isn't RS plus more

[edit]

Not only is the source used for those numbers extremely not RS as listed in the RS noticeboard but the numbers it lists are from 8 years ago while the cited source, which is from the government which tends to have accurate numbers on it's troops, is from March of 2015. - SantiLak (talk) 05:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FOIA-only source

[edit]

The primary source is now removed from the DoD Personnel website, and I have received a standard reply from the webmaster that these reports are only available through an FOIA request. Any suggestions? Farolif (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: A report for June 2016 was published which I could use. Farolif (talk) 05:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The North-Eastern Europe Rapid Reaction Unit is not reflected

[edit]

There's supposed to be a 600 person force in Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia but it's not mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.50.54 (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong statistics

[edit]

There are a number of problems with this article. The intro claims there are ~170,000 troops overseas, while one of the linked external sources (Business insider) claims 1.3 million. I am not an expert in this so I am hesitant to correct these numbers, but the numbers from the tables below also don't add up to the 170,000. Peteruetz (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Overseas", meaning outside the United States (including Hawaii & Alaska) and its territories. The 1.3 million figure sounds like it was adding all active troops within US jurisdictions and elsewhere around the world as of three years ago. Farolif (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poland

[edit]

According to [4] there are almost 5k American soldiers in Poland; this is at odds with the unreferenced statistics here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missing information

[edit]

This is a very odd article; it is titled "United States military deployments", but it leaves out actual U.S. military deployments. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very First Chart, is this telling us something?

[edit]

I'm a little confused by the chart and why it is included in this fashion. The numbers are interesting, and valuable, I wouldn't remove it, but why are American troop deployments in Alaska considered "overseas"? The inclusion of Puerto Rico is also somewhat questionable, since it is American territory. Guantanamo Bay is a little questionable since it is essentially American territory, though its status is very limbo-like. It might be more effective without at least the inclusion of Alaska since it tends to blur, in my mind, what the thing is saying. Just a small point.Sych (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

US Coast Guard in Puerto Rico

[edit]

This chart says there's zero US Coast Guard personnel in Puerto Rico ... yet the island is home to Coast Guard Air Station Borinquen and Coast Guard Sector San Juan. According to the Wiki page, Air Station Borinquen has 35 officers and 175 enlisted personnel for a total of 210. Sector San Juan and it's components likely have several hundred more personnel. Cfagan1987 (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The number of troops in Iraq and Syria is no longer in flux and pretty clearly defined. Should we start listing them normally instead of specifically omitting them per the bolded note in the intro?

[edit]

The note says that we're exempting listing the number of active combat deployments in the two countries due to them being in flux because of troop withdrawals. However, the sources clearly indicate a consistently stable presence of soldiers there now with no immediate plans for further withdrawals or redeployments.

Iraq - 2,500 troops

Syria - 900 troops

Think it's pretty clear now, so it might be time to include them in the "West Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, and Indian Ocean" section. Agreed? Or any objections? It seems like common sense to me. Davefelmer (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis section is in need of serious help

[edit]

The section titled “Analysis” for this page, which is about US Military Deployments, is strange to say the least. First of all, it is naught but a biased and cherry-picked “analysis” that would have a reader think that those deployed in the US military only suffer as a result of their profession. There is no denying that military members do indeed suffer in some ways (along with their family members sometimes) that a civilian does not—but the US Military Deployment analysis section should be focused on analyzing way more than the very narrow & one-sided scope of the section as it is currently. I believe there’s got to be many Wikipedians well more qualified than I who are willing and able to contribute large edits that analyze the wide breadth of geopolitical, cultural, social, economic, and military effects of US military deployment. Dynen (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty much beyond the scope of this article, too (see: WP:Coatrack, etc) I say delete all of it, if there are no strong objections. Farolif (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that link—a “coatrack” is precisely what the analysis section is. There’s no strategic, political, or tactical analysis of US troop deployments. In its current state it’s off-topic and perhaps written with an agenda in mind. Dynen (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Somalia

[edit]

16 May 2022: Biden Approves Plan to Redeploy Several Hundred Ground Forces Into Somalia -- Beland (talk) 07:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_military_deployments&oldid=1207180127"