Copyright © 2015 Bert N. Langford (Images may be subject to copyright. Please send feedback)
Welcome to Our Generation USA!

This Web Page covers
Wars and Other Military Conflicts
whether between Countries, 
or Internal Civil Wars, including civilian and military targets

See Also:
The Worst of Humanity
Democracy in the United States
Politics
United States Military
​
​

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine Pictured below:
TOP: Vladmir Putin and 3 ways the Russian invasion of Ukraine is already screwing up the world economy
BOTTOM: Russian forces attacking Kyiv, explosions heard in Ukrainian capital
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022. Internationally considered an act of aggression, the invasion has triggered Europe's largest refugee crisis since World War II, with more than 4.3 million Ukrainians leaving the country, and a quarter of the population displaced.

The invasion marked a major escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War, which began following the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution of Dignity. Russia subsequently annexed Crimea, and Russian-backed separatists seized part of the south-eastern Donbas region of Ukraine, sparking a war there. 

In 2021, Russia began a large military build-up along its border with Ukraine, amassing up to 190,000 troops along with their equipment. In a broadcast shortly before the invasion, Russian president Vladimir Putin espoused irredentist views, questioned Ukraine's right to statehood, and falsely accused Ukraine of being dominated by neo-Nazis who persecute the ethnic Russian minority. 

Putin said that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), by expanding eastward since the early 2000s, had threatened Russia's security – a claim disputed by NATO – and demanded Ukraine be barred from ever joining the alliance. 

The United States and others accused Russia of planning to attack or invade Ukraine, which Russian officials repeatedly denied as late as 23 February 2022.

On 21 February 2022, Russia recognized the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic, two self-proclaimed statelets in Donbas controlled by pro-Russian separatists. The following day, the Federation Council of Russia authorized the use of military force abroad, and overt Russian troops entered both territories. 

The invasion began on the morning of 24 February, when Putin announced a "special military operation" to "demilitarize and denazify" Ukraine. Minutes later, missiles and airstrikes hit across Ukraine, including the capital Kyiv, shortly followed by a large ground invasion from multiple directions. 

In response, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy enacted martial law and general mobilization.

Multi-pronged offensives were launched from Russia, Belarus, and the two occupied territories of Ukraine (Crimea and Donbas). The four major offensives are:
  1. the Kyiv offensive,
  2. the Northeastern Ukraine offensive,
  3. the Eastern Ukraine offensive,
  4. and the Southern Ukraine offensive.

Russian aircraft and missiles also struck western parts of Ukraine. Russian forces have approached or besieged key settlements, including Chernihiv, Kharkiv, Kherson, Kyiv, Mariupol, and Sumy, but met stiff Ukrainian resistance and experienced logistical and operational challenges that hampered their progress. 

Three weeks after launching the invasion, the Russian military had more success in the south, while incremental gains or stalemates elsewhere forced them into attrition warfare, resulting in mounting civilian casualties. In late March 2022, Russian forces withdrew from the Kyiv region with the declared aim to refocus on Donbas, leaving behind devastated settlements and growing evidence of atrocities against civilians.

The invasion has been widely condemned internationally. The United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution which condemned it and demanded a full withdrawal.

The International Court of Justice ordered Russia to suspend military operations and the Council of Europe expelled Russia. Many countries imposed new sanctions, which have affected the economies of Russia and the world, and provided humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine. 

Protests occurred around the world; those in Russia have been met with mass arrests and increased media censorship, including banning the terms "war" and "invasion".

Numerous companies withdrew their products and services from Russia and Belarus, and Russian state-funded media were banned from broadcasting and removed from online platforms.

The International Criminal Court opened an investigation into allegations of Russian military war crimes in Ukraine.
​
Click on any of the following blue hyperlinks for more about the 2022 Invasion of Ukraine by Russia:

​





War vs. Proxy WarsPictured below: Essential Question How did the tension of the Cold War play out in proxy wars? (see 42 slides)
WAR:

War is an intense armed conflict between states, governments, societies, or paramilitary groups such as mercenaries, insurgents, and militias. It is generally characterized by extreme violence, aggression, destruction, and mortality, using regular or irregular military forces. 

Warfare refers to the common activities and characteristics of types of war, or of wars in general. Total war is warfare that is not restricted to purely legitimate military targets, and can result in massive civilian or other non-combatant suffering and casualties.
While some war studies scholars consider war a universal and ancestral aspect of human nature, others argue it is a result of specific socio-cultural, economic or ecological circumstances.

The English word war derives from the 11th-century Old English words wyrre and werre, from Old French werre (also guerre as in modern French), in turn from the Frankish *werra, ultimately deriving from the Proto-Germanic *werzō 'mixture, confusion'. The word is related to the Old Saxon werran, Old High German werran, and the German verwirren, meaning "to confuse", "to perplex", and "to bring into confusion".

History:
Main article: Military history

The earliest evidence of prehistoric warfare is a Mesolithic cemetery in Jebel Sahaba, which has been determined to be approximately 14,000 years old. About forty-five percent of the skeletons there displayed signs of violent death. 

Since the rise of the state some 5,000 years ago, military activity has occurred over much of the globe. The advent of gunpowder and the acceleration of technological advances led to modern warfare. According to Conway W. Henderson, "One source claims that 14,500 wars have taken place between 3500 BC and the late 20th century, costing 3.5 billion lives, leaving only 300 years of peace (Beer 1981: 20)." 

An unfavorable review of this estimate mentions the following regarding one of the proponents of this estimate: "In addition, perhaps feeling that the war casualties figure was improbably high, he changed 'approximately 3,640,000,000 human beings have been killed by war or the diseases produced by war' to 'approximately 1,240,000,000 human beings...&c.'"

The lower figure is more plausible, but could still be on the high side considering that the 100 deadliest acts of mass violence between 480 BC and 2002 AD (wars and other man-made disasters with at least 300,000 and up to 66 million victims) claimed about 455 million human lives in total. 

Primitive warfare is estimated to have accounted for 15.1% of deaths and claimed 400 million victims. Added to the aforementioned figure of 1,240 million between 3500 BC and the late 20th century, this would mean a total of 1,640,000,000 people killed by war (including deaths from famine and disease caused by war) throughout the history and pre-history of mankind. For comparison, an estimated 1,680,000,000 people died from infectious diseases in the 20th century.

In War Before Civilization, Lawrence H. Keeley, a professor at the University of Illinois, says approximately 90–95% of known societies throughout history engaged in at least occasional warfare, and many fought constantly.

Keeley describes several styles of primitive combat such as small raids, large raids, and massacres. All of these forms of warfare were used by primitive societies, a finding supported by other researchers. Keeley explains that early war raids were not well organized, as the participants did not have any formal training. Scarcity of resources meant defensive works were not a cost-effective way to protect the society against enemy raids.

​William Rubinstein wrote "Pre-literate societies, even those organised in a relatively advanced way, were renowned for their studied cruelty...'archaeology yields evidence of prehistoric massacres more severe than any recounted in ethnography [i.e., after the coming of the Europeans].'"

In Western Europe, since the late 18th century, more than 150 conflicts and about 600 battles have taken place. During the 20th century, war resulted in a dramatic intensification of the pace of social changes, and was a crucial catalyst for the emergence of the political Left as a force to be reckoned with.

In 1947, in view of the rapidly increasingly destructive consequences of modern warfare, and with a particular concern for the consequences and costs of the newly developed atom bomb, Albert Einstein famously stated, "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

Mao Zedong urged the socialist camp not to fear nuclear war with the United States since, even if "half of mankind died, the other half would remain while imperialism would be razed to the ground and the whole world would become socialist."

A distinctive feature of war since 1945 is the absence of wars between major powers—indeed the near absence of any traditional wars between established countries. The major exceptions were the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, the Iran–Iraq War 1980–1988, and the Gulf War of 1990–91. Instead, combat has largely been a matter of civil wars and insurgencies.

The Human Security Report 2005 documented a significant decline in the number and severity of armed conflicts since the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s (see below). However, the evidence examined in the 2008 edition of the Center for International Development and Conflict Management's "Peace and Conflict" study indicated the overall decline in conflicts had stalled.

Types of warfare:
Main article: Types of war
​
  • Asymmetric warfare is a conflict between belligerents of drastically different levels of military capability or size.
  • Biological warfare, or germ warfare, is the use of weaponized biological toxins or infectious agents such as bacteria, viruses, and fungi.
  • Chemical warfare involves the use of weaponized chemicals in combat. Poison gas as a chemical weapon was principally used during World War I, and resulted in over a million estimated casualties, including more than 100,000 civilians.
  • Cold warfare is an intense international rivalry without direct military conflict, but with a sustained threat of it, including high levels of military preparations, expenditures, and development, and may involve active conflicts by indirect means, such as economic warfare, political warfare, covert operations, espionage, cyberwarfare, or proxy wars.
  • Conventional warfare is declared war between states in which nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons are not used or see limited deployment.
  • Cyberwarfare involves the actions by a nation-state or international organization to attack and attempt to damage another nation's information systems.
  • Insurgency is a rebellion against authority, when those taking part in the rebellion are not recognized as belligerents (lawful combatants). An insurgency can be fought via counterinsurgency, and may also be opposed by measures to protect the population, and by political and economic actions of various kinds aimed at undermining the insurgents' claims against the incumbent regime.
  • Information warfare is the application of destructive force on a large scale against information assets and systems, against the computers and networks that support the four critical infrastructures (the power grid, communications, financial, and transportation).
  • Nuclear warfare is warfare in which nuclear weapons are the primary, or a major, method of achieving capitulation.
  • Total war is warfare by any means possible, disregarding the laws of war, placing no limits on legitimate military targets, using weapons and tactics resulting in significant civilian casualties, or demanding a war effort requiring significant sacrifices by the friendly civilian population.
  • Unconventional warfare, the opposite of conventional warfare, is an attempt to achieve military victory through acquiescence, capitulation, or clandestine support for one side of an existing conflict.

Aims:

Entities contemplating going to war and entities considering whether to end a war may formulate war aims as an evaluation/propaganda tool. War aims may stand as a proxy for national-military resolve.

Definition:

Fried defines war aims as "the desired territorial, economic, military or other benefits expected following successful conclusion of a war".

Classification:

Tangible/intangible aims:
  • Tangible war aims may involve (for example) the acquisition of territory (as in the German goal of Lebensraum in the first half of the 20th century) or the recognition of economic concessions (as in the Anglo-Dutch Wars).
  • Intangible war aims – like the accumulation of credibility or reputation – may have more tangible expression ("conquest restores prestige, annexation increases power").

Explicit/implicit aims:
  • Explicit war aims may involve published policy decisions.
  • Implicit war aims can take the form of minutes of discussion, memoranda and instructions.

Positive/negative aims:
  • "Positive war aims" cover tangible outcomes.
  • "Negative war aims" forestall or prevent undesired outcomes.

War aims can change in the course of conflict and may eventually morph into "peace conditions" – the minimal conditions under which a state may cease to wage a particular war.

Effects:
​​Main article: Effects of war

Military and civilian casualties in recent human history:

​​Throughout the course of human history, the average number of people dying from war has fluctuated relatively little, being about 1 to 10 people dying per 100,000. However, major wars over shorter periods have resulted in much higher casualty rates, with 100-200 casualties per 100,000 over a few years.

While conventional wisdom holds that casualties have increased in recent times due to technological improvements in warfare, this is not generally true. For instance, the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648) had about the same number of casualties per capita as World War I, although it was higher during World War II (WWII). That said, overall the number of casualties from war has not significantly increased in recent times. Quite to the contrary, on a global scale the time since WWII has been unusually peaceful.

Largest by death toll:
Main articles:
The deadliest war in history, in terms of the cumulative number of deaths since its start, is World War II, from 1939 to 1945, with 60–85 million deaths, followed by the Mongol conquests at up to 60 million.

As concerns a belligerent's losses in proportion to its prewar population, the most destructive war in modern history may have been the Paraguayan War (see Paraguayan War casualties).

In 2013 war resulted in 31,000 deaths, down from 72,000 deaths in 1990. In 2003, Richard Smalley identified war as the sixth biggest problem (of ten) facing humanity for the next fifty years. War usually results in significant deterioration of infrastructure and the ecosystem, a decrease in social spending, famine, large-scale emigration from the war zone, and often the mistreatment of prisoners of war or civilians. 

For instance, of the nine million people who were on the territory of the Byelorussian SSR in 1941, some 1.6 million were killed by the Germans in actions away from battlefields, including about 700,000 prisoners of war, 500,000 Jews, and 320,000 people counted as partisans (the vast majority of whom were unarmed civilians). Another byproduct of some wars is the prevalence of propaganda by some or all parties in the conflict, and increased revenues by weapons manufacturers.

Three of the ten most costly wars, in terms of loss of life, have been waged in the last century. These are the two World Wars, followed by the Second Sino-Japanese War (which is sometimes considered part of World War II, or as overlapping).

​Most of the others involved China or neighboring peoples. The death toll of World War II, being over 60 million, surpasses all other war-death-tolls:
 On military personnel:

Military personnel subject to combat in war often suffer mental and physical injuries, including depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, disease, injury, and death.

In every war in which American soldiers have fought in, the chances of becoming a psychiatric casualty – of being debilitated for some period of time as a consequence of the stresses of military life – were greater than the chances of being killed by enemy fire.
— No More Heroes, Richard Gabriel

Swank and Marchand's World War II study found that after sixty days of continuous combat, 98% of all surviving military personnel will become psychiatric casualties. Psychiatric casualties manifest themselves in fatigue cases, confused states, conversion hysteria, anxiety, obsessional and compulsive states, and character disorders.

One-tenth of mobilized American men were hospitalized for mental disturbances between 1942 and 1945, and after thirty-five days of uninterrupted combat, 98% of them manifested psychiatric disturbances in varying degrees.
— 14–18: Understanding the Great War, Stéphane Audoin-Rouzeau, Annette Becker.

Additionally, it has been estimated anywhere from 18% to 54% of Vietnam war veterans suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder.

​Based on 1860 census figures, 8% of all white American males aged 13 to 43 died in the American Civil War, including about 6% in the North and approximately 18% in the South. 

The war remains the deadliest conflict in American history, resulting in the deaths of 620,000 military personnel. United States military casualties of war since 1775 have totaled over two million. Of the 60 million European military personnel who were mobilized in World War I, 8 million were killed, 7 million were permanently disabled, and 15 million were seriously injured.

During Napoleon's retreat from Moscow, more French military personnel died of typhus than were killed by the Russians. Of the 450,000 soldiers who crossed the Neman on 25 June 1812, less than 40,000 returned. More military personnel were killed from 1500 to 1914 by typhus than from military action. 

In addition, if it were not for modern medical advances there would be thousands more dead from disease and infection. For instance, during the Seven Years' War, the Royal Navy reported it conscripted 184,899 sailors, of whom 133,708 (72%) died of disease or were 'missing'.

It is estimated that between 1985 and 1994, 378,000 people per year died due to war.

On civilians:
See also: Civilian casualties

​Most wars have resulted in significant loss of life, along with destruction of infrastructure and resources (which may lead to famine, disease, and death in the civilian population).

During the Thirty Years' War in Europe, the population of the Holy Roman Empire was reduced by 15 to 40 percent. Civilians in war zones may also be subject to war atrocities such as genocide, while survivors may suffer the psychological aftereffects of witnessing the destruction of war.

War also results in lower quality of life and worse health outcomes. A medium-sized conflict with about 2,500 battle deaths reduces civilian life expectancy by one year and increases infant mortality by 10% and malnutrition by 3.3%. Additionally, about 1.8% of the population loses access to drinking water.

Most estimates of World War II casualties indicate around 60 million people died, 40 million of whom were civilians. Deaths in the Soviet Union were around 27 million. Since a high proportion of those killed were young men who had not yet fathered any children, population growth in the postwar Soviet Union was much lower than it otherwise would have been.

Economic:
See also: Military Keynesianism

Once a war has ended, losing nations are sometimes required to pay war reparations to the victorious nations. In certain cases, land is ceded to the victorious nations. For example, the territory of Alsace-Lorraine has been traded between France and Germany on three different occasions.

Typically, war becomes intertwined with the economy and many wars are partially or entirely based on economic reasons.

Some economists believe war can stimulate a country's economy (high government spending for World War II is often credited with bringing the U.S. out of the Great Depression by most Keynesian economists), but in many cases, such as the wars of Louis XIV, the Franco-Prussian War, and World War I, warfare primarily results in damage to the economy of the countries involved.

For example, Russia's involvement in World War I took such a toll on the Russian economy that it almost collapsed and greatly contributed to the start of the Russian Revolution of 1917.

​World War II:

World War II was the most financially costly conflict in history; its belligerents cumulatively spent about a trillion U.S. dollars on the war effort (as adjusted to 1940 prices). The Great Depression of the 1930s ended as nations increased their production of war materials.

By the end of the war, 70% of European industrial infrastructure was destroyed. Property damage in the Soviet Union inflicted by the Axis invasion was estimated at a value of 679 billion rubles.

The combined damage consisted of complete or partial destruction of 1,710 cities and towns, 70,000 villages/hamlets, 2,508 church buildings, 31,850 industrial establishments, 40,000 mi (64,374 km) of railroad, 4100 railroad stations, 40,000 hospitals, 84,000 schools, and 43,000 public libraries.

Theories of motivation:
Main article: International relations theory

There are many theories about the motivations for war, but no consensus about which are most common. Carl von Clausewitz said, 'Every age has its own kind of war, its own limiting conditions, and its own peculiar preconceptions.'

Psychoanalytic:

Dutch psychoanalyst Joost Meerloo held that, "War is often...a mass discharge of accumulated internal rage (where)...the inner fears of mankind are discharged in mass destruction."

Other psychoanalysts such as E.F.M. Durban and John Bowlby have argued human beings are inherently violent. This aggressiveness is fueled by displacement and projection where a person transfers his or her grievances into bias and hatred against other races, religions, nations or ideologies. By this theory, the nation state preserves order in the local society while creating an outlet for aggression through warfare.

The Italian psychoanalyst Franco Fornari, a follower of Melanie Klein, thought war was the paranoid or projective "elaboration" of mourning. Fornari thought war and violence develop out of our "love need": our wish to preserve and defend the sacred object to which we are attached, namely our early mother and our fusion with her.

For the adult, nations are the sacred objects that generate warfare. Fornari focused upon sacrifice as the essence of war: the astonishing willingness of human beings to die for their country, to give over their bodies to their nation.

Despite Fornari's theory that man's altruistic desire for self-sacrifice for a noble cause is a contributing factor towards war, few wars have originated from a desire for war among the general populace. Far more often the general population has been reluctantly drawn into war by its rulers.

One psychological theory that looks at the leaders is advanced by Maurice Walsh. He argues the general populace is more neutral towards war and wars occur when leaders with a psychologically abnormal disregard for human life are placed into power. War is caused by leaders who seek war such as Napoleon and Hitler. Such leaders most often come to power in times of crisis when the populace opts for a decisive leader, who then leads the nation to war.

Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ... the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.

"That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." -- Hermann Göring at the Nuremberg trials, 18 April 1946.

Evolutionary:
See also: Prehistoric warfare

Several theories concern the evolutionary origins of warfare. There are two main schools:
  • One sees organized warfare as emerging in or after the Mesolithic as a result of complex social organization and greater population density and competition over resources;
  • the other sees human warfare as a more ancient practice derived from common animal tendencies, such as territoriality and sexual competition.

The latter school argues that since warlike behavior patterns are found in many primate species such as chimpanzees, as well as in many ant species, group conflict may be a general feature of animal social behavior. Some proponents of the idea argue that war, while innate, has been intensified greatly by developments of technology and social organization such as weaponry and states.

Psychologist and linguist Steven Pinker argued that war-related behaviors may have been naturally selected in the ancestral environment due to the benefits of victory. He also argued that in order to have credible deterrence against other groups (as well as on an individual level), it was important to have a reputation for retaliation, causing humans to develop instincts for revenge as well as for protecting a group's (or an individual's) reputation ("honor").

​Crofoot and Wrangham have argued that warfare, if defined as group interactions in which "coalitions attempt to aggressively dominate or kill members of other groups", is a characteristic of most human societies. Those in which it has been lacking "tend to be societies that were politically dominated by their neighbors".

Ashley Montagu strongly denied universalistic instinctual arguments, arguing that social factors and childhood socialization are important in determining the nature and presence of warfare. Thus, he argues, warfare is not a universal human occurrence and appears to have been a historical invention, associated with certain types of human societies. 

​Montagu's argument is supported by ethnographic research conducted in societies where the concept of aggression seems to be entirely absent, e.g. the Chewong and Semai of the Malay peninsula. Bobbi S. Low has observed correlation between warfare and education, noting societies where warfare is commonplace encourage their children to be more aggressive.

Economic:
See also: Resource war

War can be seen as a growth of economic competition in a competitive international system. In this view wars begin as a pursuit of markets for natural resources and for wealth. War has also been linked to economic development by economic historians and development economists studying state-building and fiscal capacity. 

While this theory has been applied to many conflicts, such counter arguments become less valid as the increasing mobility of capital and information level the distributions of wealth worldwide, or when considering that it is relative, not absolute, wealth differences that may fuel wars.

There are those on the extreme right of the political spectrum who provide support, fascists in particular, by asserting a natural right of a strong nation to whatever the weak cannot hold by force. Some centrist, capitalist, world leaders, including Presidents of the United States and U.S. Generals, expressed support for an economic view of war.

Marxist:
Main article: Marxist explanations of warfare

The Marxist theory of war is quasi-economic in that it states all modern wars are caused by competition for resources and markets between great (imperialist) powers, claiming these wars are a natural result of capitalism.

Marxist economists Karl Kautsky, Rosa Luxemburg, Rudolf Hilferding and Vladimir Lenin theorized that imperialism was the result of capitalist countries needing new markets. Expansion of the means of production is only possible if there is a corresponding growth in consumer demand.

Since the workers in a capitalist economy would be unable to fill the demand, producers must expand into non-capitalist markets to find consumers for their goods, hence driving imperialism.

Demographic:

Demographic theories can be grouped into two classes, Malthusian and youth bulge theories:

​Malthusian theories see expanding population and scarce resources as a source of violent conflict. Pope Urban II in 1095, on the eve of the First Crusade, advocating Crusade as a solution to European overpopulation, said:

For this land which you now inhabit, shut in on all sides by the sea and the mountain peaks, is too narrow for your large population; it scarcely furnishes food enough for its cultivators. Hence it is that you murder and devour one another, that you wage wars, and that many among you perish in civil strife. Let hatred, therefore, depart from among you; let your quarrels end. Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulchre; wrest that land from a wicked race, and subject it to yourselves.

This is one of the earliest expressions of what has come to be called the Malthusian theory of war, in which wars are caused by expanding populations and limited resources. Thomas Malthus (1766–1834) wrote that populations always increase until they are limited by war, disease, or famine.

The violent herder–farmer conflicts in Nigeria, Mali, Sudan and other countries in the Sahel region have been exacerbated by land degradation and population growth.

​Youth bulge theories: According to Heinsohn, who proposed youth bulge theory in its most generalized form, a youth bulge occurs when 30 to 40 percent of the males of a nation belong to the "fighting age" cohorts from 15 to 29 years of age. It will follow periods with total fertility rates as high as 4–8 children per woman with a 15–29-year delay.

Heinsohn saw both past "Christianist" European colonialism and imperialism, as well as today's Islamist civil unrest and terrorism as results of high birth rates producing youth bulges. 

Among prominent historical events that have been attributed to youth bulges are the role played by the historically large youth cohorts in the rebellion and revolution waves of early modern Europe, including the French Revolution of 1789, and the effect of economic depression upon the largest German youth cohorts ever in explaining the rise of Nazism in Germany in the 1930s. The 1994 Rwandan genocide has also been analyzed as following a massive youth bulge.

Youth bulge theory has been subjected to statistical analysis by the World Bank, Population Action International, and the Berlin Institute for Population and Development. Youth bulge theories have been criticized as leading to racial, gender and age discrimination.

​Cultural:

Geoffrey Parker argues that what distinguishes the "Western way of war" based in Western Europe chiefly allows historians to explain its extraordinary success in conquering most of the world after 1500:

The Western way of war rests upon five principal foundations: technology, discipline, a highly aggressive military tradition, a remarkable capacity to innovate and to respond rapidly to the innovation of others and—from about 1500 onward—a unique system of war finance.

The combination of all five provided a formula for military success....The outcome of wars has been determined less by technology, then by better war plans, the achievement of surprise, greater economic strength, and above all superior discipline. 

Parker argues that Western armies were stronger because they emphasized discipline, that is, "the ability of a formation to stand fast in the face of the enemy, where they're attacking or being attacked, without giving way to the natural impulse of fear and panic." Discipline came from drills and marching in formation, target practice, and creating small "artificial kinship groups: such as the company and the platoon, to enhance psychological cohesion and combat efficiency.

Rationalist:

Rationalism is an international relations theory or framework. Rationalism (and Neorealism (international relations)) operate under the assumption that states or international actors are rational, seek the best possible outcomes for themselves, and desire to avoid the costs of war. 

Under one game theory approach, rationalist theories posit all actors can bargain, would be better off if war did not occur, and likewise seek to understand why war nonetheless reoccurs. Under another rationalist game theory without bargaining, the peace war game, optimal strategies can still be found that depend upon number of iterations played.

In "Rationalist Explanations for War", James Fearon examined three rationalist explanations for why some countries engage in war: "Issue indivisibility" occurs when the two parties cannot avoid war by bargaining, because the thing over which they are fighting cannot be shared between them, but only owned entirely by one side or the other.

​"Information asymmetry with incentives to misrepresent" occurs when two countries have secrets about their individual capabilities, and do not agree on either: who would win a war between them, or the magnitude of state's victory or loss.

For instance, Geoffrey Blainey argues that war is a result of miscalculation of strength. He cites historical examples of war and demonstrates, "war is usually the outcome of a diplomatic crisis which cannot be solved because both sides have conflicting estimates of their bargaining power." Thirdly, bargaining may fail due to the states' inability to make credible commitments.

Within the rationalist tradition, some theorists have suggested that individuals engaged in war suffer a normal level of cognitive bias, but are still "as rational as you and me".

According to philosopher Iain King, "Most instigators of conflict overrate their chances of success, while most participants underrate their chances of injury...." King asserts that "Most catastrophic military decisions are rooted in GroupThink" which is faulty, but still rational.

The rationalist theory focused around bargaining is currently under debate. The Iraq War proved to be an anomaly that undercuts the validity of applying rationalist theory to some wars.

Political science:

The statistical analysis of war was pioneered by Lewis Fry Richardson following World War I. More recent databases of wars and armed conflict have been assembled by the Correlates of War Project, Peter Brecke and the Uppsala Conflict Data Program.

The following subsections consider causes of war from system, societal, and individual levels of analysis. This kind of division was first proposed by Kenneth Waltz in Man, the State, and War and has been often used by political scientists since then.

System-level: There are several different international relations theory schools. Supporters of realism in international relations argue that the motivation of states is the quest for security, and conflicts can arise from the inability to distinguish defense from offense, which is called the security dilemma.

Within the realist school as represented by scholars such as Henry Kissinger and Hans Morgenthau, and the neorealist school represented by scholars such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, two main sub-theories are:

  1. Balance of power theory: States have the goal of preventing a single state from becoming a hegemon, and war is the result of the would-be hegemon's persistent attempts at power acquisition. In this view, an international system with more equal distribution of power is more stable, and "movements toward unipolarity are destabilizing." However, evidence has shown power polarity is not actually a major factor in the occurrence of wars. 
  2. Power transition theory: Hegemons impose stabilizing conditions on the world order, but they eventually decline, and war occurs when a declining hegemon is challenged by another rising power or aims to preemptively suppress them. On this view, unlike for balance-of-power theory, wars become more probable when power is more equally distributed. This "power preponderance" hypothesis has empirical support.

The two theories are not mutually exclusive and may be used to explain disparate events according to the circumstance.

Liberalism as it relates to international relations emphasizes factors such as trade, and its role in disincentivizing conflict which will damage economic relations.

Realists respond that military force may sometimes be at least as effective as trade at achieving economic benefits, especially historically if not as much today. 

​Furthermore, trade relations which result in a high level of dependency may escalate tensions and lead to conflict. Empirical data on the relationship of trade to peace are mixed, and moreover, some evidence suggests countries at war don't necessarily trade less with each other.

Societal-level:

  • Diversionary theory, also known as the "scapegoat hypothesis", suggests the politically powerful may use war to as a diversion or to rally domestic popular support. This is supported by literature showing out-group hostility enhances in-group bonding, and a significant domestic "rally effect" has been demonstrated when conflicts begin. However, studies examining the increased use of force as a function of need for internal political support are more mixed. U.S. war-time presidential popularity surveys taken during the presidencies of several recent U.S. leaders have supported diversionary theory.

Individual-level:

These theories suggest differences in people's personalities, decision-making, emotions, belief systems, and biases are important in determining whether conflicts get out of hand.  For instance, it has been proposed that conflict is modulated by bounded rationality and various cognitive biases, such as prospect theory.

Ethics:

The morality of war has been the subject of debate for thousands of years.
The two principal aspects of ethics in war, according to the just war theory, are jus ad bellum and jus in bello.

Jus ad bellum (right to war), dictates which unfriendly acts and circumstances justify a proper authority in declaring war on another nation. There are six main criteria for the declaration of a just war:
  1. any just war must be declared by a lawful authority;
  2. it must be a just and righteous cause, with sufficient gravity to merit large-scale violence;
  3. the just belligerent must have rightful intentions – namely, that they seek to advance good and curtail evil;
  4. a just belligerent must have a reasonable chance of success;
  5. the war must be a last resort;
  6. and sixth, the ends being sought must be proportional to means being used.

Jus in bello (right in war), is the set of ethical rules when conducting war. The two main principles are proportionality and discrimination. Proportionality regards how much force is necessary and morally appropriate to the ends being sought and the injustice suffered. 

The principle of discrimination determines who are the legitimate targets in a war, and specifically makes a separation between combatants, who it is permissible to kill, and non-combatants, who it is not. Failure to follow these rules can result in the loss of legitimacy for the just-war-belligerent.

The just war theory was foundational in the creation of the United Nations and in international law's regulations on legitimate war.

Fascism, and the ideals it encompasses, such as Pragmatism, racism, and social Darwinism, hold that violence is good. 

Pragmatism holds that war and violence can be good if it serves the ends of the people, without regard for universal morality.

Racism holds that violence is good so that a master race can be established, or to purge an inferior race from the earth, or both.

Social Darwinism asserts that violence is sometimes necessary to weed the unfit from society so civilization can flourish.

​These are broad archetypes for the general position that the ends justify the means. Lewis Coser, U.S. conflict theorist and sociologist, argued conflict provides a function and a process whereby a succession of new equilibriums are created. Thus, the struggle of opposing forces, rather than being disruptive, may be a means of balancing and maintaining a social structure or society.

Limiting and stopping​:
​Main article: Anti-war movement

Religious groups have long formally opposed or sought to limit war as in the Second Vatican Council document Gaudiem et Spes: "Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities of extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation."

Anti-war movements have existed for every major war in the 20th century, including, most prominently, World War I, World War II, and the Vietnam War.

In the 21st century, worldwide anti-war movements occurred in response to the United States invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Protests opposing the War in Afghanistan occurred in Europe, Asia, and the United States.

Pauses:

During a war, brief pauses of violence may be called for, and further agreed to— ceasefire, temporary cessation, humanitarian pauses and corridors, days of tranquility, de-confliction arrangements. 

There a number of disadvantages, obstacles and hesitations against implementing such pauses such as a humanitarian corridor.

Pauses in conflict are also ill-advised; reasons such as "delay of defeat" and the "weakening of credibility". Natural causes for a pause may include events such as the 2019 coronavirus pandemic.

See also ___________________________________________________________________________
​
Proxy War:

A proxy war is an armed conflict between two states or non-state actors which act on the instigation or on behalf of other parties that are not directly involved in the hostilities. 

In order for a conflict to be considered a proxy war, there must be a direct, long-term relationship between external actors and the belligerents involved. The aforementioned relationship usually takes the form of funding, military training, arms, or other forms of material assistance which assist a belligerent party in sustaining its war effort.

History:

During classical antiquity and the Middle Ages, many non-state proxies were external parties that were introduced to an internal conflict and aligned themselves with a belligerent to gain influence and to further their own interests in the region. 

Proxies could be introduced by an external or local power and most commonly took the form of irregular armies which were used to achieve their sponsor's goals in a contested region. 

Some medieval states like the Byzantine Empire used proxy warfare as a foreign policy tool by deliberately cultivating intrigue among hostile rivals and then backing them when they went to war with each other. 

Other states regarded proxy wars as merely a useful extension of a pre-existing conflict, such as France and England during the Hundred Years' War, both of which initiated a longstanding practice of supporting privateers, which targeted the other's merchant shipping. France used England's turmoil of the Wars of the Roses from their victory as a proxy against the Burgundian State.

The Ottoman Empire likewise used the Barbary pirates as proxies to harass Western European powers in the Mediterranean Sea.

‌Frequent application of the term "proxy war" indicates its prominent place in academic researches on international relations. Separate implementation of soft power and hard power proved to be unsuccessful in recent years. Accordingly, great failures in classic wars increased tendencies towards proxy wars. 

Since the early 20th century, proxy wars have most commonly taken the form of states assuming the role of sponsors to non-state proxies and essentially using them as fifth columns to undermine adversarial powers. 

That type of proxy warfare includes external support for a faction engaged in a civil war, terrorists, national liberation movements, and insurgent groups, or assistance to a national revolt against foreign occupation. 

For example, the British government partially organized and instigated the Arab Revolt to undermine the Ottoman Empire during the First World War. Many proxy wars began assuming a distinctive ideological dimension after the Spanish Civil War, which pitted the fascist political ideology of Italy and National Socialist ideology of Nazi Germany against the communist ideology of the Soviet Union without involving these states in open warfare with each other. 

Sponsors of both sides also used the Spanish conflict as a proving ground for their own weapons and battlefield tactics.

During the Cold War, proxy warfare was motivated by fears that a conventional war between the United States and the Soviet Union would result in nuclear holocaust, which rendered the use of ideological proxies a safer way of exercising hostilities. 

The Soviet government found that supporting parties antagonistic to Americans and other Western nations to be a cost-effective way to combat NATO's influence, compared to direct military engagement. 

Besides, the proliferation of televised media and its impact on public perception made the US public especially susceptible to war-weariness and skeptical of risking life abroad. That encouraged the American practice of arming insurgent forces, such as the funneling of supplies to the mujahideen during the Soviet–Afghan War. 

Other examples of proxy war are Korea War and Vietnam War.

Abstract:

A significant disparity in the belligerents' conventional military strength may motivate the weaker party to begin or continue a conflict through allied nations or non-state actors. Such a situation arose during the Arab–Israeli conflict, which continued as a series of proxy wars following Israel's decisive defeat of the Arab coalitions in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, the Six-Day War and the Yom Kippur War.

The coalition members, upon their failure to achieve military dominance via direct conventional warfare, have since resorted to funding armed insurgent and paramilitary organizations, such as Hezbollah, to engage in irregular combat against Israel.

The Iran–Israel proxy conflict involves threats and hostility by Iran's leaders against Israel.
Additionally, the governments of some nations, particularly liberal democracies, may choose to engage in proxy warfare (despite their military superiority) if most of their citizens oppose declaring or entering a conventional war. 

That featured prominently in US strategy following the Vietnam War because of the so-called "Vietnam Syndrome" of extreme war weariness among the American population.

That was also a significant factor in motivating the US to enter conflicts such as the Syrian Civil War by proxy actors after a series of costly drawn-out direct engagements in the Middle East spurred a recurrence of war weariness, the "War on Terror syndrome."

Nations may also resort to proxy warfare to avoid potential negative international reactions from allied nations, profitable trading partners, or intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations. That is especially significant when standing peace treaties, acts of the alliance or other international agreements ostensibly forbid direct warfare.

​Breaking such agreements could lead to a variety of negative consequences due to either negative international reaction (see above), punitive provisions listed in the prior agreement, or retaliatory action by the other parties and their allies.

​In some cases, nations may be motivated to engage in proxy warfare because of financial concerns: supporting irregular troops, insurgents, non-state actors, or less-advanced allied militaries (often with obsolete or surplus equipment) can be significantly cheaper than deploying national armed forces, and the proxies usually bear the brunt of casualties and economic damage resulting from prolonged conflict.

Another common motivating factor is the existence of a security dilemma. A nation may use military intervention to install a more favorable government in a third-party state. Rival nations may perceive the intervention as a weakened position to their own security and may respond by attempting to undermine such efforts, often by backing parties favorable to their own interests (such as those directly or indirectly under their control, sympathetic to their cause, or ideologically aligned).

In that case, if one or both rivals come to believe that their favored faction is at a disadvantage, they will often respond by escalating military and/or financial support. 

If their counterpart(s), perceiving a material threat or desiring to avoid the appearance of weakness or defeat, follow suit, a proxy war ensues between the two powers. That was a major factor in many of the proxy wars during the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, as well as in the ongoing series of conflicts between Saudi Arabia and Iran, especially in Yemen and Syria.

Effects:

​Proxy wars can have a huge impact, especially on the local area. A proxy war with significant effects occurred between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Vietnam War.

In particular, the bombing campaign Operation Rolling Thunder destroyed significant amounts of infrastructure, making life more difficult for the North Vietnamese.

Also, unexploded bombs dropped during the campaign have killed tens of thousands since the war ended not only in Vietnam but also in Cambodia and Laos. 

Also significant was the Soviet–Afghan War (see Operation Cyclone), which cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars, bankrupting the Soviet Union and contributing to its collapse.

The conflict in the Middle East between Saudi Arabia and Iran is another example of the destructive impact of proxy wars. The conflict, in conjunction with US-led invasions and interventions as part of the War on Terror, has contributed to, among other things, the Syrian Civil War, the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, the current civil war in Yemen, and the re-emergence of the Taliban.

Since 2003, nearly 500,000 have died in Iraq. Since 2011, more than 500,000 have died in Syria. In Yemen, over 1,000 have died in just one month. In Afghanistan, more than 17,000 have been killed since 2009. In Pakistan, more than 57,000 have been killed since 2003.

In general, lengths, intensities, and scales of armed conflicts are often greatly increased if belligerents' capabilities are augmented by external support. Belligerents are often less likely to engage in diplomatic negotiations, peace talks are less likely to bear fruit, and damage to infrastructure can be many times greater.

See also: ​Example Proxy Wars:







The Cold War Pictured below: Global Map identifying countries as NATO, Other Allies of the United States, Warsaw Pact, Socialist Countries aligned with the Soviet Union, Non-aligned nations, Communist Guerillas and Non-Communist Guerillas
Cold War

The Cold War was a period of geopolitical tension between the United States and the Soviet Union and their respective allies, the Western Bloc and the Eastern Bloc, which began following World War II. Historians do not fully agree on its starting and ending points, but the period is generally considered to span the 1947 Truman Doctrine (12 March 1947) to the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union (26 December 1991). 

The term cold war is used because there was no large-scale fighting directly between the two superpowers, but they each supported major regional conflicts known as proxy wars. The conflict was based around the ideological and geopolitical struggle for global influence by these two superpowers, following their temporary alliance and victory against Nazi Germany in 1945. 

Aside from the nuclear arsenal development and conventional military deployment, the struggle for dominance was expressed via indirect means such as:
The Western Bloc was led by the United States as well as the other First World nations of the Western Bloc that were generally liberal democratic but tied to a network of the authoritarian states, most of which were their former colonies. 

The Eastern Bloc was led by the Soviet Union and its Communist Party, which had an influence across the Second World and was also tied to a network of authoritarian states.

The US government supported anti-communist governments and uprisings across the world, while the Soviet government funded left-wing parties and revolutions around the world. As nearly all the colonial states achieved independence in the period 1945–1960, they became Third World battlefields in the Cold War.

The first phase of the Cold War began shortly after the end of the Second World War in 1945. The United States and its allies created the NATO military alliance in 1949 in the apprehension of a Soviet attack and termed their global policy against Soviet influence containment. The Soviet Union formed the Warsaw Pact in 1955 in response to NATO.

Major crises of this phase included:
The US and the USSR competed for influence in Latin America, the Middle East, and the decolonizing states of Africa, Asia, and Oceania.

Following the Cuban Missile Crisis, a new phase began that saw the Sino-Soviet split between China and the Soviet Union complicate relations within the Communist sphere, while France, a Western Bloc state, began to demand greater autonomy of action.

The USSR invaded Czechoslovakia to suppress the 1968 Prague Spring, while the US experienced internal turmoil from the civil rights movement and opposition to the Vietnam War. In the 1960s–1970s, an international peace movement took root among citizens around the world. Movements against nuclear weapons testing and for nuclear disarmament took place, with large anti-war protests.

By the 1970s, both sides had started making allowances for peace and security, ushering in a period of détente that saw the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks and the US opening relations with the People's Republic of China as a strategic counterweight to the USSR.

A number of self-proclaimed Marxist governments were formed in the second half of the 1970s in the Third World,  including 
Détente collapsed at the end of the decade with the beginning of the Soviet–Afghan War in 1979. The early 1980s was another period of elevated tension. The United States increased diplomatic, military, and economic pressures on the Soviet Union, at a time when it was already suffering from economic stagnation. 

In the mid-1980s, the new Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev introduced the liberalizing reforms of glasnost ("openness", c. 1985) and perestroika ("reorganization", 1987) and ended Soviet involvement in Afghanistan in 1989.

Pressures for national sovereignty grew stronger in Eastern Europe, and Gorbachev refused to militarily support their governments any longer.

In 1989, the fall of the Iron Curtain after the Pan-European Picnic and a peaceful wave of revolutions (with the exception of Romania and Afghanistan) overthrew almost all communist governments of the Eastern Bloc.

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union itself lost control in the Soviet Union and was banned following an abortive coup attempt in August 1991. This in turn led to the formal dissolution of the USSR in December 1991, the declaration of independence of its constituent republics and the collapse of communist governments across much of Africa and Asia. The United States was left as the world's sole superpower.

The Cold War and its events have left a significant legacy. It is often referred to in popular culture, especially with themes of espionage and the threat of nuclear warfare. For subsequent history, see International relations since 1989.

Click on any of the following blue hyperlinks for more about the Cold War:







​The War on Terror Pictured: ​Photographs, clockwise from top left: Aftermath of the September 11 attacks; American servicemen boarding an aircraft at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan; an American soldier and Afghan interpreter in Zabul Province, Afghanistan; explosion of an Iraqi car bomb in Baghdad.
Map: Countries with major military operations of the war on terror.
The Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), popularly known as the war on terror, is the term that refers to an ongoing international military campaign launched by the United States government following the September 11 attacks. 

The targets of the campaign are primarily Islamist groups located throughout the world, with the most prominent groups being al-Qaeda, as well as the Islamic State and their various franchise groups.

The naming of the campaign uses a metaphor of war to refer to a variety of actions that do not constitute a specific war as traditionally defined. 43rd President of the United States George W. Bush first used the term "war on terrorism" on 16 September 2001 and then "war on terror" a few days later in a formal speech to Congress. 

In the latter speech, President Bush stated, "Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them." The term was originally used with a particular focus on countries associated with al-Qaeda.

​The term was immediately criticized by people such as Richard B. Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and more nuanced terms subsequently came to be used by the Bush administration to publicly define the international campaign led by the United States. While it was never used as a formal designation of U.S. operations in internal government documentation, a Global War on Terrorism Service Medal was issued.

​U.S. president Barack Obama, whose administration sought to avoid use of the term since taking office, announced on 23 May 2013 that the Global War on Terror was over, saying the military and intelligence agencies will not wage war against a tactic but will instead focus on a specific group of networks determined to destroy the U.S. 

On 28 December 2014, the Obama administration (which preferred to use the term Overseas Contingency Operation) announced the end of the combat role of the U.S.-led mission in Afghanistan; however, the U.S. continued to play a major role in the War in Afghanistan, and in 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump expanded the American military presence in Afghanistan. The rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) led to the global Operation Inherent Resolve, and an international campaign to destroy ISIL.

Criticism of the war on terror has focused on its morality, efficiency, and cost. According to a 2021 study conducted by the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, the several post-9/11 wars participated in by the United States in its war against terror have caused the displacement, conservatively calculated, of 38 million people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and the Philippines; 26.7 million people have returned home following displacement. 

The study estimated these wars caused the deaths of 897,000 to 929,000 people, including over 364,000 civilians, and cost $8 trillion.

The notion of a "War on Terror" was contentious, with critics charging that it has been used to reduce civil liberties and infringe upon human rights, such as controversial actions by the U.S. including surveillance, torture, and extraordinary rendition, and drone strikes that resulted in the deaths of suspected terrorists as well as civilians. 

Many of these actions were supported by other countries, including the 54 countries that were involved with CIA black sites, or those that helped with drone strikes. Critics accuse participating governments of using the "War on Terror" to repress minorities or sideline domestic opponents, and have criticized negative impacts to health and the environment, resulting from the "War on Terror". 

Critics assert that the term "war" is not appropriate in this context (much like the term "war on drugs") since terror is not an identifiable enemy and it is unlikely that international terrorism can be brought to an end by military means.

​​Etymology:

The phrase war on terror was used to specifically refer to the military campaign led by the U.S., U.K. and their allies against organizations and regimes identified by them as a terrorist, and usually excludes other independent counter-terrorist operations and campaigns such as those by Russia and India. The conflict has also been referred to by names other than the War on Terror. It has also been known as:
  • World War III
  • World War IV (assuming the Cold War was World War III)
  • Bush's War on Terror
  • The Long War
  • The Forever War
  • The Global War on Terror
  • The War Against al-Qaeda
  • The War of Terror (From the perspective of individuals who experience the conflicts brought on by continual foreign and domestic intervention as the source of terror; also from Sacha Baron Cohen's deliberately mispronouncing "War on Terror" in the 2006 satire film Borat! Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.)

Use of phrase and its development:

The phrase "war against terrorism" existed in North American popular culture and U.S. political parlance prior to the War on Terror. But it was not until the 11 September attacks that it emerged as a globally recognizable phrase and part of everyday lexicon. Tom Brokaw, having just witnessed the collapse of one of the towers of the World Trade Center, declared "Terrorists have declared war on [America]." 

On 16 September 2001, at Camp David, U.S. president George W. Bush used the phrase war on terrorism in an ostensibly unscripted comment when answering a journalist's question about the impact of enhanced law enforcement authority given to the U.S. surveillance agencies on Americans' civil liberties: "This is a new kind of—a new kind of evil. And we understand. And the American people are beginning to understand. This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while. And the American people must be patient. I'm going to be patient." 

On 20 September 2001, during a televised address to a joint session of Congress, George Bush said, "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

Both the term and the policies it denotes have been a source of ongoing controversy, as critics argue it has been used to justify unilateral preventive war, human rights abuses and other violations of international law. 

The political theorist Richard Jackson has argued that "the 'war on terrorism,' therefore, is simultaneously a set of actual practices—wars, covert operations, agencies, and institutions—and an accompanying series of assumptions, beliefs, justifications, and narratives—it is an entire language or discourse." Jackson cites among many examples a statement by John Ashcroft that "the attacks of September 11 drew a bright line of demarcation between the civil and the savage".

Administration officials also described "terrorists" as hateful, treacherous, barbarous, mad, twisted, perverted, without faith, parasitical, inhuman, and, most commonly, evil. Americans, in contrast, were described as brave, loving, generous, strong, resourceful, heroic, and respectful of human rights.

Abandonment of phrase by U.S. government:

In April 2007, the British government announced publicly that it was abandoning the use of the phrase "war on terror" as they found it to be less than helpful. This was explained more recently by Lady Eliza Manningham-Buller. In her 2011 Reith lecture, the former head of MI5 said that the 9/11 attacks were "a crime, not an act of war. So I never felt it helpful to refer to a war on terror."

​U.S. president Barack Obama rarely used the term, but in his inaugural address on 20 January 2009, he stated: "Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." 

In March 2009 the Defense Department officially changed the name of operations from "Global War on Terror" to "Overseas Contingency Operation" (OCO). In March 2009, the Obama administration requested that Pentagon staff members avoid the use of the term and instead to use "Overseas Contingency Operation". Basic objectives of the Bush administration "war on terror", such as targeting al Qaeda and building international counterterrorism alliances, remain in place.

In May 2010, the Obama administration published a report outlining its National Security Strategy. The document dropped the Bush-era phrase "global war on terror" and reference to "Islamic extremism," and stated, "This is not a global war against a tactic—terrorism, or a religion—Islam. We are at war with a specific network, al-Qaeda, and its terrorist affiliates who support efforts to attack the United States, our allies, and partners."

In December 2012, Jeh Johnson, the General Counsel of the Department of Defense, speaking at Oxford University, stated that the war against al-Qaeda would end when the terrorist group had been weakened so that it was no longer capable of "strategic attacks" and had been "effectively destroyed." At that point, the war would no longer be an armed conflict under international law, and the military fight could be replaced by a law enforcement operation.

In May 2013, two years after the assassination of Osama bin Laden, Barack Obama delivered a speech that employed the term global war on terror put in quotation marks (as officially transcribed by the White House):

"Now, make no mistake, terrorists still threaten our nation. ... In Afghanistan, we will complete our transition to Afghan responsibility for that country's security. ... Beyond Afghanistan, we must define our effort not as a boundless "global war on terror," but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America. In many cases, this will involve partnerships with other countries."

Nevertheless, in the same speech, in a bid to emphasize the legality of military actions undertaken by the U.S., noting that Congress had authorized the use of force, he went on to say, "Under domestic law, and international law, the United States is at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces. We are at war with an organization that right now would kill as many Americans as they could if we did not stop them first. So this is a just war—a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and in self-defense."

Nonetheless, the use of the phrase "War on Terror" persists in U.S. Politics. In 2017, for example, U.S. Vice President Mike Pence called the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing "the opening salvo in a war that we have waged ever since—the global war on terror."

Background:

Precursor to the 11 September attacks:
See also: Islamic terrorism and List of Islamist terrorist attacks

In May 1996 the group World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders (WIFJAJC), sponsored by Osama bin Laden (and later re-formed as al-Qaeda), started forming a large base of operations in Afghanistan, where the Islamist extremist regime of the Taliban had seized power earlier in the year. 

In August 1996, Bin Laden declared jihad against the United States. In February 1998, Osama bin Laden signed a fatwā, as head of al-Qaeda, declaring war on the West and Israel; in May al-Qaeda released a video declaring war on the U.S. and the West.

On 7 August 1998, al-Qaeda struck the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 people, including 12 Americans. In retaliation, U.S. President Bill Clinton launched Operation Infinite Reach, a bombing campaign in Sudan and Afghanistan against targets the U.S. asserted were associated with WIFJAJC, although others have questioned whether a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was used as a chemical warfare facility. The plant produced much of the region's antimalarial drugs and around 50% of Sudan's pharmaceutical needs. The strikes failed to kill any leaders of WIFJAJC or the Taliban.

Next came the 2000 millennium attack plots, which included an attempted bombing of Los Angeles International Airport. On 12 October 2000, the USS Cole bombing occurred near the port of Yemen, and 17 U.S. Navy sailors were killed.

11 September attacks:
Main article: September 11 attacks

On the morning of 11 September 2001, nineteen men hijacked four jet airliners, all of them bound for California. Once the hijackers assumed control of the jet airliners, they told the passengers that they had a bomb on board and would spare the lives of passengers and crew once their demands were met – no passenger and crew actually suspected that they would use the jet airliners as suicide weapons since it had never happened before in history, and many previous hijacking attempts had been resolved with the passengers and crew escaping unharmed after obeying the hijackers.

The hijackers – members of al-Qaeda's Hamburg cell – intentionally crashed two jet airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City. Both buildings collapsed within two hours from fire damage related to the crashes, destroying nearby buildings and damaging others.

The hijackers crashed a third jet airliner into the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, just outside Washington, D.C. 

The fourth jet airliner crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after some of its passengers and flight crew attempted to retake control of the jet airliners, which the hijackers had redirected toward Washington D.C., to target the White House or the U.S. Capitol.

None of the flights had any survivors. A total of 2,977 victims and the 19 hijackers perished in the attacks. Fifteen of the nineteen were citizens of Saudi Arabia, and the others were from the United Arab Emirates (2), Egypt, and Lebanon.

On 13 September, for the first time ever, NATO invoked Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which commits each member state to consider an armed attack against one member state to be an armed attack against them all. The invocation of Article 5 led to Operation Eagle Assist and Operation Active Endeavour.

On 18 September 2001, President Bush signed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists passed by Congress a few days prior, the authorization is still active and has been used to justify numerous military actions.

U.S. objectives:

​The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists or "AUMF" was made law on 14 September 2001, to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the 11 September attacks. It authorized the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on 11 September 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or individuals. Congress declares this is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

The George W. Bush administration defined the following objectives in the War on Terror:
  1. Defeat terrorists such as Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and destroy their organizations
  2. Identify, locate and demolish terrorists along with their organizations
  3. Reject sponsorship, support and sanctuary to terrorists
    1. End the state sponsorship of terrorism
    2. Establish and maintain an international standard of responsibility concerning combating terrorism
    3. Strengthen and maintain the international effort to combat terrorism
    4. Function with willing and able states
    5. Enable weak states
    6. Persuade reluctant states
    7. Compel unwilling states
    8. Intervene and dismantle material support for terrorists
    9. Abolish terrorist sanctuaries and havens
  4. Reduce the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit
    1. Establish partnerships with the international community to strengthen weak states and prevent (re)emergence of terrorism
    2. Win the war of ideals
  5. Protect U.S. citizens and interests at home and abroad
    1. Integrate the National Strategy for Homeland Security
    2. Attain domain awareness
    3. Enhance measures to ensure the integrity, reliability, and availability of critical, physical, and information-based infrastructures at home and abroad
    4. Implement measures to protect U.S. citizens abroad
    5. Ensure an integrated incident management capacity

Timeline:

For a chronological guide to this subject, see timeline of the War on Terror.

Operation Enduring Freedom:
​Main article: Operation Enduring Freedom

Operation Enduring Freedom is the official name used by the Bush administration for the War in Afghanistan, together with three smaller military actions, under the umbrella of the Global War on Terror. These global operations are intended to seek out and destroy any al-Qaeda fighters or affiliates.

Afghanistan:
Main article: War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)
See also: List of military operations in the war in Afghanistan (2001–2021)

On 20 September 2001, in the wake of the September 11 attacks (above), George W. Bush delivered an ultimatum to the Taliban government of Afghanistan, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, to turn over Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda leaders operating in the country or face attack. The Taliban demanded evidence of bin Laden's link to the 11 September attacks and, if such evidence warranted a trial, they offered to handle such a trial in an Islamic Court.

Subsequently, in October 2001, U.S. forces (with UK and coalition allies) invaded Afghanistan to oust the Taliban regime. On 7 October 2001, the official invasion began with British and U.S. forces conducting airstrike campaigns over enemy targets.

Kabul, the capital city of Afghanistan, fell by mid-November. The remaining al-Qaeda and Taliban remnants fell back to the rugged mountains of eastern Afghanistan, mainly Tora Bora.

In December, Coalition forces (the U.S. and its allies) fought within that region. It is believed that Osama bin Laden escaped into Pakistan during the battle.

In March 2002, the U.S. and other NATO and non-NATO forces launched Operation Anaconda with the goal of destroying any remaining al-Qaeda and Taliban forces in the Shah-i-Kot Valley and Arma Mountains of Afghanistan. The Taliban suffered heavy casualties and evacuated the region.

The Taliban regrouped in western Pakistan and began to unleash an insurgent-style offensive against Coalition forces in late 2002. Throughout southern and eastern Afghanistan, firefights broke out between the surging Taliban and Coalition forces. Coalition forces responded with a series of military offensives and an increase of troops in Afghanistan.

In February 2010, Coalition forces launched Operation Moshtarak in southern Afghanistan along with other military offensives in the hopes that they would destroy the Taliban insurgency once and for all. Peace talks were also underway between Taliban affiliated fighters and Coalition forces.

In September 2014, Afghanistan and the United States signed a security agreement, which allowed the United States and NATO forces to remain in Afghanistan until at least 2024.

However, on 29 February 2020, the United States and the Taliban signed a conditional peace deal in Doha which required that US troops withdraw from Afghanistan within 14 months so long as the Taliban cooperated with the terms of the agreement not to "allow any of its members, other individuals or groups, including Al Qaeda, to use the soil of Afghanistan to threaten the security of the United States and its allies".

The Afghan government was not a party to the deal and rejected its terms regarding release of prisoners. After Joe Biden became president, he moved back the target withdrawal date to 31 August 2021. 

On 15 August 2021, the Afghan capital Kabul fell to a surprisingly effective Taliban offensive, culminating in the fall of the Afghan government and the rise of the Taliban to power once more. On the same day, the Afghan President Ashraf Ghani fled the country in secret, ultimately finding refuge in the United Arab Emirates. 

The US military and NATO troops took control of Kabul's Hamid Karzai International Airport for use in Operation Allies Refuge and the large-scale evacuation of foreign citizens and certain vulnerable Afghans. On 19 August 2021, the Taliban redeclared the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

Thus ended the War in Afghanistan between the Taliban insurgency and forces backed by NATO Resolute Support Mission. On 30 August 2021, the United States completed its hasty withdrawal of its military from Afghanistan, shortly before marking the 20th anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

The withdrawal was heavily criticized both domestically and abroad for being chaotic and haphazard, as well as for lending more momentum to the Taliban offensive. However, many European countries followed suit, including Britain, Germany, Italy, and Poland. 

Despite evacuating over 120,000 people, the large-scale evacuation has also been criticized for leaving behind hundreds of American citizens, residents, and family members.

International Security Assistance Force:
​Main article: International Security Assistance Force

The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was created in December 2001 to assist the Afghan Transitional Administration and the first post-Taliban elected government. With a renewed Taliban insurgency, it was announced in 2006 that ISAF would replace the U.S. troops in the province as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The British 16th Air Assault Brigade (later reinforced by Royal Marines) formed the core of the force in southern Afghanistan, along with troops and helicopters from Australia, Canada and the Netherlands.

​The initial force consisted of roughly 3,300 British, 2,000 Canadian, 1,400 from the Netherlands and 240 from Australia, along with special forces from Denmark and Estonia and small contingents from other nations. The monthly supply of cargo containers through Pakistani route to ISAF in Afghanistan is over 4,000 costing around 12 billion in Pakistani Rupees.

Philippines:
Main article: Operation Enduring Freedom – Philippines

​In January 2002, the United States Special Operations Command, Pacific deployed to the Philippines to advise and assist the Armed Forces of the Philippines in combating Filipino Islamist groups. 

The operations were mainly focused on removing the Abu Sayyaf group and Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) from their stronghold on the island of Basilan. The second portion of the operation was conducted as a humanitarian program called "Operation Smiles". The goal of the program was to provide medical care and services to the region of Basilan as part of a "Hearts and Minds" program.

Joint Special Operations Task Force – Philippines disbanded in June 2014, ending a successful 12-year mission. After JSOTF-P had disbanded, as late as November 2014, American forces continued to operate in the Philippines under the name "PACOM Augmentation Team", until 24 February 2015. 

On 1 September 2017, US Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis designated Operation Pacific Eagle – Philippines (OPE-P) as a contingency operation to support the Philippine government and the military in their efforts to isolate, degrade, and defeat the affiliates of ISIS (collectively referred to as ISIS-Philippines or ISIS-P) and other terrorist organizations in the Philippines. By 2018, American operations within the Philippines against terrorist groups involved as many as 300 advisers.

Trans-Sahara (Northern Africa):
Main article: Operation Juniper Shield

​Operation Enduring Freedom – Trans Sahara (OEF-TS), now Operation Juniper Shield, is the name of the military operation conducted by the U.S. and partner nations in the Sahara/Sahel region of Africa, consisting of counter-terrorism efforts and policing of arms and drug trafficking across central Africa.

The conflict in northern Mali began in January 2012 with radical Islamists (affiliated to al-Qaeda) advancing into northern Mali. The Malian government had a hard time maintaining full control over their country. The fledgling government requested support from the international community on combating the Islamic militants.

In January 2013, France intervened on behalf of the Malian government's request and deployed troops into the region. They launched Operation Serval on 11 January 2013, with the hopes of dislodging the al-Qaeda affiliated groups from northern Mali.

Horn of Africa and the Red Sea:
Main articles:  ​
Operation Enduring Freedom – Horn of Africa is an extension of Operation Enduring Freedom. Unlike other operations contained in Operation Enduring Freedom, OEF-HOA does not have a specific organization as a target. OEF-HOA instead focuses its efforts to disrupt and detect militant activities in the region and to work with willing governments to prevent the reemergence of militant cells and activities.

In October 2002, the Combined Joint Task Force – Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) was established in Djibouti at Camp Lemonnier. It contains approximately 2,000 personnel including U.S. military and special operations forces (SOF) and coalition force members, Combined Task Force 150 (CTF-150).

Task Force 150 consists of ships from a shifting group of nations, including Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Pakistan, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. The primary goal of the coalition forces is to monitor, inspect, board and stop suspected shipments from entering the Horn of Africa region and affecting the United States' Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Included in the operation is the training of selected armed forces units of the countries of Djibouti, Kenya and Ethiopia in counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency tactics. Humanitarian efforts conducted by CJTF-HOA include rebuilding of schools and medical clinics and providing medical services to those countries whose forces are being trained.

The program expands as part of the Trans-Saharan Counterterrorism Initiative as CJTF personnel also assist in training the armed forces of Chad, Niger, Mauritania and Mali.

However, the War on Terror does not include Sudan, where over 400,000 have died in an ongoing civil war.

On 1 July 2006, a Web-posted message purportedly written by Osama bin Laden urged Somalis to build an Islamic state in the country and warned western governments that the al-Qaeda network would fight against them if they intervened there.

The Prime Minister of Somalia claimed that three "terror suspects" from the 1998 United States embassy bombings are being sheltered in Kismayo. On 30 December 2006, al-Qaeda deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri called upon Muslims worldwide to fight against Ethiopia and the TFG in Somalia.

On 8 January 2007, the U.S. launched the Battle of Ras Kamboni by bombing Ras Kamboni using AC-130 gunships.

On 14 September 2009, U.S. Special Forces killed two men and wounded and captured two others near the Somali village of Baarawe. Witnesses claim that helicopters used for the operation launched from French-flagged warships, but that could not be confirmed.

A Somali-based al-Qaida affiliated group, the Al-Shabaab, has verified the death of "sheik commander" Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan along with an unspecified number of militants. Nabhan, a Kenyan, was wanted in connection with the 2002 Mombasa attacks.

Iraq War:
Main article: Iraq War
Further information: Iraq War and the War on Terror

The Iraq War began in March 2003 with an air campaign, which was immediately followed by a U.S.-led ground invasion. The Bush administration cited UNSC Resolution 1441, which warned of "serious consequences" for violations such as Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction.

The Bush administration also stated the Iraq War was part of the War on Terror, a claim later questioned and contested. Iraq had been listed as a State sponsor of terrorism by the U.S. since 1990, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

The first ground attack came at the Battle of Umm Qasr on 21 March 2003, when a combined force of British, U.S. and Polish forces seized control of the port city of Umm Qasr. Baghdad, Iraq's capital city, fell to U.S. troops in April 2003 and Saddam Hussein's government quickly dissolved. 

On 1 May 2003, Bush announced that major combat operations in Iraq had ended. However, an insurgency arose against the U.S.-led coalition and the newly developing Iraqi military and post-Saddam government.

The rebellion, which included al-Qaeda-affiliated groups, led to far more coalition casualties than the invasion. Other elements of the insurgency were led by fugitive members of President Hussein's Ba'ath regime, which included Iraqi nationalists and pan-Arabists.

Many insurgency leaders were Islamists and claimed to be fighting a religious war to reestablish the Islamic Caliphate of centuries past. Saddam Hussein was captured by U.S. forces in December 2003 and was executed in 2006.

In 2004, the insurgent forces grew stronger. The U.S. launched offensives on insurgent strongholds in cities like Najaf and Fallujah.

In January 2007, President Bush presented a new strategy for Operation Iraqi Freedom based upon counter-insurgency theories and tactics developed by General David Petraeus. The Iraq War troop surge of 2007 was part of this "new way forward", which along with U.S. backing of Sunni groups it had previously sought to defeat has been credited with a widely recognized dramatic decrease in violence by up to 80%.

The war entered a new phase on 1 September 2010, with the official end of U.S. combat operations. President Obama ordered the withdrawal of most troops in 2011, but began redeploying forces in 2014 to fight ISIS. As of July 2021, there were approximately 2,500 U.S. troops in Iraq, who continue to assist in the mission to combat the remnants of ISIS.

Pakistan:
Main Articles:  ​
Following the 11 September attacks, former President of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf sided with the U.S. against the Taliban government in Afghanistan after an ultimatum by then U.S. President George W. Bush.

Musharraf agreed to give the U.S. the use of three airbases for Operation Enduring Freedom. United States Secretary of State Colin Powell and other U.S. administration officials met with Musharraf. On 19 September 2001, Musharraf addressed the people of Pakistan and stated that, while he opposed military tactics against the Taliban, Pakistan risked being endangered by an alliance of India and the U.S. if it did not cooperate.

In 2006, Musharraf testified that this stance was pressured by threats from the U.S., and revealed in his memoirs that he had "war-gamed" the United States as an adversary and decided that it would end in a loss for Pakistan.

On 12 January 2002, Musharraf gave a speech against Islamic extremism. He unequivocally condemned all acts of terrorism and pledged to combat Islamic extremism and lawlessness within Pakistan itself.

He stated that his government was committed to rooting out extremism and made it clear that the banned militant organizations would not be allowed to resurface under any new name. He said, "the recent decision to ban extremist groups promoting militancy was taken in the national interest after thorough consultations. It was not taken under any foreign influence".

In 2002, the Musharraf-led government took a firm stand against the jihadi organizations and groups promoting extremism, and arrested Maulana Masood Azhar, head of the Jaish-e-Mohammed, and Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, chief of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, and took dozens of activists into custody. An official ban was imposed on the groups on 12 January. 

Later that year, the Saudi born Zayn al-Abidn Muhammed Hasayn Abu Zubaydah was arrested by Pakistani officials during a series of joint U.S.–Pakistan raids. Zubaydah is said to have been a high-ranking al-Qaeda official with the title of operations chief and in charge of running al-Qaeda training camps. 

Other prominent al-Qaeda members were arrested in the following two years, namely Ramzi bin al-Shibh, who is known to have been a financial backer of al-Qaeda operations, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who at the time of his capture was the third highest-ranking official in al-Qaeda and had been directly in charge of the planning for the 11 September attacks.

In 2004, the Pakistan Army launched a campaign in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan's Waziristan region, sending in 80,000 troops. The goal of the conflict was to remove the al-Qaeda and Taliban forces in the area.

After the fall of the Taliban regime, many members of the Taliban resistance fled to the Northern border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan where the Pakistani army had previously little control.

With the logistics and air support of the United States, the Pakistani Army captured or killed numerous al-Qaeda operatives such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, wanted for his involvement in the USS Cole bombing, the Bojinka plot, and the killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

​The United States has carried out a campaign of drone attacks on targets all over the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. However, the Pakistani Taliban still operates there. To this day it is estimated that 15 U.S. soldiers were killed while fighting al-Qaeda and Taliban remnants in Pakistan since the War on Terror began.

Osama bin Laden, his wife, and son, were all killed on 2 May 2011, during a raid conducted by the United States special operations forces in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

The use of drones by the Central Intelligence Agency in Pakistan to carry out operations associated with the Global War on Terror sparks debate over sovereignty and the laws of war.

The U.S. Government uses the CIA rather than the U.S. Air Force for strikes in Pakistan to avoid breaching sovereignty through military invasion. The United States was criticized by a report on drone warfare and aerial sovereignty for abusing the term 'Global War on Terror' to carry out military operations through government agencies without formally declaring war.

After the 11 September attacks, U.S. economic and security aid to Pakistan spiked considerably. With the authorization of the Enhanced Partnership for Pakistan Act, Pakistan was granted US$7.5 billion over five years from FY2010-FY2014.

Yemen:
Main articles: Al-Qaeda insurgency in Yemen and Drone strikes in Yemen

The United States has also conducted a series of military strikes on al-Qaeda militants in Yemen since the War on Terror began. Yemen has a weak central government and a powerful tribal system that leaves large lawless areas open for militant training and operations. Al-Qaeda has a strong presence in the country. 

On 31 March 2011, AQAP declared the Al-Qaeda Emirate in Yemen after its captured most of Abyan Governorate.

The U.S., in an effort to support Yemeni counter-terrorism efforts, has increased their military aid package to Yemen from less than $11 million in 2006 to more than $70 million in 2009, as well as providing up to $121 million for development over the next three years.

Other military operations:

Operation Inherent Resolve (Syria and Iraq):
Main articles:  ​
​The Obama administration began to re-engage in Iraq with a series of airstrikes aimed at ISIS starting on 10 August 2014. On 9 September 2014, President Obama said that he had the authority he needed to take action to destroy the militant group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, citing the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, and thus did not require additional approval from Congress. 

The following day on 10 September 2014 President Barack Obama made a televised speech about ISIL, which he stated: "Our objective is clear: We will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy". 

Obama has authorized the deployment of additional U.S. Forces into Iraq, as well as authorizing direct military operations against ISIL within Syria. On the night of 21/22 September the United States, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE, Jordan and Qatar started air attacks against ISIS in Syria.

In October 2014, it was reported that the U.S. Department of Defense considers military operations against ISIL as being under Operation Enduring Freedom in regards to campaign medal awarding. On 15 October, the military intervention became known as "Operation Inherent Resolve".

Islamic State of Lanao and the Battle of Marawi:

With the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), jihadist offshoots sprung up in regions around the world, including the Philippines. The Maute group, composed of former Moro Islamic Liberation Front guerrillas and foreign fighters led by Omar Maute, the alleged founder of a Dawlah Islamiya, declared loyalty to ISIL and began clashing with Philippine security forces and staging bombings.

On 23 May 2017, the group attacked the city of Marawi, resulting in the bloody Battle of Marawi that lasted 5 months. After the decisive battle, remnants of the group were reportedly still recruiting in 2017 and 2018.

Libyan War:
Main articles: 
​NBC News reported that in mid-2014, ISIS had about 1,000 fighters in Libya. Taking advantage of a power vacuum in the center of the country, far from the major cities of Tripoli and Benghazi, ISIS expanded rapidly over the next 18 months. Local militants were joined by jihadists from the rest of North Africa, the Middle East, Europe and the Caucasus.

The force absorbed or defeated other Islamist groups inside Libya and the central ISIS leadership in Raqqa, Syria, began urging foreign recruits to head for Libya instead of Syria. ISIS seized control of the coastal city of Sirte in early 2015 and then began to expand to the east and south.

By the beginning of 2016, it had effective control of 120 to 150 miles of coastline and portions of the interior and had reached Eastern Libya's major population center, Benghazi.

In spring 2016, AFRICOM estimated that ISIS had about 5,000 fighters in its stronghold of Sirte.

However, the indigenous rebel groups who had staked their claims to Libya and turned their weapons on ISIS—with the help of airstrikes by Western forces, including U.S. drones, the Libyan population resented the outsiders who wanted to establish a fundamentalist regime on their soil.

Militias loyal to the new Libyan unity government, plus a separate and rival force loyal to a former officer in the Qaddafi regime, launched an assault on ISIS outposts in Sirte and the surrounding areas that lasted for months.

According to U.S. military estimates, ISIS ranks shrank to somewhere between a few hundred and 2,000 fighters. In August 2016, the U.S. military began airstrikes that, along with continued pressure on the ground from the Libyan militias, pushed the remaining ISIS fighters back into Sirte, In all, U.S. drones and planes hit ISIS nearly 590 times, the Libyan militias reclaimed the city in mid-December. 

On 18 January 2017, ABC News reported that two USAF B-2 bombers struck two ISIS camps 28 miles (45 km) south of Sirte, the airstrikes targeted between 80 and 100 ISIS fighters in multiple camps, an unmanned aircraft also participated in the airstrikes.

NBC News reported that as many as 90 ISIS fighters were killed in the strike, a U.S. defense official said that "This was the largest remaining ISIS presence in Libya," and that "They have been largely marginalized, but I am hesitant to say they have been eliminated in Libya."

American military intervention in Cameroon:

In October 2015, the U.S. began deploying 300 soldiers to Cameroon, with the invitation of the Cameroonian government, to support African forces in a non-combat role in their fight against ISIS insurgency in that country. The troops' primary missions will revolve around providing intelligence support to local forces as well as conducting reconnaissance flights.

Operation Active Endeavour:
Main article: Operation Active Endeavour

Operation Active Endeavour is a naval operation of NATO started in October 2001 in response to the 11 September attacks. It operates in the Mediterranean and is designed to prevent the movement of militants or weapons of mass destruction and to enhance the security of shipping in general.

Fighting in Kashmir:
Main article: Kashmir conflict
​
In a 'Letter to American People' written by Osama bin Laden in 2002, he stated that one of the reasons he was fighting America is because of its support of India on the Kashmir issue.

Indian sources claimed that In 2006, al-Qaeda claimed they had established a wing in Kashmir; this worried the Indian government. India also argued that al-Qaeda has strong ties with the Kashmir militant groups Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed in Pakistan. 

While on a visit to Pakistan in January 2010, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated that al-Qaeda was seeking to destabilize the region and planning to provoke a nuclear war between India and Pakistan.

In September 2009, a U.S. drone strike reportedly killed Ilyas Kashmiri, who was the chief of Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami, a Kashmiri militant group associated with al-Qaeda. Kashmiri was described by Bruce Riedel as a 'prominent' al-Qaeda member, while others described him as the head of military operations for al-Qaeda.

Waziristan had now become the new battlefield for Kashmiri militants, who were now fighting NATO in support of al-Qaeda. On 8 July 2012, Al-Badar Mujahideen, a breakaway faction of Kashmir centric terror group Hizbul Mujahideen, on the conclusion of their two-day Shuhada Conference called for a mobilization of resources for continuation of jihad in Kashmir. 

In June 2021, an air force station in Jammu (in India-administered Kashmir) was attacked by drone. Investigators were uncertain whether the attack was initiated by a state or non-state actor.

Anti-terror campaigns by other powers:

In the 2010s, China has also been engaged in its own War on Terror, predominantly a domestic campaign in response to violent actions by Uyghur separatist movements in the Xinjiang conflict. 

This campaign was widely criticized in international media due to the perception that it unfairly targets and persecutes Chinese Muslims, potentially resulting in a negative backlash from China's predominantly Muslim Uighur population. Xi Jinping's government has imprisoned up to 2 million Uyghurs and other Muslim ethnic minorities in Xinjiang re-education camps, where they are reportedly subject to abuse and torture.

Russia has also been engaged on its own, also largely internally focused, counter-terrorism campaign often termed a war on terror, during the Second Chechen War, the Insurgency in the North Caucasus, and the Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. Like China's war on terror, Russia has also been focused on separatist and Islamist movements that use political violence to achieve their ends.

International military support:
Main articles:  ​​
The invasion of Afghanistan is seen to have been the first action of this war, and initially involved forces from the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Afghan Northern Alliance.

Since the initial invasion period, these forces were augmented by troops and aircraft from Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand and Norway amongst others. In 2006, there were about 33,000 troops in Afghanistan.

On 12 September 2001, less than 24 hours after the 11 September attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C., NATO invoked Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and declared the attacks to be an attack against all 19 NATO member countries. Australian Prime Minister John Howard also stated that Australia would invoke the ANZUS Treaty along similar lines.

In the following months, NATO took a broad range of measures to respond to the threat of terrorism. On 22 November 2002, the member states of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) decided on a Partnership Action Plan against Terrorism, which explicitly states, "[The] EAPC States are committed to the protection and promotion of fundamental freedoms and human rights, as well as the rule of law, in combating terrorism." 

NATO started naval operations in the Mediterranean Sea designed to prevent the movement of terrorists or weapons of mass destruction as well as to enhance the security of shipping in general called Operation Active Endeavour.

Support for the U.S. cooled when America made clear its determination to invade Iraq in late 2002. Even so, many of the "coalition of the willing" countries that unconditionally supported the U.S.-led military action have sent troops to Afghanistan, particular neighboring Pakistan, which has disowned its earlier support for the Taliban and contributed tens of thousands of soldiers to the conflict.

Pakistan was also engaged in the Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (a.k.a. Waziristan War or North-West Pakistan War). Supported by U.S. intelligence, Pakistan was attempting to remove the Taliban insurgency and al-Qaeda element from the northern tribal areas.

Post–9/11 events inside the United States
Main articles: 
In addition to military efforts abroad, in the aftermath of 9/11, the Bush Administration increased domestic efforts to prevent future attacks. Various government bureaucracies that handled security and military functions were reorganized.

A new cabinet-level agency called the United States Department of Homeland Security was created in November 2002 to lead and coordinate the largest reorganization of the U.S. federal government since the consolidation of the armed forces into the Department of Defense.

The Justice Department launched the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System for certain male non-citizens in the U.S., requiring them to register in person at offices of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

​The USA PATRIOT Act of October 2001 dramatically reduces restrictions on law enforcement agencies' ability to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expands the Secretary of the Treasury's authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and broadens the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts.

The act also expanded the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act's expanded law enforcement powers could be applied. A new Terrorist Finance Tracking Program monitored the movements of terrorists' financial resources (discontinued after being revealed by The New York Times).

Global telecommunication usage, including those with no links to terrorism, is being collected and monitored through the NSA electronic surveillance program. The Patriot Act is still in effect.

Political interest groups have stated that these laws remove important restrictions on governmental authority, and are a dangerous encroachment on civil liberties, possible unconstitutional violations of the Fourth Amendment.

On 30 July 2003, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed the first legal challenge against Section 215 of the Patriot Act, claiming that it allows the FBI to violate a citizen's First Amendment rights, Fourth Amendment rights, and right to due process, by granting the government the right to search a person's business, bookstore, and library records in a terrorist investigation, without disclosing to the individual that records were being searched. 

​Also, governing bodies in many communities have passed symbolic resolutions against the act.

In a speech on 9 June 2005, Bush said that the USA PATRIOT Act had been used to bring charges against more than 400 suspects, more than half of whom had been convicted. Meanwhile, the ACLU quoted Justice Department figures showing that 7,000 people have complained of abuse of the Act.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) began an initiative in early 2002 with the creation of the Total Information Awareness program, designed to promote information technologies that could be used in counter-terrorism. This program, facing criticism, has since been defunded by Congress.

By 2003, 12 major conventions and protocols were designed to combat terrorism. These were adopted and ratified by many states. These conventions require states to co-operate on principal issues regarding unlawful seizure of aircraft, the physical protection of nuclear materials, and the freezing of assets of militant networks.

In 2005, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1624 concerning incitement to commit acts of terrorism and the obligations of countries to comply with international human rights laws. Although both resolutions require mandatory annual reports on counter-terrorism activities by adopting nations, the United States and Israel have both declined to submit reports.

In the same year, the United States Department of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff issued a planning document, by the name "National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism", which stated that it constituted the "comprehensive military plan to prosecute the Global War on Terror for the Armed Forces of the United States...including the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and a rigorous examination with the Department of Defense".

On 9 January 2007, the House of Representatives passed a bill, by a vote of 299–128, enacting many of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission The bill passed in the U.S. Senate, by a vote of 60–38, on 13 March 2007 and it was signed into law on 3 August 2007 by President Bush. It became Public Law 110–53. In July 2012, U.S. Senate passed a resolution urging that the Haqqani Network be designated a foreign terrorist organization.

The Office of Strategic Influence was secretly created after 9/11 for the purpose of coordinating propaganda efforts but was closed soon after being discovered. The Bush administration implemented the Continuity of Operations Plan (or Continuity of Government) to ensure that U.S. government would be able to continue in catastrophic circumstances.

Since 9/11, extremists made various attempts to attack the United States, with varying levels of organization and skill. For example, vigilant passengers aboard a transatlantic flight prevented Richard Reid, in 2001, and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, in 2009, from detonating an explosive device.

Other terrorist plots have been stopped by federal agencies using new legal powers and investigative tools, sometimes in cooperation with foreign governments.

Such thwarted attacks also include:
The Obama administration promised the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, increased the number of troops in Afghanistan, and promised the withdrawal of its forces from Iraq.

Transnational actions:

"Extraordinary rendition":

After the 11 September attacks, the United States government commenced a program of illegal "extraordinary rendition," sometimes referred to as "irregular rendition" or "forced rendition," the government-sponsored abduction and extrajudicial transfer of a person from one country to transferee countries, with the consent of transferee countries.

The aim of extraordinary rendition is often conducting torture on the detainee that would be difficult to conduct in the U.S. legal environment, a practice known as torture by proxy.

Starting in 2002, U.S. government rendered hundreds of illegal combatants for U.S. detention, and transported detainees to U.S. controlled sites as part of an extensive interrogation program that included torture. Extraordinary rendition continued under the Obama administration, with targets being interrogated and subsequently taken to the US for trial.

The United Nations considers one nation abducting the citizens of another a crime against humanity. In July 2014 the European Court of Human Rights condemned the government of Poland for participating in CIA extraordinary rendition, ordering Poland to pay restitution to men who had been abducted, taken to a CIA black site in Poland, and tortured.

Rendition to "Black Sites":

In 2005, The Washington Post and Human Rights Watch (HRW) published revelations concerning kidnapping of detainees by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and their transport to "black sites," covert prisons operated by the CIA whose existence is denied by the US government.

The European Parliament published a report connecting use of such secret detention Black Sites for detainees kidnapped as part of extraordinary rendition (See below). Although some Black Sites have been known to exist inside European Union states, these detention centers violate the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the UN Convention Against Torture, treaties that all EU member states are bound to follow.

The U.S. had ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture in 1994. According to ABC News two such facilities, in countries mentioned by Human Rights Watch, have been closed following the recent publicity with the CIA relocating the detainees.

Almost all of these detainees were tortured as part of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" of the CIA. Despite the closure of these sites, their legacies in certain countries continue to live on and haunt domestic politics.

Criticism of American media's withholding of coverage:

Major American newspapers, such as "The Washington Post," have been criticized for deliberately withholding publication of articles reporting locations of Black Sites. The Post defended its decision to suppress this news on the ground that such revelations "could open the U.S. government to legal challenges, particularly in foreign courts, and increase the risk of political condemnation at home and abroad."

However, according to Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) "the possibility that illegal, unpopular government actions might be disrupted is not a consequence to be feared, however—it's the whole point of the U.S. First Amendment. ... Without the basic fact of where these prisons are, it's difficult if not impossible for 'legal challenges' or 'political condemnation' to force them to close."

FAIR argued that the damage done to the global reputation of the United States by the continued existence of black-site prisons was more dangerous than any threat caused by the exposure of their locations.

The complex at Stare Kiejkuty, a Soviet-era compound once used by German intelligence in World War II, is best known as having been the only Russian intelligence training school to operate outside the Soviet Union. Its prominence in the Soviet era suggests that it may have been the facility first identified—but never named—when the Washington Post's Dana Priest revealed the existence of the CIA's secret prison network in November 2005.

The journalists who exposed this provided their sources and this information and documents were provided to The Washington Post in 2005. In addition, they also identified such Black Sites are concealed.

Former European and US intelligence officials indicate that the secret prisons across the European Union, first identified by the Washington Post, are likely not permanent locations, making them difficult to identify and locate. What some believe was a network of secret prisons was most probably a series of facilities used temporarily by the United States when needed, officials say.

Interim "black sites"—secret facilities used for covert activities—can be as small as a room in a government building, which only becomes a black site when a prisoner is brought in for short-term detainment and interrogation.

The journalists went on to explain that "Such a site, sources say, would have to be near an airport." The airport in question is the Szczytno-Szymany International Airport.

In response to these allegations, former Polish intelligence chief, Zbigniew Siemiatkowski, embarked on a media blitz and claimed that the allegations were "... part of the domestic political battle in the US over who is to succeed current Republican President George W Bush," according to the German news agency Deutsche Presse Agentur.

Prison ships:

The United States has also been accused of operating "floating prisons" to house and transport those arrested in its War on Terror, according to human rights lawyers. They have claimed that the US has tried to conceal the numbers and whereabouts of detainees.

Although no credible information to support these assertions has ever come to light, the alleged justification for prison ships is primarily to remove the ability for jihadists to target a fixed location to facilitate the escape of high value targets, commanders, operations chiefs etc.

Guantanamo Bay detention camp:
​​
The U.S. government set up the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in 2002, a United States military prison located in Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. President Bush declared that the Geneva Convention, a treaty ratified by the U.S. and therefore among the highest law of the land, which protects prisoners of war, would not apply to Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees captured in Afghanistan. 

Since inmates were detained indefinitely without trial and several detainees have allegedly been tortured, this camp is considered to be a major breach of human rights by Amnesty International. The detention camp was set up by the U.S. government on Guantanamo Bay since the military base is not legally domestic US territory and thus was a "legal black hole." 

Most prisoners of Guantanamo were eventually freed without ever being charged with any crime, and were transferred to other countries. As of July 2021, 40 men remain in the prison and almost three-quarters of them have never been criminally charged. They're known as "forever prisoners" and are being detained indefinitely.

Major terrorist attacks and plots since 9/11Al-Qaeda:
Main articles: al-Qaeda and Timeline of al-Qaeda attacks

Since 9/11, al-Qaeda and other affiliated radical Islamist groups have executed attacks in several parts of the world where conflicts are not taking place. Whereas countries like Pakistan have suffered hundreds of attacks killing tens of thousands and displacing much more.
There may also have been several additional planned attacks that were not successful.
Islamic State:
Main articles:  See also: List of wars and battles involving ISIL:
Casualties:

According to Joshua Goldstein, an international relations professor at the American University, The Global War on Terror has seen fewer war deaths than any other decade in the past century.

There is no widely agreed on figure for the number of people that have been killed so far in the War on Terror as it has been defined by the Bush Administration to include the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, and operations elsewhere.

The International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and the Physicians for Social Responsibility and Physicians for Global Survival give total estimates ranging from 1.3 million to 2 million casualties. 

Another report from September 2021 by Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs "Costs of War" project puts the total number of casualties of the War on Terror in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan between 518,000 and 549,000. This number increases to 929,000 when Syria, Yemen, and other war zones are included. The report estimated that many more may have died from indirect effects of war such as water loss and disease. 

They also estimated that over 38 million people have been displaced by the post-9/11 wars participated in by the United States in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and the Philippines; 26.7 million people have returned home following displacement. 

The total number of terrorist/insurgent/militant deaths since the commencement of the War on Terror in 2001 is generally estimated as being well into the hundreds of thousands, with hundreds of thousands of others captured or arrested.

Some estimates for regional conflicts include the following:

Iraq:
Main article: Casualties of the Iraq War

​In Iraq, some 26,544 insurgents were killed by the American-led coalition and the Iraqi Security Forces from 2003 to 2011. 119,752 suspected insurgents were arrested in Iraq from 2003 to 2007 alone, at which point 18,832 suspected insurgents had been reported killed;  applying this same arrested-to-captured ratio to the total number of insurgents killed would equate to approximately 26,500 insurgents killed and 168,000 arrested from 2003 to 2011.

At least 4,000 foreign fighters (generally estimated at 10-20% of the insurgency at that point) had been killed by September 2006, according to an official statement from al-Qaeda in Iraq. Insurgent casualties in the 2011–2013 phase of the Iraqi conflict numbered 916 killed, with 3,504 more arrested.

From 2014 to the end of 2017, the United States government stated that over 80,000 Islamic State insurgents had been killed by American and allied airstrikes from 2014 to the end of 2017, in both Iraq and Syria. The majority of these strikes occurred within Iraq. 

ISIS deaths caused by the Iraqi Security Forces in this time are uncertain, but were probably significant. Over 26,000 ISF members were killed fighting ISIS from 2013 to the end of 2017, with ISIS losses likely being of a similar scale.

Total casualties in Iraq range from 62,570 to 1,124,000:
  • Iraq Body Count project documented 185,044 to 207,979 dead from 2003 to 2020 with 288,000 violent deaths including combatants in total.
  • 110,600 deaths in total according to the Associated Press from March 2003 to April 2009.
  • 151,000 deaths in total according to the Iraq Family Health Survey.
  • Opinion Research Business (ORB) poll conducted 12–19 August 2007 estimated 1,033,000 violent deaths due to the Iraq War. The range given was 946,000 to 1,120,000 deaths. A nationally representative sample of approximately 2,000 Iraqi adults answered whether any members of their household (living under their roof) were killed due to the Iraq War. 22% of the respondents had lost one or more household members. ORB reported that "48% died from a gunshot wound, 20% from the impact of a car bomb, 9% from aerial bombardment, 6% as a result of an accident and 6% from another blast/ordinance."
  • Between 392,979 and 942,636 estimated Iraqi (655,000 with a confidence interval of 95%), civilian and combatant, according to the second Lancet survey of mortality.
  • A minimum of 62,570 civilian deaths reported in the mass media up to 28 April 2007 according to Iraq Body Count project.
  • 4,431 U.S. Department of Defense dead (941 non-hostile deaths), and 31,994 wounded in action during Operation Iraqi Freedom. 74 U.S. Military Dead (36 non-hostile deaths), and 298 wounded in action during Operation New Dawn as of 4 May 2020.

Afghanistan:
Main articles: Coalition casualties in Afghanistan and Civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan (2001–2021)

Insurgent and terrorist deaths in Afghanistan are hard to estimate. Afghan Taliban losses are most likely of a similar scale to Afghan National Army and Police losses; that is around 62,000 from 2001 to the end of 2018. In addition, al-Qaeda's main branch and ISIS's Afghanistan branch are each thought to have lost several thousand killed there since 2001.

Total casualties in Afghanistan range from 10,960 and 249,000:
  • 16,725–19,013 civilians killed according to Cost of War project from 2001 to 2013.
  • According to Marc W. Herold's extensive database, between 3,100 and 3,600 civilians were directly killed by U.S. Operation Enduring Freedom bombing and Special Forces attacks between 7 October 2001 and 3 June 2003. This estimate counts only "impact deaths"—deaths that occurred in the immediate aftermath of an explosion or shooting—and does not count deaths that occurred later as a result of injuries sustained, or deaths that occurred as an indirect consequence of the U.S. airstrikes and invasion.
  • In an opinion article published in August 2002 in the magazine The Weekly Standard, Joshua Muravchik of the American Enterprise Institute, questioned Professor Herold's study entirely by one single incident that involved 25–93 deaths. He did not provide any estimate of his own.
  • In a pair of January 2002 studies, Carl Conetta of the Project on Defense Alternatives estimates that "at least" 4,200–4,500 civilians were killed by mid-January 2002 as a result of the war and Coalition airstrikes, both directly as casualties of the aerial bombing campaign, and indirectly in the resulting humanitarian crisis.
  • His first study, "Operation Enduring Freedom: Why a Higher Rate of Civilian Bombing Casualties?", released 18 January 2002, estimates that, at the low end, "at least" 1,000–1,300 civilians were directly killed in the aerial bombing campaign in just the three months between 7 October 2001 to 1 January 2002. The author found it impossible to provide an upper-end estimate to direct civilian casualties from the Operation Enduring Freedom bombing campaign that he noted as having an increased use of cluster bombs. In this lower-end estimate, only Western press sources were used for hard numbers, while heavy "reduction factors" were applied to Afghan government reports so that their estimates were reduced by as much as 75%.
  • In his companion study, "Strange Victory: A critical appraisal of Operation Enduring Freedom and the Afghanistan war", released 30 January 2002, Conetta estimates that "at least" 3,200 more Afghans died by mid-January 2002, of "starvation, exposure, associated illnesses, or injury sustained while in flight from war zones", as a result of the war and Coalition airstrikes.
  • In similar numbers, a Los Angeles Times review of U.S., British, and Pakistani newspapers and international wire services found that between 1,067 and 1,201 direct civilian deaths were reported by those news organizations during the five months from 7 October 2001 to 28 February 2002. This review excluded all civilian deaths in Afghanistan that did not get reported by U.S., British, or Pakistani news, excluded 497 deaths that did get reported in U.S., British, and Pakistani news but that were not specifically identified as civilian or military, and excluded 754 civilian deaths that were reported by the Taliban but not independently confirmed.
  • According to Jonathan Steele of The Guardian between 20,000 and 49,600 people may have died of the consequences of the invasion by the spring of 2002.
  • 2,046 U.S. military dead (339 non-hostile deaths), and 18,201 wounded in action.
  • A report titled Body Count put together by Physicians for Social Responsibility, Physicians for Global Survival, and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) concluded that between 185,000 and 249,000 people had been killed as a result of the fighting in Afghanistan.

Total casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan:

The following table shows a comparison of total casualties between the two main theaters of the War on Terror – Iraq (since 2003) and Afghanistan (since 2001) – up until August 2021, as conducted by Brown University.
During Operation Inherent Resolve, there has been 95 U.S. Military Deaths, 227 wounded in action as of 6 May 2020.

The United States Department of Veterans Affairs has diagnosed more than 200,000 American veterans with PTSD since 2001.

Total civilian casualties:

Between 363,939 and 387,072 civilians were killed in post—9/11 wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and other war zones, according to a 2021 report by the Costs of War Project at Brown University's Watson Institute. Many more may have died due to related effects, including water loss and disease.

Costs:

The War on Terror, spanning decades, is a multitrillion-dollar war that cost much more than originally estimated.

According to the Costs of War Project at Brown University's Watson Institute, the War on Terror will have cost $8 trillion for operations between 2001 and 2022 plus $2.2 trillion in future costs of veterans' care over the next 30 years. 

Out of this number, $2.313 trillion is for Afghanistan, $2.058 trillion for Iraq and Syria, and $355 billion was spent on other warzones.

The remainder was for DHS ($1.1 trillion).

According to the Soufan Group in July 2015, the U.S. government was spending $9.4 million per day in operations against ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

A March 2011 Congressional report estimated war spending through the fiscal year 2011 at $1.2 trillion, and future spending through 2021 (assuming a reduction to 45,000 troops) at $1.8 trillion. A June 2011 academic report covering additional areas of war spending estimated it through 2011 at $2.7 trillion, and long-term spending at $5.4 trillion including interest.

​In direct spending, the United States Department of Defense reports spending $1.547 trillion from 2001 to February 2020 in war costs in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.
​Criticism:
Main article: Criticism of the war on terror
See also: United States war crimes § War on Terror

Criticism of the War on Terror addressed the issues, morality, efficiency, economics, and other questions surrounding the war on terror and made against the phrase itself, calling it a misnomer.

The notion of a "war" against "terrorism" has proven highly contentious, with critics charging that it has been exploited by participating governments to pursue long-standing policy/military objectives, including structural Islamophobia, reduce civil liberties, and infringe upon human rights.

It is argued that the term war is not appropriate in this context (as in the "war on drugs") since there is no identifiable enemy and that it is unlikely international terrorism can be brought to an end by military means.

Other critics, such as Francis Fukuyama, say that "terrorism" is not an enemy but a tactic, and calling it a "war on terror" obscures differences between conflicts such as anti-occupation insurgents and international mujahideen.

With a military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and its associated collateral damage, Shirley Williams posits that this increases resentment and terrorist threats against the West.

There is also perceived U.S. hypocrisy, media-induced hysteria, and that differences in foreign and security policy have damaged America's reputation internationally.

See also:​







American Revolutionary War (1775-1783)Pictured below: 
Clockwise from left: Continental infantry at Redoubt 10, Yorktown; Washington rallying the broken center at Monmouth; USS Bonhomme Richard capturing HMS Serapis
The American Revolutionary War (April 19, 1775 – September 3, 1783), also known as the Revolutionary War or American War of Independence, secured a United States of America independent from Great Britain.

Fighting began on April 19, 1775, followed by the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. The American Patriots were supported by France and Spain, conflict taking place in North America, the Caribbean, and Atlantic Ocean. It ended on September 3, 1783 when Britain accepted American independence in the Treaty of Paris, while the Treaties of Versailles resolved separate conflicts with France and Spain.

Established by Royal charter in the 17th and 18th centuries, the American colonies were largely autonomous in domestic affairs and commercially prosperous, trading with Britain and its Caribbean colonies, as well as other European powers via their Caribbean entrepôts.

After British victory in the Seven Years' War in 1763, tensions arose over trade, colonial policy in the Northwest Territory and taxation measures, including the Stamp Act and Townshend Acts. Colonial opposition led to the 1770 Boston Massacre and 1773 Boston Tea Party, with Parliament responding by imposing the so-called Intolerable Acts.

On September 5, 1774, the First Continental Congress drafted a Petition to the King and organized a boycott of British goods. Despite attempts to achieve a peaceful solution, fighting began with the Battle of Lexington on April 19, 1775 and in June Congress authorized George Washington to create a Continental Army.

Although the "coercion policy" advocated by the North ministry was opposed by a faction within Parliament, both sides increasingly viewed conflict as inevitable. The Olive Branch Petition sent by Congress to George III in July 1775 was rejected and in August Parliament declared the colonies to be in a state of rebellion.

Following the loss of Boston in March 1776, Sir William Howe, the new British commander-in-chief, launched the New York and New Jersey campaign. He captured New York City in November, before Washington won small but significant victories at Trenton and Princeton, which restored Patriot confidence.

In summer 1777, Howe succeeded in taking Philadelphia, but in October a separate force under John Burgoyne was forced to surrender at Saratoga. This victory was crucial in convincing powers like France and Spain an independent United States was a viable entity.

The Continental Army then went into winter quarters in Valley Forge, where General von Steuben drilled it into an organized fighting unit.

France provided the US informal economic and military support from the beginning of the rebellion, and after Saratoga the two countries signed a commercial agreement and a Treaty of Alliance in February 1778.

In return for a guarantee of independence, Congress joined France in its global war with Britain and agreed to defend the French West Indies. Spain also allied with France against Britain in the Treaty of Aranjuez (1779), though it did not formally ally with the Americans. Nevertheless, access to ports in Spanish Louisiana allowed the Patriots to import arms and supplies, while the Spanish Gulf Coast campaign deprived the Royal Navy of key bases in the south.

This undermined the 1778 strategy devised by Howe's replacement, Sir Henry Clinton, which took the war into the Southern United States. Despite some initial success, by September 1781 Cornwallis was besieged by a Franco-American force in Yorktown.

After an attempt to resupply the garrison failed, Cornwallis surrendered in October, and although the British wars with France and Spain continued for another two years, this ended fighting in North America. In April 1782, the North ministry was replaced by a new British government which accepted American independence and began negotiating the Treaty of Paris, ratified on September 3, 1783.

Prelude to revolution:
Main article: American Revolution
See also: 
The French and Indian War, part of the wider global conflict known as the Seven Years' War, ended with the 1763 Peace of Paris, which expelled France from its possessions in New France. 

Acquisition of territories in Atlantic Canada and West Florida, inhabited largely by French or Spanish-speaking Catholics, led the British authorities to consolidate their hold by populating them with English-speaking settlers. Preventing conflict between settlers and Native American tribes west of the Appalachian Mountains would also avoid the cost of an expensive military occupation.

The Proclamation Line of 1763 was designed to achieve these aims by refocusing colonial expansion north into Nova Scotia and south into Florida, with the Mississippi River as the dividing line between British and Spanish possessions in the Americas. Settlement beyond the 1763 limits was tightly restricted, while claims by individual colonies west of this line were rescinded, most significantly Virginia and Massachusetts who argued their boundaries extended from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

​Ultimately the vast exchange of territory destabilized existing alliances and trade networks between settlers and Native Americans in the west, while it proved impossible to prevent encroachment beyond the Proclamation Line. 

​With the exception of Virginia and others "deprived" of their rights in the western lands, the colonial legislatures generally agreed on the principle of boundaries but disagreed on where to set them, while many settlers resented the restrictions. Since enforcement required permanent garrisons along the frontier, it led to increasingly bitter disputes over who should pay for them.

Taxation and legislation:

Although directly administered by the Crown, acting through a local Governor, the colonies were largely governed by native-born property owners. While external affairs were managed by London, colonial militia were funded locally but with the ending of the French threat in 1763, the legislatures expected less taxation, not more. At the same time, the huge debt incurred by the Seven Years' War and demands from British taxpayers for cuts in government expenditure meant Parliament expected the colonies to fund their own defense.

The 1763 to 1765 Grenville ministry instructed the Royal Navy to stop the trade of smuggled goods and enforce customs duties levied in American ports. The most important was the 1733 Molasses Act; routinely ignored prior to 1763, it had a significant economic impact since 85% of New England rum exports were manufactured from imported molasses.

These measures were followed by the Sugar Act and Stamp Act, which imposed additional taxes on the colonies to pay for defending the western frontier. In July 1765, the Whigs formed the First Rockingham ministry, which repealed the Stamp Act and reduced tax on foreign molasses to help the New England economy, but re-asserted Parliamentary authority in the Declaratory Act.

​However, this did little to end the discontent; in 1768, a riot started in Boston when the authorities seized the sloop Liberty on suspicion of smuggling. Tensions escalated further in March 1770 when British troops fired on rock-throwing civilians, killing five in what became known as the Boston Massacre. 

The Massacre coincided with the partial repeal of the Townshend Acts by the Tory-based North Ministry, which came to power in January 1770 and remained in office until 1781. North insisted on retaining duty on tea to enshrine Parliament's right to tax the colonies; the amount was minor, but ignored the fact it was that very principle Americans found objectionable.

Tensions escalated following the destruction of a customs vessel in the June 1772 Gaspee Affair, then came to a head in 1773. A banking crisis led to the near-collapse of the East India Company, which dominated the British economy; to support it, Parliament passed the Tea Act, giving it a trading monopoly in the Thirteen Colonies. Since most American tea was smuggled by the Dutch, the Act was opposed by those who managed the illegal trade, while being seen as yet another attempt to impose the principle of taxation by Parliament. 

In December 1773, a group called the Sons of Liberty disguised as Mohawk natives dumped 342 crates of tea into Boston Harbor, an event later known as the Boston Tea Party. Parliament responded by passing the so-called Intolerable Acts, aimed specifically at Massachusetts, although many colonists and members of the Whig opposition considered them a threat to liberty in general. This led to increased sympathy for the Patriot cause locally, as well as in Parliament and the London press.

Break with the British Crown:

Over the course of the 18th century, the elected lower houses in the colonial legislatures gradually wrested power from their Royal Governors. Dominated by smaller landowners and merchants, these Assemblies now established ad hoc provincial legislatures, variously called Congresses, Conventions, and Conferences, effectively replacing Royal control.

With the exception of Georgia, twelve colonies sent representatives to the First Continental Congress to agree on a unified response to the crisis. Many of the delegates feared that an all-out boycott would result in war and sent a Petition to the King calling for the repeal of the Intolerable Acts. 

However, after some debate, on September 17, 1774, Congress endorsed the Massachusetts Suffolk Resolves and on October 20 passed the Continental Association; based on a draft prepared by the First Virginia Convention in August, this instituted economic sanctions against Britain.

Colonial response:

While denying its authority over internal American affairs, a faction led by James Duane and future Loyalist Joseph Galloway insisted Congress recognize Parliament's right to regulate colonial trade.

Expecting concessions by the North administration, Congress authorized the extralegal committees and conventions of the colonial legislatures to enforce the boycott; this succeeded in reducing British imports by 97% from 1774 to 1775. 

However, on February 9 Parliament declared Massachusetts to be in a state of rebellion and instituted a blockade of the colony. In July, the Restraining Acts limited colonial trade with the British West Indies and Britain and barred New England ships from the Newfoundland cod fisheries. The increase in tension led to a scramble for control of militia stores, which each Assembly was legally obliged to maintain for defense. 

On April 19, a British attempt to secure the Concord arsenal culminated in the Battles of Lexington and Concord which began the war.

Political reactions:
Main articles: Olive Branch Petition and United States Declaration of Independence

After the Patriot victory at Concord, moderates in Congress led by John Dickinson drafted the Olive Branch Petition, offering to accept royal authority in return for George III mediating in the dispute. 

However, since it was immediately followed by the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, Colonial Secretary Dartmouth viewed the offer as insincere; he refused to present the petition to the king, which was therefore rejected in early September.

Although constitutionally correct, since George could not oppose his own government, it disappointed those Americans who hoped he would mediate in the dispute, while the hostility of his language annoyed even Loyalist members of Congress. Combined with the Proclamation of Rebellion, issued on August 23 in response to the Battle at Bunker Hill, it ended hopes of a peaceful settlement.

Backed by the Whigs, Parliament initially rejected the imposition of coercive measures by 170 votes, fearing an aggressive policy would simply drive the Americans towards independence. 

However, by the end of 1774 the collapse of British authority meant both North and George III were convinced war was inevitable. After Boston, Gage halted operations and awaited reinforcements; the Irish Parliament approved the recruitment of new regiments, while allowing Catholics to enlist for the first time. 

​Britain also signed a series of treaties with German states to supply additional troops. Within a year it had an army of over 32,000 men in America, the largest ever sent outside Europe at the time.

​The employment of German mercenaries and Catholics against people viewed as British citizens was opposed by many in Parliament, as well as the colonial assemblies; combined with the lack of activity by Gage, it allowed the Patriots to take control of the legislatures. 

Support for independence was boosted by Thomas Paine's pamphlet Common Sense, which argued for American self-government, that was widely reprinted. To draft the Declaration of Independence, Congress appointed the Committee of Five, consisting of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman and Robert Livingston.

Identifying inhabitants of the Thirteen Colonies as "one people", it simultaneously dissolved political links with Britain, while including a long list of alleged violations of "English rights" committed by George III. On July 2, Congress voted for independence and published the declaration on July 4, which Washington read to his troops in New York City on July 9. 

At this point, the Revolution ceased to be an internal dispute over trade and tax policies and became a civil war, since each state represented in Congress was engaged in a struggle with Britain, but also split between Patriots and Loyalists. Patriots generally supported independence from Britain and a new national union in Congress, while Loyalists remained faithful to British rule.

Estimates of numbers vary, one suggestion being the population as a whole was split evenly between committed Patriots, committed Loyalists and those who were indifferent. Others calculate the spilt as 40% Patriot, 40% neutral, 20% Loyalist, but with considerable regional variations.

At the onset of the war, Congress realized defeating Britain required foreign alliances and intelligence-gathering. The Committee of Secret Correspondence was formed for "the sole purpose of corresponding with our friends in Great Britain and other parts of the world".

From 1775 to 1776, Congress shared information and built alliances through secret correspondence, as well as employing secret agents in Europe to gather intelligence, conduct undercover operations, analyze foreign publications and initiate Patriot propaganda campaigns. Paine served as secretary, while Silas Deane was instrumental in securing French aid in Paris.

​War breaks out:

The war consisted of two principal campaign theaters within the thirteen states, and a smaller but strategically important one in the west of the Appalachian Mountains.

Fighting began in the Northern Theater and was at its most severe from 1775 to 1778. The Patriots achieved several strategic victories in the South and after defeating a British army at Saratoga in October 1777, the French formally entered the war as an American ally.

During 1778, Washington prevented the British army breaking out of New York City, while militia under George Rogers Clark supported by Francophone settlers and their Indian allies conquered Western Quebec, which became the Northwest Territory.

With the war in the north stalemated, in 1779 the British initiated their southern strategy, which aimed to mobilize Loyalist support in the region and reoccupy Patriot-controlled territory north to Chesapeake Bay.

​The campaign was initially successful, with the British capture of Charleston being a major setback for southern Patriots; however, a Franco-American force surrounded a British army at Yorktown and their surrender in October 1781 effectively ended fighting in North America.

Early engagements:

​On April 14, 1775, Sir Thomas Gage, Commander-in-Chief, North America since 1763 and also Governor of Massachusetts from 1774, received orders to take action against the Patriots. He decided to destroy militia ordnance stored at Concord, Massachusetts, and capture John Hancock and Samuel Adams, who were considered the principal instigators of the rebellion.

The operation was to begin around midnight on April 19, in the hope of completing it before the Patriots could respond. However, Paul Revere learned of the plan and notified Captain Parker, commander of the Concord militia, who prepared to resist the attempted seizure. 

The first action of the war was, commonly referred to as the Shot heard round the world involved a brief skirmish at Lexington, followed by a full-scale battle during the Battles of Lexington and Concord. British troops suffered around 300 casualties before withdrawing to Boston, which was then besieged by the militia.

In May, 4,500 British reinforcements arrived under Generals William Howe, John Burgoyne, and Sir Henry Clinton. On June 17, they seized the Charlestown Peninsula at the Battle of Bunker Hill, a frontal assault in which they suffered over 1,000 casualties. Dismayed at the costly attack which had gained them little, Gage appealed to London for a larger army to suppress the revolt, but instead was replaced as commander by Howe.

On June 14, 1775, Congress took control of Patriot forces outside Boston, and Congressional leader John Adams nominated George Washington as commander-in-chief of the new Continental Army. 

Washington previously commanded Virginia militia regiments in the French and Indian War, and on June 16, John Hancock officially proclaimed him "General and Commander in Chief of the army of the United Colonies." He assumed command on July 3, preferring to fortify Dorchester Heights outside Boston rather than assaulting it. 

In early March 1776, Colonel Henry Knox arrived with heavy artillery acquired in the Capture of Fort Ticonderoga. Under cover of darkness, on March 5 Washington placed these on Dorchester Heights, from where they could fire on the town and British ships in Boston Harbor.

​Fearing another Bunker Hill, Howe evacuated the city on March 17 without further loss and sailed to Halifax, Nova Scotia, while Washington moved south to New York City.

Beginning in August 1775, American privateers raided towns in Nova Scotia, including Saint John, Charlottetown and Yarmouth. In 1776, John Paul Jones and Jonathan Eddy attacked Canso and Fort Cumberland respectively. British officials in Quebec began negotiating with the Iroquois for their support, while US envoys urged them to remain neutral. 

Aware of Native American leanings toward the British and fearing an Anglo-Indian attack from Canada, Congress authorized a second invasion in April 1775. After defeat at the Battle of Quebec on December 31, the Americans maintained a loose blockade of the city until they retreated on May 6, 1776. A second defeat at Trois-Rivières on June 8 ended operations in Quebec.

British pursuit was initially blocked by American naval vessels on Lake Champlain until victory at Valcour Island on October 11 forced the Americans to withdraw to Fort Ticonderoga, while in December an uprising in Nova Scotia sponsored by Massachusetts was defeated at Fort Cumberland. These failures impacted public support for the Patriot cause, and aggressive anti-Loyalist policies in the New England colonies alienated the Canadians.

In Virginia, an attempt by Governor Lord Dunmore to seize militia stores on April 20 1775 led to an increase in tension, although conflict was avoided for the time being. This changed after the publication of Dunmore's Proclamation on November 7, 1775, promising freedom to any slaves who fled their Patriot masters and agreed to fight for the Crown.

British forces were defeated at Great Bridge on December 9 and took refuge on British ships anchored near the port of Norfolk. When the Third Virginia Convention refused to disband its militia or accept martial law, Dunmore ordered the Burning of Norfolk on January 1, 1776.

​The siege of Savage's Old Fields began on November 19 in South Carolina between Loyalist and Patriot militias, and the Loyalists were subsequently driven out of the colony in the Snow Campaign. 

Loyalists were recruited in North Carolina to reassert British rule in the South, but they were decisively defeated in the Battle of Moore's Creek Bridge. A British expedition sent to reconquer South Carolina launched an attack on Charleston in the Battle of Sullivan's Island on June 28, 1776, but it failed and left the South under Patriot control until 1780.

A shortage of gunpowder led Congress to authorize a naval expedition against The Bahamas to secure ordnance stored there. On March 3, 1776, an American squadron landed at Nassau and encountered minimal resistance, confiscating what supplies they could before sailing for home on March 17. 

A month later, after a brief skirmish with HMS Glasgow, they returned to New London, Connecticut, the base for American naval operations during the Revolution.

British New York counter-offensive:
Main article: New York and New Jersey campaign

After regrouping at Halifax, Nova Scotia, William Howe was determined to take the fight to the Americans. He sailed for New York in June 1776 and began landing troops on Staten Island near the entrance to New York Harbor on July 2.

The Americans rejected Howe's informal attempt to negotiate peace on July 30; Washington knew that an attack on the city was imminent and realized that he needed advance information to deal with disciplined British regular troops.

On August 12, 1776, Patriot Thomas Knowlton was given orders to form an elite group for reconnaissance and secret missions. Knowlton's Rangers, which included Nathan Hale, became the Army's first intelligence unit. 

When Washington was driven off Long Island he soon realized that he would need more than military might and amateur spies to defeat the British. He was committed to professionalizing military intelligence, and with the aid of Benjamin Tallmadge, they launched the six-man Culper spy ring. The efforts of Washington and the Culper Spy Ring substantially increased effective allocation and deployment of Continental regiments in the field. 

​Over the course of the war Washington spent more than 10 percent of his total military funds on intelligence operations.

Washington split his army into positions on Manhattan Island and across the East River in western Long Island. On August 27 at the Battle of Long Island, Howe outflanked Washington and forced him back to Brooklyn Heights, but he did not attempt to encircle Washington's forces. 

Through the night of August 28, General Henry Knox bombarded the British. Knowing they were up against overwhelming odds, Washington ordered the assembly of a war council on August 29; all agreed to retreat to Manhattan. Washington quickly had his troops assembled and ferried them across the East River to Manhattan on flat-bottomed freight boats without any losses in men or ordnance, leaving General Thomas Mifflin's regiments as a rearguard.

General Howe officially met with a delegation from Congress at the September Staten Island Peace Conference, but it failed to conclude peace as the British delegates only had the authority to offer pardons and could not recognize independence. 

​On September 15, Howe seized control of New York City when the British landed at Kip's Bay and unsuccessfully engaged the Americans at the Battle of Harlem Heights the following day. On October 18 Howe failed to encircle the Americans at the Battle of Pell's Point, and the Americans withdrew. Howe declined to close with Washington's army on October 28 at the Battle of White Plains, and instead attacked a hill that was of no strategic value.

​Washington's retreat isolated his remaining forces and the British captured Fort Washington on November 16. The British victory there amounted to Washington's most disastrous defeat with the loss of 3,000 prisoners. The remaining American regiments on Long Island fell back four days later. 

General Sir Henry Clinton wanted to pursue Washington's disorganized army, but he was first required to commit 6,000 troops to capture Newport, Rhode Island to secure the Loyalist port. General Charles Cornwallis pursued Washington, but Howe ordered him to halt, leaving Washington unmolested.

The outlook was bleak for the American cause: the reduced army had dwindled to fewer than 5,000 men and would be reduced further when enlistments expired at the end of the year. Popular support wavered, morale declined, and Congress abandoned Philadelphia and moved to Baltimore. Loyalist activity surged in the wake of the American defeat, especially in New York state.

In London, news of the victorious Long Island campaign was well received with festivities held in the capital. Public support reached a peak, and King George III awarded the Order of the Bath to Howe. 

Strategic deficiencies among Patriot forces were evident: Washington divided a numerically weaker army in the face of a stronger one, his inexperienced staff misread the military situation, and American troops fled in the face of enemy fire. The successes led to predictions that the British could win within a year. In the meantime, the British established winter quarters in the New York City area and anticipated renewed campaigning the following spring.

Patriot resurgence:

Two weeks after Congress withdrew to Maryland, Washington crossed the Delaware River about 30 miles upriver from Philadelphia on the night of December 25–26, 1776. Meanwhile the Hessians were involved with numerous clashes with small bands of patriots and were often aroused by false alarms at night in the weeks before the actual Battle of Trenton.

​By Christmas they were tired and weary, while a heavy snow storm led their commander, Colonel Johann Rall, to assume no attack of any consequence would occur. At daybreak on the 26th, the American patriots surprised and overwhelmed Rall and his troops, who lost over 20 killed including Rall, while 900 prisoners, German cannons and much supply were captured.

The Battle of Trenton restored the American army's morale, reinvigorated the Patriot cause, and dispelled their fear of the Hessian "mercenaries". A British attempt to retake Trenton was repulsed at Assunpink Creek on January 2; during the night, Washington outmaneuvered Cornwallis, then defeated his rearguard in the Battle of Princeton the following day. The two victories helped convince the French that the Americans were worthy military allies.

After his success at Princeton, Washington entered winter quarters at Morristown, New Jersey, where he remained until May. and he received the Congressional direction to inoculate all patriot troops against smallpox. With the exception of a minor skirmishing between the two armies which continued until March, Howe made no attempt to attack the Americans.

British northern strategy fails:
Main articles: Saratoga campaign and Philadelphia campaign

The 1776 campaign demonstrated regaining New England would be a prolonged affair, which led to a change in British strategy. This involved isolating the north from the rest of the country by taking control of the Hudson River, allowing them to focus on the south where Loyalist support was believed to be substantial. 

In December 1776, Howe wrote to the Colonial Secretary Lord Germain, proposing a limited offensive against Philadelphia, while a second force moved down the Hudson from Canada. Germain received this on February 23, 1777, followed a few days later by a memorandum from Burgoyne, then in London on leave.

Burgoyne supplied several alternatives, all of which gave him responsibility for the offensive, with Howe remaining on the defensive. The option selected required him to lead the main force south from Montreal down the Hudson Valley, while a detachment under Barry St. Leger moved east from Lake Ontario.

The two would meet at Albany, leaving Howe to decide whether to join them. Reasonable in principle, this did not account for the logistical difficulties involved and Burgoyne erroneously assumed Howe would remain on the defensive; Germain's failure to make this clear meant he opted to attack Philadelphia instead.

Burgoyne set out on June 14, 1777, with a mixed force of British regulars, German auxiliaries and Canadian militia, and captured Fort Ticonderoga on July 5. As General Horatio Gates retreated, his troops blocked roads, destroyed bridges, dammed streams, and stripped the area of food. 

This slowed Burgoyne's progress and forced him to send out large foraging expeditions; on one of these, more than 700 British troops were captured at the Battle of Bennington on August 16. St Leger moved east and besieged Fort Stanwix; despite defeating an American relief force at the Battle of Oriskany on August 6, he was abandoned by his Indian allies and withdrew to Quebec on August 22. 

​Now isolated and outnumbered by Gates, Burgoyne continued onto Albany rather than retreating to Fort Ticonderoga, reaching Saratoga on September 13. He asked Clinton for support while constructing defenses around the town.

Morale among his troops rapidly declined, and an unsuccessful attempt to break past Gates at the Battle of Freeman Farms on September 19 resulted in 600 British casualties. 

When Clinton advised he could not reach them, Burgoyne's subordinates advised retreat; a reconnaissance in force on October 7 was repulsed by Gates at the Battle of Bemis Heights, forcing them back into Saratoga with heavy losses.

By October 11, all hope of escape had vanished; persistent rain reduced the camp to a "squalid hell" of mud and starving cattle, supplies were dangerously low and many of the wounded in agony. 

Burgoyne capitulated on October 17; around 6,222 soldiers, including German forces commanded by General Riedesel, surrendered their arms before being taken to Boston, where they were to be transported to England.

After securing additional supplies, Howe made another attempt on Philadelphia by landing his troops in Chesapeake Bay on August 24. He now compounded failure to support Burgoyne by missing repeated opportunities to destroy his opponent, defeating Washington at the Battle of Brandywine on September 11, then allowing him to withdraw in good order. 

After dispersing an American detachment at Paoli on September 20, Cornwallis occupied Philadelphia on September 26, with the main force of 9,000 under Howe based just to the north at Germantown. Washington attacked them on October 4, but was repulsed.

To prevent Howe's forces in Philadelphia being resupplied by sea, the Patriots erected Fort Mifflin and nearby Fort Mercer on the east and west banks of the Delaware respectively, and placed obstacles in the river south of the city. This was supported by a small flotilla of Continental Navy ships on the Delaware, supplemented by the Pennsylvania State Navy, commanded by John Hazelwood.

An attempt by the Royal Navy to take the forts in the October 20 to 22 Battle of Red Bank failed; a second attack captured Fort Mifflin on November 16, while Fort Mercer was abandoned two days later when Cornwallis breached the walls. 

His supply lines secured, Howe tried to tempt Washington into giving battle, but after inconclusive skirmishing at the Battle of White Marsh from December 5 to 8, he withdrew to Philadelphia for the winter.

​On December 19, the Americans followed suit and entered winter quarters at Valley Forge; while Washington's domestic opponents contrasted his lack of battlefield success with Gates' victory at Saratoga, foreign observers such as Frederick the Great were equally impressed with Germantown, which demonstrated resilience and determination. 

Over the winter, poor conditions, supply problems and low morale resulted in 2,000 deaths, with another 3,000 unfit for duty due to lack of shoes. However, Baron Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben took the opportunity to introduce Prussian Army drill and infantry tactics to the entire Continental Army; he did this by training "model companies" in each regiment, who then instructed their home units. 

Despite Valley Forge being only twenty miles away, Howe made no effort to attack their camp, an action some critics argue could have ended the war.

Foreign intervention:
Main articles:  ​
Like his predecessors, French foreign minister Vergennes considered the 1763 Peace a national humiliation and viewed the war as an opportunity to weaken Britain. He initially avoided open conflict, but allowed American ships to take on cargoes in French ports, a technical violation of neutrality. 

Although public opinion favored the American cause, Finance Minister Turgot argued they did not need French help to gain independence and war was too expensive. Instead, Vergennes persuaded Louis XVI to secretly fund a government front company to purchase munitions for the Patriots, carried in neutral Dutch ships and imported through Sint Eustatius in the Caribbean.

Many Americans opposed a French alliance, fearing to "exchange one tyranny for another", but this changed after a series of military setbacks in early 1776. As France had nothing to gain from the colonies reconciling with Britain, Congress had three choices; making peace on British terms, continuing the struggle on their own, or proclaiming independence, guaranteed by France.

Although the Declaration of Independence in July 1776 had wide public support, Adams was among those reluctant to pay the price of an alliance with France, and over 20% of Congressmen voted against it. Congress agreed to the treaty with reluctance and as the war moved in their favor increasingly lost interest in it.

Silas Deane was sent to Paris to begin negotiations with Vergennes, whose key objectives were replacing Britain as the United States' primary commercial and military partner while securing the French West Indies from American expansion. These islands were extremely valuable; in 1772, the value of sugar and coffee produced by Saint-Domingue on its own exceeded that of all American exports combined. 

Talks progressed slowly until October 1777, when British defeat at Saratoga and their apparent willingness to negotiate peace convinced Vergennes only a permanent alliance could prevent the "disaster" of Anglo-American rapprochement. Assurances of formal French support allowed Congress to reject the Carlisle Peace Commission and insist on nothing short of complete independence.

On February 6, 1778, France and the United States signed the Treaty of Amity and Commerce regulating trade between the two countries, followed by a defensive military alliance against Britain, the Treaty of Alliance.

In return for French guarantees of American independence, Congress undertook to defend their interests in the West Indies, while both sides agreed not to make a separate peace; conflict over these provisions would lead to the 1798 to 1800 Quasi-War. Charles III of Spain was invited to join on the same terms but refused, largely due to concerns over the impact of the Revolution on Spanish colonies in the Americas.

Spain had complained on multiple occasions about encroachment by American settlers into Louisiana, a problem that could only get worse once the United States replaced Britain.

Although Spain ultimately made important contributions to American success, in the Treaty of Aranjuez (1779), Charles agreed only to support France's war with Britain outside America, in return for help in recovering Gibraltar, Menorca and Spanish Florida. 

The terms were confidential since several conflicted with American aims; for example, the French claimed exclusive control of the Newfoundland cod fisheries, a non-negotiable for colonies like Massachusetts. 

​One less well-known impact of this agreement was the abiding American distrust of 'foreign entanglements'; the US would not sign another treaty until the NATO agreement in 1949. This was because the US had agreed not to make peace without France, while Aranjuez committed France to keep fighting until Spain recovered Gibraltar, effectively making it a condition of US independence without the knowledge of Congress.

​To encourage French participation in the struggle for independence, the US representative in Paris, Silas Deane promised promotion and command positions to any French officer who joined the Continental Army.

Although many proved incompetent, one outstanding exception was Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette, whom Congress appointed a major General. In addition to his military ability, Lafayette showed considerable political skill in building support for Washington among his officers and within Congress, liaising with French army and naval commanders, and promoting the Patriot cause in France.

When the war started, Britain tried to borrow the Dutch-based Scots Brigade for service in America, but pro-Patriot sentiment led the States General to refuse. Although the Republic was no longer a major power, prior to 1774 they still dominated the European carrying trade, and Dutch merchants made large profits shipping French-supplied munitions to the Patriots. This ended when Britain declared war in December 1780, a conflict that proved disastrous to the Dutch economy. 

The Dutch were also excluded from the First League of Armed Neutrality, formed by Russia, Sweden and Denmark in March 1780 to protect neutral shipping from being stopped and searched for contraband by Britain and France.

The British government failed to take into account the strength of the American merchant marine and support from European countries, which allowed the colonies to import munitions and continue trading with relative impunity. While well aware of this, the North administration delayed placing the Royal Navy on a war footing for cost reasons; this prevented the institution of an effective blockade and restricted them to ineffectual diplomatic protests. 

Traditional British policy was to employ European land-based allies to divert the opposition, a role filled by Prussia in the Seven Years' War; in 1778, they were diplomatically isolated and faced war on multiple fronts.

Meanwhile, George III had given up on subduing America while Britain had a European war to fight. He did not welcome war with France, but he believed the British victories over France in the Seven Years' War as a reason to believe in ultimate victory over France. 
​

Britain could not find a powerful ally among the Great Powers to engage France on the European continent. Britain subsequently changed its focus into the Caribbean theater, and diverted major military resources away from America:

Vergennes colleague "For her honour, France had to seize this opportunity to rise from her degradation......If she neglected it, if fear overcame duty, she would add debasement to humiliation, and become an object of contempt to her own century and to all future peoples".

Stalemate in the North:
Main articles: 
​At the end of 1777, Howe resigned and was replaced by Sir Henry Clinton on May 24, 1778; with French entry into the war, he was ordered to consolidate his forces in New York.[199] 

On June 18, the British departed Philadelphia with the reinvigorated Americans in pursuit; the Battle of Monmouth on June 28 was inconclusive but boosted Patriot morale. Washington had rallied Charles Lee's broken regiments, the Continentals repulsed British bayonet charges, the British rear guard lost perhaps 50 per-cent more casualties, and the Americans held the field at the end of the day. That midnight, the newly installed Clinton continued his retreat to New York.

A French naval force under Admiral Charles Henri Hector d'Estaing was sent to assist Washington; deciding New York was too formidable a target, in August they launched a combined attack on Newport, with General John Sullivan commanding land forces. The resulting Battle of Rhode Island was indecisive; badly damaged by a storm, the French withdrew to avoid putting their ships at risk. Further activity was limited to British raids on Chestnut Neck and Little Egg Harbor in October.

In July 1779, the Americans captured British positions at Stony Point and Paulus Hook. Clinton unsuccessfully tried to tempt Washington into a decisive engagement by sending General William Tryon to raid Connecticut. In July, a large American naval operation, the Penobscot Expedition, attempted to retake Maine, then part of Massachusetts, but was defeated. Persistent Iroquois raids along the border with Quebec led to the punitive Sullivan Expedition in April 1779, destroying many settlements but failing to stop them.

During the winter of 1779–1780, the Continental Army suffered greater hardships than at Valley Forge. Morale was poor, public support fell away in the long war, the Continental dollar was virtually worthless, the army was plagued with supply problems, desertion was common, and mutinies occurred in the Pennsylvania Line and New Jersey Line regiments over the conditions in early 1780.
​
​In June 1780, Clinton sent 6,000 men under Wilhelm von Knyphausen to retake New Jersey, but they were halted by local militia at the Battle of Connecticut Farms; although the Americans withdrew, Knyphausen felt he was not strong enough to engage Washington's main force and retreated. 

A second attempt two weeks later ended in a British defeat at the Battle of Springfield, effectively ending their ambitions in New Jersey. In July, Washington appointed Benedict Arnold commander of West Point; his attempt to betray the fort to the British failed due to incompetent planning, and the plot was revealed when his British contact John André was captured and later executed. 

​Arnold escaped to New York and switched sides, an action justified in a pamphlet addressed "To the Inhabitants of America"; the Patriots condemned his betrayal, while he found himself almost as unpopular with the British.

​The war to the west of the Appalachians was largely confined to skirmishing and raids. In February 1778, an expedition of militia to destroy British military supplies in settlements along the Cuyahoga River was halted by adverse weather. 

Later in the year, a second campaign was undertaken to seize the Illinois Country from the British. Virginia militia, Canadien settlers, and Indian allies commanded by Colonel George Rogers Clark captured Kaskaskia on July 4 then secured Vincennes, though Vincennes was recaptured by Quebec Governor Henry Hamilton.

In early 1779, the Virginians counterattacked in the siege of Fort Vincennes and took Hamilton prisoner. Clark secured western British Quebec as the American Northwest Territory in the Treaty of Paris concluding the war.

On May 25, 1780, British Colonel Henry Bird invaded Kentucky as part of a wider operation to clear American resistance from Quebec to the Gulf coast. Their Pensacola advance on New Orleans was overcome by Spanish Governor Gálvez's offensive on Mobile.

Simultaneous British attacks were repulsed on St. Louis by the Spanish Lieutenant Governor de Leyba, and on the Virginia county courthouse at Cahokia by Lieutenant Colonel Clark. The British initiative under Bird from Detroit was ended at the rumored approach of Clark. 

The scale of violence in the Licking River Valley, such as during the Battle of Blue Licks, was extreme "even for frontier standards". It led to men of English and German settlements to join Clark's militia when the British and their auxiliaries withdrew to the Great Lakes. The Americans responded with a major offensive along the Mad River in August which met with some success in the Battle of Piqua but did not end Indian raids.

French soldier Augustin de La Balme led a Canadian militia in an attempt to capture Detroit, but they dispersed when Miami natives led by Little Turtle attacked the encamped settlers on November 5. The war in the west had become a stalemate with the British garrison sitting in Detroit and the Virginians expanding westward settlements north of the Ohio River in the face of British-allied Indian resistance.

War in the South:
Main article: Southern theater of the American Revolutionary War
​
The "Southern Strategy" was developed by Lord Germain, based on input from London-based Loyalists like Joseph Galloway. They argued it made no sense to fight the Patriots in the north where they were strongest, while the New England economy was reliant on trade with Britain, regardless of who governed it.

On the other hand, duties on tobacco made the South far more profitable for Britain, while local support meant securing it required small numbers of regular troops.

Victory would leave a truncated United States facing British possessions in the south, Canada to the north, and Ohio on their western border; with the Atlantic seaboard controlled by the Royal Navy, Congress would be forced to agree to terms. However, assumptions about the level of Loyalist support proved wildly optimistic.

Germain accordingly ordered Augustine Prévost, the British commander in East Florida, to advance into Georgia in December 1778. Lieutenant-Colonel Archibald Campbell, an experienced officer taken prisoner earlier in the war before being exchanged for Ethan Allen, captured Savannah on December 29, 1778.

He recruited a Loyalist militia of nearly 1,100, many of whom allegedly joined only after Campbell threatened to confiscate their property. Poor motivation and training made them unreliable troops, as demonstrated in their defeat by Patriot militia at the Battle of Kettle Creek on February 14, 1779, although this was offset by British victory at Brier Creek on March 3.

​In June, Prévost launched an abortive assault on Charleston, before retreating to Savannah, an operation notorious for widespread looting by British troops that enraged both Loyalists and Patriots.

In October, a joint French and American operation under Admiral d'Estaing and General Benjamin Lincoln failed to recapture Savannah. Prévost was replaced by Lord Cornwallis, who assumed responsibility for Germain's strategy; he soon realized estimates of Loyalist support were considerably over-stated, and he needed far larger numbers of regular forces.

​Reinforced by Clinton, his troops captured Charleston in May 1780, inflicting the most serious Patriot defeat of the war; over 5,000 prisoners were taken and the Continental Army in the south effectively destroyed.

On May 29, Loyalist regular Banastre Tarleton defeated an American force of 400 at the Battle of Waxhaws; over 120 were killed, many allegedly after surrendering. Responsibility is disputed, Loyalists claiming Tarleton was shot at while negotiating terms of surrender, but it was later used as a recruiting tool by the Patriots.

Clinton returned to New York, leaving Cornwallis to oversee the south; despite their success, the two men left barely on speaking terms, with dire consequences for the future conduct of the war. The Southern strategy depended on local support, but this was undermined by a series of coercive measures.

Previously, captured Patriots were sent home after swearing not to take up arms against the king; they were now required to fight their former comrades, while the confiscation of Patriot-owned plantations led formerly neutral "grandees" to side with them. Skirmishes at Williamson's Plantation, Cedar Springs, Rocky Mount, and Hanging Rock signaled widespread resistance to the new oaths throughout South Carolina.

In July, Congress appointed General Horatio Gates commander in the south; he was defeated at the Battle of Camden on August 16, leaving Cornwallis free to enter North Carolina. Despite battlefield success, the British could not control the countryside and Patriot attacks continued; before moving north, Cornwallis sent Loyalist militia under Major Patrick Ferguson to cover his left flank, leaving their forces too far apart to provide mutual support. 

​In early October, Ferguson was defeated at the Battle of Kings Mountain, dispersing organized Loyalist resistance in the region. Despite this, Cornwallis continued into North Carolina hoping for Loyalist support, while Washington replaced Gates with General Nathanael Greene in December 1780.

​Greene divided his army, leading his main force southeast pursued by Cornwallis; a detachment was sent southwest under Daniel Morgan, who defeated Tarleton's British Legion at Cowpens on January 17, 1781, nearly eliminating it as a fighting force. 

The Patriots now held the initiative in the south, with the exception of a raid on Richmond led by Benedict Arnold in January 1781. Greene led Cornwallis on a series of countermarches around North Carolina; by early March, the British were exhausted and short of supplies and Greene felt strong enough to fight the Battle of Guilford Court House on March 15.

Although victorious, Cornwallis suffered heavy casualties and retreated to Wilmington, North Carolina seeking supplies and reinforcements.

The Patriots now controlled most of the Carolinas and Georgia outside the coastal areas; after a minor reversal at the Battle of Hobkirk's Hill, they recaptured Fort Watson and Fort Motte on April 15. On June 6, Brigadier General Andrew Pickens captured Augusta, leaving the British in Georgia confined to Charleston and Savannah. 

The assumption Loyalists would do most of the fighting left the British short of troops and battlefield victories came at the cost of losses they could not replace. Despite halting Greene's advance at the Battle of Eutaw Springs on September 8, Cornwallis withdrew to Charleston with little to show for his campaign.

Western campaign:
Main article: Western theater of the American Revolutionary War

When Spain joined France's war against Britain in 1779, their treaty specifically excluded Spanish military action in North America. However, from the beginning of the war, Bernardo de Gálvez, the Governor of Spanish Louisiana, allowed the Americans to import supplies and munitions into New Orleans, then ship them to Pittsburgh. This provided an alternative transportation route for the Continental Army, bypassing the British blockade of the Atlantic Coast.

The trade was organized by Oliver Pollock, a successful merchant in Havana and New Orleans who was appointed US "commercial agent". It also helped support the American campaign in the west; in the 1778 Illinois campaign, militia under General George Rogers Clark cleared the British from what was then part of Quebec, creating Illinois County, Virginia.

Despite official neutrality, Gálvez initiated offensive operations against British outposts. First, he cleared British garrisons in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Fort Bute, and Natchez, Mississippi, and captured five forts. In doing so, Gálvez opened navigation on the Mississippi River north to the American settlement in Pittsburg.

In 1781, Galvez and Pollock campaigned east along the Gulf Coast to secure West Florida, including British-held Mobile and Pensacola. The Spanish operations crippled the British supply of armaments to British Indian allies, which effectively suspended a military alliance to attack settlers between the Mississippi River and the Appalachian Mountains.

British defeat in the United States:
Main article: Yorktown campaign
​
​Clinton spent most of 1781 based in New York City; he failed to construct a coherent operational strategy, partly due to his difficult relationship with Admiral Marriot Arbuthnot. 

In Charleston, Cornwallis independently developed an aggressive plan for a campaign in Virginia, which he hoped would isolate Greene's army in the Carolinas and cause the collapse of Patriot resistance in the South. This was approved by Lord Germain in London, but neither of them informed Clinton.

Washington and Rochambeau now discussed their options; the former wanted to attack New York, the latter Virginia, where Cornwallis' forces were less well-established and thus easier to defeat. 

Washington eventually gave way and Lafayette took a combined Franco-American force into Virginia, but Clinton misinterpreted his movements as preparations for an attack on New York. Concerned by this threat, he instructed Cornwallis to establish a fortified sea base where the Royal Navy could evacuate his troops to help defend New York.

When Lafayette entered Virginia, Cornwallis complied with Clinton's orders and withdrew to Yorktown, where he constructed strong defenses and awaited evacuation. 

An agreement by the Spanish navy to defend the French West Indies allowed Admiral de Grasse to relocate to the Atlantic seaboard, a move Arbuthnot did not anticipate. This provided Lafayette naval support, while the failure of previous combined operations at Newport and Savannah meant their co-ordination was planned more carefully. 

​Despite repeated urging from his subordinates, Cornwallis made no attempt to engage Lafayette before he could establish siege lines. Even worse, expecting to be withdrawn within a few days he abandoned the outer defenses, which were promptly occupied by the besiegers and hastened British defeat.

​On August 31, a British fleet under Thomas Graves left New York for Yorktown. After landing troops and munitions for the besiegers on August 30, de Grasse had remained in Chesapeake Bay and intercepted him on September 5; although the Battle of the Chesapeake was indecisive in terms of losses, Graves was forced to retreat, leaving Cornwallis isolated. 

An attempted breakout over the York River at Gloucester Point failed due to bad weather. Under heavy bombardment with dwindling supplies, Cornwallis felt his situation was hopeless and on October 16 sent emissaries to Washington to negotiate surrender; after twelve hours of negotiations, these were finalized the next day. 

Responsibility for defeat was the subject of fierce public debate between Cornwallis, Clinton and Germain. Despite criticism from his junior officers, Cornwallis retained the confidence of his peers and later held a series of senior government positions; Clinton ultimately took most of the blame and spent the rest of his life in obscurity.

Subsequent to Yorktown, American forces were assigned to supervise the armistice between Washington and Clinton made to facilitate British departure following the January 1782 law of Parliament forbidding any further British offensive action in North America. British-American negotiations in Paris led to preliminaries signed November 1782 acknowledging US independence.

The enacted Congressional war aim for British withdrawal from its North American claims to be ceded to the US was completed for the coastal cities in stages.

In the South, Generals Greene and Wayne loosely invested the withdrawing British at Savanna and Charleston. There they observed the British finally taking off their regulars from Charleston December 14, 1782. 

Loyalist provincial militias of whites and free blacks, as well as Loyalists with their slaves were transported in a relocation to Nova Scotia and the British Caribbean. Native American allies of the British and some freed blacks were left to escape through the American lines unaided.

Washington moved his army to New Windsor on the Hudson River about sixty miles north of New York City, and there the substance of the American army was furloughed home with officers at half pay until the Treaty of Paris formally ended the war on September 3, 1783.

​At that time, Congress decommissioned the regiments of Washington's Continental Army and began issuing land grants to veterans in the Northwest Territories for their war service. The last of the British occupation of New York City ended on November 25, 1783, with the departure of Clinton's replacement, General Sir Guy Carleton.

Click on any of the following blue hyperlinks for more about The American Revolutionary War:
​

​




The War of 1812 (1812–1815) Pictured below: Clockwise from top:
The War of 1812 (18 June 1812 – 17 February 1815) was a conflict fought by the United States of America and its indigenous allies against the United Kingdom and its allies in British North America, with limited participation by Spain in Florida. It began when the US declared war on 18 June 1812 and, although peace terms were agreed in the December 1814 Treaty of Ghent, did not officially end until ratified by Congress on 17 February 1815.

Tensions originated in long-standing differences over territorial expansion in North America and British support for Native American tribes who opposed US colonial settlement in the Northwest Territory. These escalated in 1807 after the Royal Navy began enforcing tighter restrictions on American trade with France, exacerbated by the impressment of men claimed as British subjects, even those with American citizenship certificates. 

Opinion was split on how to respond, and although majorities in both the House and Senate voted for war, they divided along strict party lines, with the Democratic-Republican Party in favor and the Federalist Party against. 

News of British concessions made in an attempt to avoid war did not reach the US until late July, by which time the conflict was already underway.

At sea, the far larger Royal Navy imposed an effective blockade on US maritime trade, while between 1812 to 1814 British regulars and colonial militia defeated a series of American attacks on Upper Canada. This was balanced by the US winning control of the Northwest Territory with victories at Lake Erie and the Thames in 1813.

The abdication of Napoleon in early 1814 allowed the British to send additional troops to North America and the Royal Navy to reinforce their blockade, crippling the American economy. In August 1814, negotiations began in Ghent, with both sides wanting peace; the British economy had been severely impacted by the trade embargo, while the Federalists convened the Hartford Convention in December to formalize their opposition to the war.

In August 1814, British troops burned Washington, before American victories at Baltimore and Plattsburgh in September ended fighting in the north. It continued in the Southeastern United States, where in late 1813 a civil war had broken out between a Creek faction supported by Spanish and British traders and those backed by the US.

Supported by American militia under General Andrew Jackson, they won a series of victories, culminating in the capture of Pensacola in November 1814. In early 1815, Jackson defeated a British attack on New Orleans, catapulting him to national celebrity and later victory in the 1828 United States presidential election. 

News of this success arrived in Washington at the same time as that of the signing of the Treaty of Ghent, which essentially restored the position to that prevailing before the war.

While Britain insisted this included lands belonging to their Native American allies prior to 1811, Congress did not recognize them as independent nations and neither side sought to enforce this requirement.

Click on any of the following blue hyperlinks for more about the War of 1812:







American Civil War (1861-1865) Pictured below: Clockwise from top:
​The American Civil War (April 12, 1861 – May 9, 1865; also known by other names) was a civil war in the United States between the Union (states that remained loyal to the federal union, or "the North") and the Confederacy (states that voted to secede, or "the South"). 

The central cause of the war was the status of slavery, especially the expansion of slavery into territories acquired as a result of the Louisiana Purchase and the Mexican–American War. On the eve of the Civil War in 1860, four million of the 32 million Americans (~13%) were enslaved black people, almost all in the South.

The practice of slavery in the United States was one of the key political issues of the 19th century. Decades of political unrest over slavery led up to the Civil War. Disunion came after Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 United States presidential election on an anti-slavery expansion platform.

An initial seven southern slave states declared their secession from the country to form the Confederacy. Confederate forces seized federal forts within territory they claimed. The last-minute Crittenden Compromise tried to avert conflict but failed; both sides prepared for war.

Fighting broke out in April 1861 when the Confederate army began the Battle of Fort Sumter in South Carolina, just over a month after the first inauguration of Abraham Lincoln.

The Confederacy grew to control at least a majority of territory in eleven states (out of the 34 U.S. states in February 1861), and asserted claims to two more. Both sides raised large volunteer and conscription armies. Four years of intense combat, mostly in the South, ensued.

During 1861–1862 in the war's Western Theater, the Union made significant permanent gains—though in the war's Eastern Theater the conflict was inconclusive. On January 1, 1863, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which made ending slavery a war goal, declaring all persons held as slaves in states in rebellion "forever free."

To the west, the Union destroyed the Confederate river navy by the summer of 1862, then much of its western armies, and seized New Orleans. The successful 1863 Union siege of Vicksburg split the Confederacy in two at the Mississippi River.

In 1863, Confederate General Robert E. Lee's incursion north ended at the Battle of Gettysburg. Western successes led to General Ulysses S. Grant's command of all Union armies in 1864. Inflicting an ever-tightening naval blockade of Confederate ports, the Union marshaled resources and manpower to attack the Confederacy from all directions. This led to the fall of Atlanta in 1864 to Union General William Tecumseh Sherman, followed by his march to the sea.

The last significant battles raged around the ten-month Siege of Petersburg, gateway to the Confederate capital of Richmond.

The Civil War effectively ended on April 9, 1865, when Confederate General Lee surrendered to Union General Grant at the Battle of Appomattox Court House, after Lee had abandoned Petersburg and Richmond. Confederate generals throughout the Confederate army followed suit. President Lincoln was assassinated just five days after Lee's surrender.

The conclusion of the American Civil War lacks a clean end date: land forces continued surrendering until June 23. By the end of the war, much of the South's infrastructure was destroyed, especially its railroads. The Confederacy collapsed, slavery was abolished, and four million enslaved black people were freed. The war-torn nation then entered the Reconstruction era in a partially successful attempt to rebuild the country and grant civil rights to freed slaves.

The Civil War is one of the most studied and written about episodes in the history of the United States. It remains the subject of cultural and historiographical debate. Of particular interest is the persisting myth of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy.

The American Civil War was among the earliest to use industrial warfare. Railroads, the telegraph, steamships, the ironclad warship, and mass-produced weapons saw wide use.

In total the war left between 620,000 and 750,000 soldiers dead, along with an undetermined number of civilian casualties. The Civil War remains the deadliest military conflict in American history. The technology and brutality of the Civil War foreshadowed the coming World Wars.

Causes of secession:
Main articles: 
​The causes of secession were complex and have been controversial since the war began, but most academic scholars identify slavery as the central cause of the war. The issue has been further complicated by historical revisionists, who have tried to offer a variety of reasons for the war. Slavery was the central source of escalating political tension in the 1850s.

The Republican Party was determined to prevent any spread of slavery to the territories, which, after they were admitted as states, would give the North greater representation in Congress and the Electoral College. Many Southern leaders had threatened secession if the Republican candidate, Lincoln, won the 1860 election. After Lincoln won, many Southern leaders felt that disunion was their only option, fearing that the loss of representation would hamper their ability to promote pro-slavery acts and policies.

In Lincoln's second inaugural address, Lincoln said that "slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it."

Slavery:
Main article: Slavery in the United States

Slavery was the main cause of disunion. Slavery had been a controversial issue during the framing of the Constitution but had been left unsettled. The issue of slavery had confounded the nation since its inception, and increasingly separated the United States into a slaveholding South and a free North. The issue was exacerbated by the rapid territorial expansion of the country, which repeatedly brought to the fore the issue of whether new territory should be slaveholding or free. The issue had dominated politics for decades leading up to the war.

Key attempts to solve the issue included the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850, but these only postponed an inevitable showdown over slavery.

The motivations of the average person were not inherently those of their faction; some Northern soldiers were even indifferent on the subject of slavery, but a general pattern can be established. Confederate soldiers fought the war primarily to protect a Southern society of which slavery was an integral part 

From the anti-slavery perspective, the issue was primarily whether slavery was an anachronistic evil incompatible with republicanism. The strategy of the anti-slavery forces was containment—to stop the expansion of slavery and thereby put it on a path to ultimate extinction. The slaveholding interests in the South denounced this strategy as infringing upon their constitutional rights. 

Southern whites believed that the emancipation of slaves would destroy the South's economy, due to the large amount of capital invested in slaves and fears of integrating the ex-slave black population. 

In particular, many Southerners feared a repeat of the 1804 Haiti massacre (also known as "the horrors of Santo Domingo"), in which former slaves systematically murdered most of what was left of the country's white population — including men, women, children, and even many sympathetic to abolition — after the successful slave revolt in Haiti.

Historian Thomas Fleming points to the historical phrase "a disease in the public mind" used by critics of this idea and proposes it contributed to the segregation in the Jim Crow era following emancipation. These fears were exacerbated by the 1859 attempt of John Brown to instigate an armed slave rebellion in the South.

Abolitionists:
Main article: Abolitionism in the United States

The abolitionists – those advocating the end of slavery – were very active in the decades leading up to the Civil War. They traced their philosophical roots back to the Puritans, who strongly believed that slavery was morally wrong. One of the early Puritan writings on this subject was The Selling of Joseph, by Samuel Sewall in 1700. In it, Sewall condemned slavery and the slave trade and refuted many of the era's typical justifications for slavery.

​The American Revolution and the cause of liberty added tremendous impetus to the abolitionist cause. Slavery, which had been around for thousands of years, was considered normal and was not a significant issue of public debate prior to the Revolution.

The Revolution changed that and made it into an issue that had to be addressed. As a result, during and shortly after the Revolution, the northern states quickly started outlawing slavery. Even in southern states, laws were changed to limit slavery and facilitate manumission. The amount of indentured servitude dropped dramatically throughout the country. An Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves sailed through Congress with little opposition.

President Thomas Jefferson supported it, and it went into effect on January 1, 1808. Benjamin Franklin and James Madison each helped found manumission societies.

Influenced by the Revolution, many slave owners freed their slaves, but some, such as George Washington, did so only in their wills. The number of free blacks as a proportion of the black population in the upper South increased from less than 1 percent to nearly 10 percent between 1790 and 1810 as a result of these actions.

​The establishment of the Northwest Territory as "free soil" – no slavery – by Manasseh Cutler and Rufus Putnam (who both came from Puritan New England) would also prove crucial. This territory (which became the states of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and part of Minnesota) doubled the size of the United States.

​In the decades leading up to the Civil War, abolitionists, such as Theodore Parker, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau and Frederick Douglass, repeatedly used the Puritan heritage of the country to bolster their cause.

The most radical anti-slavery newspaper, The Liberator, invoked the Puritans and Puritan values over a thousand times. Parker, in urging New England Congressmen to support the abolition of slavery, wrote that "The son of the Puritan ... is sent to Congress to stand up for Truth and Right....". 

Literature served as a means to spread the message to common folks. Key works included Twelve Years a Slave, the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, American Slavery as It Is, and the most important: Uncle Tom's Cabin, the best-selling book of the 19th century aside from the Bible.

By 1840 more than 15,000 people were members of abolitionist societies in the United States. Abolitionism in the United States became a popular expression of moralism, and led directly to the Civil War. In churches, conventions and newspapers, reformers promoted an absolute and immediate rejection of slavery. 

Support for abolition among the religious was not universal though. As the war approached, even the main denominations split along political lines, forming rival southern and northern churches. In 1845, for example, Baptists split into the Northern Baptists and Southern Baptists over the issue of slavery.

Abolitionist sentiment was not strictly religious or moral in origin. The Whig Party became increasingly opposed to slavery because they saw it as inherently against the ideals of capitalism and the free market. Whig leader William H. Seward (who would serve as Lincoln's secretary of state) proclaimed that there was an "irrepressible conflict" between slavery and free labor, and that slavery had left the South backward and undeveloped. As the Whig party dissolved in the 1850s, the mantle of abolition fell to its newly formed successor, the Republican Party.

Territorial crisis:
Further information: Slave states and free states

Manifest destiny heightened the conflict over slavery, as each new territory acquired had to face the thorny question of whether to allow or disallow the "peculiar institution". Between 1803 and 1854, the United States achieved a vast expansion of territory through purchase, negotiation, and conquest.

At first, the new states carved out of these territories entering the union were apportioned equally between slave and free states. Pro- and anti-slavery forces collided over the territories west of the Mississippi.

The Mexican–American War and its aftermath was a key territorial event in the leadup to the war. As the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo finalized the conquest of northern Mexico west to California in 1848, slaveholding interests looked forward to expanding into these lands and perhaps Cuba and Central America as well. 

Prophetically, Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote that "Mexico will poison us", referring to the ensuing divisions around whether the newly conquered lands would end up slave or free. Northern "free soil" interests vigorously sought to curtail any further expansion of slave territory.

The Compromise of 1850 over California balanced a free-soil state with stronger fugitive slave laws for a political settlement after four years of strife in the 1840s. But the states admitted following California were all free: Minnesota (1858), Oregon (1859), and Kansas (1861).

In the Southern states, the question of the territorial expansion of slavery westward again became explosive. Both the South and the North drew the same conclusion: "The power to decide the question of slavery for the territories was the power to determine the future of slavery itself."

​By 1860, four doctrines had emerged to answer the question of federal control in the territories, and they all claimed they were sanctioned by the Constitution, implicitly or explicitly. 

The first of these "conservative" theories, represented by the Constitutional Union Party, argued that the Missouri Compromise apportionment of territory north for free soil and south for slavery should become a Constitutional mandate. The Crittenden Compromise of 1860 was an expression of this view.

The second doctrine of Congressional preeminence, championed by Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party, insisted that the Constitution did not bind legislators to a policy of balance—that slavery could be excluded in a territory as it was done in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 at the discretion of Congress; thus Congress could restrict human bondage, but never establish it.

The ill-fated Wilmot Proviso announced this position in 1846. The Proviso was a pivotal moment in national politics, as it was the first time slavery had become a major congressional issue based on sectionalism, instead of party lines. Its bipartisan support by northern Democrats and Whigs, and bipartisan opposition by southerners was a dark omen of coming divisions.

Senator Stephen A. Douglas proclaimed the third doctrine: territorial or "popular" sovereignty, which asserted that the settlers in a territory had the same rights as states in the Union to establish or disestablish slavery as a purely local matter. 

The Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854 legislated this doctrine. In the Kansas Territory, years of pro- and anti-slavery violence and political conflict erupted; the U.S. House of Representatives voted to admit Kansas as a free state in early 1860, but its admission did not pass the Senate until January 1861, after the departure of Southern senators.

The fourth doctrine was advocated by Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis, one of state sovereignty ("states' rights"), also known as the "Calhoun doctrine", named after the South Carolinian political theorist and statesman John C. Calhoun. Rejecting the arguments for federal authority or self-government, state sovereignty would empower states to promote the expansion of slavery as part of the federal union under the U.S. Constitution.

"States' rights" was an ideology formulated and applied as a means of advancing slave state interests through federal authority. As historian Thomas L. Krannawitter points out, the "Southern demand for federal slave protection represented a demand for an unprecedented expansion of Federal power." 

These four doctrines comprised the dominant ideologies presented to the American public on the matters of slavery, the territories, and the U.S. Constitution before the 1860 presidential election.

States' rights:

A long running dispute over the origin of the Civil War is to what extent states' rights triggered the conflict. The consensus among historians is that the Civil War was not fought about states' rights. But the issue is frequently referenced in popular accounts of the war and has much traction among Southerners.

The South argued that just as each state had decided to join the Union, a state had the right to secede—leave the Union—at any time. Northerners (including pro-slavery President Buchanan) rejected that notion as opposed to the will of the Founding Fathers, who said they were setting up a perpetual union.

Historian James McPherson points out that even if Confederates genuinely fought over states' rights, it boiled down to states' right to slavery. McPherson writes concerning states' rights and other non-slavery explanations:

While one or more of these interpretations remain popular among the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other Southern heritage groups, few professional historians now subscribe to them. Of all these interpretations, the states'-rights argument is perhaps the weakest. It fails to ask the question, states' rights for what purpose? States' rights, or sovereignty, was always more a means than an end, an instrument to achieve a certain goal more than a principle.

Before the Civil War, the Southern states used federal powers in enforcing and extending slavery at the national level, with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and Dred Scott v. Sandford decision. The faction that pushed for secession often infringed on states' rights.

Because of the overrepresentation of pro-slavery factions in the federal government, many Northerners, even non-abolitionists, feared the Slave Power conspiracy. Some Northern states resisted the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act.

Historian Eric Foner stated the act "could hardly have been designed to arouse greater opposition in the North. It overrode numerous state and local laws and legal procedures and 'commanded' individual citizens to assist, when called upon, in capturing runaways." He continues, "It certainly did not reveal, on the part of slaveholders, sensitivity to states’ rights." According to historian Paul Finkelman "the southern states mostly complained that the northern states were asserting their states’ rights and that the national government was not powerful enough to counter these northern claims." 

The Confederate constitution also "federally" required slavery to be legal in all Confederate states and claimed territories.

Sectionalism:

Sectionalism resulted from the different economies, social structure, customs, and political values of the North and South. Regional tensions came to a head during the War of 1812, resulting in the Hartford Convention, which manifested Northern dissatisfaction with a foreign trade embargo that affected the industrial North disproportionately, the Three-Fifths Compromise, dilution of Northern power by new states, and a succession of Southern presidents.

Sectionalism increased steadily between 1800 and 1860 as the North, which phased slavery out of existence, industrialized, urbanized, and built prosperous farms, while the deep South concentrated on plantation agriculture based on slave labor, together with subsistence agriculture for poor whites.

In the 1840s and 1850s, the issue of accepting slavery (in the guise of rejecting slave-owning bishops and missionaries) split the nation's largest religious denominations (the Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian churches) into separate Northern and Southern denominations.

Historians have debated whether economic differences between the mainly industrial North and the mainly agricultural South helped cause the war. Most historians now disagree with the economic determinism of historian Charles A. Beard in the 1920s, and emphasize that Northern and Southern economies were largely complementary. While socially different, the sections economically benefited each other.

Protectionism:

Owners of slaves preferred low-cost manual labor with no mechanization. Northern manufacturing interests supported tariffs and protectionism while Southern planters demanded free trade. The Democrats in Congress, controlled by Southerners, wrote the tariff laws in the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s, and kept reducing rates so that the 1857 rates were the lowest since 1816. The Republicans called for an increase in tariffs in the 1860 election.

The increases were only enacted in 1861 after Southerners resigned their seats in Congress. The tariff issue was a Northern grievance. However, neo-Confederate writers have claimed it as a Southern grievance. In 1860–61 none of the groups that proposed compromises to head off secession raised the tariff issue. Pamphleteers from the North and the South rarely mentioned the tariff.

Nationalism and honor:
​
​Nationalism was a powerful force in the early 19th century, with famous spokesmen such as Andrew Jackson and Daniel Webster. While practically all Northerners supported the Union, Southerners were split between those loyal to the entirety of the United States (called "Southern Unionists") and those loyal primarily to the Southern region and then the Confederacy.

Perceived insults to Southern collective honor included the enormous popularity of Uncle Tom's Cabin, and the actions of abolitionist John Brown in trying to incite a rebellion of slaves in 1859.

While the South moved towards a Southern nationalism, leaders in the North were also becoming more nationally minded, and they rejected any notion of splitting the Union.

The Republican national electoral platform of 1860 warned that Republicans regarded disunion as treason and would not tolerate it. The South ignored the warnings; Southerners did not realize how ardently the North would fight to hold the Union together.

Lincoln's election:
Main article: 1860 United States presidential election
​
The election of Abraham Lincoln in November 1860 was the final trigger for secession. Efforts at compromise, including the Corwin Amendment and the Crittenden Compromise, failed.

Southern leaders feared that Lincoln would stop the expansion of slavery and put it on a course toward extinction. When Lincoln won the presidential election in 1860, the South lost any hope of compromise. Jefferson Davis claimed that all the cotton states would secede from the Union. 

The Confederacy was formed of seven states of the Deep South: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas in January and February 1861. They wrote the Confederate Constitution, which provided greater states' rights than the Constitution of the United States.

Until elections were held, Davis was the provisional president. Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861.

According to Lincoln, the American people had shown that they had been successful in establishing and administering a republic, but a third challenge faced the nation: maintaining a republic based on the people's vote, in the face of an attempt to destroy it.

Outbreak of the war:

Secession crisis:

The election of Lincoln provoked the legislature of South Carolina to call a state convention to consider secession. Before the war, South Carolina did more than any other Southern state to advance the notion that a state had the right to nullify federal laws, and even to secede from the United States.

The convention unanimously voted to secede on December 20, 1860, and adopted a secession declaration. It argued for states' rights for slave owners in the South, but contained a complaint about states' rights in the North in the form of opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act, claiming that Northern states were not fulfilling their federal obligations under the Constitution. The "cotton states" of Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas followed suit, seceding in January and February 1861.
___________________________________________________________________________
Among the ordinances of secession passed by the individual states, those of three—Texas, Alabama, and Virginia—specifically mentioned the plight of the "slaveholding states" at the hands of Northern abolitionists. The rest make no mention of the slavery issue and are often brief announcements of the dissolution of ties by the legislatures. 

However, at least four states—South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas—also passed lengthy and detailed explanations of their causes for secession, all of which laid the blame squarely on the movement to abolish slavery and that movement's influence over the politics of the Northern states.

The Southern states believed slaveholding was a constitutional right because of the Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution. These states agreed to form a new federal government, the Confederate States of America, on February 4, 1861. They took control of federal forts and other properties within their boundaries with little resistance from outgoing President James Buchanan, whose term ended on March 4, 1861.

Buchanan said that the Dred Scott decision was proof that the South had no reason for secession, and that the Union "was intended to be perpetual", but that "The power by force of arms to compel a State to remain in the Union" was not among the "enumerated powers granted to Congress". One-quarter of the U.S. Army—the entire garrison in Texas—was surrendered in February 1861 to state forces by its commanding general, David E. Twiggs, who then joined the Confederacy.

As Southerners resigned their seats in the Senate and the House, Republicans were able to pass projects that had been blocked by Southern senators before the war. These included:
In December 1860, the Crittenden Compromise was proposed to re-establish the Missouri Compromise line by constitutionally banning slavery in territories to the north of the line while guaranteeing it to the south. The adoption of this compromise likely would have prevented the secession of the Southern states, but Lincoln and the Republicans rejected it. 

Lincoln stated that any compromise that would extend slavery would in time bring down the Union. A pre-war February Peace Conference of 1861 met in Washington, proposing a solution similar to that of the Crittenden compromise; it was rejected by Congress.

​The Republicans proposed an alternative compromise to not interfere with slavery where it existed but the South regarded it as insufficient. Nonetheless, the remaining eight slave states rejected pleas to join the Confederacy following a two-to-one no-vote in Virginia's First Secessionist Convention on April 4, 1861.

On March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as president. In his inaugural address, he argued that the Constitution was a more perfect union than the earlier Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, that it was a binding contract, and called any secession "legally void". 

Lincoln had no intent to invade Southern states, nor did he intend to end slavery where it existed, but said that he would use force to maintain possession of Federal property, including forts, arsenals, mints, and customhouses that had been seized by the Southern states. The government would make no move to recover post offices, and if resisted, mail delivery would end at state lines.

​Where popular conditions did not allow peaceful enforcement of Federal law, U.S. marshals and judges would be withdrawn. No mention was made of bullion lost from U.S. mints in Louisiana, Georgia, and North Carolina. He stated that it would be U.S. policy to only collect import duties at its ports; there could be no serious injury to the South to justify the armed revolution during his administration. His speech closed with a plea for restoration of the bonds of union, famously calling on "the mystic chords of memory" binding the two regions.

The Davis government of the new Confederacy sent three delegates to Washington to negotiate a peace treaty with the United States of America. Lincoln rejected any negotiations with Confederate agents because he claimed the Confederacy was not a legitimate government, and that making any treaty with it would be tantamount to recognition of it as a sovereign government. Lincoln instead attempted to negotiate directly with the governors of individual seceded states, whose administrations he continued to recognize.

Complicating Lincoln's attempts to defuse the crisis were the actions of the new Secretary of State, William Seward. Seward had been Lincoln's main rival for the Republican presidential nomination. Shocked and deeply embittered by this defeat, Seward only agreed to support Lincoln's candidacy after he was guaranteed the executive office which was considered at that time to be by far the most powerful and important after the presidency itself.

Even in the early stages of Lincoln's presidency Seward still held little regard for the new chief executive due to his perceived inexperience, and therefore viewed himself as the de facto head of government or "prime minister" behind the throne of Lincoln.

In this role, Seward attempted to engage in unauthorized and indirect negotiations that failed. However, President Lincoln was determined to hold all remaining Union-occupied forts in the Confederacy: Fort Monroe in Virginia, Fort Pickens, Fort Jefferson and Fort Taylor in Florida, and Fort Sumter – located at the cockpit of secession in Charleston, South Carolina.

Battle of Fort Sumter:
Main article: Battle of Fort Sumter

Fort Sumter is located in the middle of the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina. Its garrison had recently moved there to avoid incidents with local militias in the streets of the city. Lincoln told its commander, Major Robert Anderson, to hold on until fired upon. Confederate president Jefferson Davis ordered the surrender of the fort.

Anderson gave a conditional reply, which the Confederate government rejected, and Davis ordered General P. G. T. Beauregard to attack the fort before a relief expedition could arrive. He bombarded Fort Sumter on April 12–13, forcing its capitulation.

The attack on Fort Sumter enormously invigorated the North to the defense of American nationalism.

On April 15, 1861, Lincoln called on all the states to send forces to recapture the fort and other federal properties. The scale of the rebellion appeared to be small, so he called for only 75,000 volunteers for 90 days. In western Missouri, local secessionists seized Liberty Arsenal. 

On May 3, 1861, Lincoln called for an additional 42,000 volunteers for a period of three years. Shortly after this, Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, and North Carolina seceded and joined the Confederacy. To reward Virginia, the Confederate capital was moved to Richmond.

Attitude of the border states:
Main article: Border states (American Civil War)

​Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, and Kentucky were slave states that had divided loyalties to Northern and Southern businesses and family members. Some men enlisted in the Union Army and others in the Confederate Army. West Virginia separated from Virginia and was admitted to the Union on June 20, 1863.

Maryland's territory surrounded the United States' capital of Washington, D.C., and could cut it off from the North. It had numerous anti-Lincoln officials who tolerated anti-army rioting in Baltimore and the burning of bridges, both aimed at hindering the passage of troops to the South.

Maryland's legislature voted overwhelmingly (53–13) to stay in the Union, but also rejected hostilities with its southern neighbors, voting to close Maryland's rail lines to prevent them from being used for war. Lincoln responded by establishing martial law and unilaterally suspending habeas corpus in Maryland, along with sending in militia units from the North.

Lincoln rapidly took control of Maryland and the District of Columbia by seizing many prominent figures, including arresting 1/3 of the members of the Maryland General Assembly on the day it reconvened. All were held without trial, ignoring a ruling by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Roger Taney, a Maryland native, that only Congress (and not the president) could suspend habeas corpus (Ex parte Merryman).

Federal troops imprisoned a prominent Baltimore newspaper editor, Frank Key Howard, Francis Scott Key's grandson, after he criticized Lincoln in an editorial for ignoring the Supreme Court Chief Justice's ruling.

In Missouri, an elected convention on secession voted decisively to remain within the Union. When pro-Confederate Governor Claiborne F. Jackson called out the state militia, it was attacked by federal forces under General Nathaniel Lyon, who chased the governor and the rest of the State Guard to the southwestern corner of the state (see also: Missouri secession).

In the resulting vacuum, the convention on secession reconvened and took power as the Unionist provisional government of Missouri.

Kentucky did not secede; for a time, it declared itself neutral. When Confederate forces entered the state in September 1861, neutrality ended and the state reaffirmed its Union status while maintaining slavery. During a brief invasion by Confederate forces in 1861, Confederate sympathizers organized a secession convention, formed the shadow Confederate Government of Kentucky, inaugurated a governor, and gained recognition from the Confederacy. Its jurisdiction extended only as far as Confederate battle lines in the Commonwealth, and it went into exile after October 1862.

After Virginia's secession, a Unionist government in Wheeling asked 48 counties to vote on an ordinance to create a new state on October 24, 1861. A voter turnout of 34 percent approved the statehood bill (96 percent approving). Twenty-four secessionist counties were included in the new state, and the ensuing guerrilla war engaged about 40,000 Federal troops for much of the war. 

Congress admitted West Virginia to the Union on June 20, 1863. West Virginia provided about 20,000–22,000 soldiers to both the Confederacy and the Union.

​A Unionist secession attempt occurred in East Tennessee, but was suppressed by the Confederacy, which arrested over 3,000 men suspected of being loyal to the Union. They were held without trial.

​General features of the war:
See also:
The Civil War was a contest marked by the ferocity and frequency of battle. Over four years, 237 named battles were fought, as were many more minor actions and skirmishes, which were often characterized by their bitter intensity and high casualties.

In his book The American Civil War, John Keegan writes that "The American Civil War was to prove one of the most ferocious wars ever fought". In many cases, without geographic objectives, the only target for each side was the enemy's soldier.

Mobilization:
See also: Economic history of the United States Civil War

As the first seven states began organizing a Confederacy in Montgomery, the entire U.S. army numbered 16,000. However, Northern governors had begun to mobilize their militias. 

The Confederate Congress authorized the new nation up to 100,000 troops sent by governors as early as February. By May, Jefferson Davis was pushing for 100,000 men under arms for one year or the duration, and that was answered in kind by the U.S. Congress.

In the first year of the war, both sides had far more volunteers than they could effectively train and equip. After the initial enthusiasm faded, reliance on the cohort of young men who came of age every year and wanted to join was not enough.

Both sides used a draft law--conscription—as a device to encourage or force volunteering; relatively few were drafted and served. The Confederacy passed a draft law in April 1862 for young men aged 18 to 35; overseers of slaves, government officials, and clergymen were exempt. 

The U.S. Congress followed in July, authorizing a militia draft within a state when it could not meet its quota with volunteers. European immigrants joined the Union Army in large numbers, including 177,000 born in Germany and 144,000 born in Ireland.

​When the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect in January 1863, ex-slaves were energetically recruited by the states and used to meet the state quotas. States and local communities offered higher and higher cash bonuses for white volunteers.

Congress tightened the law in March 1863. Men selected in the draft could provide substitutes or, until mid-1864, pay commutation money. Many eligibles pooled their money to cover the cost of anyone drafted. Families used the substitute provision to select which man should go into the army and which should stay home.

There was much evasion and overt resistance to the draft, especially in Catholic areas.

The draft riot in New York City in July 1863 involved Irish immigrants who had been signed up as citizens to swell the vote of the city's Democratic political machine, not realizing it made them liable for the draft.

Of the 168,649 men procured for the Union through the draft, 117,986 were substitutes, leaving only 50,663 who had their services conscripted.

In both the North and South, the draft laws were highly unpopular. In the North, some 120,000 men evaded conscription, many of them fleeing to Canada, and another 280,000 soldiers deserted during the war. 

At least 100,000 Southerners deserted, or about 10 percent; Southern desertion was high because, according to one historian writing in 1991, the highly localized Southern identity meant that many Southern men had little investment in the outcome of the war, with individual soldiers caring more about the fate of their local area than any grand ideal. 

In the North, "bounty jumpers" enlisted to get the generous bonus, deserted, then went back to a second recruiting station under a different name to sign up again for a second bonus; 141 were caught and executed.

From a tiny frontier force in 1860, the Union and Confederate armies had grown into the "largest and most efficient armies in the world" within a few years. Some European observers at the time dismissed them as amateur and unprofessional, but British historian John Keegan concluded that each outmatched the French, Prussian, and Russian armies of the time, and without the Atlantic, would have threatened any of them with defeat.

Prisoners:
Main article: American Civil War prison camps

At the start of the Civil War, a system of paroles operated. Captives agreed not to fight until they were officially exchanged. Meanwhile, they were held in camps run by their army. They were paid, but they were not allowed to perform any military duties. The system of exchanges collapsed in 1863 when the Confederacy refused to exchange black prisoners.

After that, about 56,000 of the 409,000 POWs died in prisons during the war, accounting for nearly 10 percent of the conflict's fatalities.

Women:
See also:  ​
​Historian Elizabeth D. Leonard writes that, according to various estimates, between five hundred and one thousand women enlisted as soldiers on both sides of the war, disguised as men.

Women also served as spies, resistance activists, nurses, and hospital personnel:  240  Women served on the Union hospital ship Red Rover and nursed Union and Confederate troops at field hospitals.

Mary Edwards Walker, the only woman ever to receive the Medal of Honor, served in the Union Army and was given the medal for her efforts to treat the wounded during the war. Her name was deleted from the Army Medal of Honor Roll in 1917 (along with over 900 other Medal of Honor recipients); however, it was restored in 1977.

Naval tactics:

The small U.S. Navy of 1861 was rapidly enlarged to 6,000 officers and 45,000 men in 1865, with 671 vessels, having a tonnage of 510,396. Its mission was to blockade Confederate ports, take control of the river system, defend against Confederate raiders on the high seas, and be ready for a possible war with the British Royal Navy. 

Meanwhile, the main riverine war was fought in the West, where a series of major rivers gave access to the Confederate heartland. The U.S. Navy eventually gained control of the Red, Tennessee, Cumberland, Mississippi, and Ohio rivers. In the East, the Navy shelled Confederate forts and provided support for coastal army operations.

​Modern navy evolves:

The Civil War occurred during the early stages of the industrial revolution. Many naval innovations emerged during this time, most notably the advent of the ironclad warship. It began when the Confederacy, knowing they had to meet or match the Union's naval superiority, responded to the Union blockade by building or converting more than 130 vessels, including twenty-six ironclads and floating batteries. 

​Only half of these saw active service. Many were equipped with ram bows, creating "ram fever" among Union squadrons wherever they threatened. But in the face of overwhelming Union superiority and the Union's ironclad warships, they were unsuccessful.

In addition to ocean-going warships coming up the Mississippi, the Union Navy used timberclads, tinclads, and armored gunboats. Shipyards at Cairo, Illinois, and St. Louis built new boats or modified steamboats for action.

The Confederacy experimented with the submarine CSS Hunley, which did not work satisfactorily, and with building an ironclad ship, CSS Virginia, which was based on rebuilding a sunken Union ship, Merrimack. On its first foray, on March 8, 1862, Virginia inflicted significant damage to the Union's wooden fleet, but the next day the first Union ironclad, USS Monitor, arrived to challenge it in the Chesapeake Bay.

The resulting three-hour Battle of Hampton Roads was a draw, but it proved that ironclads were effective warships. Not long after the battle, the Confederacy was forced to scuttle the Virginia to prevent its capture, while the Union built many copies of the Monitor.

Lacking the technology and infrastructure to build effective warships, the Confederacy attempted to obtain warships from Great Britain. However, this failed, because Great Britain had no interest in selling warships to a nation that was at war with a far stronger enemy, and doing so could sour relations with the U.S.

Union blockade:
Main article: Union blockade

By early 1861, General Winfield Scott had devised the Anaconda Plan to win the war with as little bloodshed as possible. Scott argued that a Union blockade of the main ports would weaken the Confederate economy. Lincoln adopted parts of the plan, but he overruled Scott's caution about 90-day volunteers. Public opinion, however, demanded an immediate attack by the army to capture Richmond.

In April 1861, Lincoln announced the Union blockade of all Southern ports; commercial ships could not get insurance and regular traffic ended. The South blundered in embargoing cotton exports in 1861 before the blockade was effective; by the time they realized the mistake, it was too late. "King Cotton" was dead, as the South could export less than 10 percent of its cotton.

The blockade shut down the ten Confederate seaports with railheads that moved almost all the cotton, especially New Orleans, Mobile, and Charleston. By June 1861, warships were stationed off the principal Southern ports, and a year later nearly 300 ships were in service.

Blockade runners:
Main article: Blockade runners of the American Civil War
​
The Confederates began the war short on military supplies and in desperate need of large quantities of arms which the agrarian South could not provide. Arms manufactures in the industrial North were restricted by an arms embargo, keeping shipments of arms from going to the South, and ending all existing and future contracts.

The Confederacy subsequently looked to foreign sources for their enormous military needs and sought out financiers and companies like S. Isaac, Campbell & Company and the London Armoury Company in Britain, who acted as purchasing agents for the Confederacy, connecting them with Britain's many arms manufactures, and ultimately becoming the Confederacy's main source of arms.

To get the arms safely to the Confederacy, British investors built small, fast, steam-driven blockade runners that traded arms and supplies brought in from Britain through Bermuda, Cuba, and the Bahamas in return for high-priced cotton. Many of the ships were lightweight and designed for speed and could only carry a relatively small amount of cotton back to England. 

When the Union Navy seized a blockade runner, the ship and cargo were condemned as a prize of war and sold, with the proceeds given to the Navy sailors; the captured crewmen were mostly British, and they were released.

Economic impact:

The Southern economy nearly collapsed during the war. There were multiple reasons for this: the severe deterioration of food supplies, especially in cities, the failure of Southern railroads, the loss of control of the main rivers, foraging by Northern armies, and the seizure of animals and crops by Confederate armies.

Most historians agree that the blockade was a major factor in ruining the Confederate economy; however, Wise argues that the blockade runners provided just enough of a lifeline to allow Lee to continue fighting for additional months, thanks to fresh supplies of 400,000 rifles, lead, blankets, and boots that the home-front economy could no longer supply.

Surdam argues that the blockade was a powerful weapon that eventually ruined the Southern economy, at the cost of few lives in combat. Practically, the entire Confederate cotton crop was useless (although it was sold to Union traders), costing the Confederacy its main source of income.

Critical imports were scarce and the coastal trade was largely ended as well. The measure of the blockade's success was not the few ships that slipped through, but the thousands that never tried it.

Merchant ships owned in Europe could not get insurance and were too slow to evade the blockade, so they stopped calling at Confederate ports.

To fight an offensive war, the Confederacy purchased ships in Britain, converted them to warships, and raided American merchant ships in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Insurance rates skyrocketed and the American flag virtually disappeared from international waters.

However, the same ships were reflagged with European flags and continued unmolested. After the war ended, the U.S. government demanded that Britain compensate them for the damage done by the raiders outfitted in British ports. Britain acquiesced to their demand, paying the U.S. $15 million in 1871.

Diplomacy:
Main article: Diplomacy of the American Civil War
Further information:
Although the Confederacy hoped that Britain and France would join them against the Union, this was never likely, and so they instead tried to bring the British and French governments in as mediators. 

The Union, under Lincoln and Secretary of State William H. Seward, worked to block this and threatened war if any country officially recognized the existence of the Confederate States of America.

In 1861, Southerners voluntarily embargoed cotton shipments, hoping to start an economic depression in Europe that would force Britain to enter the war to get cotton, but this did not work. Worse, Europe turned to Egypt and India for cotton, which they found superior, hindering the South's recovery after the war.

Cotton diplomacy proved a failure as Europe had a surplus of cotton, while the 1860–62 crop failures in Europe made the North's grain exports of critical importance. It also helped to turn European opinion further away from the Confederacy. It was said that "King Corn was more powerful than King Cotton", as U.S. grain went from a quarter of the British import trade to almost half. Meanwhile, the war created employment for arms makers, ironworkers, and ships to transport weapons.

Lincoln's administration initially failed to appeal to European public opinion. At first, diplomats explained that the United States was not committed to the ending of slavery, and instead repeated legalistic arguments about the unconstitutionality of secession. Confederate representatives, on the other hand, started off much more successful, by ignoring slavery and instead focusing on their struggle for liberty, their commitment to free trade, and the essential role of cotton in the European economy. 

The European aristocracy was "absolutely gleeful in pronouncing the American debacle as proof that the entire experiment in popular government had failed. European government leaders welcomed the fragmentation of the ascendant American Republic." However, there was still a European public with liberal sensibilities, that the U.S. sought to appeal to by building connections with the international press.

As early as 1861, many Union diplomats such as Carl Schurz realized emphasizing the war against slavery was the Union's most effective moral asset in the struggle for public opinion in Europe. Seward was concerned that an overly radical case for reunification would distress the European merchants with cotton interests; even so, Seward supported a widespread campaign of public diplomacy.

U.S. minister to Britain Charles Francis Adams proved particularly adept and convinced Britain not to openly challenge the Union blockade. The Confederacy purchased several warships from commercial shipbuilders in Britain, including:
The most famous, the CSS Alabama, did considerable damage and led to serious postwar disputes. However, public opinion against slavery in Britain created a political liability for British politicians, where the anti-slavery movement was powerful.

​War loomed in late 1861 between the U.S. and Britain over the Trent affair, involving the U.S. Navy's boarding of the British ship Trent and seizing two Confederate diplomats.

However, London and Washington were able to smooth over the problem after Lincoln released the two. Prince Albert had left his deathbed to issue diplomatic instructions to Lord Lyons during the Trent affair, which began when the United States Navy captured two Confederate envoys from a British ship. His request was honored due to the respect he enjoyed by the government.

As a result, the British response to the United States was toned down and helped avert the British becoming involved in the war. In 1862, the British government considered mediating between the Union and Confederacy, though even such an offer would have risked war with the United States. British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston reportedly read Uncle Tom's Cabin three times when deciding on what his decision would be.

The Union victory in the Battle of Antietam caused the British to delay this decision. The Emancipation Proclamation over time would reinforce the political liability of supporting the Confederacy. Realizing that Washington could not intervene in Mexico as long as the Confederacy controlled Texas, France invaded Mexico in 1861.

Washington repeatedly protested France's violation of the Monroe Doctrine. Despite sympathy for the Confederacy, France's seizure of Mexico ultimately deterred it from war with the Union. Confederate offers late in the war to end slavery in return for diplomatic recognition were not seriously considered by London or Paris. After 1863, the Polish revolt against Russia further distracted the European powers and ensured that they would remain neutral.

Russia supported the Union, largely because it believed that the U.S. served as a counterbalance to its geopolitical rival, the United Kingdom. In 1863, the Russian Navy's Baltic and Pacific fleets wintered in the American ports of New York and San Francisco, respectively.

Eastern theater:
Further information: Eastern Theater of the American Civil War

​The Eastern theater refers to the military operations east of the Appalachian Mountains, including the states of Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, and the coastal fortifications and seaports of North Carolina.

Background -- Army of the Potomac:

Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan took command of the Union Army of the Potomac on July 26, 1861 (he was briefly general-in-chief of all the Union armies, but was subsequently relieved of that post in favor of Maj. Gen. Henry W. Halleck), and the war began in earnest in 1862.

The 1862 Union strategy called for simultaneous advances along four axes:
  1. McClellan would lead the main thrust in Virginia towards Richmond.
  2. Ohio forces would advance through Kentucky into Tennessee.
  3. The Missouri Department would drive south along the Mississippi River.
  4. The westernmost attack would originate from Kansas.

Army of Northern Virginia:

The primary Confederate force in the Eastern theater was the Army of Northern Virginia. The Army originated as the (Confederate) Army of the Potomac, which was organized on June 20, 1861, from all operational forces in northern Virginia.

On July 20 and 21, the Army of the Shenandoah and forces from the District of Harpers Ferry were added. Units from the Army of the Northwest were merged into the Army of the Potomac between March 14 and May 17, 1862. The Army of the Potomac was renamed Army of Northern Virginia on March 14. The Army of the Peninsula was merged into it on April 12, 1862.

When Virginia declared its secession in April 1861, Robert E. Lee chose to follow his home state, despite his desire for the country to remain intact and an offer of a senior Union command.

Lee's biographer, Douglas S. Freeman, asserts that the army received its final name from Lee when he issued orders assuming command on June 1, 1862. However, Freeman does admit that Lee corresponded with Brigadier General Joseph E. Johnston, his predecessor in army command, before that date and referred to Johnston's command as the Army of Northern Virginia.

​Part of the confusion results from the fact that Johnston commanded the Department of Northern Virginia (as of October 22, 1861) and the name Army of Northern Virginia can be seen as an informal consequence of its parent department's name. Jefferson Davis and Johnston did not adopt the name, but it is clear that the organization of units as of March 14 was the same organization that Lee received on June 1, and thus it is generally referred to today as the Army of Northern Virginia, even if that is correct only in retrospect.

On July 4 at Harper's Ferry, Colonel Thomas J. Jackson assigned Jeb Stuart to command all the cavalry companies of the Army of the Shenandoah. He eventually commanded the Army of Northern Virginia's cavalry.

Battles:
​
In one of the first highly visible battles, in July 1861, a march by Union troops under the command of Maj. Gen. Irvin McDowell on the Confederate forces led by Gen. P. G. T. Beauregard near Washington was repulsed at the First Battle of Bull Run (also known as First Manassas).
​
The Union had the upper hand at first, nearly pushing confederate forces holding a defensive position into a rout, but Confederate reinforcements under Joseph E. Johnston arrived from the Shenandoah Valley by railroad, and the course of the battle quickly changed.

A brigade of Virginians under the relatively unknown brigadier general from the Virginia Military Institute, Thomas J. Jackson, stood its ground, which resulted in Jackson receiving his famous nickname, "Stonewall".

Upon the strong urging of President Lincoln to begin offensive operations, McClellan attacked Virginia in the spring of 1862 by way of the peninsula between the York River and James River, southeast of Richmond. McClellan's army reached the gates of Richmond in the Peninsula Campaign.

Also in the spring of 1862, in the Shenandoah Valley, Stonewall Jackson led his Valley Campaign. Employing audacity and rapid, unpredictable movements on interior lines, Jackson's 17,000 men marched 646 miles (1,040 km) in 48 days and won several minor battles as they successfully engaged three Union armies (52,000 men), including those of Nathaniel P. Banks and John C. Fremont, preventing them from reinforcing the Union offensive against Richmond. The swiftness of Jackson's men earned them the nickname of "foot cavalry".

Johnston halted McClellan's advance at the Battle of Seven Pines, but he was wounded in the battle, and Robert E. Lee assumed his position of command. General Lee and top subordinates James Longstreet and Stonewall Jackson defeated McClellan in the Seven Days Battles and forced his retreat.

The Northern Virginia Campaign, which included the Second Battle of Bull Run, ended in yet another victory for the South. McClellan resisted General-in-Chief Halleck's orders to send reinforcements to John Pope's Union Army of Virginia, which made it easier for Lee's Confederates to defeat twice the number of combined enemy troops.

Emboldened by Second Bull Run, the Confederacy made its first invasion of the North with the Maryland Campaign. General Lee led 45,000 men of the Army of Northern Virginia across the Potomac River into Maryland on September 5. Lincoln then restored Pope's troops to McClellan.

McClellan and Lee fought at the Battle of Antietam near Sharpsburg, Maryland, on September 17, 1862, the bloodiest single day in United States military history. Lee's army checked at last, returned to Virginia before McClellan could destroy it. Antietam is considered a Union victory because it halted Lee's invasion of the North and provided an opportunity for Lincoln to announce his Emancipation Proclamation.

When the cautious McClellan failed to follow up on Antietam, he was replaced by Maj. Gen. Ambrose Burnside. Burnside was soon defeated at the Battle of Fredericksburg on December 13, 1862, when more than 12,000 Union soldiers were killed or wounded during repeated futile frontal assaults against Marye's Heights. After the battle, Burnside was replaced by Maj. Gen. Joseph Hooker.

Hooker, too, proved unable to defeat Lee's army; despite outnumbering the Confederates by more than two to one, his Chancellorsville Campaign proved ineffective and he was humiliated in the Battle of Chancellorsville in May 1863. 

Chancellorsville is known as Lee's "perfect battle" because his risky decision to divide his army in the presence of a much larger enemy force resulted in a significant Confederate victory. Gen. Stonewall Jackson was shot in the arm by accidental friendly fire during the battle and subsequently died of complications. Lee famously said: "He has lost his left arm, but I have lost my right arm."

The fiercest fighting of the battle—and the second bloodiest day of the Civil War—occurred on May 3 as Lee launched multiple attacks against the Union position at Chancellorsville. That same day, John Sedgwick advanced across the Rappahannock River, defeated the small Confederate force at Marye's Heights in the Second Battle of Fredericksburg, and then moved to the west. The Confederates fought a successful delaying action at the Battle of Salem Church.

​​Gen. Hooker was replaced by Maj. Gen. George Meade during Lee's second invasion of the North, in June. Meade defeated Lee at the Battle of Gettysburg (July 1 to 3, 1863). This was the bloodiest battle of the war and has been called the war's turning point. Pickett's Charge on July 3 is often considered the high-water mark of the Confederacy because it signaled the collapse of serious Confederate threats of victory. Lee's army suffered 28,000 casualties (versus Meade's 23,000).

Western theater:
Further information: Western Theater of the American Civil War

The Western theater refers to military operations between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River, including the states of Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, Kentucky, South Carolina and Tennessee, as well as parts of Louisiana.

Background -- Army of the Tennessee and Army of the Cumberland:

​The primary Union forces in the Western theater were the Army of the Tennessee and the Army of the Cumberland, named for the two rivers, the Tennessee River and Cumberland River.

Meade's inconclusive fall campaign, Lincoln turned to the Western Theater for new leadership. At the same time, the Confederate stronghold of Vicksburg surrendered, giving the Union control of the Mississippi River, permanently isolating the western Confederacy, and producing the new leader Lincoln needed, Ulysses S. Grant.

Army of Tennessee:  The primary Confederate force in the Western theater was the Army of Tennessee. The army was formed on November 20, 1862, when General Braxton Bragg renamed the former Army of Mississippi. While the Confederate forces had numerous successes in the Eastern Theater, they were defeated many times in the West.

Battles:

The Union's key strategist and tactician in the West was Ulysses S. Grant, who won victories at Forts Henry (February 6, 1862) and Donelson (February 11 to 16, 1862), earning him the nickname of "Unconditional Surrender" Grant, by which the Union seized control of the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers. 

Nathan Bedford Forrest rallied nearly 4,000 Confederate troops and led them to escape across the Cumberland. Nashville and central Tennessee thus fell to the Union, leading to attrition of local food supplies and livestock and a breakdown in social organization.

Leonidas Polk's invasion of Columbus ended Kentucky's policy of neutrality and turned it against the Confederacy. Grant used river transport and Andrew Foote's gunboats of the Western Flotilla to threaten the Confederacy's "Gibraltar of the West" at Columbus, Kentucky. Although rebuffed at Belmont, Grant cut off Columbus.

​The Confederates, lacking their gunboats, were forced to retreat and the Union took control of western Kentucky and opened Tennessee in March 1862.

At the Battle of Shiloh, in Shiloh, Tennessee in April 1862, the Confederates made a surprise attack that pushed Union forces against the river as night fell. Overnight, the Navy landed additional reinforcements, and Grant counter-attacked.

​Grant and the Union won a decisive victory—the first battle with the high casualty rates that would repeat over and over. The Confederates lost Albert Sidney Johnston, considered their finest general before the emergence of Lee.

One of the early Union objectives in the war was the capture of the Mississippi River, to cut the Confederacy in half. The Mississippi River was opened to Union traffic to the southern border of Tennessee with the taking of Island No. 10 and New Madrid, Missouri, and then Memphis, Tennessee.

In April 1862, the Union Navy captured New Orleans. "The key to the river was New Orleans, the South's largest port [and] greatest industrial center." U.S. Naval forces under Farragut ran past Confederate defenses south of New Orleans.

Confederate forces abandoned the city, giving the Union a critical anchor in the deep South. which allowed Union forces to begin moving up the Mississippi. Memphis fell to Union forces on June 6, 1862, and became a key base for further advances south along the Mississippi River. Only the fortress city of Vicksburg, Mississippi, prevented Union control of the entire river.

​Bragg's second invasion of Kentucky in the Confederate Heartland Offensive included initial successes such as Kirby Smith's triumph at the Battle of Richmond and the capture of the Kentucky capital of Frankfort on September 3, 1862. However, the campaign ended with a meaningless victory over Maj. Gen. Don Carlos Buell at the Battle of Perryville.

Bragg was forced to end his attempt at invading Kentucky and retreat due to lack of logistical support and lack of infantry recruits for the Confederacy in that state.

Bragg was narrowly defeated by Maj. Gen. William Rosecrans at the Battle of Stones
River in Tennessee, the culmination of the Stones River Campaign.

​Naval forces assisted Grant in the long, complex Vicksburg Campaign that resulted in the Confederates surrendering at the Battle of Vicksburg in July 1863, which cemented Union control of the Mississippi River and is considered one of the turning points of the war.

​The one clear Confederate victory in the West was the Battle of Chickamauga. After Rosecrans' successful Tullahoma Campaign, Bragg, reinforced by Lt. Gen. James Longstreet's corps (from Lee's army in the east), defeated Rosecrans, despite the heroic defensive stand of Maj. Gen. George Henry Thomas.

Rosecrans retreated to Chattanooga, which Bragg then besieged in the Chattanooga Campaign. Grant marched to the relief of Rosecrans and defeated Bragg at the Third Battle of Chattanooga, eventually causing Longstreet to abandon his Knoxville Campaign and driving Confederate forces out of Tennessee and opening a route to Atlanta and the heart of the Confederacy.

Trans-Mississippi theater:
Further information: Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War

Background:

The Trans-Mississippi theater refers to military operations west of the Mississippi River, encompassing most of Missouri, Arkansas, most of Louisiana, and Indian Territory (now Oklahoma).

The Trans-Mississippi District was formed by the Confederate Army to better coordinate Ben McCulloch's command of troops in Arkansas and Louisiana, Sterling Price's Missouri State Guard, as well as the portion of Earl Van Dorn's command that included the Indian Territory and excluded the Army of the West.

The Union's command was the Trans-Mississippi Division, or the Military Division of West Mississippi.

Battles:

​The first battle of the Trans-Mississippi theater was the Battle of Wilson's Creek (August 1861). The Confederates were driven from Missouri early in the war as a result of the Battle of Pea Ridge.

Extensive guerrilla warfare characterized the trans-Mississippi region, as the Confederacy lacked the troops and the logistics to support regular armies that could challenge Union control. 

Roving Confederate bands such as Quantrill's Raiders terrorized the countryside, striking both military installations and civilian settlements. The "Sons of Liberty" and "Order of the American Knights" attacked pro-Union people, elected officeholders, and unarmed uniformed soldiers.

These partisans could not be entirely driven out of the state of Missouri until an entire regular Union infantry division was engaged. By 1864, these violent activities harmed the nationwide anti-war movement organizing against the re-election of Lincoln. Missouri not only stayed in the Union but Lincoln took 70 percent of the vote for re-election.

Numerous small-scale military actions south and west of Missouri sought to control Indian Territory and New Mexico Territory for the Union. The Battle of Glorieta Pass was the decisive battle of the New Mexico Campaign.

The Union repulsed Confederate incursions into New Mexico in 1862, and the exiled Arizona government withdrew into Texas. In the Indian Territory, civil war broke out within tribes.

About 12,000 Indian warriors fought for the Confederacy and smaller numbers for the Union. The most prominent Cherokee was Brigadier General Stand Watie, the last Confederate general to surrender.

After the fall of Vicksburg in July 1863, General Kirby Smith in Texas was informed by Jefferson Davis that he could expect no further help from east of the Mississippi River. Although he lacked resources to beat Union armies, he built up a formidable arsenal at Tyler, along with his own Kirby Smithdom economy, a virtual "independent fiefdom" in Texas, including railroad construction and international smuggling.

The Union, in turn, did not directly engage him. Its 1864 Red River Campaign to take Shreveport, Louisiana, was a failure and Texas remained in Confederate hands throughout the war.

Lower Seaboard theater:
Further information: Lower Seaboard Theater of the American Civil War:

Background:

The Lower Seaboard theater refers to military and naval operations that occurred near the coastal areas of the Southeast (Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas) as well as the southern part of the Mississippi River (Port Hudson and south). Union Naval activities were dictated by the Anaconda Plan.​

Battles:

One of the earliest battles of the war was fought at Port Royal Sound (November 1861), south of Charleston. Much of the war along the South Carolina coast concentrated on capturing Charleston.

In attempting to capture Charleston, the Union military tried two approaches: by land over James or Morris Islands or through the harbor. However, the Confederates were able to drive back each Union attack.

One of the most famous of the land attacks was the Second Battle of Fort Wagner, in which the 54th Massachusetts Infantry took part. The Union suffered a serious defeat in this battle, losing 1,515 men while the Confederates lost only 174.

Fort Pulaski on the Georgia coast was an early target for the Union navy. Following the capture of Port Royal, an expedition was organized with engineer troops under the command of Captain Quincy A. Gillmore, forcing a Confederate surrender. The Union army occupied the fort for the rest of the war after repairing it.

In April 1862, a Union naval task force commanded by Commander David D. Porter attacked Forts Jackson and St. Philip, which guarded the river approach to New Orleans from the south. While part of the fleet bombarded the forts, other vessels forced a break in the obstructions in the river and enabled the rest of the fleet to steam upriver to the city.

A Union army force commanded by Major General Benjamin Butler landed near the forts and forced their surrender. Butler's controversial command of New Orleans earned him the nickname "Beast."

The following year, the Union Army of the Gulf commanded by Major General Nathaniel P. Banks laid siege to Port Hudson for nearly eight weeks, the longest siege in US military history. The Confederates attempted to defend with the Bayou Teche Campaign but surrendered after Vicksburg. These two surrenders gave the Union control over the entire Mississippi.

Several small skirmishes were fought in Florida, but no major battles. The biggest was the Battle of Olustee in early 1864.

Pacific Coast theater:
Further information: Pacific Coast Theater of the American Civil War

The Pacific Coast theater refers to military operations on the Pacific Ocean and in the states and Territories west of the Continental Divide.

Conquest of Virginia:
​
At the beginning of 1864, Lincoln made Grant commander of all Union armies. Grant made his headquarters with the Army of the Potomac and put Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman in command of most of the western armies.

Grant understood the concept of total war and believed, along with Lincoln and Sherman, that only the utter defeat of Confederate forces and their economic base would end the war. 

This was total war not in killing civilians but rather in taking provisions and forage and destroying homes, farms, and railroads, that Grant said "would otherwise have gone to the support of secession and rebellion. This policy I believe exercised a material influence in hastening the end." 

Grant devised a coordinated strategy that would strike at the entire Confederacy from multiple directions:
Grant's Overland Campaign:

Grant's army set out on the Overland Campaign intending to draw Lee into a defense of Richmond, where they would attempt to pin down and destroy the Confederate army. The Union army first attempted to maneuver past Lee and fought several battles, notably at the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, and Cold Harbor. These battles resulted in heavy losses on both sides and forced Lee's Confederates to fall back repeatedly. At the Battle of Yellow Tavern, the Confederates lost Jeb Stuart.

An attempt to outflank Lee from the south failed under Butler, who was trapped inside the Bermuda Hundred river bend. Each battle resulted in setbacks for the Union that mirrored what they had suffered under prior generals, though, unlike those prior generals, Grant fought on rather than retreat. Grant was tenacious and kept pressing Lee's Army of Northern Virginia back to Richmond.

While Lee was preparing for an attack on Richmond, Grant unexpectedly turned south to cross the James River and began the protracted Siege of Petersburg, where the two armies engaged in trench warfare for over nine months.

Sheridan's Valley Campaign:

​Grant finally found a commander, General Philip Sheridan, aggressive enough to prevail in the Valley Campaigns of 1864. Sheridan was initially repelled at the Battle of New Market by former U.S. vice president and Confederate Gen. John C. Breckinridge.

The Battle of New Market was the Confederacy's last major victory of the war and included a charge by teenage VMI cadets. After redoubling his efforts, Sheridan defeated Maj. Gen. Jubal A. Early in a series of battles, including a final decisive defeat at the Battle of Cedar Creek. Sheridan then proceeded to destroy the agricultural base of the Shenandoah Valley, a strategy similar to the tactics Sherman later employed in Georgia.

Sherman's March to the Sea:

​Meanwhile, Sherman maneuvered from Chattanooga to Atlanta, defeating Confederate Generals Joseph E. Johnston and John Bell Hood along the way. The fall of Atlanta on September 2, 1864, guaranteed the reelection of Lincoln as president. 

Hood left the Atlanta area to swing around and menace Sherman's supply lines and invade Tennessee in the Franklin–Nashville Campaign. Union Maj. Gen. John Schofield defeated Hood at the Battle of Franklin, and George H. Thomas dealt Hood a massive defeat at the Battle of Nashville, effectively destroying Hood's army.

Leaving Atlanta, and his base of supplies, Sherman's army marched with an unknown destination, laying waste to about 20 percent of the farms in Georgia in his "March to the Sea". He reached the Atlantic Ocean at Savannah, Georgia, in December 1864. Sherman's army was followed by thousands of freed slaves; there were no major battles along the March.

Sherman turned north through South Carolina and North Carolina to approach the Confederate Virginia lines from the south, increasing the pressure on Lee's army.

The Waterloo of the Confederacy:

Lee's army, thinned by desertion and casualties, was now much smaller than Grant's. One last Confederate attempt to break the Union hold on Petersburg failed at the decisive Battle of Five Forks (sometimes called "the Waterloo of the Confederacy") on April 1. This meant that the Union now controlled the entire perimeter surrounding Richmond-Petersburg, completely cutting it off from the Confederacy.

Realizing that the capital was now lost, Lee decided to evacuate his army. The Confederate capital fell to the Union XXV Corps, composed of black troops. The remaining Confederate units fled west after a defeat at Sayler's Creek.
___________________________________________________________________________
​
Confederacy surrenders:
Main article: Conclusion of the American Civil War

​Initially, Lee did not intend to surrender but planned to regroup at the village of Appomattox Court House, where supplies were to be waiting and then continue the war. Grant chased Lee and got in front of him so that when Lee's army reached Appomattox Court House, they were surrounded.

After an initial battle, Lee decided that the fight was now hopeless, and surrendered his Army of Northern Virginia on April 9, 1865, at the McLean House. In an untraditional gesture and as a sign of Grant's respect and anticipation of peacefully restoring Confederate states to the Union, Lee was permitted to keep his sword and his horse, Traveller. His men were paroled, and a chain of Confederate surrenders began.

On April 14, 1865, President Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Booth, a Confederate sympathizer. Lincoln died early the next morning. Lincoln's vice president, Andrew Johnson, was unharmed, because his would-be assassin, George Atzerodt, lost his nerve, so Johnson was immediately sworn in as president. Meanwhile, Confederate forces across the South surrendered as news of Lee's surrender reached them. 

On April 26, 1865, the same day Boston Corbett killed Booth at a tobacco barn, General Joseph E. Johnston surrendered nearly 90,000 men of the Army of Tennessee to Major General William Tecumseh Sherman at Bennett Place near present-day Durham, North Carolina. It proved to be the largest surrender of Confederate forces.

On May 4, all remaining Confederate forces in Alabama and Mississippi surrendered. President Johnson officially declared an end to the insurrection on May 9, 1865; Confederate president, Jefferson Davis, was captured the following day. 

On June 2, Kirby Smith officially surrendered his troops in the Trans-Mississippi Department. On June 23, Cherokee leader Stand Watie became the last Confederate general to surrender his forces. The final Confederate surrender was by the Shenandoah on November 6, 1865, bringing all hostilities of the four-year war to a close.
___________________________________________________________________________

Union victory and aftermath:

Explaining the Union victory:

The causes of the war, the reasons for its outcome, and even the name of the war itself are subjects of lingering contention today.

The North and West grew rich while the once-rich South became poor for a century. The national political power of the slaveowners and rich Southerners ended. Historians are less sure about the results of the postwar Reconstruction, especially regarding the second-class citizenship of the freedmen and their poverty.

Historians have debated whether the Confederacy could have won the war. Most scholars, including James McPherson, argue that Confederate victory was at least possible. McPherson argues that the North's advantage in population and resources made Northern victory likely but not guaranteed. He also argues that if the Confederacy had fought using unconventional tactics, they would have more easily been able to hold out long enough to exhaust the Union.

​Confederates did not need to invade and hold enemy territory to win but only needed to fight a defensive war to convince the North that the cost of winning was too high. The North needed to conquer and hold vast stretches of enemy territory and defeat Confederate armies to win. Lincoln was not a military dictator and could continue to fight the war only as long as the American public supported a continuation of the war.

​The Confederacy sought to win independence by outlasting Lincoln; however, after Atlanta fell and Lincoln defeated McClellan in the election of 1864, all hope for a political victory for the South ended.

At that point, Lincoln had secured the support of the Republicans, War Democrats, the border states, emancipated slaves, and the neutrality of Britain and France. By defeating the Democrats and McClellan, he also defeated the Copperheads, who had wanted a negotiated peace with the Confederate States of America.

Some scholars argue that the Union held an insurmountable long-term advantage over the Confederacy in industrial strength and population. Confederate actions, they argue, only delayed defeat. 

Civil War historian Shelby Foote expressed this view succinctly: "I think that the North fought that war with one hand behind its back .... If there had been more Southern victories, and a lot more, the North simply would have brought that other hand out from behind its back. I don't think the South ever had a chance to win that War."

A minority view among historians is that the Confederacy lost because, as E. Merton Coulter put it, "people did not will hard enough and long enough to win." However, most historians reject the argument. McPherson, after reading thousands of letters written by Confederate soldiers, found strong patriotism that continued to the end; they truly believed they were fighting for freedom and liberty.

Even as the Confederacy was visibly collapsing in 1864–65, he says most Confederate soldiers were fighting hard. Historian Gary Gallagher cites General Sherman who in early 1864 commented, "The devils seem to have a determination that cannot but be admired."

Despite their loss of slaves and wealth, with starvation looming, Sherman continued, "yet I see no sign of let-up—some few deserters—plenty tired of war, but the masses determined to fight it out."

Also important were Lincoln's eloquence in rationalizing the national purpose and his skill in keeping the border states committed to the Union cause. The Emancipation Proclamation was an effective use of the President's war powers. 

The Confederate government failed in its attempt to get Europe involved in the war militarily, particularly Great Britain and France. Southern leaders needed to get European powers to help break up the blockade the Union had created around the Southern ports and cities.

Lincoln's naval blockade was 95% effective at stopping trade goods; as a result, imports and exports to the South declined significantly. The abundance of European cotton and Britain's hostility to the institution of slavery, along with Lincoln's Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico naval blockades, severely decreased any chance that either Britain or France would enter the war.

Historian Don Doyle has argued that the Union victory had a major impact on the course of world history. The Union victory energized popular democratic forces. A Confederate victory, on the other hand, would have meant a new birth of slavery, not freedom.

Historian Fergus Bordewich, following Doyle, argues that:
'The North's victory decisively proved the durability of democratic government. Confederate independence, on the other hand, would have established an American model for reactionary politics and race-based repression that would likely have cast an international shadow into the twentieth century and perhaps beyond."

Scholars have debated what the effects of the war were on political and economic power in the South. The prevailing view is that the southern planter elite retained its powerful position in the South.

However, a 2017 study challenges this, noting that while some Southern elites retained their economic status, the turmoil of the 1860s created greater opportunities for economic mobility in the South than in the North.
​
___________________________________________________________________________

Casualties:

​The war resulted in at least 1,030,000 casualties (3 percent of the population), including about 620,000 soldier deaths—two-thirds by disease—and 50,000 civilians. Binghamton University historian J. David Hacker believes the number of soldier deaths was approximately 750,000, 20 percent higher than traditionally estimated, and possibly as high as 850,000. 

A novel way of calculating casualties by looking at the deviation of the death rate of men of fighting age from the norm through analysis of census data found that at least 627,000 and at most 888,000 people, but most likely 761,000 people, died through the war.

As historian McPherson notes, the war's "cost in American lives was as great as in all of the nation's other wars combined through Vietnam" (referring to the Vietnam War).

Based on 1860 census figures, 8 percent of all white men aged 13 to 43 died in the war, including 6 percent in the North and 18 percent in the South. About 56,000 soldiers died in prison camps during the War. An estimated 60,000 men lost limbs in the war.

Of the 359,528 Union army dead, amounting to 15 percent of the over two million who served:
  • 110,070 were killed in action (67,000) or died of wounds (43,000).
  • 199,790 died of disease (75 percent was due to the war, the remainder would have occurred in civilian life anyway)
  • 24,866 died in Confederate prison camps
  • 9,058 were killed by accidents or drowning
  • 15,741 other/unknown deaths

In addition there were 4,523 deaths in the Navy (2,112 in battle) and 460 in the Marines (148 in battle).

Black troops made up 10 percent of the Union death toll, they amounted to 15 percent of disease deaths but less than 3 percent of those killed in battle. Losses among African Americans were high.

In the last year and a half and from all reported casualties, approximately 20 percent of all African Americans enrolled in the military lost their lives during the Civil War. Notably, their mortality rate was significantly higher than white soldiers.

While 15.2% of United States Volunteers and just 8.6% of white Regular Army troops died, 20.5% of United States Colored Troops died. 

Confederate records compiled by historian William F. Fox list 74,524 killed and died of wounds and 59,292 died of disease. Including Confederate estimates of battle losses where no records exist would bring the Confederate death toll to 94,000 killed and died of wounds.

However, this excludes the 30,000 deaths of Confederate troops in prisons, which would raise the minimum number of deaths to 290,000.

The United States National Park Service uses the following figures in its official tally of war losses:

​Union: 853,838
  • 110,100 killed in action
  • 224,580 disease deaths
  • 275,154 wounded in action
  • 211,411 captured (including 30,192 who died as POWs)

Confederate: 914,660
  • 94,000 killed in action
  • 164,000 disease deaths
  • 194,026 wounded in action
  • 462,634 captured (including 31,000 who died as POWs)

​While the figures of 360,000 army deaths for the Union and 260,000 for the Confederacy remained commonly cited, they are incomplete.

In addition to many Confederate records being missing, partly as a result of Confederate widows not reporting deaths due to being ineligible for benefits, both armies only counted troops who died during their service and not the tens of thousands who died of wounds or diseases after being discharged.

This often happened only a few days or weeks later. Francis Amasa Walker, superintendent of the 1870 census, used census and surgeon general data to estimate a minimum of 500,000 Union military deaths and 350,000 Confederate military deaths, for a total death toll of 850,000 soldiers.

While Walker's estimates were originally dismissed because of the 1870 census's undercounting, it was later found that the census was only off by 6.5% and that the data Walker used would be roughly accurate.

Analyzing the number of dead by using census data to calculate the deviation of the death rate of men of fighting age from the norm suggests that at least 627,000 and at most 888,000, but most likely 761,000 soldiers, died in the war. This would break down to approximately 350,000 Confederate and 411,000 Union military deaths, going by the proportion of Union to Confederate battle losses.

Deaths among former slaves has proven much harder to estimate, due to the lack of reliable census data at the time, though they were known to be considerable, as former slaves were set free or escaped in massive numbers in an area where the Union army did not have sufficient shelter, doctors, or food for them.

University of Connecticut Professor James Downs states that tens to hundreds of thousands of slaves died during the war from disease, starvation, or exposure and that if these deaths are counted in the war's total, the death toll would exceed 1 million.

Losses were far higher than during the recent defeat of Mexico, which saw roughly thirteen thousand American deaths, including fewer than two thousand killed in battle, between 1846 and 1848. One reason for the high number of battle deaths during the war was the continued use of tactics similar to those of the Napoleonic Wars at the turn of the century, such as charging.

With the advent of more accurate rifled barrels, Minié balls, and (near the end of the war for the Union army) repeating firearms such as the Spencer Repeating Rifle and the Henry Repeating Rifle, soldiers were mowed down when standing in lines in the open. This led to the adoption of trench warfare, a style of fighting that defined much of World War I.
___________________________________________________________________________

​Emancipation:

​Abolishing slavery was not a Union war goal from the outset, but it quickly became one Lincoln's initial claims were that preserving the Union was the central goal of the war. 

In contrast, the South saw itself as fighting to preserve slavery. While not all Southerners saw themselves as fighting for slavery, most of the officers and over a third of the rank and file in Lee's army had close family ties to slavery.

To Northerners, in contrast, the motivation was primarily to preserve the Union, not to abolish slavery. However, as the war dragged on, and it became clear that slavery was central to the conflict, and that emancipation was (to quote from the Emancipation Proclamation) "a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing [the] rebellion," Lincoln and his cabinet made ending slavery a war goal, culminating in the Emancipation Proclamation.

Lincoln's decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation angered both Peace Democrats ("Copperheads") and War Democrats, but energized most Republicans. By warning that free blacks would flood the North, Democrats made gains in the 1862 elections, but they did not gain control of Congress. The Republicans' counterargument that slavery was the mainstay of the enemy steadily gained support, with the Democrats losing decisively in the 1863 elections in the northern state of Ohio when they tried to resurrect anti-black sentiment.

Emancipation Proclamation:
Main article: Emancipation Proclamation

Slavery for the Confederacy's 3.5 million blacks effectively ended in each area when Union armies arrived; they were nearly all freed by the Emancipation Proclamation.

The last Confederate slaves were freed on June 19, 1865, celebrated as the modern holiday of Juneteenth. Slaves in the border states and those located in some former Confederate territory occupied before the Emancipation Proclamation were freed by state action or (on December 6, 1865) by the Thirteenth Amendment.

The Emancipation Proclamation enabled African Americans, both free blacks and escaped slaves, to join the Union Army. About 190,000 volunteered, further enhancing the numerical advantage the Union armies enjoyed over the Confederates, who did not dare emulate the equivalent manpower source for fear of fundamentally undermining the legitimacy of slavery.

During the Civil War, sentiment concerning slaves, enslavement and emancipation in the United States was divided. Lincoln's fears of making slavery a war issue were based on a harsh reality: abolition did not enjoy wide support in the west, the territories, and the border states.

In 1861, Lincoln worried that premature attempts at emancipation would mean the loss of the border states, and that "to lose Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game." Copperheads and some War Democrats opposed emancipation, although the latter eventually accepted it as part of the total war needed to save the Union.

At first, Lincoln reversed attempts at emancipation by Secretary of War Simon Cameron and Generals John C. Frémont (in Missouri) and David Hunter (in South Carolina, Georgia and Florida) to keep the loyalty of the border states and the War Democrats. Lincoln warned the border states that a more radical type of emancipation would happen if his plan of gradual compensated emancipation and voluntary colonization was rejected/

But compensated emancipation occurred only in the District of Columbia, where Congress had the power to enact it. When Lincoln told his cabinet about his proposed emancipation proclamation, which would apply to the states still in rebellion on January 1, 1863, Seward advised Lincoln to wait for a victory before issuing it, as to do otherwise would seem like "our last shriek on the retreat". 

Lincoln laid the groundwork for public support in an open letter published in response to Horace Greeley's "The Prayer of Twenty Millions." He also laid the groundwork at a meeting at the White House with five African American representatives on August 14, 1862.

Arranging for a reporter to be present, he urged his visitors to agree to the voluntary colonization of black people, apparently to make his forthcoming preliminary emancipation proclamation more palatable to racist white people. A Union victory in the Battle of Antietam on September 17, 1862, provided Lincoln with an opportunity to issue the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, and the subsequent War Governors' Conference added support for the proclamation.

​Lincoln issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on September 22, 1862, and his final Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. In his letter to Albert G. Hodges, Lincoln explained his belief that "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong .... And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling .... I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me."

Lincoln's moderate approach succeeded in inducing the border states to remain in the Union and War Democrats to support the Union. The border states (Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware) and Union-controlled regions around New Orleans, Norfolk, and elsewhere, were not covered by the Emancipation Proclamation. Nor was Tennessee, which had come under Union control. Missouri and Maryland abolished slavery on their own; Kentucky and Delaware did not. 

Still, the proclamation did not enjoy universal support. It caused much unrest in what were then considered western states, where racist sentiments led to a great fear of abolition. There was some concern that the proclamation would lead to the secession of western states, and its issuance prompted the stationing of Union troops in Illinois in case of rebellion.

Since the Emancipation Proclamation was based on the President's war powers, it applied only in territory held by Confederates at the time. However, the Proclamation became a symbol of the Union's growing commitment to add emancipation to the Union's definition of liberty. 

The Emancipation Proclamation greatly reduced the Confederacy's hope of being recognized or otherwise aided by Britain or France. By late 1864, Lincoln was playing a leading role in getting Congress to vote for the Thirteenth Amendment, which made emancipation universal and permanent unless it was repealed by another constitutional amendment.
___________________________________________________________________________

Reconstruction
Main article: Reconstruction era

​The war had utterly devastated the South and posed serious questions of how the South would be re-integrated to the Union. The war destroyed much of the wealth that had existed in the South.

All accumulated investment in Confederate bonds was forfeited; most banks and railroads were bankrupt. The income per person in the South dropped to less than 40 percent of that of the North, a condition that lasted until well into the 20th century. Southern influence in the federal government, previously considerable, was greatly diminished until the latter half of the 20th century.

Reconstruction began during the war, with the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863, and it continued until 1877. It comprised multiple complex methods to resolve the outstanding issues of the war's aftermath, the most important of which were the three "Reconstruction Amendments" to the Constitution: the 13th outlawing slavery (1865), the 14th guaranteeing citizenship to slaves (1868) and the 15th ensuring voting rights to slaves (1870).

From the Union perspective, the goals of Reconstruction were to consolidate the Union victory on the battlefield by reuniting the Union; to guarantee a "republican form of government" for the ex-Confederate states, and to permanently end slavery—and prevent semi-slavery status.

President Johnson took a lenient approach and saw the achievement of the main war goals as realized in 1865 when each ex-rebel state repudiated secession and ratified the Thirteenth Amendment. Radical Republicans demanded proof that Confederate nationalism was dead and that the slaves were truly free. They came to the fore after the 1866 elections and undid much of Johnson's work.

In 1872, the "Liberal Republicans" argued that the war goals had been achieved and that Reconstruction should end. They ran a presidential ticket in 1872 but were decisively defeated. In 1874, Democrats, primarily Southern, took control of Congress and opposed further reconstruction.

The Compromise of 1877 closed with a national consensus that the Civil War had finally ended. With the withdrawal of federal troops, however, whites retook control of every Southern legislature, and the Jim Crow era of disenfranchisement and legal segregation was ushered in.

The Civil War would have a huge impact on American politics in the years to come. Many veterans on both sides were subsequently elected to political office, including five U.S. Presidents:
  1. General Ulysses Grant, 
  2. Rutherford B. Hayes, 
  3. James Garfield, 
  4. Benjamin Harrison,
  5. and William McKinley.
__________________________________________________________________________-

Memory and historiography

​The Civil War is one of the central events in American collective memory. There are innumerable statues, commemorations, books, and archival collections. The memory includes the home front, military affairs, the treatment of soldiers, both living and dead, in the war's aftermath, depictions of the war in literature and art, evaluations of heroes and villains, and considerations of the moral and political lessons of the war. 

The last theme includes moral evaluations of racism and slavery, heroism in combat and heroism behind the lines, and issues of democracy and minority rights, as well as the notion of an "Empire of Liberty" influencing the world.

Professional historians have paid much more attention to the causes of the war than to the war itself. Military history has largely developed outside academia, leading to a proliferation of studies by non-scholars who nevertheless are familiar with the primary sources and pay close attention to battles and campaigns and who write for the general public. Bruce Catton and Shelby Foote are among the best known. 

Practically every major figure in the war, both North and South, has had a serious biographical study.

Lost Cause:
Main article: Lost Cause of the Confederacy

The memory of the war in the white South crystallized in the myth of the "Lost Cause": that the Confederate cause was just and heroic. The myth shaped regional identity and race relations for generations. Alan T. Nolan notes that the Lost Cause was expressly a rationalization, a cover-up to vindicate the name and fame of those in rebellion.

Some claims revolve around the insignificance of slavery as a cause of the war; some appeals highlight cultural differences between North and South; the military conflict by Confederate actors is idealized; in any case, secession was said to be lawful.

Nolan argues that the adoption of the Lost Cause perspective facilitated the reunification of the North and the South while excusing the "virulent racism" of the 19th century, sacrificing black American progress to white man's reunification. He also deems the Lost Cause "a caricature of the truth. This caricature wholly misrepresents and distorts the facts of the matter" in every instance.

The Lost Cause myth was formalized by Charles A. Beard and Mary R. Beard, whose The Rise of American Civilization (1927) spawned "Beardian historiography". The Beards downplayed slavery, abolitionism, and issues of morality. Though this interpretation was abandoned by the Beards in the 1940s, and by historians generally by the 1950s, Beardian themes still echo among Lost Cause writers.

Battlefield preservation
​Main article: American Civil War battlefield preservation

The first efforts at Civil War battlefield preservation and memorialization came during the war itself with the establishment of National Cemeteries at Gettysburg, Mill Springs and Chattanooga.

Soldiers began erecting markers on battlefields beginning with the First Battle of Bull Run in July 1861, but the oldest surviving monument is the Hazen Brigade Monument near Murfreesboro, Tennessee, built in the summer of 1863 by soldiers in Union Col. William B. Hazen's brigade to mark the spot where they buried their dead following the Battle of Stones River. 

In the 1890s, the United States government established five Civil War battlefield parks under the jurisdiction of the War Department, beginning with the creation of the Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park in Tennessee and the Antietam National Battlefield in Maryland in 1890.

The Shiloh National Military Park was established in 1894, followed by the Gettysburg National Military Park in 1895 and Vicksburg National Military Park in 1899. In 1933, these five parks and other national monuments were transferred to the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. 

Chief among modern efforts to preserve Civil War sites has been the American Battlefield Trust, with more than 130 battlefields in 24 states. The five major Civil War battlefield parks operated by the National Park Service (Gettysburg, Antietam, Shiloh, Chickamauga/Chattanooga and Vicksburg) had a combined 3.1 million visitors in 2018, down 70% from 10.2 million in 1970.

Civil War commemoration:
Further information: 
​The American Civil War has been commemorated in many capacities ranging from the reenactment of battles to statues and memorial halls erected, to films being produced, to stamps and coins with Civil War themes being issued, all of which helped to shape public memory. This varied advent occurred in greater proportions on the 100th and 150th anniversary.  

Hollywood's take on the war has been especially influential in shaping public memory, as seen in such film classics as The Birth of a Nation (1915), Gone with the Wind (1939), and Lincoln (2012). Ken Burns's PBS television series The Civil War (1990) is especially well-remembered, though criticized for its historical accuracy.

Technological significance:

Numerous technological innovations during the Civil War had a great impact on 19th-century science. The Civil War was one of the earliest examples of an "industrial war", in which technological might is used to achieve military supremacy in a war. 

New inventions, such as the train and telegraph, delivered soldiers, supplies and messages at a time when horses were considered to be the fastest way to travel. It was also in this war that aerial warfare, in the form of reconnaissance balloons, was first used. It saw the first action involving steam-powered ironclad warships in naval warfare history.

Repeating firearms such as the Henry rifle, Spencer rifle, Colt revolving rifle, Triplett & Scott carbine and others, first appeared during the Civil War; they were a revolutionary invention that would soon replace muzzle-loading and single-shot firearms in warfare. The war also saw the first appearances of rapid-firing weapons and machine guns such as the Agar gun and the Gatling gun.

In works of culture and art:

The Civil War is one of the most studied events in American history, and the collection of cultural works around it is enormous. This section gives an abbreviated overview of the most notable works.

Literature: Film: Music:
See also: Music of the American Civil War Video games:
See also:

General reference
Union
Confederacy
Ethnic articles
Topical articles
National articles:
State articles:
Memorials:
Other modern civil wars in the world:
Main article: List of civil wars
​Other Topics re: American Civil War:







American Indian Wars, including a List of American Indian Wars Pictured below: Custer’s Last Stand (PBS, 2012): There have been many films entitled Custer’s Last Fight or Custer’s Last Stand, from 1910 onwards. Early celluloid Custers Modern documentaries are also often called Custer’s Last Stand
​​The American Indian Wars, also known as the American Frontier Wars, the First Nations Wars in Canada (French: Guerres des Premières Nations), and the Indian Wars, were fought by European governments and colonists in North America, and later by the United States and Canadian governments and American and Canadian settlers, against various American Indian and First Nation tribes.

These conflicts occurred in North America from the time of the earliest colonial settlements in the 17th century until the early 20th century. The various wars resulted from a wide variety of factors. The European powers and their colonies also enlisted allied Indian tribes to help them conduct warfare against each other's colonial settlements. After the American Revolution, many conflicts were local to specific states or regions and frequently involved disputes over land use; some entailed cycles of violent reprisal.

As settlers spread westward across North America after 1780, armed conflicts increased in size, duration, and intensity between settlers and various Indian and First Nation tribes. The climax came in the War of 1812, when major Indian coalitions in the Midwest and the South fought against the United States and lost.

Conflict with settlers became much less common and was usually resolved by treaty, often through sale or exchange of territory between the federal government and specific tribes.

The Indian Removal Act of 1830 authorized the American government to enforce Indian removal from east of the Mississippi River to Indian Territory west on the American frontier, especially what became Oklahoma. The federal policy of removal was eventually refined in the West, as American settlers kept expanding their territories, to relocate Indian tribes to reservations.

​Colonial periods (1609–1774):
Further information: European colonization of the Americas

​The colonization of North America by English, Spanish, French, Dutch, and Swedish was resisted by some Indian tribes and assisted by other tribes. Wars and other armed conflicts in the 17th and 18th centuries included:
In several instances, the conflicts were a reflection of European rivalries, with Indian tribes splitting their alliances among the powers, generally siding with their trading partners.

Various tribes fought on each side in King William's War, Queen Anne's War, Dummer's War, King George's War, and the French and Indian War, allying with British or French colonists according to their own self interests.
___________________________________________________________________________

East of the Mississippi (1775–1842):
Further information: 
British merchants and government agents began supplying weapons to Indians living in the United States following the Revolution (1783–1812) in the hope that, if a war broke out, they would fight on the British side. The British further planned to set up an Indian nation in the Ohio-Wisconsin area to block further American expansion. 

The US protested and declared war in 1812. Most Indian tribes supported the British, especially those allied with Tecumseh, but they were ultimately defeated by General William Henry Harrison. The War of 1812 spread to Indian rivalries, as well.

Many refugees from defeated tribes went over the border to Canada; those in the South went to Florida while it was under Spanish control as they would be considered free, not slaves, under the Viceroyalty of New Spain. During the early 19th century, the federal government was under pressure by settlers in many regions to expel Indians from their areas.

The Indian Removal Act of 1830 offered Indians the choices of assimilating and giving up tribal membership, relocation to an Indian reservation with an exchange or payment for lands, or moving west. Some resisted fiercely, most notably the Seminoles in a series of wars in Florida. They were never defeated, although some Seminoles did remove to Indian Territory.

The United States gave up on the remainder, by then living defensively deep in the swamps and Everglades. Others were moved to reservations west of the Mississippi River, most famously the Cherokee whose relocation was called the "Trail of Tears."
___________________________________________________________________________

American Revolutionary War (1775–1783)
Main article: Western theater of the American Revolutionary War

The American Revolutionary War was essentially two parallel wars for the American Patriots. The war in the east was a struggle against British rule, while the war in the west was an "Indian War". The newly proclaimed United States competed with the British for control of the territory east of the Mississippi River. Some Indians sided with the British, as they hoped to reduce American settlement and expansion.

In one writer's opinion, the Revolutionary War was "the most extensive and destructive" Indian war in United States history.

​​Some Indian tribes were divided over which side to support in the war, such as the Iroquois Confederacy based in New York and Pennsylvania who split: the Oneida and Tuscarora sided with the American Patriots, and the Mohawk, Seneca, Cayuga, and Onondaga sided with the British.

The Iroquois tried to avoid fighting directly against one another, but the Revolution eventually forced intra-Iroquois combat, and both sides lost territory following the war. The Crown aided the landless Iroquois by rewarding them with a reservation at Grand River in Ontario and some other lands.

In the Southeast, the Cherokee split into a pro-patriot faction versus a pro-British faction that the Americans referred to as the Chickamauga Cherokee; they were led by Dragging Canoe. Many other tribes were similarly divided.

When the British made peace with the Americans in the Treaty of Paris (1783), they ceded a vast amount of Indian territory to the United States. Indian tribes who had sided with the British and had fought against the Americans were enemy combatants, as far as the United States was concerned; they were a conquered people who had lost their land.

Cherokee–American wars:
Main article: Cherokee–American wars

The frontier conflicts were almost non-stop, beginning with Cherokee involvement in the American Revolutionary War and continuing through late 1794.

The so-called "Chickamauga Cherokee", later called "Lower Cherokee," were from the Overhill Towns and later from the Lower Towns, Valley Towns, and Middle Towns.

They followed war leader Dragging Canoe southwest, first to the Chickamauga Creek area near Chattanooga, Tennessee, then to the Five Lower Towns where they were joined by groups of Muskogee, white Tories, runaway slaves, and renegade Chickasaw, as well as by more than a hundred Shawnee.

The primary targets of attack were the Washington District colonies along the Watauga, Holston, and Nolichucky Rivers, and in Carter's Valley in upper eastern Tennessee, as well as the settlements along the Cumberland River beginning with Fort Nashborough in 1780, even into Kentucky, plus against the Franklin settlements, and later states of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.

The scope of attacks by the Chickamauga and their allies ranged from quick raids by small war parties to large campaigns by four or five hundred warriors, and once more than a thousand.

The Upper Muskogee under Dragging Canoe's close ally Alexander McGillivray frequently joined their campaigns and also operated separately, and the settlements on the Cumberland came under attack from the Chickasaw, Shawnee from the north, and Delaware. Campaigns by Dragging Canoe and his successor John Watts were frequently conducted in conjunction with campaigns in the Northwest Territory.

The colonists generally responded with attacks in which Cherokee settlements were completely destroyed, though usually without great loss of life on either side. The wars continued until the Treaty of Tellico Blockhouse in November 1794.

Northwest Indian War:
Main article: Northwest Indian War

In 1787, the Northwest Ordinance officially organized the Northwest Territory for settlement, and American settlers began pouring into the region. Violence erupted as Indian tribes resisted, and so the administration of President George Washington sent armed expeditions into the area.

However, in the Northwest Indian War, a pan-tribal confederacy led by Blue Jacket (Shawnee), Little Turtle (Miami), Buckongahelas (Lenape), and Egushawa (Ottawa) defeated armies led by Generals Josiah Harmar and Arthur St. Clair. General St. Clair's defeat was the most severe loss ever inflicted upon an American army by Indians.

The Americans attempted to negotiate a settlement, but Blue Jacket and the Shawnee-led confederacy insisted on a boundary line that the Americans found unacceptable, and so a new expedition was dispatched led by General Anthony Wayne. Wayne's army defeated the Indian confederacy at the Battle of Fallen Timbers in 1794.

The Indians had hoped for British assistance; when that was not forthcoming, they were compelled to sign the Treaty of Greenville in 1795, which ceded Ohio and part of Indiana to the United States.

​Tecumseh, the Creek War, and the War of 1812:

By 1800, the Indian population was approximately 600,000 in the continental United States.

By 1890, their population had declined to about 250,000. In 1800, William Henry Harrison became governor of the Indiana Territory, under the direction of President Thomas Jefferson, and he pursued an aggressive policy of obtaining titles to Indian lands. Shawnee brothers Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa organized Tecumseh's War, another pan-tribal resistance to westward settlement.

Tecumseh was in the South attempting to recruit allies among the Creeks, Cherokees, and Choctaws when Harrison marched against the Indian confederacy, defeating Tenskwatawa and his followers at the Battle of Tippecanoe in 1811. The Americans hoped that the victory would end the militant resistance, but Tecumseh instead chose to ally openly with the British, who were soon at war with the Americans in the War of 1812.

The Creek War (1813–14) began as a tribal conflict within the Creek tribe, but it became part of the larger struggle against American expansion. Tecumseh was killed by Harrison's army at the Battle of the Thames, ending the resistance in the Old Northwest. The First Seminole War in 1818 resulted in the transfer of Florida from Spain to the United States in 1819.

Second Seminole War:
Main articles: Second Seminole War and Seminole Wars

American settlers began to push into Florida, which was now an American territory and had some of the most fertile lands in the nation. Paul Hoffman claims that covetousness, racism, and "self-defense" against Indian raids played a major part in the settlers' determination to "rid Florida of Indians once and for all". 

To compound the tension, runaway black slaves sometimes found refuge in Seminole camps, and the result was clashes between white settlers and the Indians residing there. Andrew Jackson sought to alleviate this problem by signing the Indian Removal Act, which stipulated the relocation of Indians out of Florida—by force if necessary.

The Seminoles were relatively new arrivals in Florida, led by such powerful leaders as Aripeka (Sam Jones), Micanopy, and Osceola, and they had no intention of leaving their new lands. They retaliated against the settlers, and this led to the Second Seminole War, the longest and most costly war that the Army ever waged against Indians.

In May 1830, the Indian Removal Act was passed by Congress which stipulated forced removal of Indians to Oklahoma. The Treaty of Paynes Landing was signed in May 1832 by a few Seminole chiefs who later recanted, claiming that they were tricked or forced to sign and making it clear that they would not consent to relocating to a reservation out west.

The Seminoles' continued resistance to relocation led Florida to prepare for war. The St. Augustine Militia asked the US War Department for the loan of 500 muskets, and 500 volunteers were mobilized under Brig. Gen. Richard K. Call. Indian war parties raided farms and settlements, and families fled to forts or large towns, or out of the territory altogether.

A war party led by Osceola captured a Florida militia supply train, killing eight of its guards and wounding six others; most of the goods taken were recovered by the militia in another fight a few days later. Sugar plantations were destroyed along the Atlantic coast south of St. Augustine, Florida, with many of the slaves on the plantations joining the Seminoles.

​The US Army had 11 companies (about 550 soldiers) stationed in Florida. Fort King (Ocala) had only one company of soldiers, and it was feared that they might be overrun by the Seminoles. Three companies were stationed at Fort Brooke (Tampa), with another two expected imminently, so the army decided to send two companies to Fort King.

On December 23, 1835, the two companies totaling 110 men left Fort Brooke under the command of Major Francis L. Dade. Seminoles shadowed the marching soldiers for five days, and they ambushed them and wiped out the command on December 28.

Only three men survived, and one was hunted down and killed by a Seminole the next day. Survivors Ransome Clarke and Joseph Sprague returned to Fort Brooke. Clarke died of his wounds later, and he provided the only account of the battle from the army's perspective. The Seminoles lost three men and five wounded. On the same day as the massacre, Osceola and his followers shot and killed Agent Wiley Thompson and six others during an ambush outside of Fort King.

On December 29, General Clinch left Fort Drane with 750 soldiers, including 500 volunteers on an enlistment due to end January 1, 1836. The group was traveling to a Seminole stronghold called the Cove of the Withlacoochee, an area of many lakes on the southwest side of the Withlacoochee River.

​When they reached the river, the soldiers could not find the ford, so Clinch ferried his regular troops across the river in a single canoe. Once they were across and had relaxed, the Seminoles attacked. The troops fixed bayonets and charged them, at the cost of four dead and 59 wounded. The militia provided cover as the army troops then withdrew across the river.

In the Battle of Lake Okeechobee, Colonel Zachary Taylor saw the first major action of the campaign. He left Fort Gardiner on the upper Kissimmee River with 1,000 men on December 19 and headed towards Lake Okeechobee.

In the first two days, 90 Seminoles surrendered. On the third day, Taylor stopped to build Fort Basinger where he left his sick and enough men to guard the Seminoles who had surrendered. Taylor's column caught up with the main body of the Seminoles on the north shore of Lake Okeechobee on December 25.

The Seminoles were led by "Alligator", Sam Jones, and the recently escaped Coacoochee, and they were positioned in a hammock surrounded by sawgrass. The ground was thick mud, and sawgrass easily cuts and burns the skin. Taylor had about 800 men, while the Seminoles numbered fewer than 400.

Taylor sent in the Missouri volunteers first, moving his troops squarely into the center of the swamp. His plan was to make a direct attack rather than encircle the Indians. All his men were on foot. As soon as they came within range, the Indians opened with heavy fire. The volunteers broke and their commander Colonel Gentry was fatally wounded, so they retreated back across the swamp.

​The fighting in the sawgrass was deadliest for five companies of the Sixth Infantry; every officer but one was killed or wounded, along with most of their non-commissioned officers. The soldiers suffered 26 killed and 112 wounded, compared to 11 Seminoles killed and 14 wounded. No Seminoles were captured, although Taylor did capture 100 ponies and 600 head of cattle.

By 1842, the war was winding down and most Seminoles had left Florida for Oklahoma. The US Army officially recorded 1,466 deaths in the Second Seminole War, mostly from disease.

The number killed in action is less clear. Mahon reports 328 regular army killed in action, while Missall reports that Seminoles killed 269 officers and men. Almost half of those deaths occurred in the Dade Massacre, Battle of Lake Okeechobee, and Harney Massacre. Similarly, Mahon reports 69 deaths for the Navy, while Missal reports 41 for the Navy and Marine Corps.

Mahon and the Florida Board of State Institutions agree that 55 volunteer officers and men were killed by the Seminoles, while Missall says that the number is unknown. A northern newspaper carried a report that more than 80 civilians were killed by Indians in Florida in 1839. By the end of 1843, 3,824 Indians had been shipped from Florida to the Indian Territory.
___________________________________________________________________________


​West of the Mississippi (1811–1924)

​The series of conflicts in the western United States between Indians, American settlers, and the United States Army are generally known as the Indian Wars. Many of these conflicts occurred during and after the Civil War until the closing of the frontier in about 1890. However, regions of the West that were settled before the Civil War saw significant conflicts prior to 1860, such as Texas, New Mexico, Utah, Oregon, California, and Washington state.

Various statistics have been developed concerning the devastation of these wars on the peoples involved. Gregory Michno used records dealing with figures "as a direct result of" engagements and concluded that "of the 21,586 total casualties tabulated in this survey, military personnel and civilians accounted for 6,596 (31%), while Indian casualties totaled about 14,990 (69%)" for the period of 1850–90.

However, Michno says that he "used the army's estimates in almost every case" and "the number of casualties in this study are inherently biased toward army estimations". His work includes almost nothing on "Indian war parties", and he states that "army records are often incomplete".

According to Michno, more conflicts with Indians occurred in the states bordering Mexico than in the interior states. Arizona ranked highest, with 310 known battles fought within the state's boundaries between Americans and Indians. Also, Arizona ranked highest of the states in deaths from the wars.

At least 4,340 people were killed, including both the settlers and the Indians, over twice as many as occurred in Texas, the second highest-ranking state. Most of the deaths in Arizona were caused by the Apaches. Michno also says that 51 percent of the battles took place in Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico between 1850 and 1890, as well as 37 percent of the casualties in the country west of the Mississippi River.

Background:

American settlers and fur trappers had spread into the western United States territories and had established the Santa Fe Trail and the Oregon Trail. Relations were generally peaceful between American settlers and Indians.

​The Bents of Bent's Fort on the Santa Fe Trail had friendly relations with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, and peace was established on the Oregon Trail by the Treaty of Fort Laramie signed in 1851 between the United States and the Plains Indians and the Indians of the northern Rocky Mountains. The treaty allowed passage by settlers, building roads, and stationing troops along the Oregon Trail.

The Pike's Peak Gold Rush of 1859 introduced a substantial white population into the Front Range of the Rockies, supported by a trading lifeline that crossed the central Great Plains.

Advancing settlement following the passage of the Homestead Act and the growing transcontinental railways following the Civil War further destabilized the situation, placing white settlers into direct competition for the land and resources of the Great Plains and the Rocky Mountain West. 

Further factors included discovery of gold in the Black Hills resulting in the gold rush of 1875–1878, and in Montana during the Montana Gold Rush of 1862–1863 and the opening of the Bozeman Trail, which led to Red Cloud's War and later the Great Sioux War of 1876–77.

Miners, ranchers, and settlers expanded into the plain, and this led to increasing conflicts with the Indian populations of the West. Many tribes fought American settlers at one time or another, from the Utes of the Great Basin to the Nez Perce tribe of Idaho.

But the Sioux of the Northern Plains and the Apaches of the Southwest waged the most aggressive warfare, led by resolute, militant leaders such as Red Cloud and Crazy Horse. The Sioux were relatively new arrivals on the Plains, as they had been sedentary farmers in the Great Lakes region previously. They moved west, displacing other Indian tribes and becoming feared warriors.

The Apaches supplemented their economy by raiding other tribes, and they practiced warfare to avenge the death of a kinsman.

During the American Civil War, Army units were withdrawn to fight the war in the east. They were replaced by the volunteer infantry and cavalry raised by the states of California and Oregon, by the western territorial governments, or by the local militias. These units fought the Indians and kept open communications with the east, holding the west for the Union and defeating the Confederate attempt to capture the New Mexico Territory.

After 1865, national policy called for all Indians either to assimilate into the American population as citizens, or to live peacefully on reservations. Raids and wars between tribes were not allowed, and armed Indian bands off a reservation were the responsibility of the Army to round up and return.

Texas:
Main articles: 
In the 18th century, Spanish settlers in Texas came into a small conflict with the Apaches, Comanches, and Karankawas, among other tribes, which was rapidly solved as Apaches changed their nomada lifestyle to settle, which permitted their rapid evangelization  

Large numbers of American settlers reached Texas in the 1830s, and a series of armed confrontations broke out until the 1870s, mostly between Texans and Comanches. During the same period, the Comanches and their allies raided hundreds of miles deep into Mexico (see Comanche–Mexico Wars).

The first notable battle was the Fort Parker massacre in 1836, in which a huge war party of Comanches, Kiowas, Wichitas, and Delawares attacked the Texan outpost at Fort Parker. A small number of settlers were killed during the raid, and the abduction of Cynthia Ann Parker and two other children caused widespread outrage among Texans.

The Republic of Texas was declared and secured some sovereignty in their war with Mexico, and the Texas government under President Sam Houston pursued a policy of engagement with the Comanches and Kiowas.

Houston had lived with the Cherokees, but the Cherokees joined with Mexican forces to fight against Texas. Houston resolved the conflict without resorting to arms, refusing to believe that the Cherokees would take up arms against his government. 

​The administration of Mirabeau B. Lamar followed Houston's and took a very different policy towards the Indians. Lamar removed the Cherokees to the west and then sought to deport the Comanches and Kiowas. This led to a series of battles, including the Council House Fight, in which the Texas militia killed 33 Comanche chiefs at a peace parley. The Comanches retaliated with the Great Raid of 1840, and the Battle of Plum Creek followed several days later.

The Lamar Administration was known for its failed and expensive Indian policy; the cost of the war with the Indians exceeded the annual revenue of the government throughout his four-year term.

It was followed by a second Houston administration, which resumed the previous policy of diplomacy. Texas signed treaties with all of the tribes, including the Comanches. In the 1840s and 1850s, the Comanches and their allies shifted most of their raiding activities to Mexico, using Texas as a safe haven from Mexican retaliation.

Texas joined the Union in 1846, and the Federal government and Texas took up the struggle between the Plains Indians and the settlers. The conflicts were particularly vicious and bloody on the Texas frontier in 1856 through 1858, as settlers continued to expand their settlements into the Comancheria. The first Texan incursion into the heart of the Comancheria was in 1858, the so-called Antelope Hills Expedition marked by the Battle of Little Robe Creek.

The battles between settlers and Indians continued in 1860, and Texas militia destroyed an Indian camp at the Battle of Pease River. In the aftermath of the battle, the Texans learned that they had recaptured Cynthia Ann Parker, the little girl captured by the Comanches in 1836.

She returned to live with her family, but she missed her children, including her son Quanah Parker. He was the son of Parker and Comanche Chief Peta Nocona, and he became a Comanche war chief at the Second Battle of Adobe Walls. He ultimately surrendered to the overwhelming force of the federal government and moved to a reservation in southwestern Oklahoma in 1875.

Pacific Northwest:
Main articles:  ​
​A number of wars occurred in the wake of the Oregon Treaty of 1846 and the creation of Oregon Territory and Washington Territory. Among the causes of conflict were a sudden immigration to the region and a series of gold rushes throughout the Pacific Northwest.

The Whitman massacre of 1847 triggered the Cayuse War, which led to fighting from the Cascade Range to the Rocky Mountains. The Cayuse were defeated in 1855, but the conflict had expanded and continued in what became known as the Yakima War (1855–1858).

Washington Territory Governor Isaac Stevens tried to compel Indian tribes to sign treaties ceding land and establishing reservations. The Yakama signed one of the treaties negotiated during the Walla Walla Council of 1855, establishing the Yakama Indian Reservation, but Stevens' attempts served mainly to intensify hostilities.

Gold discoveries near Fort Colville resulted in many miners crossing Yakama lands via Naches Pass, and conflicts rapidly escalated into violence. It took several years for the Army to defeat the Yakama, during which time war spread to the Puget Sound region west of the Cascades.

The Puget Sound War of 1855–1856 was triggered in part by the Yakima War and in part by the use of intimidation to compel tribes to sign land cession treaties. The Treaty of Medicine Creek of 1855 established an unrealistically small reservation on poor land for the Nisqually and Puyallup tribes.

​Violence broke out in the White River valley, along the route to Naches Pass and connecting Nisqually and Yakama lands. The Puget Sound War is often remembered in connection with the Battle of Seattle (1856) and the execution of Nisqually Chief Leschi, a central figure of the war.

​In 1858, the fighting spread on the east side of the Cascades. This second phase of the Yakima War is known as the Coeur d'Alene War. The Yakama, Palouse, Spokane, and Coeur d'Alene tribes were defeated at the Battle of Four Lakes in late 1858.

​In southwest Oregon, tensions and skirmishes escalated between American settlers and the Rogue River peoples into the Rogue River Wars of 1855–1856. 

The California Gold Rush helped fuel a large increase in the number of people traveling south through the Rogue River Valley.

Gold discoveries continued to trigger violent conflict between prospectors and Indians. Beginning in 1858, the Fraser Canyon Gold Rush in British Columbia drew large numbers of miners, many from Washington, Oregon, and California, culminating in the Fraser Canyon War. This conflict occurred in Canada, but the militias involved were formed mostly of Americans. The discovery of gold in Idaho and Oregon in the 1860s led to similar conflicts which culminated in the Bear River Massacre in 1863 and Snake War from 1864 to 1868.

In the late 1870s, another series of armed conflicts occurred in Oregon and Idaho, spreading east into Wyoming and Montana. The Nez Perce War of 1877 is known particularly for Chief Joseph and the four-month, 1,200-mile fighting retreat of a band of about 800 Nez Perce, including women and children.

The Nez Perce War was caused by a large influx of settlers, the appropriation of Indian lands, and a gold rush—this time in Idaho. The Nez Perce engaged 2,000 American soldiers of different military units, as well as their Indian auxiliaries.

They fought "eighteen engagements, including four major battles and at least four fiercely contested skirmishes", according to Alvin Josephy. Chief Joseph and the Nez Perce were much admired for their conduct in the war and their fighting ability.

The Bannock War broke out the following year for similar reasons. The Sheepeater Indian War in 1879 was the last conflict in the area.

Southwest:
Main articles:
Various wars between Spanish and Native Americans, mainly Comanches and Apaches, took place from the 17th to the 19th century in the Southwest United States. Spanish governors made peace treaties with some tribes during this period.

Several events stand out during the colonial period: On the one hand, the administration of Tomás Vélez Cachupín, the only colonial governor of New Mexico who managed to establish peace with the Comanches after having confronted them in the Battle of San Diego Pond, and learned how to relate to them without giving rise to misunderstandings that could lead to conflict with them.

The Pueblo Revolt of 1680 was also highlighted, causing the Spanish province to be divided into two areas: one led by the Spanish governor and the other by the leader of the Pueblos.

Several military conflicts happened between Spaniards and Pueblos in this period until Diego de Vargas made a peace treaty with them in 1691, which made them subjects of the Spanish governor again.

Conflicts between Europeans and Amerindians continued following the acquisition of Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo México from Mexico at the end of the Mexican–American War in 1848, and the Gadsden Purchase in 1853. These spanned from 1846 to at least 1895.

The first conflicts were in the New Mexico Territory, and later in California and the Utah Territory during and after the California Gold Rush. Indian tribes in the southwest had been engaged in cycles of trading and fighting with one another and with settlers for centuries prior to the United States gaining control of the region.

These conflicts with the United States involved every non-pueblo tribe in the region and often were a continuation of Mexican–Spanish conflicts. The Navajo Wars and Apache Wars are perhaps the best known.

​The last major campaign of the military against Indians in the Southwest involved 5,000 troops in the field, and resulted in the surrender of Chiricahua Apache Geronimo and his band of 24 warriors, women, and children in 1886.

California:
Main articles: 
The U.S. Army kept a small garrison west of the Rockies, but the California Gold Rush brought a great influx of miners and settlers into the area. The result was that most of the early conflicts with the California Indians involved local parties of miners or settlers.

During the American Civil War, California volunteers replaced Federal troops and won the ongoing Bald Hills War and the Owens Valley Indian War and engaged in minor actions in northern California.

California and Oregon volunteer garrisons in Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, Utah, New Mexico, and the Arizona Territories also engaged in conflicts with the Apache, Cheyenne, Goshute, Navajo, Paiute, Shoshone, Sioux, and Ute Indians from 1862 to 1866.

Following the Civil War, California was mostly pacified, but federal troops replaced the volunteers and again took up the struggle against Indians in the remote regions of the Mojave Desert, and in the northeast against the Snakes (1864–1868) and Modocs (1872–1873).

Great Basin:
Main articles:  ​
The tribes of the Great Basin were mostly Shoshone, and they were greatly affected by the Oregon and California Trails and by Mormon pioneers to Utah. The Shoshone had friendly relations with American and British fur traders and trappers, beginning with their encounter with Lewis and Clark.

The traditional way of life of the Indians was disrupted, and they began raiding travelers along the trails and aggression toward Mormon settlers.

During the American Civil War, the California Volunteers stationed in Utah responded to complaints, which resulted in the Bear River Massacre. Following the massacre, various Shoshone tribes signed a series of treaties exchanging promises of peace for small annuities and reservations.

One of these was the Box Elder Treaty which identified a land claim made by the Northwestern Shoshone. The Supreme Court declared this claim to be non-binding in a 1945 ruling, but the Indian Claims Commission recognized it as binding in 1968.

Descendants of the original group were compensated collectively at a rate of less than $0.50 per acre, minus legal fees.

Most of the local groups were decimated by the war and faced continuing loss of hunting and fishing land caused by the steadily growing population. Some moved to the Fort Hall Indian Reservation when it was created in 1868. Some of the Shoshone populated the Mormon-sanctioned community of Washakie, Utah. 

From 1864 California and Oregon Volunteers also engaged in the early campaigns of the Snake War in the Great Basin areas of California, Nevada, Oregon and Idaho. From 1866 the U.S. Army replaced the Volunteers in that war which General George Crook brought to an end in 1868 after a protracted campaign.

Great Plains:
Main articles: 
Initially, relations between participants in the Pike's Peak gold rush and the Native American tribes of the Front Range and the Platte valley were friendly. An attempt was made to resolve conflicts by negotiation of the Treaty of Fort Wise, which established a reservation in southeastern Colorado, but the settlement was not agreed to by all of the roving warriors, particularly the Dog Soldiers.

During the early 1860s tensions increased and culminated in the Colorado War and the Sand Creek Massacre, where Colorado volunteers fell on a peaceful Cheyenne village killing women and children, which set the stage for further conflict.

The peaceful relationship between settlers and the Indians of the Colorado and Kansas plains was maintained faithfully by the tribes, but sentiment grew among the Colorado settlers for Indian removal.

The savagery of the attacks on civilians during the Dakota War of 1862 contributed to these sentiments, as did the few minor incidents which occurred in the Platte Valley and in areas east of Denver. Regular army troops had been withdrawn for service in the Civil War and were replaced with the Colorado Volunteers, rough men who often favored extermination of the Indians.

They were commanded by John Chivington and George L. Shoup, who followed the lead of John Evans, territorial governor of Colorado. They adopted a policy of shooting on sight all Indians encountered, a policy which in short time ignited a general war on the Colorado and Kansas plains, the Colorado War.

Raids by bands of plains Indians on isolated homesteads to the east of Denver, on the advancing settlements in Kansas, and on stage line stations along the South Platte, such as at Julesburg, and along the Smoky Hill Trail, resulted in settlers in both Colorado and Kansas adopting a murderous attitude towards Native Americans, with calls for extermination. 

Likewise, the savagery shown by the Colorado Volunteers during the Sand Creek massacre resulted in Native Americans, particularly the Dog Soldiers, a band of the Cheyenne, engaging in savage retribution.

Dakota War:
Main article: Dakota War of 1862
​
The Dakota War of 1862 (more commonly called the Sioux Uprising of 1862 in older authorities and popular texts) was the first major armed engagement between the U.S. and the Sioux (Dakota).

After six weeks of fighting in Minnesota, led mostly by Chief Taoyateduta (aka, Little Crow), records conclusively show that more than 500 U.S. soldiers and settlers died in the conflict, though many more may have died in small raids or after being captured.

The number of Sioux dead in the uprising is mostly undocumented. After the war, 303 Sioux warriors were convicted of murder and rape by U.S. military tribunals and sentenced to death. Most of the death sentences were commuted by President Lincoln, but on December 26, 1862, in Mankato, Minnesota, 38 Dakota Sioux men were hanged in what is still today the largest penal mass execution in U.S. history.

After the expulsion of the Dakota, some refugees and warriors made their way to Lakota lands in what is now North Dakota. Battles continued between Minnesota regiments and combined Lakota and Dakota forces through 1864, as Colonel Henry Sibley pursued the Sioux into Dakota Territory.

Sibley's army defeated the Lakota and Dakota in three major battles in 1863: the Battle of Dead Buffalo Lake on July 26, 1863, the Battle of Stony Lake on July 28, 1863, and the Battle of Whitestone Hill on September 3, 1863. The Sioux retreated further, but again faced an American army in 1864; this time, Gen. Alfred Sully led a force from near Fort Pierre, South Dakota, and decisively defeated the Sioux at the Battle of Killdeer Mountain on July 28, 1864.

​Colorado War, Sand Creek Massacre, and the Sioux War of 1865:
Main articles: 
On November 29, 1864, the Colorado territory militia responded to a series of Indian attacks on white settlements by attacking a Cheyenne and Arapaho encampment on Sand Creek in southeastern Colorado, under orders to take no prisoners. The militia killed about 200 of the Indians, two-thirds of whom were women and children, taking scalps and other grisly trophies.

Following the massacre, the survivors joined the camps of the Cheyenne on the Smokey Hill and Republican Rivers. They smoked the war pipe and passed it from camp to camp among the Sioux, Cheyenne, and Arapaho camped in the area, and they planned an attack on the stage station and fort at Julesburg which they carried out in the January 1865 Battle of Julesburg.

This attack was followed up by numerous raids along the South Platte both east and west of Julesburg, and by a second raid on Julesburg in early February. The bulk of the Indians then moved north into Nebraska on their way to the Black Hills and the Powder River. 

​In the spring of 1865, raids continued along the Oregon trail in Nebraska. Indians raided the Oregon Trail along the North Platte River and attacked the troops stationed at the bridge across the North Platte at Casper, Wyoming in the Battle of Platte Bridge.

Sheridan's campaigns:
Main articles: ​
After the Civil War, all of the Indians were assigned to reservations, and the reservations were under the control of the Interior Department. Control of the Great Plains fell under the Army's Department of the Missouri, an administrative area of over 1,000,000 square miles, encompassing all land between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains.

Maj. Gen. Winfield S. Hancock had led the department in 1866 but had mishandled his campaign, resulting in Sioux and Cheyenne raids that attacked mail stagecoaches, burned the stations, and killed the employees. They also raped, killed, and kidnapped many settlers on the frontier.

Philip Sheridan was the military governor of Louisiana and Texas in 1866, but President Johnson removed him from that post, claiming that he was ruling over the area with absolute tyranny and insubordination. Shortly after, Hancock was removed as head of the Department of the Missouri and Sheridan replaced him in August 1867. He was ordered to pacify the plains and take control of the Indians there, and he immediately called General Custer back to command of the 7th Cavalry; Hancock had suspended him.

The Department of Missouri was in poor shape upon Sheridan's arrival. Commissioners from the government had signed a peace treaty in October 1867 with the Comanche, Kiowa, Kiowa Apache, Cheyenne, and Arapaho which offered them reservation land to live on along with food and supplies, but Congress failed to pass it. The promised supplies from the government were not reaching the Indians and they were beginning to starve, numbering an estimated 6,000.

Sheridan had only 2,600 men at the time to control them and to defend against any raids or attacks, and only 1,200 of his men were mounted. These men were also under-supplied and stationed at forts that were in poor condition. They were also mostly unproven units that replaced retired veterans from the Civil War.

Sheridan attempted to improve the conditions of the military outpost and the Indians on the plains through a peace-oriented strategy. Toward the beginning of his command, members of the Cheyenne and Arapaho followed him on his travels from Fort Larned to Fort Dodge where he spoke to them. They brought their problems to him and explained how the promised supplies were not being delivered.

In response, Sheridan gave them a generous supply of rations. Shortly after, the Saline Valley settlements were attacked by Indians, and that was followed by other violent raids and kidnappings in the region.

Sheridan wanted to respond in force but was constrained by the government's peace policy and the lack of well-supplied mounted troops. He could not deploy official military units, so he commissioned a group of 47 frontiersmen and sharpshooters called Solomon's Avengers.

​They investigated the raids near Arickaree Creek and were attacked by Indians on September 17, 1868. The Avengers were under siege for eight days by some 700 Indian warriors, but they were able to keep them at bay until military units arrived to help. The Avengers lost six men and another 15 were wounded. Sherman finally gave Sheridan authority to respond in force to these threats.

Sheridan believed that his soldiers would be unable to chase the horses of the Indians during the summer months, so he used them as a defensive force the remainder of September and October. His forces were better fed and clothed than the Indians and they could launch a campaign in the winter months.

His winter campaign of 1868 started with the 19th Kansas Volunteers from Custer's 7th Cavalry, along with five battalions of infantry under Major John H. Page setting out from Fort Dodge on November 5. A few days later, a force moved from Fort Bascom to Fort Cobb consisting of units of the 5th Cavalry Regiment and two companies of infantry, where they met up with units from the 3rd Cavalry leaving from Fort Lyon.

Sheridan directed the opening month of the campaign from Camp Supply. The Units from the 5th and 3rd Cavalry met at Fort Cobb without any sign of the 19th Kansas, but they had a lead on a band of Indians nearby and Custer led a force after them.

​Custer's force attacked the Cheyenne Indians and Black Kettle in the Battle of Washita River, and an estimated 100 Indians were killed and 50 taken prisoner. Custer lost 21 men killed and 13 men wounded, and a unit went missing under Major Elliott's command. Custer shot 675 ponies that were vital for the Indians' survival on the plains. 

​Immediately following the battle, Sheridan received backlash from Washington politicians who defended Black Kettle as a peace-loving Indian. This began the controversy as to whether the event was best described as a military victory or as a massacre, a discussion which endures among historians to this day.

Following Washita, Sheridan oversaw the refitting of the 19th Kansas and personally led them down the Washita River toward the Wichita Mountains. He met with Custer along the Washita River and they searched for Major Elliott's missing unit. They found the bodies of the missing unit and the bodies of Mrs. Blynn and her child who had been taken by Indians the previous summer near Fort Lyon. 

The defeat at Washita had scared many of the tribes and Sheridan was able to round up the majority of the Kiowa and Comanche people at Fort Cobb in December and get them to reservations. He began negotiations with Chief Little Robe of the Cheyennes and with Yellow Bear about living on the reservations. 

Sheridan then began the construction of Camp Sill, later called Fort Sill, named after General Sill who died at Stone River.

Sheridan was called back to Washington following the election of President Grant. He was informed of his promotion to lieutenant general of the army and reassigned from the department. Sheridan protested and was allowed to stay in Missouri with the rank of lieutenant general.

The last remnants of Indian resistance came from Tall Bull Dog soldiers and elements of the Sioux and Northern Cheyenne tribes. The 5th Cavalry from Fort McPherson were sent to handle the situation on the Platte River in Nebraska. In May, the two forces collided at Summit Springs and the Indians were pursued out of the region.

This brought an end to Sheridan's campaign, as the Indians had successfully been removed from the Platte and Arkansas and the majority of those in Kansas had been settled onto reservations. Sheridan left in 1869 to take command of the Army and was replaced by Major General Schofield.

Red Cloud's War and the Treaty of Fort Laramie:
Main articles: Red Cloud's War and Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

Black Hills War:

In 1875, the Great Sioux War of 1876–77 erupted when the Dakota gold rush penetrated the Black Hills. The government decided to stop evicting trespassers from the Black Hills and offered to buy the land from the Sioux. When they refused, the government decided instead to take the land and gave the Lakota until January 31, 1876, to return to reservations.

The tribes did not return to the reservations by the deadline, and Lt. Colonel George Custer found the main encampment of the Lakota and their allies at the Battle of the Little Bighorn.

Custer and his men were separated from their main body of troops, and they were all killed by the far more numerous Indians led by Crazy Horse and inspired by Sitting Bull's earlier vision of victory.

The Anheuser-Busch brewing company made prints of a dramatic painting that depicted "Custer's Last Fight" and had them framed and hung in many American saloons as an advertising campaign, helping to create a popular image of this battle.

The Lakotas conducted a Ghost Dance ritual on the reservation at Wounded Knee, South Dakota in 1890, and the Army attempted to subdue them. Gunfire erupted on December 29 during this attempt, and soldiers killed up to 300 Indians, mostly old men, women, and children in the Wounded Knee Massacre. 

​Following the massacre, author L. Frank Baum wrote: "The Pioneer has before declared that our only safety depends upon the total extermination of the Indians. Having wronged them for centuries, we had better, in order to protect our civilization, follow it up by one more wrong and wipe these untamed and untamable creatures from the face of the earth."

Last conflicts:
​
Both the Renegade period and the Apache Wars ended in 1924 and brought the American Indian Wars to a close.

Effects on Indian populations:
Further information: Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas

The 2010 United States Census found 2,932,248 Americans who identified themselves as being American Indian or Alaskan Native, about 0.9% of the US population. 

The Canada 2011 Census found 1,836,035 Canadians who identified themselves as being First Nations (or Inuit or Métis), about 4.3% of the Canadian population. 

No consensus exists on how many people lived in the Americas before the arrival of Europeans, but extensive research continues to be conducted. Contemporary estimates range from 2.1 million to 18 million people living on the North American continent prior to European colonization.

The number of Indians dropped to below half a million in the 19th century because of Eurasian diseases such as influenza, pneumonic plagues, and smallpox, in combination with conflict, forced removal, enslavement, imprisonment, and outright warfare with European newcomers reduced populations and disrupted traditional societies.

The United States Census Bureau (1894) provided their estimate of deaths due specifically to war during the 102 years between 1789 and 1891, including 8,500 Indians and 5,000 whites killed in "individual affairs":

The Indian wars under the government of the United States have been more than 40 in number. They have cost the lives of about 19,000 white men, women and children, including those killed in individual combats, and the lives of about 30,000 Indians. The actual number of killed and wounded Indians must be very much higher than the number given ... Fifty percent additional would be a safe estimate.

Historiography:

According to historian David Rich Lewis, American popular histories, film, and fiction have given enormous emphasis to the Indian wars. New ethno-historical approaches became popular in the 1970s which mixed anthropology with historical research in hopes of gaining a deeper understanding of the Indian perspective.

During the 1980s, human rights abuses by the US government were increasingly studied by historians exploring the impact of the wars on Indian cultures. Prior to this, popular history was heavily influenced by Dee Brown's non-academic treatment of historical events in Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (1970).

In more academic history, Francis Jennings's The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism, and the Cant of Conquest (New York: Norton, 1975) was notable for criticizing the Puritans and rejecting the traditional portrayal of the wars between the Indians and colonists.

List:
Main article: List of American Indian Wars

See also:
Comparable and related events:
​






International War Crimes, including a List of War CrimesPICTURED BELOW:
TOP: "What is a War Crime?" (USA Today)
BOTTOM:  "The Terror of War" by Nick Ut, which won the 1973 Pulitzer Prize for Spot News Photography, showing a nine-year-old girl* running down a road after being severely burned by napalm (Courtesy of Nick Ut, Associated Press - "1973 Photo Contest, World Press Photo of the Year")
Click here for a Listing of International War Crimes.

* -- Note the girl in the bottom photo is the same person as that in the bottom YouTube Video: "Napalm Girl"!

A War Crime is a violation of the laws of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility for actions by combatants in action, such as:
The formal concept of war crimes emerged from the codification of the customary international law that applied to warfare between sovereign states, such as the Lieber Code (1863) of the Union Army in the American Civil War and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 for international war. 

In the aftermath of the Second World War, the war-crime trials of the leaders of the Axis powers established the Nuremberg principles of law, such as that international criminal law defines what is a war crime.

In 1949, the Geneva Conventions legally defined new war crimes and established that states could exercise universal jurisdiction over war criminals. In the late 20th century and early 21st century, international courts extrapolated and defined additional categories of war crimes applicable to a civil war.

History:
See also: List of war crimes

​Early examples:

In 1474, the first trial for a war crime was that of Peter von Hagenbach, realised by an ad hoc tribunal of the Holy Roman Empire, for his command responsibility for the actions of his soldiers, because "he, as a knight, was deemed to have a duty to prevent" criminal behaviour by a military force. Despite having argued that he had obeyed superior orders, von Hagenbach was convicted, condemned to death, and beheaded.

Hague Conventions:
Main article: Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907

The Hague Conventions were international treaties negotiated at the First and Second Peace Conferences at The Hague, Netherlands, in 1899 and 1907, respectively, and were, along with the Geneva Conventions, among the first formal statements of the laws of war and war crimes in the nascent body of secular international law.

Lieber Code:
Main article: Lieber Code

The Lieber Code was written early in the American Civil War and President Abraham Lincoln issued as General Order 100 on April 24, 1863 just months after the military executions at Mankato, Minnesota. General Order 100, Instructions for the Government of the Armies of the United States in the Field (Lieber Code) were written by Franz Lieber, a German lawyer, political philosopher, and Napoleonic Wars veteran.

Lincoln made the Code military law for all wartime conduct of the Union Army. It defined command responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity as well as stated the military responsibilities of the Union soldier fighting the Confederate States of America.

Geneva Conventions:
Main article: Geneva Conventions

The Geneva Conventions are four related treaties adopted and continuously expanded from 1864 to 1949 that represent a legal basis and framework for the conduct of war under international law. Every single member state of the United Nations has currently ratified the conventions, which are universally accepted as customary international law, applicable to every situation of armed conflict in the world.

However, the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions adopted in 1977 containing the most pertinent, detailed and comprehensive protections of international humanitarian law for persons and objects in modern warfare are still not ratified by several states continuously engaged in armed conflicts, namely the United States, Israel, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, and others.

Accordingly, states retain different codes and values about wartime conduct. Some signatories have routinely violated the Geneva Conventions in a way that either uses the ambiguities of law or political maneuvering to sidestep the laws' formalities and principles.

The first three conventions have been revised and expanded, with the fourth one added in 1949:
  • The First Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field was adopted in 1864 and then significantly revised and replaced by the 1906 version, the 1929 version, and later the First Geneva Convention of 1949.
  • The Second Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea was adopted in 1906 and then significantly revised and replaced by the Second Geneva Convention of 1949.
  • The Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War was adopted in 1929 and then significantly revised and replaced by the Third Geneva Convention of 1949.
  • The Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War was first adopted in 1949, based on parts of the 1907 Hague Convention IV.

Two Additional Protocols were adopted in 1977 with the third one added in 2005, completing and updating the Geneva Conventions:
  • Protocol I (1977) relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts.
  • Protocol II (1977) relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts.
  • Protocol III (2005) relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem.

Leipzig trials:
Main article: Leipzig war crimes trials

Just after WWI, world governments started to try and systematically create a code for how war crimes would be defined. Their first outline of a law was "Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field"—also known as the "Lieber Code."

A small number of German military personnel of the First World War were tried in 1921 by the German Supreme Court for alleged war crimes.

London Charter/Nuremberg trials 1945:
Main articles: London Charter of the International Military Tribunal and Nuremberg trials

The modern concept of war crime was further developed under the auspices of the Nuremberg trials based on the definition in the London Charter that was published on August 8, 1945 (see Nuremberg principles).

Along with war crimes the charter also defined crimes against peace and crimes against humanity, which are often committed during wars and in concert with war crimes.

International Military Tribunal for the Far East 1946:
Main article: International Military Tribunal for the Far East

Also known as the Tokyo Trial, the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal or simply as the Tribunal, it was convened on May 3, 1946, to try the leaders of the Empire of Japan for three types of crimes: "Class A" (crimes against peace), "Class B" (war crimes), and "Class C" (crimes against humanity), committed during World War II.

International Criminal Court 2002

​On July 1, 2002, the International Criminal Court, a treaty-based court located in The Hague, came into being for the prosecution of war crimes committed on or after that date. Several nations, most notably the United States, China, Russia, and Israel, have criticized the court. The United States still participates as an observer.

Article 12 of the Rome Statute provides jurisdiction over the citizens of non-contracting states if they are accused of committing crimes in the territory of one of the state parties.

War crimes are defined in the statute that established the International Criminal Court, which includes:
  1. Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:
    1. Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
    2. Torture or inhumane treatment
    3. Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property
    4. Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power
    5. Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial
    6. Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer
    7. Taking hostages
  2. Directing attacks against civilians:
    1. Directing attacks against humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
      1. Killing a surrendered combatant
      2. Misusing a flag of truce, a flag or uniform of the enemy
      3. Settlement of occupied territory
      4. Deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory
      5. Using poison weapons
      6. Using civilians as shields
      7. Using child soldiers
      8. Firing upon a Combat Medic with clear insignia.
  3. The following acts as part of a non-international conflict:
    1. Murder, cruel or degrading treatment and torture
    2. Directing attacks against civilians, humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
    3. The following acts as part of an international conflict:
      1. Taking hostages
      2. Summary execution
      3. Pillage
      4. Rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution or forced pregnancy
    4. However the court only has jurisdiction over these crimes where they are "part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes".

Prominent indictees:
Main articles: 
Heads of state and government

​To date (8/6/2023), the present and former heads of state and heads of government that have been charged with war crimes include:
For Other Prominent indictees, click here.

Definitions:

War crimes are serious violations of the rules of customary and treaty law concerning international humanitarian law that have become accepted as criminal offenses for which there is individual responsibility. 

Colloquial definitions of war crime include violations of established protections of the laws of war, but also include failures to adhere to norms of procedure and rules of battle, such as attacking those displaying a peaceful flag of truce, or using that same flag as a ruse to mount an attack on enemy troops.

The use of chemical and biological weapons in warfare are also prohibited by numerous chemical arms control agreements and the Biological Weapons Convention. Wearing enemy uniforms or civilian clothes to infiltrate enemy lines for espionage or sabotage missions is a legitimate ruse of war, though fighting in combat or assassinating individuals behind enemy lines while so disguised is not, as it constitutes unlawful perfidy.

 Attacking enemy troops while they are being deployed by way of a parachute is not a war crime. However, Protocol I, Article 42 of the Geneva Conventions explicitly forbids attacking parachutists who eject from disabled aircraft and surrendering parachutists once landed. 

Article 30 of the 1907 Hague Convention IV – The Laws and Customs of War on Land explicitly forbids belligerents to punish enemy spies without previous trial.

The rule of war, also known as the Law of Armed Conflict, permit belligerents to engage in combat. A war crime occurs when superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering is inflicted upon an enemy.

War crimes also include such acts as mistreatment of prisoners of war or civilians. War crimes are sometimes part of instances of mass murder and genocide though these crimes are more broadly covered under international humanitarian law described as crimes against humanity.

In 2008, the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 1820, which noted that "rape and other forms of sexual violence can constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity or a constitutive act with respect to genocide"; see also wartime sexual violence. 

In 2016, the International Criminal Court convicted someone of sexual violence for the first time; specifically, they added rape to a war crimes conviction of Congo Vice President Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo.

War crimes also included deliberate attacks on citizens and property of neutral states, such as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. As the attack on Pearl Harbor happened while the U.S. and Japan were at peace and without a just cause for self-defense, the attack was declared by the Tokyo Trials to go beyond justification of military necessity and therefore constituted a war crime.

War crimes are significant in international humanitarian law because it is an area where international tribunals such as the Nuremberg Trials and Tokyo Trials have been convened.

Recent examples are the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, which were established by the UN Security Council acting under Chapter VIII of the UN Charter.

Under the Nuremberg Principles, war crimes are different from crimes against peace. Crimes against peace include planning, preparing, initiating, or waging a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances.

Because the definition of a state of "war" may be debated, the term "war crime" itself has seen different usage under different systems of international and military law. It has some degree of application outside of what some may consider being a state of "war", but in areas where conflicts persist enough to constitute social instability.

The legalities of war have sometimes been accused of containing favoritism toward the winners ("Victor's justice"), as some controversies have not been ruled as war crimes.

Some examples include the Allies' destruction of Axis cities during World War II, such as the firebombing of Dresden, the Operation Meetinghouse raid on Tokyo (the most destructive single bombing raid in history), and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 

In regard to the strategic bombing during World War II, there was no international treaty or instrument protecting a civilian population specifically from attack by aircraft, therefore the aerial attacks on civilians were not officially war crimes.

The Allies at the trials in Nuremberg and Tokyo never prosecuted the Germans, including Luftwaffe commander-in-chief Hermann Göring, for the bombing raids on Warsaw, Rotterdam, and British cities during the Blitz as well as the indiscriminate attacks on Allied cities with V-1 flying bombs and V-2 rockets, nor the Japanese for the aerial attacks on crowded Chinese cities.

Controversy arose when the Allies re-designated German POWs (under the protection of the 1929 Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War) as Disarmed Enemy Forces (allegedly unprotected by the 1929 Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War), many of which were then used for forced labor such as clearing minefields. 

By December 1945, six months after the war had ended, it was estimated by French authorities that 2,000 German prisoners were still being killed or maimed each month in mine-clearing accidents. 

The wording of the 1949 Third Geneva Convention was intentionally altered from that of the 1929 convention so that soldiers who "fall into the power" following surrender or mass capitulation of an enemy are now protected as well as those taken prisoner in the course of fighting.

United Nations:

The United Nations gives the following definition:
  1. Intentional murder of innocent people;
  2. Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
  3. Willfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;
  4. Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of hostile power;
  5. Use by children under the age of sixteen years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities;
  6. Intentionally directing attack against the civilian population as not taking direct part in hostilities;
  7. Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
  8. Destroying or seizing the property of an adversary unless demanded by necessities of the conflict;
  9. Using poison or poisoned weapons;
  10. Intentionally directing attack against building dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals as long as it's not used as military infrastructure;
  11. Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;
  12. Attacking or bombarding towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;
  13. Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;
  14. Taking of hostages.
  15. Intentional assault with the knowledge that such an assault would result in loss of life or casualty to civilians or damage to civilian objects or extensive, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment that would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct.

Legality of civilian casualties:

Under the law of armed conflict (LOAC), the death of non-combatants is not necessarily a violation; there are many things to take into account. Civilians cannot be made the object of an attack, but the death/injury of civilians while conducting an attack on a military objective are governed under principles such as of proportionality and military necessity and can be permissible.

Military necessity "permits the destruction of life of ... persons whose destruction is incidentally unavoidable by the armed conflicts of the war; ... it does not permit the killing of innocent inhabitants for purposes of revenge or the satisfaction of a lust to kill. The destruction of property to be lawful must be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war."

For example, conducting an operation on an ammunition depot or a terrorist training camp would not be prohibited because a farmer is plowing a field in the area; the farmer is not the object of attack and the operations would adhere to proportionality and military necessity.

On the other hand, an extraordinary military advantage would be necessary to justify an operation posing risks of collateral death or injury to thousands of civilians. In "grayer" cases the legal question of whether the expected incidental harm is excessive may be very subjective.

For this reason, States have chosen to apply a "clearly excessive" standard for determining whether a criminal violation has occurred.

When there is no justification for military action, such as civilians being made the object of attack, a proportionality analysis is unnecessary to conclude that the attack is unlawful.

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia:

For aerial strikes, pilots generally have to rely on information supplied by external sources (headquarters, ground troops) that a specific position is in fact a military target. In the case of former Yugoslavia, NATO pilots hit a civilian object (the Chinese embassy in Belgrade) that was of no military significance, but the pilots had no idea of determining it aside from their orders.

The committee ruled that "the aircrew involved in the attack should not be assigned any responsibility for the fact they were given the wrong target and that it is inappropriate to attempt to assign criminal responsibility for the incident to senior leaders because they were provided with wrong information by officials of another agency". 

The report also notes that "Much of the material submitted to the OTP consisted of reports that civilians had been killed, often inviting the conclusion to be drawn that crimes had therefore been committed. Collateral casualties to civilians and collateral damage to civilian objects can occur for a variety of reasons."

Rendulic Rule:

The Rendulic Rule is a standard by which commanders are judged.

German General Lothar Rendulic was charged for ordering extensive destruction of civilian buildings and lands while retreating from a suspected enemy attack in what is called scorched earth policy for the military purpose of denying the use of ground for the enemy. The German troops retreating from Finnish Lapland believed Finland would be occupied by Soviet troops and destroyed many settlements while retreating to Norway under the command of Rendulic.

He overestimated the perceived risk but argued that Hague IV authorized the destruction because it was necessary to war. He was acquitted of that charge.

Under the "Rendulic Rule" persons must assess the military necessity of an action based on the information available to them at that time; they cannot be judged based on information that subsequently comes to light.

See also:

​Country listings:
Legal issues
Miscellaneous:

​





War Crimes Committed by Americans Pictured below: ​(L to R): Andrew Holmes, Michael Wagnon, Jeremy Morlock, and Adam Winfield – members of the Kill Team soldiers who are responsible for the Maywand District murders, which were the thrill killings of at least three Afghan civilians perpetrated by a group of U.S. Army soldiers from January to May 2010, during the War in Afghanistan. The soldiers, who referred to themselves as the "Kill Team", were members of the 3rd Platoon, Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 1st Infantry Regiment, and 5th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. They were based at FOB Ramrod in Maiwand, from Kandahar Province of Afghanistan.
​United States war crimes are violations of the law of war which were committed by members of the United States Armed Forces after the signing of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and the signing of the Geneva Conventions.

The United States prosecutes offenders through the War Crimes Act of 1996 as well as through articles in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The United States signed the 1999 Rome Statute but it never ratified the treaty, taking the position that the International Criminal Court (ICC) lacks fundamental checks and balances.

The American Service-Members' Protection Act of 2002 further limited US involvement with the ICC. The ICC was conceived as a body to try war crimes when states do not have effective or reliable processes to investigate for themselves.

The United States says that it has investigated many of the accusations alleged by the ICC prosecutors as having occurred in Afghanistan, and thus does not accept ICC jurisdiction over its nationals.

This article contains a chronological list of incidents in the military history of the United States in which war crimes occurred or were alleged to have occurred, including:
Definition:

War crimes are defined as acts which violate the laws and customs of war established by the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, or acts that are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I and Additional Protocol II. 

The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 extends the protection of civilians and prisoners of war during military occupation, even in the case where there is no armed resistance, for the period of one year after the end of hostilities, although the occupying power should be bound to several provisions of the convention as long as "such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory."

Click on an of the following blue hyperlinks for more about about War Crimes by Americans:
​
Wars in chronological order:
​






Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Including a List of states with nuclear weaponsPictured below: 
  • Map of Nuclear-armed States of the World p/color coding below map
  • By MumpsimusManchuMagi - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=133182612
Click here for a List of Governments Possessing Nuclear Weapons

A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or any other weapon that can kill or significantly harm many people or cause great damage to artificial structures (e.g., buildings), natural structures (e.g., mountains), or the biosphere.

The scope and usage of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically. Originally coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives during World War II, it has later come to refer to large-scale weaponry of warfare-related technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear warfare.

Early uses of this term:

The first use of the term "weapon of mass destruction" on record is by Cosmo Gordon Lang, Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1937 in reference to the aerial bombing of Guernica, Spain: "Who can think at this present time without a sickening of the heart of the appalling slaughter, the suffering, the manifold misery brought by war to Spain and to China? Who can think without horror of what another widespread war would mean, waged as it would be with all the new weapons of mass destruction?:

At the time, nuclear weapons had not been developed. Japan conducted research on biological weapons (see Unit 731), and chemical weapons had seen wide battlefield use in World War I. Their use was outlawed by the Geneva Protocol of 1925. Italy used mustard agent against civilians and soldiers in Ethiopia in 1935–36.

Following the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that ended World War II and during the Cold War, the term came to refer more to non-conventional weapons. The application of the term to specifically nuclear and radiological weapons is traced by William Safire to the Russian phrase "Оружие массового поражения" – oruzhiye massovogo porazheniya (weapon of mass destruction).

William Safire credits James Goodby (of the Brookings Institution) with tracing what he considers the earliest known English-language use soon after the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (although it is not quite verbatim): a communique from a 15 November 1945, meeting of Harry Truman, Clement Attlee and Mackenzie King (probably drafted by Vannevar Bush, as Bush claimed in 1970) referred to "weapons adaptable to mass destruction."

Safire says Bernard Baruch used that exact phrase in 1946 (in a speech at the United Nations probably written by Herbert Bayard Swope). The phrase found its way into the very first resolution the United Nations General assembly adopted in January 1946 in London, which used the wording "the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and of all other weapons adaptable to mass destruction." 

The resolution also created the Atomic Energy Commission (predecessor of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)).

An exact use of this term was given in a lecture titled "Atomic Energy as a Contemporary Problem" by J. Robert Oppenheimer. He delivered the lecture to the Foreign Service and the State Department, on 17 September 1947.

It is a very far reaching control which would eliminate the rivalry between nations in this field, which would prevent the surreptitious arming of one nation against another, which would provide some cushion of time before atomic attack, and presumably therefore before any attack with weapons of mass destruction, and which would go a long way toward removing atomic energy at least as a source of conflict between the powers.

The term was also used in the introduction to the hugely influential U.S. government document known as NSC 68 written in 1950.

During a speech at Rice University on 12 September 1962, President John F. Kennedy spoke of not filling space "with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding." The following month, during a televised presentation about the Cuban Missile Crisis on 22 October 1962, Kennedy made reference to "offensive weapons of sudden mass destruction."

An early use of the exact phrase in an international treaty is in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, but the treaty provides no definition of the phrase, and the treaty also categorically prohibits the stationing of "weapons" and the testing of "any type of weapon" in outer space, in addition to its specific prohibition against placing in orbit, or installing on celestial bodies, "any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction."

Evolution of its use:

During the Cold War, the term "weapons of mass destruction" was primarily a reference to nuclear weapons. At the time, in the West the euphemism "strategic weapons" was used to refer to the American nuclear arsenal. However, there is no precise definition of the "strategic" category, neither considering range nor yield of the nuclear weapon.

Subsequent to Operation Opera, the destruction of a pre-operational nuclear reactor inside Iraq by the Israeli Air Force in 1981, the Israeli prime minister, Menachem Begin, countered criticism by saying that "on no account shall we permit an enemy to develop weapons of mass destruction against the people of Israel." This policy of pre-emptive action against real or perceived weapons of mass destruction became known as the Begin Doctrine.

The term "weapons of mass destruction" continued to see periodic use, usually in the context of nuclear arms control; Ronald Reagan used it during the 1986 Reykjavík Summit, when referring to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. Reagan's successor, George H. W. Bush, used the term in a 1989 speech to the United Nations, primarily in reference to chemical arms.

The end of the Cold War reduced U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons as a deterrent, causing it to shift its focus to disarmament. With the 1990 invasion of Kuwait and 1991 Gulf War, Iraq's nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs became a particular concern of the first Bush Administration. 

Following the war, Bill Clinton and other western politicians and media continued to use the term, usually in reference to ongoing attempts to dismantle Iraq's weapons programs.

​After the 11 September 2001 attacks and the 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, an increased fear of nonconventional weapons and asymmetric warfare took hold in many countries. The fear reached a crescendo with the 2002 Iraq disarmament crisis and the alleged existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that became the primary justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq; however, American forces found none in Iraq. They found old stockpiles of chemical munitions including sarin and mustard agents, but all were considered to be unusable because of corrosion or degradation. 

Iraq, however, declared a chemical weapons stockpile in 2009 which U.N. personnel had secured after the 1991 Gulf War. The stockpile contained mainly chemical precursors, but some munitions remained usable.

Because of its prolific use and (worldwide) public profile during this period, the American Dialect Society voted "weapons of mass destruction" (and its abbreviation, "WMD") the word of the year in 2002; and in 2003 Lake Superior State University added WMD to its list of terms banished for "Mis-use, Over-use and General Uselessness" (and "as a card that trumps all forms of aggression").

In its criminal complaint against the main suspect of the Boston Marathon bombing of 15 April 2013, the FBI refers to a pressure-cooker improvised bomb as a "weapon of mass destruction."

There have been calls to classify at least some classes of cyber weapons as WMD, in particular those aimed to bring about large-scale (physical) destruction, such as by targeting critical infrastructure. However, some scholars have objected to classifying cyber weapons as WMD on the grounds that they "cannot [currently] directly injure or kill human beings as efficiently as guns or bombs" or clearly "meet the legal and historical definitions" of WMD.

Definitions of the term:

United States:

Strategic definition: The most widely used definition of "weapons of mass destruction" is that of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons (NBC) although there is no treaty or customary international law that contains an authoritative definition. Instead, international law has been used with respect to the specific categories of weapons within WMD, and not to WMD as a whole.

While nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are regarded as the three major types of WMDs, some analysts have argued that radiological materials as well as missile technology and delivery systems such as aircraft and ballistic missiles could be labeled as WMDs as well.

However, there is an argument that nuclear and biological weapons do not belong in the same category as chemical and "dirty bomb" radiological weapons, which have limited destructive potential (and close to none, as far as property is concerned), whereas nuclear and biological weapons have the unique ability to kill large numbers of people with very small amounts of material, and thus could be said to belong in a class by themselves.

The NBC definition has also been used in official U.S. documents, by the U.S. President, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

Other documents expand the definition of WMD to also include radiological or conventional weapons.

The U.S. military refers to WMD as: "Chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties and exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part from the weapon. Also called WMD."

​This may also refer to nuclear ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles).

​The significance of the words separable and divisible part of the weapon is that missiles such as the Pershing II and the SCUD are considered weapons of mass destruction, while aircraft capable of carrying bombloads are not.

In 2004, the United Kingdom's Butler Review recognized the "considerable and long-standing academic debate about the proper interpretation of the phrase 'weapons of mass destruction'".

The committee set out to avoid the general term but when using it, employed the definition of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which defined the systems which Iraq was required to abandon:
  • "Nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any sub-systems or components or any research, development, support or manufacturing facilities relating to [nuclear weapons].
  • Chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities.
  • Ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities."

Chemical weapons expert Gert G. Harigel considers only nuclear weapons true weapons of mass destruction, because "only nuclear weapons are completely indiscriminate by their explosive power, heat radiation and radioactivity, and only they should therefore be called a weapon of mass destruction". He prefers to call chemical and biological weapons "weapons of terror" when aimed against civilians and "weapons of intimidation" for soldiers.

Testimony of one such soldier expresses the same viewpoint. For a period of several months in the winter of 2002–2003, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz frequently used the term "weapons of mass terror", apparently also recognizing the distinction between the psychological and the physical effects of many things currently falling into the WMD category.

Gustavo Bell Lemus, the Vice President of Colombia, at 9 July 2001 United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, quoted the Millennium Report of the UN Secretary-General to the General Assembly, in which Kofi Annan said that small arms could be described as WMD because the fatalities they cause "dwarf that of all other weapons systems – and in most years greatly exceed the toll of the atomic bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki".

An additional condition often implicitly applied to WMD is that the use of the weapons must be strategic. In other words, they would be designed to "have consequences far outweighing the size and effectiveness of the weapons themselves". The strategic nature of WMD also defines their function in the military doctrine of total war as targeting the means a country would use to support and supply its war effort, specifically its population, industry, and natural resources.

Within U.S. civil defense organizations, the category is now Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE), which defines WMD as:
  1. Any explosive, incendiary, poison gas, bomb, grenade, or rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces [113 g], missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce [7 g], or mine or device similar to the above.
  2. Poison gas.
  3. Any weapon involving a disease organism.
  4. Any weapon that is designed to release radiation at a level dangerous to human life.

Military definition:

For the general purposes of national defense, the U.S. Code defines a weapon of mass destruction as:
  • any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of:
    • toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors
    • a disease organism
    • radiation or radioactivity

For the purposes of the prevention of weapons proliferation, the U.S. Code defines weapons of mass destruction as "chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and chemical, biological, and nuclear materials used in the manufacture of such weapons".

Criminal (civilian) definition:

For the purposes of U.S. criminal law concerning terrorism, weapons of mass destruction are defined as:
  • any "destructive device" defined as any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas – bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses
  • any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors
  • any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector
  • any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life

The Federal Bureau of Investigation's definition is similar to that presented above from the terrorism statute:
  • any "destructive device" as defined in Title 18 USC Section 921: any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas – bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses
  • any weapon designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors
  • any weapon involving a disease organism
  • any weapon designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life
  • any device or weapon designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury by causing a malfunction of or destruction of an aircraft or other vehicle that carries humans or of an aircraft or other vehicle whose malfunction or destruction may cause said aircraft or other vehicle to cause death or serious bodily injury to humans who may be within range of the vector in its course of travel or the travel of its debris.

Indictments and convictions for possession and use of WMD such as truck bombs, pipe bombs, shoe bombs, and cactus needles coated with a biological toxin have also been obtained under 18 USC 2332a.

As defined by 18 USC §2332 (a), a Weapon of Mass Destruction is:
  • (A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of the title;
  • (B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
  • (C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
  • (D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life;

Under the same statute, conspiring, attempting, threatening, or using a Weapon of Mass Destruction may be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, and if resulting in death, be punishable by death or by imprisonment for any terms of years or for life. They can also be asked to pay a maximum fine of $250,000.

The Washington Post reported on 30 March 2006: "Jurors asked the judge in the death penalty trial of Zacarias Moussaoui today to define the term 'weapons of mass destruction' and were told it includes airplanes used as missiles". Moussaoui was indicted and tried for conspiracy to both destroy aircraft and use weapons of mass destruction, among others.

The surviving Boston Marathon bombing perpetrator, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, was charged in June 2013 with the federal offense of "use of a weapon of mass destruction" after he and his brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev allegedly placed crude shrapnel bombs, made from pressure cookers packed with ball bearings and nails, near the finish line of the Boston Marathon.

He was convicted in April 2015. The bombing resulted in three deaths and at least 264 injuries.

International law:
See also:  ​
The development and use of WMD is governed by several international conventions and treaties. Click on image below to be taken to the original for further research of the blue hyperlinks under the "Treaty" column:
​Use, possession, and access:

Nuclear weapons:
Main articles: 
Chart Below: US and Russian nuclear stockpiles, 1945 to 2014
​The only country to have used a nuclear weapon in war is the United States, which dropped two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II.

There are eight countries that have declared they possess nuclear weapons and are known to have tested a nuclear weapon, only five of which are members of the NPT. The eight are: 
Israel is considered by most analysts to have nuclear weapons numbering in the low hundreds as well, but maintains an official policy of nuclear ambiguity, neither denying nor confirming its nuclear status.

South Africa developed a small nuclear arsenal in the 1980s but disassembled them in the early 1990s, making it the only country to have fully given up an independently developed nuclear weapons arsenal. Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine inherited stockpiles of nuclear arms following the break-up of the Soviet Union, but relinquished them to the Russian Federation.

Countries where nuclear weapons are deployed through nuclear sharing agreements include Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey.


Biological weapons:
Main articles:
The history of biological warfare goes back at least to the Mongol siege of Caffa in 1346 and possibly much farther back to antiquity. However, only by the turn of the 20th century did advances in microbiology allow for the large-scale weaponization of pathogens.

At least nine states have operated offensive biological weapons programs during the 20th century, including: 
The Japanese biological weapons program, which was run by the secret Imperial Japanese Army Unit 731 during the Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945), became infamous for conducting often fatal human experiments on prisoners and producing biological weapons for combat use. 

The Soviet Union covertly operated the world's largest, longest, and most sophisticated biological weapons program, in violation of its obligations under international law.

International restrictions on biological warfare began with the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which prohibits the use but not the possession or development of biological and chemical weapons. Upon ratification of the Geneva Protocol, several countries made reservations regarding its applicability and use in retaliation. 

Due to these reservations, it was in practice a "no-first-use" agreement only. The 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) supplements the Geneva Protocol by prohibiting the development, production, acquisition, transfer, stockpiling, and use of biological weapons. 

Having entered into force on 26 March 1975, the BWC was the first multilateral disarmament treaty to ban the production of an entire category of weapons of mass destruction. As of March 2021, 183 states have become party to the treaty.

Chemical weapons:
Main article: Chemical warfare

Chemical weapons have been used around the world by various civilizations since ancient times. In the industrial era, they were used extensively by both sides during World War I, and by the Axis powers during World War II (both in battle and in extermination camp gas chambers) though Allied powers also stockpiled them.

Countries in Western Europe renounced the use of such weapons. As of 2018, a handful of countries have known inventories, and many are in the process of being safely destroyed under the Chemical Weapons Convention.

​Nonetheless, proliferation and use in war zones remains an active concern, most recently the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War.
​Ethics and international legal status:

Some commentators classify some or all the uses of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons during wartime as a war crime (or crime against humanity if widespread) because they kill civilians (who are protected by the laws of war) indiscriminately or are specifically prohibited by international treaties (which have become more comprehensive over time). 

Proponents of use say that specific uses of such weapons have been necessary for defense or to avoid more deaths in a protracted war. The tactic of terror bombing from aircraft, and generally targeting cities with area bombardment or saturation carpet bombing has also been criticized, defended, and prohibited by treaty in the same way; the destructive effect of conventional saturation bombing is similar to that of a nuclear weapon.
​
United States politics:

Due to the potentially indiscriminate effects of WMD, the fear of a WMD attack has shaped political policies and campaigns, fostered social movements, and has been the central theme of many films. Support for different levels of WMD development and control varies nationally and internationally. Yet understanding of the nature of the threats is not high, in part because of imprecise usage of the term by politicians and the media.

​Fear of WMD, or of threats diminished by the possession of WMD, has long been used to catalyze public support for various WMD policies. They include mobilization of pro- and anti-WMD campaigners alike, and generation of popular political support. The term WMD may be used as a powerful buzzword or to generate a culture of fear. It is also used ambiguously, particularly by not distinguishing among the different types of WMD.

A television commercial called Daisy, promoting Democrat Lyndon Johnson's 1964 presidential candidacy, invoked the fear of a nuclear war and was an element in Johnson's subsequent election.

Later, United States' President George W. Bush used the threat of potential WMD in Iraq as justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Broad reference to Iraqi WMD in general was seen as an element of President Bush's arguments. The claim that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) was a major factor that led to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 by Coalition forces.

Over 500 munitions containing mustard agent and sarin were discovered throughout Iraq since 2003; they were made in the 1980s and are no longer usable as originally intended due to corrosion.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines a weapon of mass destruction as: "a weapon that can cause widespread destruction or kill large numbers of people, especially a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon." 

In other words, it does not have to be nuclear, biological or chemical (NBC). For example, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the perpetrators of the Boston Marathon bombing, was charged under United States law 18 U.S.C. 2332A for using a weapon of mass destruction and that was a pressure cooker bomb. In other words, it was a weapon that caused large-scale death and destruction, without being an NBC weapon.

Media coverage:

In March 2004, the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM) released a report examining the media's coverage of WMD issues during three separate periods: nuclear weapons tests by India and Pakistan in May 1998; the U.S. announcement of evidence of a North Korean nuclear weapons program in October 2002; and revelations about Iran's nuclear program in May 2003. The CISSM report argues that poor coverage resulted less from political bias among the media than from tired journalistic conventions.

The report's major findings were that:
  1.  Most media outlets represented WMD as a monolithic menace, failing to adequately distinguish between weapons programs and actual weapons or to address the real differences among chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological weapons.
  2. Most journalists accepted the Bush administration's formulation of the "War on Terror" as a campaign against WMD, in contrast to coverage during the Clinton era, when many journalists made careful distinctions between acts of terrorism and the acquisition and use of WMD.
  3. Many stories stenographically reported the incumbent administration's perspective on WMD, giving too little critical examination of the way officials framed the events, issues, threats, and policy options.
  4. Too few stories proffered alternative perspectives to official line, a problem exacerbated by the journalistic prioritizing of breaking-news stories and the "inverted pyramid" style of storytelling.
— Susan D. Moeller, Media Coverage of Weapons of Mass Destruction

In a separate study published in 2005, a group of researchers assessed the effects reports and retractions in the media had on people's memory regarding the search for WMD in Iraq during the 2003 Iraq War.

The study focused on populations in two coalition countries (Australia and the United States) and one opposed to the war (Germany). Results showed that:
  • that U.S. citizens generally did not correct initial misconceptions regarding WMD, even following disconfirmation;
  • Australian and German citizens were more responsive to retractions;
  • Dependence on the initial source of information led to a substantial minority of Americans exhibiting false memory that WMD were indeed discovered, while they were not.

This led to three conclusions:
  1. The repetition of tentative news stories, even if they are subsequently disconfirmed, can assist in the creation of false memories in a substantial proportion of people.
  2. Once information is published, its subsequent correction does not alter people's beliefs unless they are suspicious about the motives underlying the events the news stories are about.
  3. When people ignore corrections, they do so irrespective of how certain they are that the corrections occurred.

A poll conducted between June and September 2003 asked people whether they thought evidence of WMD had been discovered in Iraq since the war ended. They were also asked which media sources they relied upon.

Those who obtained their news primarily from Fox News were three times as likely to believe that evidence of WMD had been discovered in Iraq than those who relied on PBS and NPR for their news, and one third more likely than those who primarily watched CBS
The above is based on a series of polls taken from June–September 2003.

In 2006, Fox News reported the claims of two Republican lawmakers that WMDs had been found in Iraq, based upon unclassified portions of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center.

Quoting from the report, Senator Rick Santorum said "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent".

According to David Kay, who appeared before the U.S. House Armed Services Committee to discuss these badly corroded munitions, they were leftovers, many years old, improperly stored or destroyed by the Iraqis. 

Charles Duelfer agreed, stating on NPR's Talk of the Nation: "When I was running the ISG – the Iraq Survey Group – we had a couple of them that had been turned in to these IEDs, the improvised explosive devices. But they are local hazards. They are not a major, you know, weapon of mass destruction."

Later, wikileaks would show that WMDs of these kinds continued to be found as the Iraqi occupation continued.

Many news agencies, including Fox News, reported the conclusions of the CIA that, based upon the investigation of the Iraq Survey Group, WMDs are yet to be found in Iraq.

Public perceptions:

Awareness and opinions of WMD have varied during the course of their history. Their threat is a source of unease, security, and pride to different people. The anti-WMD movement is embodied most in nuclear disarmament, and led to the formation of the British Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in 1957.

​In order to increase awareness of all kinds of WMD, in 2004 the nuclear physicist and Nobel Peace Prize winner Joseph Rotblat inspired the creation of The WMD Awareness Programme to provide trustworthy and up to date information on WMD worldwide.

In 1998 University of New Mexico's Institute for Public Policy released their third report on U.S. perceptions – including the general public, politicians and scientists – of nuclear weapons since the breakup of the Soviet Union. Risks of nuclear conflict, proliferation, and terrorism were seen as substantial.

While maintenance of the U.S. nuclear arsenal was considered above average in importance, there was widespread support for a reduction in the stockpile, and very little support for developing and testing new nuclear weapons.

Also in 1998, but after the UNM survey was conducted, nuclear weapons became an issue in India's election of March, in relation to political tensions with neighboring Pakistan.

Prior to the election the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) announced it would "declare India a nuclear weapon state" after coming to power.

BJP won the elections, and on 14 May, three days after India tested nuclear weapons for the second time, a public opinion poll reported that a majority of Indians favored the country's nuclear build-up.

On 15 April 2004, the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) reported that U.S. citizens showed high levels of concern regarding WMD, and that preventing the spread of nuclear weapons should be "a very important U.S. foreign policy goal", accomplished through multilateral arms control rather than the use of military threats.

A majority also believed the United States should be more forthcoming with its biological research and its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty commitment of nuclear arms reduction.

A Russian opinion poll conducted on 5 August 2005 indicated half the population believes new nuclear powers have the right to possess nuclear weapons. 39% believes the Russian stockpile should be reduced, though not fully eliminated.

In popular culture:
Main article: Weapons of mass destruction in popular culture

Weapons of mass destruction and their related impacts have been a mainstay of popular culture since the beginning of the Cold War, as both political commentary and humorous outlet. The actual phrase "weapons of mass destruction" has been used similarly and as a way to characterise any powerful force or product since the Iraqi weapons crisis in the lead-up to the Coalition invasion of Iraq in 2003. 

Science-fiction may introduce novel weapons of mass destruction with much greater yields or impact than anything in reality.

See also:







Post-traumatic stress disorder (after World War II) Pictured below:  June is PTSD Awareness Month (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) - SRQ Daily Jun 8, 2019
Post-traumatic stress disorder after World War II

​Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) results after experiencing or witnessing a terrifying event which later leads to mental health problems. This disorder has always existed but has only been recognized as a psychological disorder within the past forty years.

Before receiving its official diagnosis in 1980, when it was published in the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-lll), 

Post-traumatic stress disorder was more commonly known as soldier's heart, irritable heart, or shell shock. Shell shock and war neuroses were coined during World War I when symptoms began to be more commonly recognized among many of the soldiers that had experienced similar traumas.

By World War II, these symptoms were identified as combat stress reaction or battle fatigue. In the first edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-I), post-traumatic stress disorder was called gross stress reaction which was explained as prolonged stress due to a traumatic event. 

Upon further study of this disorder in World War II veterans, psychologists realized that their symptoms were long-lasting and went beyond an anxiety disorder. Thus, through the effects of World War II, post-traumatic stress disorder was eventually recognized as an official disorder in 1980.


General overview:

Changing terminology: Nostalgia, soldier's heart, and railway spine

​The term nostalgia was first coined in 1761 when soldiers reported feeling homesick, sleep disturbances, and anxiety after being in combat. Later, soldier's heart was used to describe these symptoms but instead blamed cardiac problems as the source of anxiety and overstimulation. 

Railway spine also explained physical causes for PTSD symptoms. After railroad accidents became more common, the victims of these accidents exhibited emotional distress.

Shell shock and war neuroses:

Before the term post-traumatic stress disorder was established, people that exhibited symptoms were said to have shell shock or war neuroses. This terminology came about in WWI when a commonality among combat soldiers was identified during psychiatric evaluations. These soldiers all appeared to be in a catatonic state following battle, or "shocked by shells", hence the term shell shocked.

Battle fatigue and combat stress reaction:

During World War II, the diagnosis for shell shock was replaced with combat stress reaction. These diagnoses resulted from soldiers being in combat for long periods of time. 

There was some skepticism surrounding this diagnosis as some military leadership, including George S. Patton did not believe "battle fatigue" to be real. Yet, due to evolving practices, such as proximity, immediacy, and expectancy (PIE), this new diagnosis was taken seriously and recovery was made the first priority.

Prevalence:

Post-traumatic stress disorder has always been prevalent whether it was recognized as a psychological disorder or not. Yet, because PTSD was not recognized as an official disorder, it is difficult to estimate what the prevalence rate during WWII was. A rough estimate, found through hospitalization records, suggests that approximately 43 per 1000 soldiers were hospitalized due to war traumas. 

Again, however, this estimate is only based upon those who actually sought help, with many at this time not seeking help.

Another prevalence rate, found in the 1950s, suggests that about 10% of WWII soldiers had PTSD at some point. While it is difficult to retroactively discern prevalence for PTSD in WWII soldiers, what is clear is that it is prevalent now more than ever due to the long-lasting effects of combat in World War II.

For example, half of all male veterans 65 and older have had military experience, which predisposes them to the acquisition of PTSD. Thus, PTSD continues to affect World War II veterans and their families.

Symptoms:

Symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder differ from person to person in that they can begin shortly after a traumatic event or even years after the event. Moreover, symptoms can continue to present long after the traumatic event's occurrence, with some people experiencing symptoms for the rest of their lives. 

Symptoms of PTSD can be grouped into four main categories: "Intrusive memories, avoidance, negative changes in thinking and mood, and changes in physical and emotional reactions".
  • Intrusive memories can include symptoms such as nightmares, flashbacks, recurring memories of the event, and emotional and physical stress upon encountering things that remind them of their trauma.
  • Symptoms for avoidance behavior include avoiding thoughts and conversations surrounding the event, as well as people, places, or other things that remind them of what happened. This, understandably, occurs due to intrusive memories that persistently take place, which makes PTSD patients want to avoid these feelings.
  • Negative changes in thinking and mood can force patients into experiencing memory loss (especially in regard to the traumatic event), hopelessness about themselves and their future, difficulty maintaining relationships, and a struggle in experiencing positive emotions.
  • Changes in physical and emotional reactions are seen through behaviors such as trouble sleeping, difficulty concentrating, always being on guard, and becoming startled easily. Some people experience these symptoms when they hear unexpected loud noises, which causes them to "[lose] their cool over minor everyday things". Other symptoms can include self-destructive actions such as excessive drinking or driving too fast and outbursts of anger or overwhelming guilt.


Treatment;

Treatments used during WWII

​New treatment methods for PTSD emerged during WWII, likely due to the high demand for care, and the subsequent increase in investigation. Interestingly, despite little understanding of the mechanisms whereby PTSD happened, much of the early interventions by psychiatrists in the 1940s remain similar to the methods still used today, such as medications and group therapy.

One early treatment plan, from 1944, suggests a three part treatment to PTSD through use of sedatives to secure rest; use of intravenous barbiturates to promote mental catharsis, thereby assisting in the recall of a suppressed episode and use of drugs acting directly on the autonomic nervous system. 

In addition to medication plans, another method that was utilized for PTSD during WWII was the principle of proximity, immediacy, and expectancy, or "PIE". In essence, the PIE method emphasized immediate action in the treatment of PTSD. While first treatment plans for PTSD were crude and simplistic, they represent the rapidly changing field of psychiatry that WWII initiated, as will be further discussed below.

Broader impacts:

Divorce rates following WWII:

Following WWII, the high rates of shell-shocked veterans and prisoners of war (POWs) returning home largely impacted marital relationships. A correlation between war and higher divorce rates is typical, and extends to WWII vets, specifically ex-POWs since the rates of PTSD are much higher for this group. 

For example, it was found that 30% of POWs with PTSD experienced relationship problems, with only 11% of veterans without PTSD experiencing marital problems. Moreover, a different study found that being in active combat or on the front lines also increased likelihood of marital discord. 

From this, it can be suggested that those who have been in high stress situations, and have subsequently developed PTSD, have a higher prevalence of marital problems than those without PTSD.

Those with PTSD likely have more marital problems
  • due to slow adjustment back home,
  • a lack of valuable communication/expression,
  • intimacy problems,
  • life disruption,
  • economic problems,
  • aggression,
  • and lingering mental health impacts. 

Thus, the effects of PTSD on WWII vets were not isolated to the vets themselves, as evidenced through high rates of marital discord following the war.

Development of psychiatry:

During WWII the field of psychiatry was beginning to evolve, with a specific emphasis on military psychiatry due to the high rates of PTSD in soldiers. This can be seen in the changing technologies and aims of the American Psychological Association (APA) during the years that the United States was fighting in WWII.

For example, between the years of 1943 and 1944, APA went from claiming that fear was the mechanism behind PTSD to attempting to understand the real underlying processes of PTSD, which represents a change in understanding of mental illnesses.

Additionally, these years in APA history represent a switch from suggesting rest to soldiers to prescribing medications and having specified treatment plans. These changes in understanding were important to evolving psychiatry into what it is today; yet, the ideas about PTSD during WWII were still in their infancy, meaning that psychiatrists during WWII made some unethical choices. 

For example, two famous military psychiatrists by the names of Roy Grinker and Frederick Hanson implemented mandatory sodium pentothal treatments, which were intended to induce the truth during psychoanalysis for soldiers claiming "exhaustion". These treatments have since been proven harmful rather than helpful. 

Yet, it was through these initial contributions that the DSM-I was published in 1952, thus proving WWII as a pivotal time for the advancement of psychiatry.


Personal accounts:

The impacts of PTSD from wartime trauma varies from person to person, yet the degree of trauma often indicates the severity of the PTSD. Additionally, other pre-existing factors, such as personality or preparedness, also play into the development of PTSD in a veteran.

Much like how no two people are alike, no two veterans will have the exact same experiences with PTSD, yet, there can still be commonalities such as negative homecoming experiences or lack of social support. With this being said, one way to gain a better understanding of both the similarities and differences of PTSD among WWII veterans is through reading first-hand accounts which emphasize both the chronicity and longevity of war-time PTSD.

Earl Crumby

​71 years after the Battle of the Bulge, Earl Crumby sat down with Tim Madigan in 2015 to be interviewed about his part in it. At the time of the interview, his wife had just recently died and yet, he is quoted as saying, "as dearly as I loved that woman, her death didn’t affect me near as much as it does to sit down here and talk to you about seeing those young boys butchered during the war. It was nothing but arms and legs, heads and guts". 

This personal account of Crumby's emphasizes just how intense these experiences were/are as well as underscores the chronicity of PTSD in WWII veterans.

Otis Mackey:

When Otis Mackey was interviewed by Tim Madigan in 2015, his traumatic war experiences had not diminished over the years, but rather had increased in severity. Mackey is quoted saying, "I get that empty feeling, just deep down, and I don’t care whether I live or die". 

In addition to emptiness, Mackey also has strong flashbacks of comrades being blown up and intense nightmares of bombs going off. "I seen it coming at me. I just ducked, and McGhee’s leg went flying right by my head...I never could figure out why it was him and not me".

This personal account of Mackey's emphasizes the severity of PTSD, even decades after his WWII service.

Dutch Shultz:

Portrayed in the 1962 movie, The Longest Day, Dutch Shultz is remembered as an innocent and happy paratrooper. Yet, this idealized version bears little resemblance to the real Shultz, who is quoted as saying, "people did not want to know what it was like". 

Based on accounts from Shultz's daughter, Carol, her father was always drinking in order to take the pain of war away. Additionally, according to Carol, her father "would wake up with nightmares every single day", and even tried to take his own life.

This account from both Shultz and his daughter emphasize both the chronicity and longevity of the traumas of war as well as shows that PTSD did not just impact those with the disorder. Dutch Shultz never got help for his PTSD, and Carol went her entire life having a half-present, drunk father.

Roy "Eric" Cooper:

Roy "Eric" Cooper fought at Burma, and according to his daughter Ceri-Ann, "every second of every day, Burma was with him, even to his last breath". While he was alive, Cooper is quoted as saying troubling things such as, "I don’t feel very well in my mind and I am a bad man". 

Much like the other accounts, this account emphasizes the longevity of his war traumas as well as the hopelessness in Cooper's life.
​
Anonymous accounts:

In 2011, researchers  collected quotes from survivors of WWII atomic bombs in order to determine the level of health among survivors. The survivors of these bombings range in age from 75 to 92, with both veterans and non-veterans included.

Non-veteran's experiences are often overlooked, however their levels of health were similar to those who had seen combat. This suggests that non-veteran's experiences with PTSD can be just as severe, and therefore important, as that of veteran's experiences.

The following anonymous quote is one of many from the 2011 research that suggests that the trauma seen within WWII has a strong relationship to a lifetime of PTSD.

"There were too many kids in the water. And it's hard to pass up someone in the water. We saw real early on that . . . the ones that were squished bad . . . you couldn't get em' in the launch. You couldn't do nothing for em' . . . We took loads of em' and we could hold about 60 . . . In the meantime, we went back out and it just kept repeatin' itself."

The above quote is from a veteran who experienced the bombing at Pearl Harbor, which was a traumatic event that influenced both veteran and non-veteran  development of PTSD.

See also:







The 2023 Israeli-Hamas War
Traces back to when both Isreal and Palestinian States were separately formed 1947-1948:
​The Following YouTube Videos Cover Major Incidents and Issues in the Continuing Israeli/Arab Conflicts: Pictured below: Map, aerial images show where Hamas attacked Israeli towns near Gaza Strip - CBS News
Origins of the Sovereign State of Israel:
​
Israel  is a country in West Asia. It is bordered by Lebanon to the north, by Syria to the northeast, by Jordan to the east, by the Red Sea to the south, by Egypt to the southwest, by the Mediterranean Sea to the west, and by the Palestinian territories – the West Bank along the east and the Gaza Strip along the southwest. 

Tel Aviv is the financial, economic, and technological center of the country, while its seat of government is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, although Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is unrecognized internationally.

Israel is located in the Southern Levant, a region known historically as Canaan, the Land of Israel, Palestine and the Holy Land. In antiquity, it was home to several Israelite and Jewish kingdoms, including Israel and Judah and Hasmonean Judea.

Over the ages, the region was ruled by imperial powers such as the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans. During Roman rule, Jews became a minority in Palestine. The region later came under Byzantine and Arab rule.

In the medieval period, it was part of the Islamic caliphates, the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, and the Ottoman Empire. The late 19th century saw the rise of Zionism, a movement advocating for the establishment of a Jewish homeland, during which the Jewish people began purchasing land in Palestine.

Under the British Mandate by the League of Nations after World War I, Jewish immigration to the region increased considerably, leading to tensions between Jews and the Arab majority population. The UN-approved 1947 partition plan triggered a civil war between these two peoples. The British terminated the Mandate on 14 May 1948, and Israel declared independence on the same day.

On 15 May 1948, the armies of five neighboring Arab states began entering the area of the former Mandatory Palestine, starting the First Arab–Israeli War. An armistice in 1949 left Israel in control of more territory than the U.N. partition plan had called for; and no new independent Arab state was created as the rest of the former Mandate territory were held by Egypt and Jordan, respectively the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

The conflict resulted in the expulsion or flight of over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs from Israeli territory to neighboring countries, leaving fewer than 150,000 within the Green Line.

The number of Jews who emigrated, fled, or were expelled from the Arab world to Israel was around 260,000 during and immediately after the war, reaching approximately 650,000 over the subsequent two decades. 

The 1967 Six-Day War resulted in the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, along with the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula and the Syrian Golan Heights. Israel has since effectively annexed both East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and has established settlements across the occupied territories, actions which were rejected as illegal under international law.

Since the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt, returning the Sinai Peninsula, and with Jordan, and more recently normalized relations with several Arab countries, though efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have not succeeded.

Israel's practices, in the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of the Palestinians.

The country has a parliamentary system elected by means of proportional representation.

The prime minister serves as head of government, and is elected by the Knesset, Israel's unicameral legislature. Israel is a developed country and an OECD member. It has the highest standards of living in the Middle East, and is one of the most advanced and technological countries, with a population of nearly 10 million people, as of 2023. 

Israel has the world's 29th-largest economy by nominal GDP and 18th by nominal GDP per capita.

Click on any of the following blue hyperlinks for more about Israel: ___________________________________________________________________________

​​Israel and the United Nations

​Issues relating to the State of Israel and aspects of the Arab–Israeli conflict and more recently the Iran-Israel conflict occupy repeated annual debate times, resolutions and resources at the United Nations. Since its founding in 1948, the United Nations Security Council, has adopted 79 resolutions directly related to the Arab–Israeli conflict as of January 2010.

The adoption on November 29, 1947, by the United Nations General Assembly of a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of a plan of partition of Mandatory Palestine was one of the earliest acts of the United Nations.

This followed the report of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine. Since then, it has maintained a central role in this region, including the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People. The UN has sponsored several peace negotiations between the parties, the latest being the 2002 Road map for peace.


History:

UN Partition Plan for Palestine:
See also: 
​The United Nations General Assembly on 15 May 1947 created the Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) in response to a United Kingdom government request that the General Assembly "make recommendations under article 10 of the Charter, concerning the future government of Palestine". UNSCOP was "to prepare for consideration at the next regular session of the Assembly a report on the question of Palestine."

UNSCOP consisted of representatives of eleven members:
  1. Australia, 
  2. Canada, 
  3. Czechoslovakia, 
  4. Guatemala, 
  5. India, 
  6. Iran, 
  7. Netherlands, 
  8. Peru, 
  9. Sweden, 
  10. Uruguay 
  11. and Yugoslavia.

In the final report of 3 September 1947, seven members of the Committee in Chapter VI "expressed themselves, by recorded vote, in favour of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union" (reproduced in the Report). The Plan proposed "an independent Arab State, an independent Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem". The Palestinian Arabs and members of the Arab League had rejected any partition of Palestine.

On 29 November 1947, the General Assembly passed Resolution 181 (commonly known as the UN Partition Plan for Palestine) which recommended the adoption and implementation of a slightly modified version of the UNSCOP majority Partition Plan, by 33 votes in favor, 13 against, and 10 abstentions, achieving the required two-thirds majority. 

The resolution was rejected by the Palestinian Arabs; and all members of the Arab League voted against.

UN Mediator in Palestine:
See also
Within a few days of the passing of the Partition Plan (Resolution 181), full scale Jewish–Arab fighting broke out in Palestine. It also led to anti-Jewish violence in Arab countries, and to a Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries.

In an attempt to mediate the continuing Jewish–Arab fighting in Palestine, UN General Assembly by Resolution 186 of 14 May 1948 called for the appointment of "United Nations Mediator in Palestine".

Also on 14 May 1948, the day on which the British Mandate of Palestine was to expire, Israel declared "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel". The territory of Israel was to be that of the Jewish State proposed in Resolution 181.

On the day after the British Mandate expired, on 15 May, five neighbouring Arab states invaded and rapidly occupied much of the Arab portion of the Partition Plan, and threatening to take the whole of Palestine.

In the introduction to the cablegram from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States to the UN Secretary-General on 15 May 1948, the Arab League gave reasons for its "intervention": "On the occasion of the intervention of Arab States in Palestine to restore law and order and to prevent disturbances prevailing in Palestine from spreading into their territories and to check further bloodshed".

The invasion changed the dynamic of the region, transforming a two-state plan into a war between Israel and the Arab world.

Folke Bernadotte was appointed Mediator on 20 May 1948. Bernadotte succeeded in achieving a truce by May–June 1948 during which the British evacuated Palestine. He proposed two alternate partition plans, the second calling for a reduction in the size of the Jewish State and loss of sovereignty over the harbour city of Haifa.

Both were rejected. Lehi, a Zionist group, assassinated him and his aide, UN observer Colonel André Serot on 17 September 1948. Bernadotte was succeeded by Ralph Bunche, who was successful in bringing about the signing of the 1949 Armistice Agreements.

Resolution 194 - Status of Jerusalem and refugees:
See also: 
On 11 December 1948, Resolution 194 reiterated the UN's claim on Jerusalem and resolved in paragraph 11 "that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date".

This resolution, accepted immediately by Israel, is the foundation of the claim of a Palestinian right of return. The Arab states initially opposed this resolution, but within a few months, began to change their position, and became the strongest advocates of its refugee and territorial provisions.

Resolution 194 also called for the creation of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine (UNCCP), consisted of France, Turkey and the United States. UNCCP proposed the Lausanne Conference of 1949.

The conference lasted five months and was unsuccessful. After the failure of the conference, the UNCCP continued for some more years, but did not achieve any significant success. But the conference was noteworthy as the first proposal by Israel to establish the 1949 armistice line between the Israeli and Arab armies, the so-called green line, as the border of the Jewish state. This line has acquired an after-the-fact international sanction.

Following the failure at Lausanne to settle the problem of Palestinian refugees, UNRWA was created by resolution 302 (IV) of December 1949 to provide humanitarian aid to this group.

The UNCCP published its report in October 1950. It is noteworthy as the source of the official number of Palestinian Arab refugees (711,000). It again reiterated the demands for UN control over Jerusalem and for the return of Palestinian refugees.

Membership of United Nations:
See also: International recognition of Israel

​On the declaration of independence,
The Soviet Union was the first country to recognise Israel de jure on 17 May 1948, followed by Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Ireland, and South Africa. 

The United States extended de jure recognition after the first Israeli election, on 31 January 1949.

On 15 May 1948, one day after the declaration of its establishment, Israel applied for membership of the United Nations, but the application was not acted on by the Security Council.

Israel's second application was rejected by the Security Council on 17 December 1948 by a 5 to 1 vote, with 5 abstentions. Seven votes in favor were required in order to approve the application. Syria was the sole negative vote; the U.S., Argentina, Colombia, the Soviet Union and Ukraine voted in favor; and Belgium, Britain, Canada, China and France abstained.

Israel's application was renewed in 1949 after the Israeli elections. The Security Council by UN Security Council Resolution 69 on 4 March 1949 voted 9 to 1 in favour of membership, with Egypt voting no and Great Britain abstaining. Those voting in favour were: China (ROC), France, United States, Soviet Union, Argentina, Canada, Cuba, Norway, and Ukrainian SSR.

Great Britain said it had decided to abstain because it believed Israel did not agree with United Nations' principles, citing Israel's refusal to allow Jerusalem to be internationally governed in accordance with the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine.

Admission to Israel's membership was conditional on Israel's acceptance and implementation of Resolutions 181 (the Partition Plan) and 194 (besides other things, on status of Jerusalem and the return of Palestinian refugees). On 11 May 1949, the General Assembly by the requisite two-thirds majority approved the application to admit Israel to the UN by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 273. 

The vote in the General Assembly was 37 to 12, with 9 abstentions. Those that voted for were:
  • Argentina,
  • Australia,
  • Bolivia,
  • Byelorussia,
  • Canada,
  • Chile,
  • China,
  • Colombia,
  • Costa Rica,
  • Cuba,
  • Czechoslovakia,
  • Dominican Republic,
  • Ecuador,
  • France,
  • Guatemala,
  • Haiti,
  • Honduras,
  • Iceland,
  • Liberia,
  • Luxembourg,
  • Mexico,
  • Netherlands,
  • New Zealand,
  • Nicaragua,
  • Norway,
  • Panama,
  • Paraguay,
  • Peru,
  • Philippines,
  • Poland,
  • Ukraine,
  • South Africa,
  • Soviet Union,
  • United States,
  • Uruguay,
  • Venezuela,
  • and Yugoslavia.

Those that voted against were six of the then seven members of the Arab League (Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen) as well as Afghanistan, Burma, Ethiopia, India, Iran and Pakistan.

Those abstaining were: Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, El Salvador, Greece, Siam, Sweden, Turkey and United Kingdom. 

Many of the countries that voted in favour or had abstained had already recognised Israel before the UN vote, at least on a de facto basis.

1950s:
See also: 
David Ben-Gurion, the Israeli Prime Minister at the time, supported sending Israeli troops to join UN forces in Korea. However, the political party Mapam was opposed to such measures as it favoured relations with North Korea over the South.

As a compromise, instead of sending troops, the government sent $100,000 in medical and food supplies to the South Korean government.

After the failure of early attempts at resolution, and until 1967, discussion of Israel and Palestine was not as prominent at the UN.

Exceptions included border incidents like the following: 
Following the closing of the Suez canal by Egypt, Israel, France and Great Britain attacked Egypt starting October 29, 1956. The First emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly was called on November 1 to address that crisis.

On November 2, the General Assembly adopted the United States' proposal for Resolution 997 (ES-I); it called for an immediate ceasefire, the withdrawal of all forces behind the 1949 armistice lines and the reopening of the Suez Canal.

The emergency special session consequently adopted a series of enabling resolutions which established the UNEF, the first UN peacekeeping force.

On November 7, David Ben-Gurion declared victory against Egypt, renounced the 1949 armistice agreement with Egypt and added that Israel would never agree to the stationing of UN forces on its territory or in any area it occupied. 

Eventually, Israel withdrew from the Sinai but with conditions for sea access to Eilat and a UNEF presence on Egyptian soil. By April 24, 1957, the canal was fully reopened to shipping.

1960s:
See also: 
In 1961, the regional groups were created at the UN. From the onset, Arab and Muslim countries blocked the inclusion of Israel in the Asia group (see Regional Groups below).

After months of debate in the Security Council and General Assembly before, during and after the 1967 Six-Day War, United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 was adopted.

It became a universally accepted basis for Arab-Israeli and later, Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. In it, the Land for peace principle was spelled out. This resolution is one of the most discussed, both within and outside of the UN.

In November 1967, Gunnar Jarring was appointed as the UN special envoy for the Middle East peace process. The Jarring Mission was unsuccessful.

The Six-Day War of 1967 generated a new wave of Palestinian refugees who were not covered by the original UNRWA definition. From 1991, the UN General Assembly has adopted an annual resolution allowing the 1967 refugees within the UNRWA mandate.

In 1968, the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People was created to investigate Israeli settlements in occupied Arab territories, and other matters. It has continued to generate yearly General Assembly resolutions and other documents.

1970s:
See also:  ​
The Israeli–Palestinian conflict gained prominence following the emergence of Palestinian armed groups, especially the Palestine Liberation Organization and the increased political strength of the Arab group as the main suppliers of petroleum to the Western world.

At the UN, the Arab group also gained the support of the Soviet Bloc against Israel allied to the US.

In rapid succession, several events brought the Palestinian struggle to the forefront:
The Geneva Conference of 1973 was an attempt to negotiate a solution to the Arab–Israeli conflict. No comprehensive agreement was reached, and attempts in later years to revive the Conference failed.

In 1973, a General Assembly resolution about Apartheid "Condemns in particular the unholy alliance between Portuguese colonialism, Apartheid and Zionism." This statement was reused in the preamble to resolution 3379.

About the 1974 UNESCO decision to exclude Israel from its membership, Julian Huxley, the first Director of UNESCO, wrote to The Times to complain. UNESCO defended this decision with two statements in 1974 and 1975. Israel's membership was renewed two years later.

Starting in 1974, 1967 territories were named "Occupied Arab Territories" in UN documents.

In 1982, the phrase "Occupied Palestinian Territories" became the usual name.This phrase was not used at the UN prior to 1967, when the same territories were under military occupation by Jordan and Egypt.

The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People was created in 1975 and of the United Nations Division for Palestinian Rights in 1977. Also in 1977, the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People was first celebrated on November 29 the anniversary of resolution 181.

The 1975 UN Resolution 3379 stated "that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination". The resolution was preceded by resolutions adopted at the United Nations-sponsored World Conference of the International Women's Year in 1975. Resolution 3379 was sponsored by 25 Arab states; 72 voted for, 35 voted against and 32 abstained.

In his speech to the UN General Assembly after the resolution's passage, US Ambassador to the UN Daniel Patrick Moynihan, declared that the US "does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act." 

Israeli Ambassador Chaim Herzog told his fellow delegates this resolution was "based on hatred, falsehood and arrogance. Hitler," he declared, "would have felt at home listening to the UN debate on the measure."

The 1979 Egypt–Israel peace treaty was a landmark event. Egyptian president Anwar Sadat is credited for initiating the process, following the failure of the UN-mediated peace negotiations, notably the Geneva Conference.

The secret negotiations at Camp David in 1978 between Sadat, Menachem Begin and Jimmy Carter, and the treaty itself essentially bypassed UN-approved channels. The Camp David Accords (but not the Treaty itself) touch on the issue of Palestinian statehood. Egypt, Israel, and Jordan were to agree a way to establish elected self-governing authority in the West Bank and Gaza. Egypt and Israel were to find means to resolve the refugee problem.

The General Assembly was critical of the accords. General Assembly Resolution 34/65 (1979) condemned "partial agreements and separate treaties". It said that the Camp David accords had "no validity insofar as they purport to determine the future of the Palestinian people and of the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967".

In protest, the General Assembly did not renew the peace-keeping force in the Sinai peninsula, the UNEF II, despite requests by the US, Egypt and Israel, as stipulated in the treaty.

To honor the treaty despite the UN's refusal, the Multinational Force and Observers was created, which has always operated independently of the UN. Egypt was expelled from the Arab League for a period of ten years.

1980s:
​​See also:  ​
Between 1980 and 1988, some states made attempts to expel Israel from the General Assembly. For example, the credentials committee received in 1985 a letter signed by 34 Muslim states and the USSR. These attempts were unsuccessful.

The Palestinian National Council adopted in Algiers in 1988 the declaration of independence of the State of Palestine. The UN has not officially recognised this state but, by renaming the PLO observer as the Palestine observer, can be seen as having done so unofficially.

In July 1998, the General Assembly adopted resolution 52/250 conferring upon Palestine additional rights and privileges, including the right to participate in the general debate held at the start of each session of the General Assembly, the right of reply, the right to co-sponsor resolutions and the right to raise points of order on Palestinian and Middle East issues.

1990s:
See also:  ​
Following sixteen years of intense diplomatic pressure by the US, the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, which determined that "Zionism is a form of racism", of 1975 was revoked in 1991 by resolution 46/86 as a precondition for the participation of Israel to the Madrid Conference.

Following the 1993 Oslo peace accords between Israel and the PLO, followed in 1994 by the Israel–Jordan peace treaty, the language of yearly General Assembly resolutions was modified to reduce criticism of Israeli actions. Moreover, between 1993 and 1995 the Security Council never directly condemned Israel.

During this period, the Security Council also denounced terrorism against Israel for the first time. The most central resolution adopted during this warming trend toward Israel came on December 14, 1993, when 155 member states endorsed the Israel-Palestinian and the Israel-Jordan agreements and granted "full support for the achievements of the peace process so far".

This resolution was the first UN call for Middle East peace that did not criticize Israel. In October 1993, for the first time since 1981, the Arab members of the UN did not challenge Israel's seat at the General Assembly.

2000s:
See also:  ​
The year 2000 saw the failure of the Camp David peace negotiations and the beginning of the Second Intifada.

In 2003, the Israeli West Bank barrier became another subject of criticism. It was declared illegal by both the General Assembly and the International Court of Justice. The Court found that the portions of the wall beyond the Green Line and the associated regime that had been imposed on the Palestinian inhabitants is illegal.

The Court cited illegal interference by the government of Israel with the Palestinian's national right to self-determination; and:
  • land confiscations,
  • house demolitions,
  • the creation of enclaves,
  • and restrictions on movement and access to:
    • water,
    • food,
    • education,
    • health care,
    • work,
  • and an adequate standard of living in violation of Israel's obligations under international law. 

The UN Fact Finding Mission and several UN Rapporteurs subsequently noted that in the movement and access policy there has been a violation of the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or national origin.

A series of terrorist attacks in March 2002 prompted Israel to conduct Operation Defensive Shield. The fiercest episode was the battle of Jenin in the UNRWA administered refugee camp of Jenin, where 75 died (23 IDF soldiers, 38 armed and 14 unarmed Palestinians) and 10% of the camp's buildings destroyed.

The UN send a first visiting mission. A separate fact-finding mission was mandated by the Security Council but blocked by Israel, a move condemned in General Assembly resolution 10/10 (May 2002). 

This mission was replaced by a report which was widely commented in the media. Many observers noted that the UN dropped the accusations of massacre made by Palestinians during and soon after the battle, and reproduced in the annex 1 of the report.

The Road map for peace is, since 2002, the latest and current effort by the UN to negotiate peace in the region. This document was initially proposed by US president George W. Bush and sponsored by a quartet of the US, Russia, the European Union and the UN.

The official text is in the form of a letter to the Security Council, not a General Assembly or Security Council resolution. It generated a series of changes: the sidelining of Yasser Arafat and the unilateral withdrawal of Jewish settlers and the Israeli forces from occupied territories, notably the Gaza strip. Progress is now stalled.

In 2003, Israel sought to gain support for a resolution of its own, the first it had introduced since 1976. The resolution called for the protection of Israeli children from terrorism.

The resolution was worded to be very similar to General Assembly resolution 58/155 (December 22, 2003) titled " Situation of and assistance to Palestinian children". Israel withdrew the draft after a group of nations belonging to the Non-Aligned Movement, led by Egypt, insisted on including amendments that would have transformed the document into an anti-Israel resolution.

The changes demanded were the altering of all references to "Israeli children" to read "Middle Eastern children," and the insertion of harsh condemnation of Israeli "military assaults," "occupation" and "excessive use of force" before any mention of Arab terrorism.

The draft was withdrawn and never came to vote.
​
Security Council Resolution 1544 (2004) reiterated the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention, and called on Israel to address its security needs within the boundaries of international law.

In 2005, the UN approached Israel with a request that it contribute IDF troops, especially military medical units, to UN peacekeeping missions such as those in Haiti, Kosovo, Congo, and Liberia. The UN also expressed interest in purchasing Israeli-made military equipment for UN peacekeepers, especially night-vision goggles and telecommunications equipment.

The Israeli representative was elected in 2005 to the symbolic position of vice-president of the 60th UN General Assembly.

On December 11, 2007, the General Assembly adopted a resolution on agricultural technology for development sponsored by Israel. The Arab group proposed a series of amendments referring to the Palestinian occupied territories, but these amendments were rejected.

The Tunisian representative said: "The Arab Group was convinced that Israel was neither interested in agriculture nor the peace process." This group demanded a vote on the resolution, an unusual demand for this kind of country-neutral resolution. "The representative of the United States (...) expressed disappointment with the request for a recorded vote because that could send a signal that there was no consensus on the issues at stake, which was not the case.

The United States was saddened by the inappropriate injection into the agenda item of irrelevant political considerations, characterized by inflammatory remarks that devalued the importance of the United Nations agenda". The resolution was approved by a recorded vote of 118 in favour to none against, with 29 abstentions.

The abstentions were mainly from the Arab Group, with the notable exception of Pakistan which voted in favour.

2010s:
See also: 
In February 2011, the United States vetoed a draft resolution to condemn all Jewish settlements established in the occupied Palestinian territory since 1967 as illegal. 

The resolution, which was supported by all other Security Council members and co-sponsored by over 120 nations, would have demanded that "Israel, as the occupying power, immediately and completely ceases all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem and that it fully respect its legal obligations in this regard." 

The U.S. representative, Susan E. Rice, said that while it agreed that the settlements were illegal, the resolution would harm chances for negotiations. Israel's deputy Foreign Minister, Daniel Ayalon, said that the "UN serves as a rubber stamp for the Arab countries and, as such, the General Assembly has an automatic majority," and that the vote "proved that the United States is the only country capable of advancing the peace process and the only righteous one speaking the truth: that direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians are required." 

Palestinian negotiators, however, have refused to resume direct talks until Israel ceases all settlement activity.

On January 31, 2012, the United Nations independent "International Fact-Finding Mission on Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory" filed a report stating that Israeli settlements led to a multitude of violations of Palestinian human rights and that if Israel did not stop all settlement activity immediately and begin withdrawing all settlers from the West Bank, it potentially might face a case at the International Criminal Court.

It said that Israel was in violation of article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention forbidding transferring civilians of the occupying nation into occupied territory. It held that the settlements are "leading to a creeping annexation that prevents the establishment of a contiguous and viable Palestinian state and undermines the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination."

After Palestine's admission to the United Nations as a non-member state in September 2012, it potentially may have its complaint heard by the International Court. Israel refused to co-operate with UNHRC investigators and its foreign ministry replied to the report saying that "Counterproductive measures – such as the report before us – will only hamper efforts to find a sustainable solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

​The human rights council has sadly distinguished itself by its systematically one-sided and biased approach towards Israel."

​
Issues:

Legality of the State of Israel:
See also: International recognition of Israel

Resolution 181 laid a foundation within international law and diplomacy for the creation of the state of Israel; as it was the first formal recognition by an international body of the legitimacy of a Jewish state, to exist within a partition of the territory along with an Arab state.

The UN followed the practice of the Paris Peace Conference and the League of Nations regarding the creation of states. Religious and minority rights were placed under the protection of the United Nations and recognition of the new states was conditioned upon acceptance of a constitutional plan of legal protections. 

Israel acknowledged that obligation, and Israel's declaration of independence stated that the State of Israel would ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex, and guaranteed freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture.

In the hearings before the Ad Hoc Political Committee that considered Israel's application for membership in the United Nations, Abba Eban said that the rights stipulated in section C. Declaration, chapters 1 and 2 of UN resolution 181(II) had been constitutionally embodied as the fundamental law of the state of Israel as required by the resolution. 

The instruments that he cited were the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, and various cables and letters of confirmation addressed to the Secretary General. Eban's explanations and Israel's undertakings were noted in the text of General Assembly Resolution 273 (III) Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations, May 11, 1949.

Allegations of bias:
​See also:  ​
In recent years, the Middle East has been the subject of:
These decisions often criticize Israel for its "occupation of Palestinian land and its oppression of Palestinians." A number of observers have described this criticism as excessive. For example, according to the UN Association of the UK, General Assembly resolutions in the period 1990–2003 show bias against Israel, condemnation of violence against Palestinians, but only occasional discussion of violence against Israelis. 

In addition, the UNHRC was criticized in 2007 for failing to condemn other alleged human rights abusers besides Israel.

The United States has been criticized as well by the OIC and other Arab organisations, for vetoing most Security Council decisions critical of Israel, the so-called Negroponte doctrine.

Since 1961, Israel has been barred from the Asian regional group. In 2000, it was offered limited membership in the Western European and Others Group.

On 29 November 2012, the UN General Assembly adopted United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 changing Palestine's "entity" status to "non-member state" by a vote of 138 to 9, with 41 abstentions. Some sources claim that these measures implicitly recognised its sovereignty.

In an interview on December 16, 2016, UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon, said that the UN has issued a "disproportionate volume of resolutions, reports and conferences criticizing Israel."

In 2002, the PLO issued a report comparing the international response to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict to similar situations in Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Rwanda, East Timor, and Iraq. It contended that the international community, and the Security Council in particular, displayed pro-Israel bias because, in these other cases, "the international community has both condemned violations of international law and has taken action to ensure that the violations cease. In the case of the Palestinian–Israeli conflict, however, while the same condemnations have been issued against Israel, absolutely no enforcement action has been taken."

A 2005 report by the United States Institute of Peace on UN reform said that, contrary to the UN Charter's principle of equality of rights for all nations, Israel is denied rights enjoyed by all other member-states, and that a level of systematic hostility against it is routinely expressed, organized, and funded within the United Nations system.

In a lecture at the 2003 UN conference on antisemitism, Anne Bayefsky said: "There has never been a single resolution about the decades-long repression of the civil and political rights of 1.3 billion people in China, or the more than a million female migrant workers in Saudi Arabia being kept as virtual slaves, or the virulent racism which has brought 600,000 people to the brink of starvation in Zimbabwe.

Every year, UN bodies are required to produce at least 25 reports on alleged human rights violations by Israel, but not one on an Iranian criminal justice system which mandates punishments like crucifixion, stoning, and cross-amputation. This is not legitimate critique of states with equal or worse human rights records. It is demonization of the Jewish state.

Legal scholar Robert A. Caplen wrote that institutional bias against Israel within the UN has deprived the country of its ability to exercise lawfully those rights accorded to member states under the UN Charter.

In October 2010, Canada lost to Portugal in a vote for a seat at the Security Council. Several observers attributed this loss to the pro-Israel policy of Canada at the UN, including Canadian PM Stephen Harper.

On August 16, 2013, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stated in a meeting with Israeli students that there was a biased attitude towards the Israeli people and Israeli government at the UN. He described this as "an unfortunate situation." A few days later, Ban Ki-Moon retracted those comments, stating: "I don't think there is discrimination against Israel at the United Nations".

General Assembly:
Main article: List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel

​A few countries have consistently supported Israel's actions in the UN, such as the United States of America and the states of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau, all of which are associated states of the U.S.

Recently Australia, under the leadership of John Howard, and Canada, under the leadership of Stephen Harper, have also supported Israel at the UN. Many European countries usually adopt a neutral stance, abstaining from the ongoing condemnations of Israel and supporting the foundation of a Palestinian state. Such countries include France, Russia, and Germany.

A study published by the UN Association of the UK, reviewing the language of General Assembly resolutions about Israel between 1990 and 2003, found that resolutions adopted in the same period by the General Assembly were far more explicit in their condemnation of Israel. (...) Violence perpetrated against Israeli civilians, including the use of suicide bombers, is mentioned only a few times and then in only vague terms.

Violence against Palestinian civilians, on the other hand, is described far more explicitly. Israeli occupying forces are condemned for the "breaking of bones" of Palestinians, the tear-gassing of girls' schools and the firing on hospitals in which a specific number of women were said to be giving birth. Another trend noted in General Assembly Resolutions is a progressively more anodyne tone towards Israel throughout the period examined.

This is reflected in a decreasing tendency of resolutions to specify Israeli culpability in policies and practices reviewed by the General Assembly; compare, for example, General Assembly resolution 47/70 (1992) with 58/21 (2003).

As noted above, this trend towards a more anodyne tone regarding Israel at the General Assembly followed the signature of the Oslo Accords in 1993. This UN-UK report concludes that "criticism is not necessarily a product of bias, and it is not the intention here to suggest that UNGA and UNSC reproaches of Israel stem from prejudice. From the perspective of the UN, Israel has repeatedly flouted fundamental UN tenets and ignored important decisions."

The 61st session of the General Assembly (2006–07) adopted 61 country-specific resolutions. The Israeli delegation alleged: 21 of those resolutions focused on and unfairly criticized Israel. The resolutions are usually initiated by members of the Arab Group, and are adopted by a wide margin ("Automatic Majority") in the General Assembly.

US envoy Susan Rice said in August 2009 "The assembly continues to single out Israel for criticism and let political theater distract from real deliberation."

Caroline Glick writes that "Due to the UN's unvarnished belligerence toward it, in recent years a consensus has formed in Israel that there is nothing to be gained from cooperating with this openly and dangerously hostile body".

Former Israeli ambassador Dore Gold wrote that "The Palestinians understand that the automatic support they receive at the UN enables them to implement restrictions on Israel's right of self-defense. For this reason, the Palestinians have never abandoned the use of one-sided resolutions at the UN General Assembly, even during the most optimistic times of the peace process."

In an opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post, Efraim Chalamish said that, in 2010, "Israel and the United Nations have significantly improved their relationships over the past few months.(...) Nowadays, the government is promoting its legitimate membership status by enhanced participation in more balanced UN forums, such as the Economic and Social Council, while still presenting a hawkish approach towards hostile and one-sided forums, including the Human Rights Council in Geneva."

Regional Groups:
See also: United Nations Regional Groups

The United Nations Regional Groups were created in 1961. From the onset, the majority of Arab countries within the Asia group blocked the entry of Israel in that group. Thus, for 39 years, Israel was one of the few countries without membership to a regional group and could not participate in most UN activities. On the other hand, Palestine was admitted as a full member of the Asia group on April 2, 1986.

In 2000, Israel was admitted to the Western European and Others Group (WEOG) but Israel's membership is limited to activities at the UN's New York City headquarters. Elsewhere, Israel is an observer, not a full member, in WEOG discussions and consultations. Therefore, Israel cannot participate in UN talks on human rights, racism and a number of other issues.

The Human Rights Council meets in Geneva, UNESCO in Paris.

In December 2007, Israel was voted by WEOG to represent the grouping in consultations for two UN agencies: HABITAT, the UN Human Settlement Program, and UNEP, the UN Environment Program. Both these agencies are based in Nairobi.

Shebaa farms:
See also: Shebaa farms

The status of seven small villages collectively known as the Shebaa farms, located at the Lebanon-Syria border, is controversial. Some evidences support a Syrian territory, others a Lebanese territory.

The United Nations considers this territory as Syrian which has, since the 1967 Six day war, been occupied by Israel. Following the 1978 Israel-Lebanon war, the Security Council accepted the report of UN-mandated cartographers stating that "as of 16 June 2000 Israel has withdrawn its forces from Lebanon in accordance with resolution 425 (1978)" In accordance with this decision, the current map from UNIFIL shows this territory as Syrian.

Hezbollah is an armed Lebanese group originally formed to repel the 1982 Israeli occupation of South Lebanon. Since 2000, it continues to fight occupation of Lebanon by Israel, using the Shebaa farms as justification. Following the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war, the UN accepted at the request of the Lebanese government to re-evaluate the ownership of this territory. This promise was included in the text of Security Council resolution 1701.

In August 2008, the Lebanese govt adopted Hezbollah's claim to the "right of Lebanon's people, the army and the resistance to liberate all its territories in the Shebaa Farms, Kfarshuba Hill and Ghajar".

A Lebanon Independent Border Assessment Team (LIBAT) was mandated by the UN but has not yet reported on this issue.

United States policy at the UN:
See also: United States and the United Nations and Negroponte doctrine

The U.S. has vetoed over forty condemnatory Security Council resolutions against Israel; almost all U.S. vetoes cast since 1988 blocked resolutions against Israel, on the basis of their lack of condemnation of Palestinian terrorist groups, actions, and incitement.

This policy, known as the Negroponte doctrine, has drawn both praise and criticism.

UN Human Rights Council:
See also:  ​
According to UN Watch, an NGO, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) had, as at August 2015, issued more condemnations of Israel than of all other member states combined.

At its Second Special Session in August 2006, the UNHRC voted to establish a Commission of Inquiry to investigate allegations that Israel systematically targeted Lebanese civilians during the 2006 Israel–Lebanon conflict.

The Commission noted that its report on the conflict would be incomplete without fully investigating both sides, but that "the Commission is not entitled, even if it had wished, to construe [its charter] as equally authorizing the investigation of the actions by Hezbollah in Israel".

The Special Rapporteur on the question of Palestine to the previous UNCHR, the current UNHRC and the General Assembly was, between 2001 and 2008, John Dugard. The mandate of the Rapporteur is to investigate human rights violations by Israel only, not by Palestinians. 

Dugard was replaced in 2008 with Richard Falk, who has compared Israel's treatment of Palestinians with the Nazis' treatment of Jews during the Holocaust. Like his predecessor, Falk's mandate only covers Israel's human rights record. 

Commenting on the end of Falk's mandate in May 2014, US delegate Samantha Power cited Falk's "relentless anti-Israeli bias" and "his noxious and outrageous perpetuation of 9/11 conspiracy theories."

Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, a former UNGA president, was elected to the UNHRC Advisory Committee in June 2010.

Many observers have made allegations of anti-Israel bias. The Economist wrote: "In its fourth regular session, which ended in Geneva on March 30, [2007,] the 47-member council again failed to address many egregious human-rights abuses around the world. (...) Indeed, in its nine months of life, the council has criticised only one country for human-rights violations, passing in its latest session its ninth resolution against Israel." 

In 2007 Human Rights Watch noted the UNHRC disproportionate focus on Israel and accused it of failing to take action on other countries facing human rights crises. Similar accusations were voiced by: 
The UNHRC President himself, Doru Costea, said in 2007 that the council should "not place just one state under the magnifying glass".

Renewed accusations of an anti-Israel agenda at the UNHCR were voiced by the ADL, and by an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. In a report on UNHCR activities between June 2007 and June 2009, Freedom House found some improvement but noted that "Israel remained the target of an inordinate number of both condemnatory resolutions and special sessions."

Esther Brimmer of the United States State Department said on 15 September 2010 "we must remedy the [UNHR]Council's ongoing biased and disproportionate focus on Israel." 

US Congress member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen called for defunding of the HRC over its excessive criticism of Israel. The Daily News (New York) denounces the apparent bias at UNHCR in two editorials.

Current United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, denied the accusations of anti-Israel bias at the UNHCR.

Addressing UNHCR in February 2011, Hillary Clinton denounced its "structural bias against Israel".

In March 2012, the UNHRC was further criticised by the United States over its anti-Israel bias. It took particular exception to the council's Agenda Item 7, under which at every session, Israel's human rights record is debated. No other country has a dedicated agenda item.

The US Ambassador to the UNHRC, Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe, said that the United States was deeply troubled by the "Council's biased and disproportionate focus on Israel." She said that the hypocrisy was further exposed in the UN Golan Heights resolution that was advocated "by the Syrian regime at a time when it is murdering its own citizens". 

On March 24, 2014, US delegate to the UNHRC, Samantha Power, qualified the anti-Israel bias of this committee as "beyond absurd".

In March 2012, UNHCR was criticised for facilitating an event featuring a Hamas politician.

The Hamas parliamentarian had spoken at an NGO event in the UN Geneva building. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu castigated the UNHRC's decision stating: "He represents an organization that indiscriminately targets children and grown-ups, and women and men. Innocents – is their special favorite target."

Israel's ambassador to the UN, Ron Prosor, denounced the speech, stating that Hamas was an internationally recognized terrorist organization that targeted civilians. "Inviting a Hamas terrorist to lecture to the world about human rights is like asking Charles Manson to run the murder investigation unit at the NYPD", he said.

Fact Finding mission on the 2008 Gaza War (Goldstone report)
Main article: United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict

​A fact-finding mission on human rights violations during the 2008 Gaza War between Israel and Hamas administration in Gaza was called by January 12, 2009, UNHRC, which limited the investigation to "violations (...) by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip" but, before any investigation, it already "Strongly condemns the ongoing Israeli military operation carried out in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, which has resulted in massive violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people".

Former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and Ireland President Mary Robinson refused to head the mission because she "felt strongly that the Council's resolution was one-sided and did not permit a balanced approach to determining the situation on the ground."

On 3 April 2009, Richard Goldstone was named head of the mission. In a 16 July interview, he said "at first I was not prepared to accept the invitation to head the mission". "It was essential," he continued, to expand the mandate to include "the sustained rocket attack on civilians in southern Israel, as well as other facts." He set this expansion of the mandate as a condition for chairing the mission. 

The next day, he wrote in the New York Times "I accepted because the mandate of the mission was to look at all parties: Israel; Hamas, which controls Gaza; and other armed Palestinian groups." 

The UNHRC press release announcing his nomination documents the changed focus of the mission. Writing in The Spectator, commentator Melanie Phillips said that the resolution that created the mandate allowed no such change and questioned the validity and political motivations of the new mandate.

Israel thought that the change of the mandate did not have much practical effect. Israel refused to cooperate with the Goldstone Mission and denied its entry to Israel, while Hamas and Palestinian National Authority supported and assisted the Mission.

In January, months before the mission, Professor Christine Chinkin, one of the four mission members, signed a letter to the London Sunday Times, asserting that Israel's actions "amount to aggression, not self-defense" and that "the manner and scale of its operations in Gaza amount to an act of aggression and is contrary to international law". She authored the final report.

Israel concluded that "it seemed clear beyond any doubt that the initiative was motivated by a political agenda and not concern for human rights" and therefore refused to cooperate with it – in contrast to its policy to cooperate fully with most of the international inquiries into events in the Gaza Operation.

The mission report was published on 15 September 2009. As noted in the press release, the mission concluded "that serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law were committed by Israel in the context of its military operations in Gaza from December 27, 2008, to January 18, 2009, and that Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity. The Mission also found that Palestinian armed groups had committed war crimes, as well as possibly crimes against humanity."

Goldstone, however, explained that what he had headed was not an investigation, but a fact-finding mission. "If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven", Goldstone said, emphasizing that his conclusion that war crimes had been committed was always intended as conditional. Nevertheless, the report itself is replete with bold and declarative legal conclusions seemingly at odds with the cautious and conditional explanations of its author.

Reactions to the report's findings were varied. The report was not immediately ratified by a UNHRC resolution. This step was postponed to March 2010. This delay is attributed to diplomatic pressure from Western members of the council, including the US which joined in April 2009 and, surprisingly, from the Palestinian Authority representative. 

About the U.S. pressure, UNHRC representative Harold Hongju Koh described the U.S. participation to the council as "an experiment" with the Goldstone report being the first test.

The report was finally ratified by 14 October UNHRC resolution A/HRC/S-12/L.1. Like the January 12 resolution but unlike the report, this ratification condemns Israel, not Hamas. 

The "unbalanced focus" of the ratification was criticized by U.S. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly, U.S. ambassador to the UNHRC Douglas Griffiths and Richard Goldstone himself.

On 1 April 2011, Goldstone retracted his claim that it was Israeli government policy to deliberately target citizens, saying "If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document". 

On 14 April 2011 the three other co-authors of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict of 2008–2009, Hina Jilani, Christine Chinkin and Desmond Travers, released a joint statement criticizing Goldstone's recantation of this aspect of the report. They all agreed that the report was valid and that Israel and Hamas had failed to investigate alleged war crimes satisfactorily.

Commission of inquiry on the 2014 Gaza conflict:
See also: 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict

On 23 July 2014, during the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, the UNHRC adopted resolution S-21 for a commission of inquiry to "investigate all violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, in the context of the military operations conducted since 13 June 2014". 

The apparent anti-Israel bias in the mandate of the commission was denounced by Gregory J. Wallance in The Guardian and by the US, Canadian and Australian delegates to the UNHRC during the debate of the resolution.

​UNESCO:
Main article: UNESCO and Israel

UNESCO also adopts yearly resolutions for the preservation of the old Jerusalem, a UNESCO world heritage site included in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

In 2007, an emergency session of UNESCO was held to discuss Israeli archaeological excavations at the Mughrabi ascent in the Old City of Jerusalem. The session report said that the excavations were "a naked challenge by the Israeli occupation authorities" to the UN position on the status of Jerusalem. Following a fact-finding mission, Israel was exonerated of blame by the executive board. 

UNESCO never criticized repeated episodes of mechanized excavations within the Temple Mount ground by the Muslim Waqf, and is financing a museum within the al-Aqsa Mosque compound (the Temple Mount). The museum closed for non-Muslims in 2000 and this situation has not changed until the time of this note, June 2014.

2001 Durban conference against racism:
See also: World Conference against Racism 2001

During the World Conference against Racism held in Durban in 2001, the accusation that "Zionism is a form of racism" resurfaced.

In an editorial about the 2001 Durban's World Conference against Racism, Ronald Eissens of "I CARE" (Internet Centre Anti Racism Europe) wrote "All through the NGO Forum, there have been Antisemitic incidents.

The Arab Lawyers Union had a stall in the NGO exhibition tents displaying gross Antisemitic cartoons. Copies of the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion were being sold. When the ISC was asked to do something against the Antisemitic cartoons they decided that the cartoons were not racist but 'political'".

A similar scene was described by Anne Bayefsky The Qatar delegate said, according to official UN records: "the Israeli enmity towards the Palestinians, and its destruction of their properties and economy do not stem from its desire to subjugate them to the arrogance of power only, but also from its strong sense of superiority which relegates the Palestinians to an inferior position to them. Ironically enough, the Israeli security is sacred when balanced against the Palestinian security and all the Israeli heinous violations are justified as a means to bring back every Jew to a land that they raped from its legitimate owners and denied them their right to claim it back."

In a 2002 interview with the BBC, Mary Robinson said that some good came out of the conference, "but I also admit that it was an extremely difficult conference. That there was horrible anti-Semitism present – particularly in some of the NGO discussions. A number people came to me and said they've never been so hurt or so harassed or been so blatantly faced with an anti-Semitism."

Navanethem Pillay, the current United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, published in 2008 a similar opinion of the event.

2009 Durban Review conference:
See also: Durban Review Conference

The April 2009 Durban Review Conference held in Geneva, was boycotted by nine western countries. During an official speech at this conference, Iran president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the following:
"some powerful countries (...) under the pretext of protecting the Jews they made a nation homeless with military expeditions and invasion. They transferred various groups of people from America, Europe and other countries to this land. They established a completely racist government in the occupied Palestinian territories. And in fact, under the pretext of making up for damages resulting from racism in Europe, they established the most aggressive, racist country in another territory, i.e. Palestine. The Security Council endorsed this usurper regime and for 60 years constantly defended it and let it commit any kind of crime.(...) The global Zionism is the complete symbol of racism, which with unreal reliance on religion has tried to misuse the religious beliefs of some unaware people and hide its ugly face."

During his speech, all European representatives walked out. The outcome document makes no reference to Israel or Palestinians.

Resolution 3379:

The 1975 Resolution 3379, which determined that "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination" was revoked by Resolution 4686 in 1991. Twenty-five states voted against this revocation, twenty-one of which have predominantly Muslim inhabitants.

During the first-ever conference on antisemitism at the UN, in 2004, Kofi Annan said that the UN record on antisemitism had sometimes fallen short of the institution's ideals, and that he was glad that the "especially unfortunate" 1975 General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with racism had been rescinded.

The "Zionism is a form of racism" concept reappeared in 2001 World Conference against Racism in Durban. Zouheir Hamdan (Lebanon) claimed that "One (Israeli) minister described the Palestinians as serpents, and said they reproduced like ants. Another minister proposed that Palestinians in Israel be marked with yellow cards". 

A draft resolution denounced the emergence of "movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas, in particular the Zionist movement, which is based on racial superiority.". The draft was removed following the departure of the US and Canadian delegates.

General Assembly President Father Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann repeated the accusation in a speech during the 2008 International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.

On January 24, 2008, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour welcomed the entry into force of the Arab Charter on Human Rights which states: "Article 2(3) All forms of racism, Zionism and foreign occupation and domination constitute an impediment to human dignity and a major barrier to the exercise of the fundamental rights of peoples; all such practices must be condemned and efforts must be deployed for their elimination."

Arbour subsequently distanced herself from some aspects of the charter. The charter is listed in the web site of her office, among texts adopted by international groups aimed at promoting and consolidating democracy

Direct involvement of UN personnel in conflict:

There have been occasional reports of UN personnel becoming caught up in hostilities.
Indian peacekeepers of the UNIFIL peace mission in Southern Lebanon were accused of complicity in the 2000 Hezbollah cross-border raid, in which three Israel Engineering Corps soldiers were killed and their bodies captured after Hezbollah fighters infiltrated into Israel. 

According to the Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv, Hezbollah bribed several Indian troops with hundreds of thousands of dollars in return for participating in the kidnapping and secretly negotiated with them to make sure that they would participate. Israeli investigators who were sent to India to question the suspected soldiers were told that Hezbollah had paid them large sums of money for their cooperation.

On November 22, 2002, during a gun battle between the IDF and Islamic Jihad militants, Iain Hook, UNRWA project manager of the Jenin camp rehabilitation project, was killed by Israeli gunfire. A soldier had reportedly mistaken him for a militant and a cellphone in his hand for a gun or grenade.

On May 11, 2004, Israel said that a UN ambulance had been used by Palestinian militants for their getaway following a military engagement in Southern Gaza,

In 2004, Israel complained about comments made by Peter Hansen, head of UNRWA. Hansen had said that there were Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll, and that he did not see that as a crime, they were not necessarily militants, and had to follow UN rules on staying neutral.

On July 26, 2006, Israeli aircraft and artillery attacked a well-marked, long-standing UNIFIL position, killing four UNIFIL peacekeepers. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called the bombing "deliberate", while Israel claimed that Hezbollah had fighters that fired from the vicinity of that position, and had sheltered near it to avoid an Israeli counterstrike.

In 2008, the Israeli Defense Ministry accused UNIFIL of intentionally concealing information to the Security Council about Hezbollah military activity south of the Litani river, in violation of its mandate.

In January 2009 during the Gaza War, a number of people were killed by Israeli bombing outside a school run by the UNRWA; the number and identity of victims is disputed (see Al-Fakhura school incident for details.) Initially, the UN accused Israel of directly bombing the school. Maxwell Gaylord, the UN humanitarian co-ordinator for the Palestinian territories, described the incidents as tragic. Israel claims that a Hamas squad was firing mortar shells from the immediate vicinity of the school. Hamas denies this claim.

In February 2009, Gaylord said that the UN "would like to clarify that the shelling and all of the fatalities took place outside and not inside the school". The headquarters of the UNRWA in Gaza was also shelled on January 15. Tons of food and fuel were destroyed. Israel claims that militants ran for safety inside the UN compound after firing on Israeli forces from outside. UNRWA spokesman Chris Gunness dismissed the Israeli claims as "baseless".

In March 2012, UN official Khulood Badawi, an Information and Media Coordinator for the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, tweeted a picture of a Palestinian child covered in blood captioned the picture with "Another child killed by #Israel... Another father carrying his child to a grave in #Gaza."

It was later stated that the picture was published in 2006 and was of a Palestinian girl who had died in an accident unrelated to Israel. Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations Ron Prosor called for her dismissal, stating that she was "directly engaged in spreading misinformation". He accused her conduct as deviating from "the organization's responsibility to remain impartial" and said that such actions "contribute to incitement, conflict and, ultimately, violence."

She later tweeted that she mistakenly had tweeted an old photo. Ma'an News Agency reported a week later that the hospital medical report on the dead girl read that she died "due to falling from a high area during the Israeli strike on Gaza". There are differing accounts of how the Israeli air strike, reported to be as little as 100 meters away, may have caused the accident.

Cooperation with UN missions:

In December 2008, Israel detained Richard Falk, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory, and denied him transit to West Bank on his official mission.

On 30 August 2022, outgoing UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet said "In 2020, the 15 international staff of my Office in Palestine – which has been operating in the country for 26 years – had no choice but to leave. Subsequent requests for visas and visa renewals have gone unanswered for two years. During this time, I have tried to find a solution to this situation, but Israel continues to refuse to engage."

She went on to say "Israel’s treatment of our staff is part of a wider and worrying trend to block human rights access to the occupied Palestinian territory. This raises the question of what exactly the Israeli authorities are trying to hide." The Israeli mission to the UN in Geneva accused her office of being a "mouthpiece for Palestinian Authority."

See also: ___________________________________________________________________________

The 2023 Israeli-Hamas War
The map below displays areas of Israel and surrounding arab countries as they have been impacted by this war currently underway (November 1, 2023)

​An armed conflict between Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups and Israeli military forces began on 7 October 2023, with a Hamas attack on southern Israel that killed 1,400 Israelis and took 200 others hostage in a single day. 

Israeli military forces retaliated with extensive strikes against targets in the Gaza Strip. By the end of October more than 1,500 Israelis and more than 8,000 Gazans had been killed, including more than 3,000 children. In return, Israel launched an invasion of Gaza. The war was described by UNICEF as a “graveyard” for children.

The Hamas attack began in the morning of 7 October with a barrage of over 5,000 rockets launched from the Gaza Strip against Israel, while some 3,000 Palestinian militants breached the Gaza–Israel barrier, killing civilians in over a dozen massacres and setting fire to their homes, and attacking Israel Defense Forces (IDF) military bases near the Gaza Strip.

At least 44 nations, mostly Western, characterized the surprise incursion as a terrorist attack. Meanwhile, Hamas declared that its attack was a retaliation to the "desecration of the Al-Aqsa Mosque," the Gaza Strip blockade, Israeli settlements and settler aggression.

The current war, the fiercest since the Yom Kippur War, is the fifth war in the Gaza strip, and part of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. In 2023, before the offensive started, an uptick in Israeli–Palestinian violence saw at least 247 Palestinians, 32 Israelis and two foreigners killed.

According to the Israeli government, over 1,400 Israelis and foreigners, mostly civilians, were killed on October 7, including 260 people at a music festival in Re'im. Over 200 civilians and captured Israeli soldiers were taken as hostages to the Gaza Strip. After clearing Hamas forces from southern Israel, the IDF conducted airstrikes in the Gaza Strip. 

According to the Gaza Health Ministry, as of 31 October over 8,500 Palestinians had been killed, mostly civilians, including more than 50 UNRWA staff. A total of 6,000 bombs were dropped by Israel during the first six days of the conflict, double the number of bombs employed by a US-led coalition against ISIS over one month.

There has been widespread killing of civilians, and human rights groups and a panel of United Nations special rapporteurs have accused both Israel and Hamas of war crimes. 

Fears of a humanitarian crisis were heightened on 11 October, after Israel announced it would cut off food, water, electricity, and fuel supplies to Gaza, on top of the existing blockade by both Egypt and Israel. Israel urged 1.1 million Gazans to evacuate northern Gaza, while Hamas called on residents to stay in their homes and, according to the IDF, blocked roads leading south. The UN reported that around a million Palestinians, nearly half of Gaza's population, have been internally displaced.

A vote at the UN General Assembly on 27 October saw an overwhelming majority of nations calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. On 28 October, when Israel began its ground invasion of Gaza, aid agencies renewed warnings of an unfolding humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza.


Background:
See also: Israeli–Palestinian conflict and Gaza–Israel conflict

The attack took place during the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah on Shabbat, and a day after the 50th anniversary of the start of the Yom Kippur War, which also began with a surprise attack.

Israeli politics:
See also: 2023 Israeli judicial reform protests

Benjamin Netanyahu had been Israel's prime minister for most of the two decades preceding the war, and was criticized for having championed a policy of empowering Hamas in Gaza.

He has been accused of doing this to sabotage a two-state solution by confining the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority to the West Bank and weakening it, and to demonstrate to the Israeli public and western governments that Israel has no partner for peace. 

This criticism was leveled by several Israeli officials, including former prime minister Ehud Barak, and former head of Shin Bet security services Yuval Diskin. Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority were also critical of Israel under Netanyahu allowing suitcases of Qatari money to be given to Hamas, in exchange for maintaining the ceasefire. 

A Times of Israel op-ed argued after the Hamas attack that Netanyahu's policy to treat the Palestinian Authority as a burden and Hamas as an asset had "blown up in our faces".
After Hamas's attack in 2023, Netanyahu proposed an emergency unity government, with the judicial overhaul and all other non-emergency legislation and policy indefinitely suspended.

An Israeli war cabinet was formed on 11 October, including opposition lawmakers such as Benny Gantz, the former minister of defense and former chief of the General Staff.

Palestinian politics:

The Gaza Strip and Israel have been in conflict since the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian legislative election, and a civil war between Hamas and Fatah in 2007 culminated in Hamas gaining control over Gaza. 

In response to Hamas's takeover, Egypt and Israel imposed an extensive blockade of the Gaza Strip that devastated Gaza's economy. International rights groups have decried the blockade as a form of collective punishment, while Israel defended it as necessary to prevent weapons and dual-use goods from entering the territory. 

Since the blockade, Israel and Palestinian militants have had several clashes and made preemptive attacks on each other. The Palestinian Authority has not held national elections since 2006. 

A March 2023 poll of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank indicated that a majority supported the use of "armed struggle", the creation of "militant groups", and an intifada against the Israeli occupation.

Hamas leadership:
Further information: Governance of the Gaza Strip

According to Israeli security scholar, Ely Karmon of Reichmann University, Hamas leadership decided in May 2021 during the Temple riots to position itself as the defender of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy city of Jerusalem. Ismail Haniyeh is a prominent figure associated with Hamas. He serves as the group's political leader and has been based abroad since 2019, with an unknown location.

Haniyeh previously worked closely with Hamas's founder, Ahmed Yassin, who was killed in an airstrike in 2004. Haniyeh was elected as the head of Hamas's political bureau in 2017 and was reelected in 2021.

In 2018, the U.S. State Department designated Haniyeh as a terrorist due to his close ties to Hamas' military wing and advocacy for armed struggle, including against civilians. Mohammed Deif, the commander of the military wing of Hamas, has a history of audacious and deadly attacks against Israel.

He is known for his ability to outwit the Israeli military, such as by adapting to Israeli military advancements by deploying low-tech responses, and operate with a long-term perspective, including holding Israeli hostages to create public pressure over time. Deif's background and personal details are largely shrouded in mystery, and he operates from the shadows of Palestinian militancy.

According to Michael Milshtein, an expert on Palestinian affairs from Reichmann University, the leader of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Yahya Sinwar, is motivated primarily by apocalyptic thinking, where "[his] and all other Palestinian lives are in one long journey towards... freeing Jerusalem, Al-Aqsa, [and] eradicating Israel". 

Milshtein concludes that offering "Western" rationales for these actions is out of place: "[that] it's meant to hinder normalization with Saudi Arabia, or improve economic realities - these are all causes, not reasons. The action itself is the reason - the Jihad [and] destabilizing Israeli society - that's what's important."

Gaza tunnels:

The tunnel network serves Hamas for storage, movement, and command. Hamas used hardwired phone lines within the tunnels for covert communication over two years, evading Israeli intelligence. 

The construction of these tunnels was a significant, multi-year effort involving Palestinian workers. Hamas initially began building its vast underground network of tunnels for smuggling in 2001, but they have since become multi-functionable. In 2014, Hamas employed 900 people for tunnel construction, funding came from commercial schemes with contributions from Iran and North Korea.

2023 local escalation:
See also: 
Over the course of 2023, before the attack, at least 247 Palestinians had been killed by Israeli forces, while 32 Israelis and two foreign nationals had been killed in Palestinian attacks. 

Increases in settler attacks had displaced hundreds of Palestinians, and there were clashes around the Al-Aqsa Mosque, a contested holy site in Jerusalem.
Tensions between Israel and Hamas rose in September 2023, and the Washington Post described the two "on the brink of war". Israel found explosives hidden in a shipment of jeans and halted all exports from Gaza. 

In response, Hamas put its forces on high alert, and conducted military exercises with other groups, including openly practicing storming Israeli settlements. Hamas also allowed Palestinians to resume protests at the Israel-Gaza barrier. On 13 September, five Palestinians were killed at the border.

According to The Washington Post, Palestinians were attempting to detonate the device, whereas Al-Jazeera reported that a Palestinian Explosives Engineering Unit was working to deactivate the device. On 29 September, Qatar, the UN, and Egypt mediated an agreement between Israel and Hamas officials in the Gaza Strip to reopen closed crossing points and deescalate tensions.

Egypt said it warned Israel days before the attack that "an explosion of the situation is coming, and very soon, and it would be big". Israel denied receiving such a warning, but the Egyptian claim was corroborated by Michael McCaul, Chairman of the US House Foreign Relations Committee, who said warnings were made three days before the attack.

Iranian role and the Israel–Saudi normalization talks:

According to US intelligence reports, approximately 500 militants from Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, received specialized combat training in Iran. The training was conducted by officers from the Quds Force, the foreign-operations arm of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Senior Palestinian officials and Iranian Brig. Gen. Esmail Qaani, the head of Quds Force, were also in attendance.

At the time of the attack, Israel and Saudi Arabia were conducting negotiations to normalize relations. Saudi Arabian crown prince Mohammed bin Salman said normalization was "for the first time real". Saudi Arabia's Foreign Ministry said it had "repeatedly warned that Israel's ongoing occupation of Gaza would propel further violence". 

Following the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état in which military general Abdel Fattah el-Sisi deposed president Mohamed Morsi, Egypt–Hamas relations soured, with Egypt suggesting that ties between Hamas and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood could pose a national security threat.

Historical context:
Main articles: 
​In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew its troops and citizens from the Gaza Strip, aiming to lessen its direct control over the area. The United Nations and several human rights organizations continued to classify Gaza as held under Israeli occupation, due to its effective military control over the territory. 

However, in 2007, Hamas seized control of Gaza by force, escalating tensions. Israel imposed a blockade, while Hamas tunneled under the border wall to launch cross-border attacks and fired rockets into Israeli territory. This led to multiple conflicts, escalating into outright wars. Israel relied on the Iron Dome rocket defense system for defense, and responded with targeted strikes into Gaza, aiming to minimize the militant threat.

The Associated Press wrote that Palestinians are "in despair over a never-ending occupation in the West Bank and suffocating blockade of Gaza". In 2023 UNRWA statistics for Gaza reported 81% of people living below the poverty level, and 63% being food insecure and dependent on international assistance. 

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported roughly 6,400 Palestinians and 300 Israelis killed in the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, from 2008 through September 2023, before the start of this war.

Prior to the attack, Saudi Arabia warned Israel of an "explosion" as a result of the continued occupation, Egypt had warned of a catastrophe unless there was political progress, and similar warnings were given by Palestinian Authority officials. Less than two months before the attacks, King Abdullah II of Jordan lamented that Palestinians have "no civil rights; no freedom of mobility".

Simon Tisdall pointed to the uptick in Israeli–Palestinian violence in 2023 as portending war, and claimed that Netanyahu refused to negotiate for peace, adding fuel to the fire, and ignoring the rights of Palestinians.

Iranian officials publicly boasted for years about their role in arming militants in Gaza, and a 2020 U.S. State Department report said Iran funnels $100 million a year to Hamas.

According to an analysis in The Independent, the Gaza blockade created hopelessness among Palestinians, which was exploited by Hamas, convincing young Palestinian men that violence was the only solution. Daoud Kuttab wrote that Palestinian attempts to solve the conflict via negotiations or non-violent boycotts have been fruitless. 

For The Times of Israel, Tal Schneider wrote: "For years, the various governments led by Benjamin Netanyahu took an approach that divided power between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank—bringing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to his knees while making moves that propped up the Hamas terror group. The idea was to prevent Abbas—or anyone else in the Palestinian Authority's West Bank government—from advancing toward the establishment of a Palestinian state."

Hamas said its attack was in response to the blockade on Gaza, continued settlements, Israeli settler violence, and restrictions on movement between Israel and Gaza. Following the attack, American counterterrorism analyst Bruce Hoffman pointed to the 1988 Hamas Charter, alleging that Hamas had always had "genocidal" intentions and that it had no intentions for "moderation, restraint, negotiation, and the building of pathways to peace". 

Michael Milshtein, head of the Palestinian Studies Forum at Tel Aviv University and a former Israeli military intelligence officer, argued that the attacks were "part of the long-term vision of Hamas to eradicate Israel" and that "Hamas is not ready at all to give up on the jihad".


Events:
Hamas attack:
Main article: 2023 Hamas attack on Israel
See also: Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel

​At around 6:30 a.m. IDT (UTC+3) on 7 October 2023, Hamas announced the start of what it called "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood", stating it had fired over 5,000 rockets from the Gaza Strip into Israel within a span of 20 minutes. Israeli sources reported that at least 3,000 projectiles had been launched from Gaza.

At least five people were killed by the rocket attacks. Explosions were reported in areas surrounding the Strip and in cities in the Sharon Plain including Gedera, Herzliyya, Tel Aviv, and Ashkelon. 

Air raid sirens were activated in: 
Hamas issued a call to arms, with commander Mohammad Deif calling on "Muslims everywhere to launch an attack" and to "kill them [the enemy] wherever you may find them".

Hamas employed tactics such as using aerial drones to disable Israeli observation posts, paragliders for infiltration into Israel, and motorcycles, which was unusual for Hamas.

Palestinian militants opened fire on Israeli boats, while clashes broke out between Palestinians and the Israel Defense Forces along the Gaza perimeter fence. 

In the evening, Hamas launched another barrage of 150 rockets towards Israel, with explosions reported in: 
Simultaneously, around 3,000 Hamas militants infiltrated Israel from Gaza using:
  • trucks,
  • pickup trucks,
  • motorcycles,
  • bulldozers,
  • speedboats,
  • and paragliders.

They took over checkpoints at Kerem Shalom and Erez, and created openings in the border fence in five other places. 

Initial images and videos showed heavily armed and masked militants in black fatigues riding pickup trucks and opening fire in Sderot, killing dozens of Israeli civilians and soldiers.

Other videos appeared to show Israelis taken prisoner, a burning Israeli tank, and militants driving Israeli military vehicles.

Massacres and attacks on civilians:
​Militants killed civilians at Nir Oz, Be'eri, and Netiv HaAsara, where they took hostages and set fire to homes, as well as in other agricultural communities. 

Over 200 civilians were killed in the: Kfar Aza massacre, 108 in the Be'eri massacre (a loss of 10% of the kibbutz's population) and 15 in the Netiv HaAsara massacre, in what has been described as the bloodiest day in Israel's history and the worst single-day massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.

In Sderot, gunmen targeted civilians and set houses ablaze. In Ofakim, hostages were taken during Hamas's deepest incursion. Hamas said it took prisoners to force Israel to release Palestinian prisoners. 

In Be'eri, Hamas militants took up to 50 people hostage. During a stand-off between militants and IDF, videos from Be'eri showed hostages being led barefoot across a street in town. 

Hamas also massacred 260 and injured many more at an outdoor music festival near Re'im and took attendees hostage. Witnesses recounted militants on motorcycles opening fire on participants who were already fleeing due to rocket fire.

Graeme Wood reported that the video footage retrieved from the body cameras of Hamas militants displayed several victims "in the beginning of the footage they are alive, by the end they're dead. Sometimes, in fact frequently, after their death their bodies are still being desecrated."

At least 200 people were taken hostage during the attacks, mostly civilians. Captives in Gaza include children, festival-goers, peace activists, caregivers, elderly people, and soldiers.

An Israeli spokesman said militants had entered Israel through at least seven locations from both land and sea, and invaded four small rural Israeli communities, the border city of Sderot, and two military bases. 

Israeli media reported that seven communities came under Hamas control, including Nahal Oz, Kfar Aza, Magen, Be'eri, and Sufa, and there were 21 active high-confrontation locations in southern Israel.

Attacks on military bases:
Further information: Battle of Re'im and Battle of Zikim

Hamas militants carried out an amphibious landing in Zikim. A military base near Nahal Oz was also taken by the militants, leaving at least two Israeli soldiers dead and six others captured. The IDF said it killed two attackers on the beach and destroyed four vessels, including two rubber boats.

Fighting was reported at Re'im military base, headquarters of Israel's Gaza Division. It was later reported that Hamas took control of the base and took several Israeli soldiers captive, before the IDF regained control later in the day. 

The police station of Sderot came under Hamas control, with militants killing 30 Israelis, including policemen and civilians.

Israeli counterattack:
​
The initial attack coincided with the Jewish holidays of Sukkot and Simchat Torah, and appeared to have been a complete surprise to the Israelis. Prime Minister Netanyahu convened an emergency gathering of security authorities, and the IDF launched Operation Swords of Iron in the Gaza Strip. 

In a televised broadcast, Netanyahu said, "We are at war". He threatened to "turn all the places where Hamas is organized and hiding into cities of ruins", called Gaza "the city of evil", and urged its residents to leave. Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant conducted security assessments at IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv.

Overnight, Israel's Security Cabinet voted to act to bring about the "destruction of the military and governmental capabilities of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad".

The Israel Electric Corporation, which supplies 80% of the Gaza Strip's electricity, cut off power to the area. This reduced Gaza's power supply from 120 MW to 20 MW, provided by power plants paid for by the Palestinian Authority.

The IDF declared a "state of readiness for war", mobilized tens of thousands of army reservists, and declared a state of emergency for areas within 80 kilometers (50 mi) of Gaza. The Yamam counterterrorism unit was deployed, along with four new divisions, augmenting 31 existing battalions. Reservists were reported deployed in Gaza, in the West Bank, and along borders with Lebanon and Syria.

Residents near Gaza were asked to stay inside, while civilians in southern and central Israel were "required to stay next to shelters". The southern region of Israel was closed to civilian movement, and roads were closed around Gaza and Tel Aviv. 

While Ben Gurion Airport and Ramon Airport remained operational, multiple airlines cancelled flights to and from Israel. Israel Railways suspended service in parts of the country and replaced some routes with temporary bus routes, while cruise ships removed the ports of Ashdod and Haifa from their itineraries.

Defense Minister Gallant told a Knesset committee that the war would have three main phases. A first phase involving airstrikes and a ground maneuver to "destroy operatives and damage infrastructure to defeat and destroy Hamas", a second phase eliminating pockets of resistance, and a third creating "a new security regime" in the Gaza Strip and surrounding area. 

Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen stated that "the territory of Gaza will … decrease" after the war, leading to speculation that parts of Gaza may be annexed or a buffer zone established.

7 October:

The IDF announced attacks in Gaza using fighter jets, targeting 17 Hamas military compounds and four command centers. The operation included strikes on the 11-story Palestine Tower in Gaza City. The IDF believed the building housed a Hamas intelligence unit, equipped with advanced electronic warfare devices for disrupting the GPS reception of Israeli smart bombs and Iron Dome counter-rocket defenses. 

According to Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), the IDF also struck two hospitals, killing an ambulance driver and a nurse. Yasmin Porat, one of the hostages taken by Hamas, stated that Israeli civilians were 'undoubtedly' killed by their own security forces in the heavy crossfire. She said, 'They eliminated everyone, including the hostages. 

8 October:

By the morning, Israel had struck 426 Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip. 

The town of Beit Hanoun was mostly leveled by airstrikes, and the Al-Amin Muhammad Mosque was destroyed. Targets included housing blocks, tunnels, homes of Hamas officials, and the Watan Tower, a hub for internet providers in the area. One Israeli airstrike killed 19 members of the same family (including women and children); survivors of the strike said there were no militants in their area, nor were they warned.

Approximately 18 hours after the stand-off began, the IDF announced they had freed the hostages in Be'eri. In Urim, a suburb of Ofakim, two Israelis were rescued by the IDF. Four Hamas militants were killed, and three Israeli soldiers were injured during the rescue.

Another Hamas rocket barrage was launched in the morning, with one rocket hitting the Barzilai Medical Center in Ashkelon. Hamas also fired 100 rockets at Sderot. The DFLP said that they were engaged with Israeli forces in Kfar Aza, Be'eri, and Kissufim.

The Israeli government's State Security Cabinet formally placed the country under a state of war for the first time since the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The IDF said two hostage situations had been "resolved", and recaptured Sderot police station, killing ten Hamas militants. They secured 22 locations from Palestinian forces but were still trying to clear eight others, including the rest of Sderot and Kfar Aza.

In one community, they rescued 50 hostages. Several Palestinian gunmen riding in a stolen car were killed in a shootout near Ashkelon. More Palestinian militants entered Magen, and 70 Palestinian reinforcements arrived at Be'eri.

Residents near Gaza were ordered to evacuate. Former brigadier general Gal Hirsch was appointed to lead recovery of missing and kidnapped citizens. The IDF called in up to 300,000 reservists, and said it aimed to eliminate Hamas's military and overthrow its rule in Gaza.

The IDF imposed a lockdown on the West Bank.

9 October:
Further information:  ​
​The IDF struck 500 targets in the Gaza Strip overnight, including the densely populated Jabalia refugee camp, reportedly causing dozens of casualties, including children. 

IDF regained full control over Israeli towns bordering Gaza. Operations against militants continued in Sderot. Hamas said that it would execute Israeli hostages if Israel continued to bombard "civilian homes without advanced warning".

Defense Minister Gallant announced a "total" blockade of the Gaza Strip, cutting off electricity and blocking the entry of food and fuel, adding "We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly". Human Rights Watch called the order "abhorrent" and called on the International Criminal Court to make "note of this call to commit a war crime".

The IDF said 15 communities around the Gaza Strip had been evacuated. The Israeli Air Force deployed C-130 and C-130J transports across Europe to collect hundreds of off-duty IDF personnel to be deployed in the conflict.

Hamas fired another barrage of rockets towards Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, with one rocket landing near a terminal of Ben Gurion Airport.

10 October:

Israeli aircraft bombed the Hajj Tower in the Gaza Strip, which contained residences and offices for journalists, killing three journalists and injuring dozens.
​
Israeli forces reclaimed Kfar Aza and began collecting the dead, finding bodies of victims mutilated, with women and babies beheaded and burnt in their homes. The claims of beheaded babies has not been independently confirmed. The bodies of 40 babies and young children were taken out on gurneys, out of at least 100 civilian victims.

After issuing evacuation warnings to prevent loss of civilian lives, the IDF launched airstrikes at the al-Daraj and al-Furqan neighborhoods in Gaza, and the Port of Gaza. It attacked the al-Karama and Rimal neighborhoods of Gaza City, which hosted ministries of the Hamas-run government, universities, media organizations and aid agencies. 

Israeli warplanes also struck the Rafah border crossing linking Gaza and Egypt. The family residence of Mohammed Deif in Khan Younis was struck, killing his father, brother and at least two other relatives.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said that the ministry was purchasing 10,000 rifles to arm security teams in border communities, mixed Jewish-Arab cities, and West Bank settlements. He added that assault rifles, helmets, and bulletproof vests were being distributed.

Hamas militants attacked another industrial zone in Ashkelon, where at least three of them were killed. Rockets were fired at Tel Aviv and Ashkelon.

11 October:
​
Israeli warplanes struck and destroyed several buildings of the Islamic University of Gaza, saying that it had been turned into a weapons factory and training ground.

Israel formed an emergency war government, with Prime Minister Netanyahu, Defense Minister Gallant, and former Defense Minister Benny Gantz heading a war cabinet, with Gadi Eizenkot and Ron Dermer as observers.

Hamas fired rockets at Ashkelon. A rocket strike forced UK Foreign Secretary James Cleverly, who was visiting the town of Ofakim, to run for cover. One person was injured and four buildings were hit in a rocket attack on Sderot.

An Israeli airstrike killed four IFRC paramedics inside an ambulance.

The Gaza Strip's only power plant ran out of fuel, and all supplies of gas and other types of fuel were cut off by Israel's and Egypt's blockade.

Israel struck the Gaza City port with white phosphorus artillery projectiles.

12 October:

Israel said it bombed Hamas's elite Nukhba forces, their command centers, and the residence of a senior Hamas operative that it said stored weapons. Commanders from two smaller militant groups were also reported killed in airstrikes.

Four people were injured and seven houses were struck by a rocket attack in Sderot.
PFLP commander Awad "Abu Samud" Al-Sultan of the Abu Ali Mustapha Brigades was killed along with some of his family in an airstrike on the Jabaliya camp by the IDF. In retaliation, the Abu Ali Mustapha Brigades launched several rockets at Zakim military base.

A shooting took place in Jerusalem which injured at least 2 police officers, one seriously. The assailant was killed by Israeli police. The PFLP claimed responsibility for the shooting.

Israeli Minister of Energy and Infrastructure Israel Katz said that lifting of the Gaza blockade would not occur until the hostages abducted by Hamas were safely returned home.

13 October:
Further information: ​
Early in the day, the IDF issued evacuation warnings for communities north of the Wadi Gaza, including Gaza City, instructing people to move south within 24 hours. The evacuation of northern Gaza would involve the displacement of 1.1 million Palestinians, and was deemed impossible by the UN, who warned of "devastating humanitarian consequences". 

Shortly after the evacuation orders, UN facilities, including UNRWA, were instructed to move to Rafah. The Hamas Authority for Refugee Affairs responded by telling residents in northern Gaza to "remain steadfast in your homes and stand firm in the face of this disgusting psychological war waged by the occupation".

Doctors Without Borders issued a statement calling the order to evacuate "outrageous" and "an attack on medical care and on humanity", and condemned the Israeli order "in the strongest possible terms". An OHCHR expert demanded that Israel immediately rescind its order, condemning the evacuation order as a crime against humanity and a blatant violation of international humanitarian law.

Paula Gaviria Betancur, Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons, said that "forcible population transfers constitute a crime against humanity, and collective punishment is prohibited under international humanitarian law". 

The World Health Organisation released a plea "appealing to Israel to immediately rescind orders for the evacuation of over 1 million people living north of Wadi Gaza" arguing that it's extremely difficult to move patients in critical care, medical supplies are depleting and hospitals in south Gaza were "already beyond capacity". Similar statements were issued by UNICEF and the IRC.

Israeli Defense Minister Gallant called on Palestinians to leave northern Gaza, including Gaza City, saying: "The camouflage of the terrorists is the civil population. Therefore, we need to separate them. So those who want to save their life, please go south."

The IDF said it made localized raids into Gaza, attacking Hamas and searching for hostages.

NBC News reported on "top secret" Hamas documents with plans to target elementary schools and a youth center in Sa'ad, to "kill as many people as possible", take hostages, and move them into the Gaza Strip. The plans were provided to NBC by "Israeli first responders".

The International Committee of the Red Cross issued a rare public appeal for a pause in hostilities, saying that while "nothing can justify the horrific attacks Israel suffered last weekend" that "those attacks cannot in turn justify the limitless destruction of Gaza", and that Israeli orders to evacuate northern Gaza along with the total siege on the territory were "not compatible with international humanitarian law".

The IDF announced a six-hour window from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. local time for refugees to flee south along specified routes within the Gaza Strip. An explosion at 5:30 p.m. along one of the safe routes killed 70, including women and children. Some sources attributed it to an IDF airstrike, while CNN said the cause was unclear.

The Jerusalem Post said open-source analysts believed the explosion originated from a car on the ground, but the cause was unclear. 

The Financial Times carried out an investigation, concluding "analysis of the video footage rules out most explanations aside from an Israeli strike", although it was "difficult to conclusively prove whether these blasts came from an IDF strike, a potential Palestinian rocket misfire or even a car bomb". 

Former US army officer Wesley Clark told CNN he would be "very surprised if that would be an Israeli explosion… It looks like something engineered by Hamas to intimidate its own people", and added Hamas was making efforts to impede the evacuation of Palestinian civilians, employing human shield tactics, and obstructing the exit of Americans from the strip via the Egyptian border.

The IDF stated Hamas set up road blocks to keep Gaza residents from evacuating south and cause traffic jams.

The Palestine Ministry of Health announced that al-Durrah Children's Hospital in eastern Gaza was evacuated after it said it was targeted by white phosphorus munitions. Israel denied that it had used such munitions.

The Israeli Intelligence Ministry drafted a ten-page paper, "Policy paper: Options for a policy regarding Gaza's civilian population", which suggested forcibly transferring Gaza's 2.3 million residents to the Sinai Peninsula; the report was leaked to the media two weeks later.

Second week (14–20 October):
Further information: ​
On 14 October, the IDF said it had killed Hamas's head of aerial operations Murad Abu Murad in an overnight airstrike.

Israeli minister Gideon Sa'ar told Channel 12 News that Gaza "must be smaller at the end of the war" and that "there should be an area that is classified as a security zone where whoever enters is intercepted". He added: "We must make the end of our campaign clear to everyone around us. Whoever starts a war against Israel must lose territory."

On 15 October, Israeli ambassador to the US Michael Herzog said Israel was "in the process of establishing … a big humanitarian zone in the southern part of Gaza, with the UN" able to host hundreds of thousands of Gazans.

On 16 October, seven paramedics were killed in an Israeli airstrike on the headquarters of Civil Defense in Gaza City.

A spokesperson for Hamas said they are willing to release international hostages "the moment the conditions on the ground allow".

On 17 October, Israel bombed areas of southern Gaza. Ministry of Health officials in Gaza reported heavy overnight bombing in Khan Younis, Rafah and Deir el-Balah had killed over 70 people, including families who had evacuated from Gaza City in the north. 

On the same day, an airstrike killed a senior Hamas military commander Ayman Nofal.
An explosion occurred in the parking lot of the Al-Ahli Arabi Baptist Hospital in the center of Gaza City, burning some nearby vehicles. The cause of the explosion was disputed.

The Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry attributed it to an Israeli airstrike and claimed it killed at least 500 civilians in the hospital. This claim was denied by the IDF, who asserted that the explosion resulted from a failed rocket launch by Palestinian Islamic Jihad, targeting the Israeli city of Haifa. Israel released footage of a rocket appearing to change course and flame out, followed by an explosion in the city below.

The IDF also released what it claimed to be an intercepted phone conversation between Hamas militants acknowledging that the explosion was caused by a PIJ rocket. A PIJ spokesman denied any involvement.

On 18 October, President Biden said the Pentagon had independently concluded that the explosion was not caused by Israel, but by "the other team", based on data from the Defense Department. 

On-the-ground imagery taken after the blast showed minimal structural damage to the hospital and a shallow blast crater, inconsistent with an Israeli airstrike. The casualty figure reported by the Gaza Health Ministry was disputed by European, Israeli, and American estimates.

An Israeli strike hit a UNWRA school in the Al-Maghazi refugee camp, killing six and injuring 12.

The United States announced $100 million in aid to Gaza and the West Bank, and called for crossings to Gaza to be opened for aid.

On 19 October, Israel bombed a building in the complex of the Greek Orthodox Church of Saint Porphyrius, the oldest church in Gaza, killing at least 8 people and injuring "a large number". Later that day, a US warship intercepted several cruise missiles and drones that had been launched from Yemen, whose target was supposedly Israel.

On 20 October, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres visited the Rafah crossing. He called on Israel to open a "lifeline" of aid to Gaza, and defined the wandering and waiting of aid trucks as heartbreaking.

Two hostages with American citizenship were released at the border between Gaza and Israel.

Third week
(21–27 October)

On 21 October, a convoy of 20 aid trucks entered Gaza from Egypt through the Rafah crossing with medicine, medical equipment, and some food. 

According to an Al Jazeera reporter, Israeli attacks had left holes in the main road, slowing aid buses or trucks, and Egypt was trying to make the road functional again. The crossing was closed again as soon as the convoy passed through. The UN secretary general said that the people in Gaza need "much, much more" supplies.

On 23 October, Hamas released two elderly Israeli women. 85-year-old Yocheved Lifshitz said the following day she was beaten on her way across the border, but treated kindly by her captors in Gaza.

On 24 October, Gaza's health ministry reported that over 700 Palestinians were killed overnight, and that the health system in Gaza was in "total collapse". The United Nations pleaded with Israel to allow more aid into Gaza.

In remarks to the Security Council, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres expressed deep concern at "clear violations of international humanitarian law" in Gaza and also said that "It is important to also recognise the attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum.

The Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation", leading the Israeli ambassador Gilad Erdan to call for Guterres' resignation. Following this, Gueterres said that he was "shocked by the misrepresentations" of his statement, pointing out he had also said that "…the grievances of the Palestinian people cannot justify the appalling attacks by Hamas."

On 25 October, The New York Times published a video analysis casting doubt on the official Israeli and U.S. narrative on the al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion, saying a widely publicized video of an alleged Palestinian rocket breaking up in mid-air in fact showed the break-up of an Israeli rocket some miles away and was unrelated to the hospital incident.

Several members of the family of Al Jazeera Arabic's Gaza bureau chief Wael Dahdouh were killed in an Israeli airstrike on 25 October in the Nuseirat refugee camp, south of Wadi Gaza, where they had been sheltering after following the Israeli order for Palestinian civilians to move south from northern Gaza. Al Jazeera condemned the killings, calling it an "indiscriminate attack". 

Dahdouh, speaking to Al Jazeera, said "There is no safe place in Gaza at all". The Israeli army confirmed it had conducted an airstrike in the area near where Dahdouh's family had been sheltering, saying they were targeting "Hamas terrorist infrastructure".

On 26 October Shadi Barud, the Deputy Head of Hamas Intelligence directorate, was killed by an airstrike. According to IDF he was responsible for planning the attack of October 7.

On 27 October, the Palestinian Red Crescent reported that it had lost contact with its headquarters, disrupting Gazans' ability to contact emergency services.

Also on 27 October, the UN general assembly voted overwhelmingly for a resolution calling for an immediate humanitarian truce in Gaza and demanding aid access. The resolution attracted 121 votes in favor and 44 abstentions; 14 countries voted no, namely:
Invasion of Gaza Strip (27 October–present):
Main article: 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip
Further information: 31 October 2023 attack on Jabalia

On 27 October, internet and mobile phone services in Gaza were almost completely cut off as Israel intensified its bombing campaign. Following this, the IDF launched a large-scale ground incursion into the Gaza Strip. Clashes between Hamas and IDF were reported near the towns of Beit Hanoun and Bureij.

​On 28 October, Israel said that units deployed inside Gaza the previous night were still on the ground, marking the beginning of the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. Following the start of the invasion, Hamas Leader Ali Baraka said that the invading Israeli forces suffered heavy casualties and loss of equipment due to an ambush.

​On 29 October, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the head of the World Health Organization, described as "deeply concerning" reports from the Palestinian Red Crescent that the al-Quds hospital had received an urgent evacuation warning along with a notice that it was "going to be bombarded". He reiterated that it was "impossible to evacuate hospitals full of patients without endangering their lives." 

Israeli airstrikes targeted the area around the hospital, filling parts of the building with smoke and dust, prompting staff to give breathing masks to some patients. Around 14,000 civilians were believed to be sheltering in or near the hospital. The Associated Press reported that Israeli airstrikes also destroyed roads leading to the Al-Shifa hospital, making it increasingly difficult to reach.

Later in the day, Hamas claimed that Palestinian militants clashed with Israeli tanks in Salah al-Din Street in Gaza and forced them to retreat. The Institute for the Study of War also stated that Israel withdrew from the road.

US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said Israel should take great care to distinguish between Hamas terrorists and civilians, who were not legitimate targets; President Biden would call Prime Minister Netanyahu later that day to reiterate this. In addition, Netanyahu should "rein in" violence from extremist Jewish settlers in the West Bank. 

A prosecutor of the International Criminal Court visiting the Rafah crossing announced the court had "active investigations ongoing in relation to the crimes allegedly committed in Israel" on 7 October, as well as in Gaza and the West Bank dating back to 2014.

The Hostages and Missing Families Forum, an Israeli group representing the families of those taken hostage in Gaza, said that they supported a blanket release of all Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the return of all Israeli hostages held in Gaza. 

The leader of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Yahya Sinwar, said the group was prepared to release all Israeli hostages in return for the release of all Palestinian prisoners. The IDF spokesman dismissed the report as "psychological terror cynically used by Hamas to create pressure."

On 30 October, the IDF blocked the Salah al-Din Road, which is a major thoroughfare connecting the northern and southern parts of the Gaza Strip. Additionally, Israeli tanks were spotted in the Zeitoun neighborhood of Gaza City. Witnesses reported, and a video showed, an Israeli tank firing on a taxi with a white flag on its roof that had attempted to turn around.

An IDF spokesperson said they were "not shown any proof" that the vehicle was civilian, adding that "terrorists use civilian infrastructure like cars." The Gazan Health Ministry later said that three people had been killed.

On the same day heavy fighting occurred between the IDF and the Al-Qassam brigades alongside DFLP's National Resistance Brigades in northwest Gaza. The Al-Qassam brigades also used anti-tank missiles, and the National Resistance Brigades shelled Israeli vehicles and positions with high-caliber mortar fire.

On 31 October, the IDF bombarded the densely populated Jabalia refugee camp, killing at least 50 Palestinians and injuring at least 150; according to Israel, a senior Hamas commander and dozens of militants in a vast underground tunnel complex were among those killed. Hamas denied the presence of a senior commander. 

According to the IDF, the destruction of the tunnels caused the collapse of the foundations of several nearby buildings, leading to their collapse. Eyewitnesses interviewed by CNN and Der Spiegel spoke of "apocalyptic" scenes, with dozens of collapsed buildings, children carrying other injured children, and bodies lying in the rubble. 

The nearby Indonesian Hospital's surgical director said they had received 120 dead bodies and treated 280 wounded, the majority of them women and children. The attack was immediately condemned by the Egyptian, Saudi, Jordanian, and Qatari foreign ministries. 

Bolivia severed diplomatic relations with Israel, and Colombia, Chile and Jordan recalled their ambassadors. Josep Borrell Fontelles, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, wrote on the social media platform X: "I am appalled by the high number of casualties following the bombing by Israel of the Jabalia refugee camp."

On 1 November, the first group of evacuees left Gaza into Egypt. 500 evacuees, comprising critically wounded and foreign nationals would be evacuated over the course of several days, with 200 evacuees already waiting at the border crossing.


Other confrontations:

Israel–Lebanon border
Further information: 2023 Israel–Lebanon border clashes

On 8 October, Hezbollah fired rockets and shells at the Shebaa Farms region; in response the IDF fired artillery shells and sent a military drone into southern Lebanon.

On 9 October, the IDF claimed to have killed several infiltrators from Lebanon and fired artillery across the border. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad militia later claimed responsibility for the armed infiltration. 

Later in the day, renewed fighting between Hezbollah and Israeli troops resulted in the deaths of three Hezbollah gunmen and three IDF soldiers, including a senior officer. The IDF's Home Front Command ordered residents in 28 towns in northern Israel to seek refuge in bomb shelters. Artillery shelling was also reported from militants based in Syria.

On 10 October, Hezbollah fired an anti-tank guided missile at an Israeli military vehicle near Avivim, prompting a retaliatory Israeli helicopter strike. Shells from Syria struck Israeli positions in the Golan Heights, and Israeli forces returned fire.

On 13 October, the IDF fired artillery into southern Lebanon, after an explosion that caused minor damage to a section of the Israel-Lebanon border wall, near the kibbutz of Hanita. A Lebanese Reuters correspondent was killed and at least four other journalists were injured.

On 14 October, the IDF said it had killed three infiltrators from Lebanon in a drone strike near Margaliot. Later in the afternoon, Hezbollah shelled five IDF outposts in the occupied Shebaa Farms.

On 15 October, the headquarters of the United Nations peacekeeping force in south Lebanon (UNIFIL) in Naqoura was struck by a rocket. Hezbollah launched five anti-tank missiles towards northern Israel, killing one civilian and injuring 3 others in Shtula. 

Lieutenant Amitai Granot, commander of the 75th Battalion of the IDF's Golan Brigade and son of Rabbi Tamir Granot, was killed in a missile attack on an IDF post bordering Lebanon.

On 16 October, the IDF announced the evacuation of residents of settlements two kilometers away from the Lebanese border. In the afternoon, Hezbollah opened fire on IDF positions near the border and claimed to be destroying surveillance cameras on several Israeli Army posts, prompting the IDF to respond with artillery. In the evening, anti-tank missiles were fired at an IDF tank. The IDF responded with artillery.

On 17 October, an anti-tank missile from Lebanon landed in the Israeli town of Metula. The IDF said it had killed four would-be infiltrators along the Lebanese border. Lebanese state media reported that the village of Dhayra and other areas along the western section of the border came under "continuous" bombardment overnight.

Syria:
See also: 
On 12 October, Syria said Israel launched attacks on the international airports of both Damascus and Aleppo. The airports were temporarily closed.

On 14 October, Israeli aircraft bombed Aleppo Airport in Syria again, causing it to close.

On 22 October, Israeli aircraft struck Aleppo and Damascus airports again, knocking both out of service. Two workers from the Syrian meteorology service based in Damascus airport were killed.

On 24 October, Israeli airstrikes killed eight Syrian soldiers and wounded seven more in Daraa Governorate after two rockets were launched from Syria.

From 7 to 30 October, there were 23 attacks on US forces in Syria and Iraq, which were believed to be connected to the war.

West Bank:
Further information: 
Even before the war, 2023 was the deadliest year for Palestinians in 20 years. From 7 October to 31 October, B'tselem said that Israeli forces had killed more than 100 Palestinians while Israeli settlers had killed at least seven leading to fears that the situation will escalate out of control. 

About 1,000 Palestinians have been forcibly displaced by settlers since 7 October and almost half of clashes have included "Israeli forces accompanying or actively supporting Israeli settlers while carrying out the attacks" according to a U.N. report.

By 10 October, confrontations between rock-throwing Palestinians and Israeli forces had left 15 Palestinians dead, including two in East Jerusalem. 

On 11 October, Israeli settlers attacked the village of Qusra, killing four Palestinians. A 16-year-old was fatally shot by the IDF in Bani Naim, while another person was shot dead by the IDF near Bethlehem. 

On 12 October, two Palestinians were killed after Israeli settlers interrupted a funeral procession for Palestinians killed in prior settler attacks and opened fire.

On 18 October, protests broke out over the al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion, with clashes reported in Ramallah. In Jenin, a 12-year-old girl was shot dead by crossfire from Palestinian Authority security forces, and another youth was injured by PA forces in Tubas.

One Palestinian was killed in confrontations with Israeli forces in Nabi Saleh, and 30 others were injured across the West Bank. 

On 19 October, more than 60 Hamas members were arrested and 12 people were killed in overnight Israeli raids across the West Bank, including the movement's spokesperson in the West Bank, Hassan Yousef.

On 22 October, Israel struck the al-Ansar Mosque in Jenin, saying that it had killed several "terror operatives" from Hamas and Islamic Jihad who were planning attacks inside. 

Within a few days Ayser Mohammad Al-Amer, a senior commander of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad was killed during a clash with IDF in the Jenin refugee camp.

On November 1, Issa Amro stated the situation in the West Bank had become "very hard," noting, "All the checkpoints are closed. Israeli settlers and soldiers are acting violently with the Palestinians." The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs warned Israeli settler violence against Palestinians was on the rise.

Houthi involvement:

Several strikes against Israel are thought to have come from Iran-backed Houthi militants in Yemen. On 31 October, Houthi military spokesperson Yahya Saree said that the group had launched ballistic missiles and drones towards Israel, and that they would continue to do so "to help the Palestinians to victory" in an event that has been described as an effective declaration of war.


Casualties:
Main article: Casualties of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war
See also:
Civilians and soldiers​:

Around 1,400 Israelis and foreigners have been killed since 7 October, including 326 IDF soldiers, 10 Shin Bet agents and 58 police officers and at least 5,431 wounded. The casualties also include approximately 70 dead or missing Arab-Israeli citizens, many of whom are Negev Bedouin.

On 7 October there were massacres at 10+ different kibbutzim where civilians resided and at an outdoor dance music festival.

Over 260 attendees were killed at the psychedelic trance open-air "Supernova Sukkot Gathering" music festival near the Re'im kibbutz. It became the deadliest concert attack ever and the worst Israeli civilian massacre in its history. Over 100 civilians were killed in the Be'eri massacre, including children. At least 50–100 people have been reported killed in the Kfar Aza massacre, with the total death toll unknown. 

Many civilians were also killed in the Nahal Oz massacre. Nine people were fatally shot at a bus shelter in Sderot. At least four people were reported killed in Kuseife. At least 400 casualties were reported in Ashkelon, while 280 others were reported in Beer Sheva, 60 of which were in serious condition. 

In the north, injuries from rocket attacks were reported in Tel Aviv.

Hostages:
See also: Kidnappings during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war

About 200–250 people were taken hostage during the Israeli attacks, mostly civilians.

On 8 October, Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed to be holding at least 30 captives. At least four people were reported taken from Kfar Aza. 

Videos from Gaza appeared to show captured people, with Gazan residents cheering trucks carrying dead bodies. Israel reported four captives were killed in Be'eri, while Hamas indicated that an IDF airstrike on Gaza on 9 October killed four captives.

According to Israeli officials, once Israel begins a ground invasion of the Gaza Strip, it will be very difficult to reach an agreement on the release of the hostages.

Civilians believed to be held captive in Gaza include families, children, festival-goers, peace activists, caregivers, and elders such as 74-year-old Vivian Silver, a peace activist and former board member of the human rights organisation B'Tselem, who went missing following the attack on Be'eri. 

75-year-old historian Alex Dancyg, who has written books on Poland's Jewish community and the Holocaust, was taken from Nir Oz. Also at Nir Oz, six members of the Silberman-Bibas family were caught on video being taken from their home; on 11 October, Hamas released a video showing three of them being let go near the border fence. 

On 16 October, Hamas released a video of one of its hostages, a 21-year old French Israeli woman who had sustained injuries to her arm and a scar. On 20 October, Hamas released an American woman and her 17-year-old daughter who were taken while visiting relatives in Nahal Oz.

According to a report sent to the International Committee of the Red Cross by the Geneva-based organization Hostage and Missing Families Forum, hostages include people with: 
The above are those who are "in urgent need of treatment and lifesaving medication", and are "prone to immediate mortality [without] essential medications and treatment".

The report also expressed concern about untreated injuries induced during the attack.

An open letter published in The Lancet by a group of 1,500 Israeli health-care professionals expressed shock at "the greatest loss of civilian life since the establishment of the state of Israel", and the indiscriminate "barbaric rampage" through "entire villages in the south of Israel", which it termed a "crime against humanity".

The letter called on the international medical community to "condemn the savage massacre, to immediately call for guarantees for the safety and health of all those being kept hostage, and to unequivocally call for the immediate and unconditional return of our families and friends who have been cruelly taken hostage".

On 28 October, Al-Qassam Brigades spokesman Abu Obaida stated that they were "ready" to negotiate with Israel to resolve the hostage crisis. Obaida noted 50 hostages had so far been killed by Israeli airstrikes. 

Hamas’s leader in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, stated that they were "ready to conduct an immediate prisoner exchange deal that includes the release of all Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails in exchange for all prisoners held by the Palestinian resistance." 

In a meeting with Netanyahu, the families of the hostages demanded he agree to an "everyone for everyone" prisoner exchange. There are currently 5,000 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, including 170 children. Many have never faced trial and are jailed under Military Order 101 and Military Order 278, which deem civic activities including protesting and waving flags as "terrorism."

Journalists in Israel:
Main articles: 
Yaniv Zohar, a photographer for the Israel Hayom newspaper who was the first to cover the abduction of Gilad Shalit in 2006 for the Associated Press's Israel bureau, was killed along with his wife, two daughters and father-in-law in Hamas's attack on Kibbutz Nahal Oz on 7 October. His only son managed to escape. 

Yedioth Ahronoth photographer Roy Edan was killed along with his wife in Kfar Aza; two of their children were rescued after hiding in a closet but his three-year-old daughter is missing and is believed to have been taken to Gaza.

Shai Regev, an entertainment editor for the Maariv newspaper, was killed in the Re'im music festival massacre, as was Ayelet Arnin, a news editor for KAN.

Multiple attacks against Arab journalists were reportedly committed by Israeli police.

The Committee to Protect Journalists reported that on 7 October, a television crew from Sky News Arabia was assaulted, and their equipment damaged by police in Ashkelon, with correspondent Firas Lutfi saying that police aimed rifles at his head, forced him to undress and evicted them from the area under escort after confiscating their phones. 

A crew from BBC Arabic was stopped, held at gun point, and assaulted by police in Tel Aviv on the night of 13–14 October.

Migrant workers:

At least 50 migrant workers were killed due to Hamas's attack on 7 October and around 100,000 migrant workers are trapped in Israel during the conflict due to debt from huge fees they had to pay to recruitment agencies for getting jobs.


Palestine:

Gaza Strip:
​
The Gaza Strip suffered heavy civilian casualties from Israeli bombardment. Since the war began:
  • 8,525 Palestinians (including 3,542 children) have been killed,
  • 20,000 injured,
  • and 1,600 missing are under rubble, 
  • totaling over 30,000, which is about 1.3% of Gaza's 2.3 million people.

Within three weeks, the war became the bloodiest ever fought in Gaza’s history, eclipsing the combined death toll of the Second Intifada, Operation Cast Lead, and Operation Protective Edge.

There were reports of mass casualties resulting from an Israeli airstrike on the Jabalia Camp, where at least 50 people were killed. 

An Israeli airstrike at a United Nations school in the al-Maghazi refugee camp killed at least six people. 

Significant civilian casualties were reported following the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion. 

Other mass casualty strikes included the Church of Saint Porphyrius airstrike and the al-Shati refugee camp airstrike.

On 13 October, the Palestinian Ministry of Health noted 20 surnames had been removed from Gaza's civil registry, meaning every single person in that entire family had been killed. 

On 16 October, the UNRWA stated there were so many deaths in Gaza that there were no longer enough body bags. Because the morgues were so overcrowded, bodies were contained in ice cream trucks.

On 25 October, Qatar's Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani noted the death toll of children in Gaza had already exceeded the total number killed in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. (Ukraine's total civilian death toll was 9,614 as of 10 September 2023.) 

In a statement, UNICEF regional director Adele Khodr stated Gaza's child death toll was a "growing stain on our collective conscience". 

On 30 October, Save the Children reported more children had died in three weeks in Gaza than in the entire sum of conflicts around the world in the past four years. 

UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini briefed the UN Security Council, sharing the analysis by Save the Children.

West Bank:

In the West Bank, related violence during the conflict killed 61 Palestinians and wounded at least 300. Several thousand Gazan workers were in Israel at the time when the conflict started. As of 16 October some of them were detained at a "holding facility" in the West Bank while others sought refuge in the Palestinian communities of the West Bank. 

The Minister of Labour for the Palestinian Authority estimated 4,500 workers are unaccounted for while Israeli media outlet N12 reported 4,000 Gazans were in Israeli holding facilities. The Palestinian Prisoners Society said that Israeli forces had arrested over 1,450 West Bank Palestinians since October 7. 

On 29 October, thirty Israeli human rights organizations addressed settler violence in the West Bank, asking the international community to "act urgently" to end it.

On 30 October, the German government called on Israel to protect Palestinians in the West Bank. On 31 October, EU chief diplomat Josep Borrell "firmly condemned" settler attacks in the West Bank. Linda Thomas-Greenfield stated the United States was "deeply concerned," and condemned the killings of Palestinians in the West Bank.

Death toll:

On 25 October, US President Joe Biden stated he had "no confidence" in the death totals reported by the Gaza Health Ministry. In response, Human Rights Watch stated that after three decades working in Gaza and conducting its own investigation, it considers Gaza Health Ministry's totals to be reliable. 

Matthew Miller made a similar claim to Biden, despite the fact that the US Department of State cites the Gaza Health Ministry's death tolls in its own internal reports. On 26 October, the Gaza Health Ministry responded by releasing a 212-page document of 6,747 individual names and ID numbers, as well as 281 unidentified people who were killed.

Every death registered in Gaza is the result of a verified change in the population registry approved by the Government of Israel. The Israeli government notes that its "Population Registry Office works to update population registry files located on the Israeli side to match the files that are held" in the West Bank and Gaza. 

On 26 October, the United Nations humanitarian office added they use the Gaza Ministry of Health's death totals because they are "clearly sourced". Yara Asi, a professor at the University of Central Florida, called Biden's statement "appalling."

Journalists in Gaza:
At least six Palestinian journalists in Gaza were reported to have been killed by Israeli attacks while in the line of duty. Ibrahim Mohammad Lafi, a photographer for Ain Media, was fatally shot during the attack on the Erez crossing on 7 October, while Mohammad Jarghoun, a reporter with Smart Media, was killed east of Rafah on the same day.

Freelance journalist Mohammad el-Salhi was also shot dead on the border east of Bureij refugee camp on 7 October. On 9 October, Saeed al-Taweel, editor-in-chief of Al-Khamsa News website, Mohammed Subh and Hisham Alnwajha were killed by an airstrike while filming an anticipated attack in Gaza City.

Two other journalists were reported missing, and another was injured by shrapnel. The homes of two journalists were destroyed by shelling, and the offices of four media outlets were destroyed by airstrikes. 

On 19 October, the Committee to Protect Journalists stated 21 journalists were confirmed dead, eight were injured, and three were missing or detained. 

On 22 October, Rushdi Sarraj was killed by an Israeli airstrike on his home. 

On October 24, reporter Wael Al-Dahdouh lost his entire family due to an Israeli airstrike.

On 27 October, the IDF told Reuters and Agence France Presse it would not guarantee their journalists' safety in Gaza. 

On 30 October, Al Jazeera correspondent Youmna El-Sayed received a threat from Israeli forces, leading the spokesperson for the UN-Secretary General to remark on the "immense courage" of journalists in Gaza.

A report by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) said that Israel had targeted journalists who were clearly identifiable as press, in two 13 October missile strikes that killed a reporter and injured four. 

On 31 October, RSF said that 34 journalists have been killed in the conflict, including 12 "in connection with their work", ten of whom were killed in Israel's attack on Gaza; they described the first two weeks of the conflict as the deadliest start of a war of the 21st century for journalists.

Health and aid workers:
​
On 11 October, UNRWA reported that nine of their workers were killed in an Israeli airstrike, and that its headquarters were being targeted by Israel. It said a school sheltering more than 225 people was struck. 11 members of UNRWA and five members of the Red Cross and Red Crescent were killed in Gaza since the start of the fighting. 

MSF said it had counted 16 medical personnel killed since 7 October. MSF said a nurse and an ambulance driver were killed, and several others injured in Israeli strikes on the Nasser hospital in Khan Yunis and the Indonesia Hospital in Gaza City. 

A paramedic was reported to be in critical condition. The Indonesian Medical Emergency Rescue Committee (MER-C) confirmed a staff member was killed near an operational MER-C vehicle. 

On 22 October, UNRWA stated 29 staff members had been killed in Gaza. On 30 October, the Palestinian Ministry of Health stated 120 medical staff had been killed in Gaza.

Militants:

The Israeli Defense Forces estimated on 10 October that the bodies of approximately 1,000 Palestinian militants had been found inside Israel. Several Hamas leaders have been reported killed. 

Hamas co-founder, Abdul Fatah Dukhan, was killed. The following day, the head of Hamas's National Relations Office, Zakaria Abu Muammar, was reportedly killed in Khan Yunis. 

On 11 October, the IDF confirmed the death of Jawad Abu Shamala, who served as Hamas's economy minister, in a drone strike. 

Further, on 14 October, the IDF announced the killing of Hamas's head of aerial operations, Murad Abu Murad, in an overnight airstrike.

On 16 October, another member of the Hamas political bureau, Osama Mazini, was killed in an airstrike at his home. 

In addition to the targeted strikes on Hamas leaders, On 9 October, an airstrike in Rafah killed a local armed group leader. On 17 October, Ayman Nofal was killed. 

On 18 October, Jamila Al-Shanti, the first woman to be elected to Hamas's political bureau and a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, was killed in an airstrike in Jabalia. 

On 19 October, Jihad Muheisen was killed. Rafat Harb Hussein Abu Hilal was killed by an airstrike. On 22 October, the New York Times estimated that 13 Hamas officials were killed in airstrikes.

Lebanon:

During clashes along the Israel–Lebanon border, an Israeli artillery strike on 13 October killed Reuters videographer Issam Abdallah and injured six other journalists from Reuters, Agence France-Presse and Al Jazeera. 

On 29 October, Reporters Without Borders reported Israel had intentionally targeted Abdallah. In addition, between 24 and 26 people have been killed in Lebanon. 

On 23 October, Vice reported that an intervention by Hezbollah following the start of a ground invasion of Gaza would lead to Israeli army's resources being heavily stretched and that sustained rocket attacks by Hezbollah could greatly damage Israel's economy and military.


Humanitarian situation:
See also: International aid to Palestinians

In Gaza:

The humanitarian situation in Gaza has been termed a "crisis" and a "catastrophe".

As a result of Israel's siege, Gaza faces shortages of fuel, food, medication, water, and medical supplies. The siege resulted in a 90% drop in electricity availability, impacting hospital power supplies, sewage plants, and shutting down the desalination plants that provide drinking water. 

On 13 October, UNRWA commissioner Philippe Lazzarini said, "The scale and speed of the unfolding humanitarian crisis is bone-chilling".

Israeli Major General (ret.) Giora Eiland, stated Israel had "no choice" but to make Gaza a place "impossible to live in." Eiland argued a "severe humanitarian crisis" was necessary, and that the Israeli military needed to make Gaza "a place where no human being can exist."

On 16 October, doctors warned of disease outbreaks due to hospital overcrowding and unburied bodies. On 18 October, the United States UN representative Linda Thomas-Greenfield vetoed a UN Security Council resolution urging humanitarian aid to Gaza. The World Health Organization stated the situation was "spiralling out of control".

On 20 October, Doctors Without Borders stated it was "deeply concerned for the fate of everyone in Gaza right now". 

​On 21 October, a joint statement by UNICEF, WHO, UNDP, UNFPA, and WFP stated, "the world must do more" for Gaza.

On 26 October, the World Organization stated Gaza's humanitarian and health crisis had "reached catastrophic proportions".

On 27 October, Gaza suffered a complete communications blackout. In response, ActionAid stated it was now "nearly impossible" for people to call or receive emergency services, noting they were "gravely concerned" for "all the people of Gaza." 

On 28 October, the Red Cross president Mirjana Spoljaric Egger stated she was "shocked by the intolerable level of human suffering."

Food:

On 18 October, Alia Zaki, a spokesperson for the World Food Programme stated that "people are at the risk of starvation". On the same day, an Israeli airstrike destroyed a bakery in the Nuseirat Camp, killing four bakers. On X, journalist Refaat Alareer wrote the bakery was one of the last in the central and southern Gaza Strip. 

On 19 October, several bakeries were reportedly hit by Israeli airstrikes, making it even harder for residents to find food. On 21 October, the UN released a statement saying food stocks were "nearly exhausted". 

Cindy McCain, executive director of the UN World Food Programme, stated people were "literally starving to death as we speak". By 24 October, many bakeries had reportedly closed down, while those still open had hours-long lines. 

On 27 October, a spokesperson for the World Food Programme stated food and other basic supplies were "running out". 

By 28 October Israeli airstrikes had destroyed a fifth of the bakeries operating in the Strip. 

​On 1 November, Israel bombed one of the last remaining bakeries in Gaza City.


Health:

Physical health and disease:

Public health experts warned of the outbreak and spread of disease in Gaza. According to Oxfam and the United Nations, Gaza's lack of clean water and sanitation would trigger a rise in cholera and other deadly infectious diseases. 

Oxfam noted Gaza's sewage pumping stations and wastewater treatment facilities had ceased operations, so the buildup of solid waste and unburied bodies were likely vectors of disease. 

Due to the lack of clean drinking water, Gaza residents were drinking water contaminated with sewage, seawater, and farm water, another major source of disease. Richard Brennan, regional emergency director at the World Health Organization, noted, "The conditions are ripe for the spread of a number of diarrhoeal and skin disease".

Doctors also warned of overcrowded conditions at schools and hospitals. Dr. Nahed Abu Taaema stated overcrowded shelters were "a prime breeding ground for disease to spread". Abu Taaema reported a rise in rashes, lung infections, and stomach issues. 

On 24 October, the Gaza Health Ministry recorded 3,150 cases of disease from drinking contaminated water, mostly among children. The lack of medical supplies was another reported issue, as the World Health Organization reported a sanitation crisis in hospitals, with some struggling to sanitize surgical equipment. 

Dr. Iyad Issa Abu Zaher stated, "The outbreak of disease is inevitable". UNRWA schools, where an estimated 600,000 Gazans were sheltering, reported outbreaks of scabies and chicken pox, as well as a lack of basic hygiene for women menstruating.

Psychological health:

Weeks of sustained air strikes and explosions have contributed to the psychological traumatization of children in Gaza. Following 16 days of bombardment, children developed severe trauma, with symptoms including convulsion, aggression, bed-wetting, and nervousness.

90% of children in pediatric hospitals in Gaza exhibited or reported symptoms of anxiety, the majority exhibited post-traumatic stress symptoms, and 82% reported fears of imminent death.

Airstrikes:
See also: Dahiya doctrine and Roof knocking

In just one week, Israel dropped more than 6,000 bombs on Gaza. Israel's airstrikes were described as a carpet bombing and "indiscriminate". By 16 October, airstrikes had killed 2,750 people, including more than 700 children, and wounded nearly 10,000. 

An additional 1,000 people were missing beneath rubble. On 16 October, Israeli airstrikes destroyed a UNRWA humanitarian aid supply depot. The same day, airstrikes destroyed the headquarters of the Palestinian Civil Defence, the agency responsible for emergency response services, including firefighting and search and rescue.

On 17 October, Israel conducted intensive airstrikes in southern Gaza, in areas it told residents to seek refuge. An airstrike at a UNRWA school killed at least six people. 

On 18 October, the Ahmed Abdel Aziz School in Khan Yunis was hit. On the same day, the death toll in Gaza had risen to 3,478.

On 19 October, an Israeli airstrike hit the Church of Saint Porphyrius, where 500 people were sheltering. 

Israel "pounded" areas in south Gaza it had declared as "safe zones", raising fears amongst residents that nowhere was safe. 

On 19 October, U.S. officials reported alarm at Israeli comments about the "inevitability of civilian casualties", after Israel used the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as historical comparisons for their Gaza campaign.

On 20 October, Israeli continued to bombard south Gaza. IDF spokesman Nir Dinar said, "There are no safe zones". 

On 21 October, Israel intensified its airstrikes in advance of an expected ground invasion. 

On 22 October, Israeli airplanes bombed the areas around the Al Shifa and Al Quds hospitals on a night described as the "bloodiest" of the conflict so far. 

On 23 October, airstrikes killed 436 people in the al-Shati camp and southern Khan Younis in just one night. On 26 October, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu stated Israel had "already eliminated thousands of terrorists – and this is only the beginning". 

On 27 October, the representative of the WHO stated more than 1,000 unidentified people were buried under rubble.

By 28 October, the Israeli Air Force bombed residential buildings without any prior warning, killing an estimated 50 people per hour. On 29 October, the IDF bombed the area around the Al-Quds hospital. Norwegian doctor Mads Gilbert said that Israeli claims of hidden military complexes beneath Gaza hospitals were "lies, intimidating and scaring people, and excuses to bomb the hospitals." 

On 30 October, Israel bombed the Turkish-Palestinian Friendship Hospital. 

On 31 October, an airstrike on the Jabalia refugee camp was described as a "massive massacre."

Water supply:
​​
Before the war Gaza purchased a small share of its water from Israel (6% in 2021). Israel's blockade of water pipelines exacerbated water supply issues in the Gaza Strip, which already had a near lack of fit-to-drink aquifers. 

On 12 October, the United Nations said that Israeli actions had caused water shortages affecting 650,000 people. 

On 14 October, UNRWA announced Gaza no longer had clean drinking water, and two million people were at risk of death.

On 15 October, Israel agreed to resume water supply, but only in southern Gaza. Because Gaza's water pumps require electricity, the agreement did not ensure renewed water access. 

On 16 October, Minister of Energy Israel Katz said that water was available near southern Khan Younis, but the Gaza Interior Ministry denied this. 

By 16 October, residents of Gaza drank seawater and brackish water from farm wells, raising fears of waterborne diseases. Doctors and hospital staff drank IV solution.

By 17 October, the UN noted Gaza's last seawater desalination plant had shut down. 

​The Guardian noted fears were growing people had begun to die from dehydration. 

On 18 October, Israel announced it would not allow fuel to enter Gaza. The UNRWA stated fuel was needed to resume water pump operations. Some Gazans purchased water from private vendors who purified water with solar panels. 

On 19 October, the UN reported Gazans were surviving on a daily average of three liters of water each. The World Health Organization recommends a minimum of 50 to 100 liters per day. On 22 October, the UN stated Gazans had resorted to drinking dirty water. 

On 25 October, Oxfam announced Gaza had "virtually run out" of water. On 29 October, Palestinian Water Authority chair Mazen Ghoneim stated the water shortage would be alleviated, as Israel reopened a second water pipeline.

Displacement:
Main article: Evacuation of the northern Gaza Strip

On 10 October, the United Nations said the fighting had displaced more than 423,000 Palestinians, while Israeli airstrikes had destroyed 1,000 homes and rendered 560 housing units uninhabitable. 

By 15 October, an estimated 1 million people in Gaza had been displaced, many of them fleeing northern Gaza following Israel's mandated evacuation. Due to continued heavy Israeli bombing in south Gaza, some northern Gazan refugees moved back to Gaza City.

On 19 October, the UN Office for Humanitarian Affairs noted 98,000 houses, or 1 in every 4 homes in Gaza, had been destroyed by Israeli bombardments. 

On 21 October, the UNRWA stated 500,000 people were sheltering in UN facilities, and conditions had grown "untenable". Many others sheltered in hospitals. 

By 22 October, the UN Office for Humanitarian Affairs stated 42% of homes in Gaza had been destroyed. 

By 23 October, an estimated 1.4 million people in Gaza had been left homeless. On 30 October, the Red Cross stated it would take years to rebuild destroyed homes and infrastructure.

Communications:

On 27 October, Gaza underwent a near total communications blackout after Paltel's communication towers were destroyed in an Israeli attack. This cut off Gaza from any phone or internet service. 

As a result, humanitarian groups who lost all contact with their staff include:
The Palestinian Red Crescent Society stated wounded people would no longer be able to dial Gaza's emergency number for an ambulance. The Red Crescent stated it was "deeply concerned" about the ability of medics to provide care, noting it had lost all contact with operations room and staff in Gaza. 

On 28 October, Elon Musk offered to provide humanitarian groups with Starlink access, but Shlomo Karhi stated Israel would fight it with every "means at its disposal."

The UN humanitarian coordinator for Palestine, Lynn Hastings, noted that hospitals and aid operations could not operate without phone lines or internet. The Committee to Protect Journalists warned the world was "losing a window into the reality" of the situation in Gaza. 

Michael Lynk, a former UN rapporteur, stated one purpose of the internet blackout was to keep "the world blinded on what's happening." 

The WHO secretary-general Tedros Ghebreyesus stated he was "gravely concerned" by the blackout for the "immediate health risks" it posed to patients and for the safety of WHO staff. 

In a post on X, ActionAid wrote the blackout would make it "nearly impossible" for people to seek help, and noted they were "gravely concerned" for "all the people of Gaza."

Marwa Fatafta, policy manager of Access Now, stated that "taking Gaza completely off the grid while launching an unprecedented bombardment campaign only means something atrocious is about to happen." 

On 28 October, Netblocks stated Gaza's telephone and internet communications were gradually returning. On 31 October, Fatafta stated the blackout had been used by Israel to cover up potential war crimes as they began their ground invasion and called it a "warfare tactic to induce more pain on the population." Paltel announced Gaza had again been cut off from telecommunications and internet service.

Humanitarian aid:
Main article: October 2023 Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip
​
On 9 October, Israel implemented a complete blockade on Gaza, preventing the entry of any humanitarian aid. 

​Egypt closed its border to prevent civilians fleeing, but said that it would allow aid to be delivered through its border. It designated El Arish International Airport in the Sinai Peninsula as a hub for international humanitarian aid. 

On 12 October, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres urged the swift and unobstructed delivery of life-saving provisions, such as fuel, sustenance, and clean water.

By 16 October, no aid had entered Gaza since the Israeli blockade was implemented. The IDF continued to bomb the Rafah crossing, as Israel declined to assure Egyptian authorities it would pause airstrikes for civilian aid convoys. 

In Israel, aid to Gaza was reportedly prevented by far-right politicians allied with Netanyahu. On 17 October, the UNRWA stated that there was currently "no water or electricity in Gaza. Soon there will be no food or medicine either".

On 18 October, Israel announced it would allow food, water, and medicine to be delivered to a "safe zone" in west Khan Younis in southern Gaza, distributed by the United Nations. 

Later the same day, US president Joe Biden announced Egypt agreed to allow 20 trucks with aid to enter Gaza by 20 October. More than 100 trucks of aid were waiting at the Rafah crossing to enter into Gaza. 

In a statement, Human Rights Watch stated that without electricity or fuel, however, the provided aid would fail "meeting the needs of Gaza's population". On 19 October, US Special Envoy David M. Satterfield stated the US wanted "sustained" aid into Gaza. 

The same day, a spokesman for Oxfam stated aid distribution in Gaza would be a "big challenge", and the UN reported at least 100 trucks a day of aid were needed. 

On 21 October, 20 trucks of aid entered Gaza. Antonio Guterres stated it was not enough to prevent an "humanitarian catastrophe". Martin Griffiths said the UN was working to develop an "at-scale operation". 

On 22 October, following the second delivery of trucks, Biden and Netanyahu stated aid would continue to be allowed into Gaza.

On 27 October, Lynn Hastings, the UN's humanitarian coordinator for Palestine, stated Israel opposed the delivery of humanitarian aid to northern Gaza. As a result, UN staff would need to risk their own lives if it was determined such aid would be "lifesaving" to people in need. 

Philippe Lazzarini stated "soon many more will die" from Israel's blockade. On 28 October, Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry stated "Israeli obstacles" were impeding the delivery of humanitarian aid. The United Nations announced the communications blackout had brought aid delivery to a "complete halt." 

On 29 October, a humanitarian zone was announced in the Khan Younis area, along with a claim that aid trucks would increase "significantly."

On 30 October, OCHA director Lisa Doughten pressured the UN Security Council for the use of extra entry points to Gaza, suggesting the Kerem Shalom border crossing as the only entry equipped for rapidly processing a sufficiently large number of trucks.

Healthcare:

The healthcare system of Gaza faced several humanitarian crises as a result of the conflict.

Due to Israel's siege, hospitals faced a lack of fuel and relied on backup generators for the first two weeks of the war. 

By 23 October, however, the Indonesia Hospital ran out of fuel and completely shutdown. Hospitals around Gaza also warned they would soon lose power completely, which would lead to the death of 140 premature babies in NICUs. 

The Gaza Health Ministry noted more than 60 medical staffers had been killed by Israeli airstrikes, including Gaza ambulances, health institutions, its headquarters, the Rimal Clinic, and the International Eye Center. The Medecins Sans Frontieres said it had counted 18 ambulances destroyed and eight medical facilities destroyed or damaged. 

On 24 October, a Health Ministry spokesman announced the healthcare system had "totally collapsed".

11–17 October:

Following the shutdown of the Gaza Strip power station on 11 October, it was reported that hospitals in Gaza would soon run out of available fuel to power generators. 

On 14 October, the Diagnostic Cancer Treatment Centre of the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital was partially destroyed by Israeli rocket fire. In a statement on 15 October, the World Health Organization stated four hospitals were no longer functioning after being targeted by Israeli airstrikes. 

On 15 October, healthcare professionals warned if hospital facilities' generators stopped, patients would die when the power was lost.

On 14 October, Israel ordered the evacuation of 22 hospitals in northern Gaza. The WHO described the order as a "death sentence" for the sick and wounded. Doctors across northern Gaza stated they were unable to follow Israel's evacuation order, since their patients, including newborns in the ICU, would die. 

On 16 October, Doctors Without Borders president Christos Christou wrote that the situation in Gaza was "horrific and catastrophic. … No electricity, no medical supplies. Surgeons in Al-Shifa hospital are now operating without painkillers." On 17 October, a widely condemned explosion in the al-Ahli courtyard resulted in significant fatalities.

18–24 October:

On 18 October, Doctors Without Borders stated severely wounded patients would die as the health system collapsed. 

On 19 October, the Ministry of Health asked for donations of liters of fuels to continue powering hospital generators, and Gaza's only cancer hospital announced it had "perilously low" levels of remaining fuel. 

Doctors noted pediatric patients had developed gastroenteritis infections due to the lack of clean water. Airstrikes hit the area around al-Quds Hospital. The Red Cross stated Gaza's entire health system was "on its knees". 

On 20 October, Doctors Without Borders stated thousands of people were at risk of dying "within hours" because it was "impossible" to give them medical attention. 

Doctors at al-Quds Hospital and the Palestine Red Crescent reported they received a call from the Israeli army to evacuate the hospital or "bear the consequences".

On 21 October, the Ministry of Health noted Israel had attacked 69 health facilities, 24 ambulances, put 7 hospitals out of commission, and killed 37 medical staff.

Medical Aid for Palestinians and UNICEF issued an "urgent warning" that 130 premature babies would die if fuel did not reach Gaza hospitals soon. 

According to the UN Population Fund, there are 50,000 pregnant women in Gaza. 

A UN statement signed by five major branches stated deaths could soon "skyrocket" from disease and "lack of healthcare". 

On 23 October, the Indonesia Hospital ran out of fuel and completely lost power. 

On 24 October, a Health Ministry spokesman announced the healthcare system had "totally collapsed", with 65 medics killed, 25 ambulances destroyed, and many hospitals soon shutting down due to lack of fuel. 

The World Health Organization warned 46 of Gaza's 72 healthcare facilities had stopped functioning. The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital faced a dialysis crisis, with hundreds sharing only 24 dialysis machines.

25–31 October:

On 25 October, Dr. Ashraf al-Qudra, of the Health Ministry, stated the health system was "completely out of service". 

The Health Ministry stated a total of 7,000 sick and wounded hospital patients were facing death.

On 27 October, a Red Cross medical team arrived in Gaza, bringing medical supplies, a war surgery team, and a weapons contamination specialist. 

The same day, the Al Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis received a delivery of medical supplies, including antiseptic, injections, and medical mattresses, raising hopes more could be received "in the coming days". 

The IDF claimed military operations were hidden beneath the Al-Shifa Hospital. In response, former UN rapporteur Michael Lynk stated the IDF was preparing "public opinion for the attacks to come."

On 28 October, a communications blackout meant wounded civilians could not dial emergency services. Ambulances were then evenly geographically distributed to provide "faster access to the injured." On 29 October, the Palestinian Red Crescent reported that it had received warnings from Israeli authorities to immediately evacuate al-Quds hospital as it was “going to be bombarded”.

That day, an Israeli airstrike struck 20 metres (65 feet) from the hospital. Dr. Ghassan Abu Sitta wrote on X that he was increasingly treating patients with "distinctive phosphorus burns." On 30 October, the Turkish-Palestinian Friendship Hospital was severely damaged by an Israeli airstrike. 

WHO announced it could no longer resupply al-Shifa and al-Quds hospitals due to the high levels of risk. On 31 October, the Health Ministry announced the generators at two key Gaza hospitals were hours from shutting down.

Since 1 November:

On 1 November, the director of the Turkish-Palestinian Friendship Hospital stated Gaza's only cancer hospital was "completely out of service" after it ran out of fuel to power its generator.

Countries ready to take Gaza refugees:

Scotland's First Minister, Humza Yousaf, urged the international community to establish a refugee program for those fleeing violence in Gaza and said that Scotland was ready to offer sanctuary to refugees arriving in the UK. He also called on the UK government to create a resettlement scheme for Gazans and asked Israel not to resort to collective punishment. He also emphasized the need for medical evacuation support for injured civilians.

Yousaf has personal ties to Gaza, with family members there. He stressed unity and safety for all communities in Scotland. There has been no official response on this matter from the UK. Scotland, with its autonomous governance, remains a part of the United Kingdom. European countries are wary of refugee influx due to recent pro-Palestinian protests.

Both Jordan and Egypt have expressed their reluctance to receive Palestinian refugees during the conflict. King Abdullah II of Jordan warned against pushing Palestinians to seek refuge in Jordan emphasizing the need to address the humanitarian situation within in Gaza and the West Bank.

In the United States, there is a divide on accepting refugees from Gaza, with former President Donald Trump and Gov. Rob DeSantis opposing it while many Americans support helping Gaza civilians. Some Democratic Party lawmakers, including Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Bowman, emphasize the U.S.'s historical role in refugee acceptance and suggest being prepared to welcome Palestinian refugees who are not affiliated with Hamas.

President Biden announced a $100 million aid package for Gaza civilians during his visit to Israel, demonstrating U.S. support amid international tensions.

In Israel:

A Magen David Adom ambulance was reportedly taken by Palestinian militants to Gaza during their attack on 7 October. 

The Barzilai Medical Center in Ashkelon was struck by rockets from Gaza on 8 October and on 11 October.

As of 17 October, some 120,000 Israeli civilians from both southern and northern Israel were internally displaced, including almost all 30,000 residents of Sderot and residents of communities within four kilometers of the Gaza border. Evacuations of residents in communities four to seven kilometers from the border were ongoing.

An unknown number of residents of northern Israel had moved towards the center of the country, fearing a second front opening up with Lebanon. As of 22 October, this figure was raised to 200,000.

War crimes:
Main article: War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war
See also: List of massacres during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war

The International Criminal Court issued a statement on 10 October confirming that its mandate to investigate alleged war crimes committed since June 2014 in the State of Palestine extends to the current conflict. 

ICC prosecutor Karim Ahmad Khan visited the Rafah crossing and said "the ICC is "independently looking at the situation in Palestine," including "events in Israel and allegations that Palestinian nationals have also committed crime." 

The UN Human Rights Council said it had "clear evidence" of war crimes by both sides. A UN Commission to the Israel-Palestine conflict said there is "clear evidence that war crimes may have been committed in the latest explosion of violence in Israel and Gaza, and all those who have violated international law and targeted civilians must be held accountable".

In a 12 October preliminary legal assessment condemning Hamas's attacks in Israel, international humanitarian law scholar and Dean of Cornell Law School Jens David Ohlin said the evidence suggested Hamas's "killings and kidnappings" potentially violated Articles 6–8 of the Rome Statute as well as the Genocide Convention and were "crimes against humanity". 

On 15 October, TWAILR published a statement signed by over 800 legal scholars expressing "alarm about the possibility of the crime of genocide being perpetrated by Israeli forces against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip".
​
The Israeli order to impose a "complete siege" on Gaza in which food, fuel and water would be denied was criticized as a blatant war crime by human rights organizations. which Tom Dannenbaum, co-director of the Center for International Law & Governance at the Fletcher School at Tufts University, writing that the order "commands the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, which is a violation of international humanitarian law and a war crime." 

Oxfam issued a statement that accused Israel of using starvation as a weapon of war, saying "International Humanitarian Law (IHL) strictly prohibits the use of starvation as a method of warfare and as the occupying power in Gaza, Israel is bound by IHL obligations to provide for the needs and protection of the population of Gaza".

Independent United Nations experts condemned the Israel Defense Forces' actions in Gaza, saying Israel had resorted to "indiscriminate military attacks" and "collective punishment". 

Israeli authorities said that the airstrikes are intended to degrade the military infrastructure which is frequently constructed in close proximity to residential areas and civilian establishments. They also denounced the "deliberate and widespread killing and hostage-taking of innocent civilians" by Hamas, calling them "heinous violations of international law and international crimes". 

Israel's forced evacuation of northern Gaza also drew international condemnation.

On 13 October, Paula Gaviria Betancur, UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons, termed it a "crime against humanity". 

On 14 October, Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, characterized it as a "repeat of the 1948 Nakba", noting Israeli public officials' open advocacy for another Nakba.


Negotiations and diplomacy:

In Support of a Ceasefire:
​
On 27 October, the United Nations General Assembly voted for a resolution calling for an immediate truce. It received 121 votes in favor and 44 abstentions; 14 countries voted no, including:
Numerous heads of state, government officials, and international bodies have called for a ceasefire. On 8 October, Moussa Faki Mahamat, the Chair of the African Union, called for an end to the conflict and the establishment of a Palestinian state. 

On 11 October, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva called for a ceasefire, stating, it was "urgently needed in defense of Israeli and Palestinian children". 

On 15 October, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro called for an immediate ceasefire. 

On 16 October, Pakistani Prime Minister Anwar ul Haq Kakar called for an immediate ceasefire and the end of the Gaza blockade. On 18 October, the Dáil Éireann passed a resolution calling for a ceasefire. 

On 19 October, President Xi Jinping of China stated, "The top priority now is a ceasefire as soon as possible", and called for the establishment of a Palestinian state.
​
On 20 October, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan called for a ceasefire, stating Israel's attack on Gaza amounted to a genocide. 

On 21 October, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi presented a plan for a ceasefire. 

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa called for a ceasefire, stating "as South Africans we can relate to what is happening to Palestinians". 

Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia' Al Sudani called for ceasefire at the Cairo Peace Summit. 

On 24 October, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman called for a ceasefire.

Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim called for a ceasefire and for Palestinians to be "treated as human beings". 

On 25 October, King Abdullah II of Jordan stated ending the war was an "absolute necessity". 

Humza Yousaf, the First Minister of Scotland, called for a ceasefire and noted his own parents-in-law were trapped in Gaza.

On 19 October, Cuban Foreign Affairs Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla called for a ceasefire, stating the war was the result of the "violation of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people". 

Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi called for a ceasefire on 22 October. 

On 25 October, Algerian foreign minister Ahmed Attaf called for an immediate cessation of bombing. 

Retno Marsudi, Indonesia's Minister for Foreign Affairs, called for an immediate ceasefire.

On 26 October, the Foreign Ministers of nine Arab countries including: all signed a joint statement calling for an immediate ceasefire.

Various ambassadors and dignitaries also supported a ceasefire.

On 18 October, Lana Zaki Nusseibeh, Ambassador for the United Arab Emirates, stated her country's support for "no less than a full humanitarian ceasefire". 

On 21 October and during a subsequent UN Security Council meeting on October 24, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for a ceasefire. 

​Russian U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia stated, "the whole world" is expecting the UN to call for a ceasefire. 

On October 29, Pope Francis called for a ceasefire and release of hostages. 

On 31 October, Filippo Grandi called for a ceasefire.
​
In opposition to a ceasefire:

Both Israel and the United States rejected calls for a ceasefire. On 24 October, US President Joe Biden stated, "We should have those hostages released and then we can talk".

On 30 October, Benjamin Netanyahu stated Israel would not agree to a ceasefire, stating, "The Bible says that there is a time for peace and a time for war."

On 25 October, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak also rejected a call for a ceasefire.

Hostage negotiations:

On 9 October, Reuters reported that Qatar was mediating talks between Israel and Hamas to secure the release of female Israeli hostages in exchange for Israel releasing 36 Palestinian women and children. Israel denied such negotiations were taking place. 

An Egyptian official told AP that Israel sought Egyptian assistance to ensure the safety of hostages held by Palestinian militants, and that Egypt's intelligence chief contacted Hamas and Islamic Jihad to seek information. Egyptian officials were reportedly mediating the release of Palestinian women in Israeli prisons in exchange for Israeli women captured by Palestinian militants.

United Nations:

On 8 October, the United Nations Security Council held a closed-door meeting for 90 minutes on the conflict. The meeting concluded without the unanimity required for a joint statement to be released.

Diplomats, concerned that Israel has no plan post war and looking to limit the humanitarian crisis as well as prevent any regional expansion of the war, are urging delay of a full-scale land invasion of Gaza. 

Russia requested a United Nations Security Council vote on 15 October on a draft resolution calling for a humanitarian ceasefire. The Russian draft was rejected while negotiations continued on a Brazilian draft resolution. 

On 18 October, the United States vetoed a UN resolution that "condemned the Hamas attack on Israel, called for humanitarian pauses in all attacks to allow the delivery of lifesaving aid to civilians, and called for Israel to withdraw its directive for civilians to evacuate the northern part of the Gaza Strip".

The US vetoed a UN Security Council resolution, sponsored by Brazil and supported by 12 of the 15 Council members, calling for "humanitarian pauses" to deliver aid to Gazan civilians. The UK and Russia abstained. 

Louis Charbonneau at Human Rights Watch said the US had again "cynically used their veto to prevent the UN Security Council from acting on Israel and Palestine at a time of unprecedented carnage".

The US Ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, explained that the US wanted more time to let American on-the-ground diplomacy "play out", and criticized the text for failing to mention Israel's right to self-defense, in line with the UN Charter – a point echoed by UK Ambassador to the UN Barbara Woodward.

Subsequently, on 25 October, China and Russia vetoed a US drafted resolution and a Russian drafted resolution was vetoed by the UK and US.

On 27 October the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution that called for an "immediate and sustained" humanitarian truce and cessation of hostilities and condemned "all acts of violence against Palestinian and Israeli civilians, including all acts of terror and indiscriminate attacks".

An amendment calling for condemnation of the 7 October "terrorist attacks" and immediate release of hostages was rejected.

Ambassador recalls:

On 31 October, several hours after the Israeli Air Force bombed the Jabalia refugee camp, President Gabriel Boric announced that Chile would recall its ambassador from Israel. In his announcement, Boric condemned Israel's "collective punishment of the Palestinian civilian population." 

Soon after, President Gustavo Petro announced that Colombia was recalling its ambassador to Israel. 

María Nela Prada, a minister in the Arce administration, announced Bolivia was severing all diplomatic ties with Israel. 

On 1 November, Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi announced Jordan was immediately recalling its ambassador to Israel.


Military aid to Israel:
Further information: United States support for Israel in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war
See also:  ​
Hours after Hamas's attack, U.S. President Joe Biden promised "rock-solid and unwavering" support to Israel. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, in an interview with ABC News, condemned Hamas's "massive terrorist attack" and stated, "We have immediately engaged our Israeli partners and allies. President Joe Biden was on the phone with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu early yesterday to assure him of our full support."

As Israel prepares to launch a possible ground invasion of Gaza, the Biden administration and leading members of Congress are preparing an aid package from the United States with about $2 billion in additional funding to support Israel, according to Time. 

On 12 October, Blinken went to Israel and met with its leaders as part of a visit that included upcoming meetings with Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas and King Abdullah II of Jordan.

Germany sent two Heron TP drones to Israel. 

On 15 October, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin ordered that approximately 2,000 troops be prepared for possible deployment to Israel, according to several defense officials.

On 19 October, US State Department official Josh Paul, who spent more than 11 years as the director of congressional and public affairs at the bureau which oversees arms transfers to foreign nations, resigned in protest at the US government's decision to send weapons to Israel.


Reactions:
See also: 2023 Israel–Hamas war protests

Reactions in Israel​​

Following the Hamas attack on Israel, the protest group Kaplan Force cancelled its protest against the Israeli judicial reform scheduled on 7 October, extending support to the IDF amidst the crisis. 

Other protest groups like Forum 555 and Brothers in Arms also urged reservists to serve if called up.

Adalah, a legal group which advocates for Palestinians living in Israel, has said that 50 Palestinians studying at academic institutions in Israel have been summoned to disciplinary committees due to perceived support for Hamas on social media, with some suspended from their studies. 

The newly created Civil Society Coalition for Emergencies in the Arab Community says that 30 Palestinian citizens of Israel have lost their jobs for the same reason. A number of construction sites in the Jerusalem Municipality prohibited Israeli Arabs from entering, including senior managers, stating that only Jews and foreign workers were permitted. 

Dalal Abu Amneh, a Palestinian singer born in Israel, was arrested by Israeli forces for posting "there is no victor but God" in Arabic, alongside an image of the Palestinian flag on social media. She was released on 18 October and placed under house arrest for five days. Adalah says that 100 Israelis have been arrested for posts supporting Palestinians in Gaza, with 70 remaining in detention as of 18 October. 

Israeli police said that at least 170 Palestinians (all citizens of Israel or residents of Jerusalem) have been arrested or brought in for questioning since the beginning of the war due to social media posts. According to Adalah, this is the highest rate of arrests in such a short period of time for 20 years. 

Content that has led to these arrests includes quoting from the Quran, prayers for peace, and political analyses of Israeli military actions. One person faced discipline from their school for posting about a family celebration on the day of Hamas's attack, according to Adalah.

Amidst the escalating violence, Magen David Adom initiated a blood donation drive and the Education Ministry closed schools on 7 October, transitioning to online learning from 15 October. Various events and performances were cancelled or postponed including the Haifa International Film Festival, a Bruno Mars concert, and football matches scheduled by UEFA. 

The Israeli energy ministry ordered Chevron to temporarily shut down the offshore Tamar gas field. 

​Following a significant drop in the value of the New Israeli Shekel, the Bank of Israel announced that it would sell up to $30 billion in foreign reserves in its first ever sale of foreign exchange.
​
Investigations were initiated into the failure of Israeli authorities to prevent the attack, with criticism targeted towards Prime Minister Netanyahu for his inability to foresee and prevent the crisis.

To support the war effort, El Al announced special flights to retrieve vital personnel from New York City and Bangkok on 13 October. Schools advised parents to have certain social media apps deleted from their children's phones to shield them from violent war-related media. 

On 12 October, IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Herzi Halevi acknowledged military failures in preventing the attacks.

The ethics panel of the Knesset voted to suspend left-wing politician Ofer Cassif for 45 days over what it deemed as anti-Israel statements in interviews he made after the war broke out.

Following a rally in support of Gaza in Haifa, police commissioner Kobi Shabtai threatened to send antiwar protesters to the Gaza Strip. As of 18 October 63 people have been arrested in Israel on suspicion of supporting or inciting "terror" since the start of the conflict, according to Israeli police. 

The Palestinian prisoners' rights group Addameer said that about 4,000 labourers from Gaza who were working in Israel were arrested by Israeli authorities along with 1,070 other Palestinians in overnight raids in the West Bank and East Jerusalem since the start of the conflict, with most of the detainees from Gaza being held in Sde Teyman near Beersheva. 

Amer al-Huzail, a former mayoral candidate in Rahat, was arrested after sharing a map of the Gaza Strip on social media with an analysis of possible scenarios for an expected ground operation by Israeli forces.

A poll by the Israeli newspaper Maariv, conducted on 18–19 October, found that 65% of Israelis supported a ground invasion of the Gaza Strip and 21% opposed it.

Emergency unity government:
Main article: Israeli war cabinet

On 11 October, an emergency unity government was formally announced between Likud and National Unity following a joint statement from the latter party, with Benny Gantz, a former defence minister and military chief of staff, joining a war cabinet also consisting of Netanyahu as Prime Minister and Yoav Gallant as Defence Minister.

The statement said the unity government would not promote any policy or laws except those related to the ongoing fighting with Hamas. The war cabinet was approved by the Knesset on 12 October. It significantly reduces the influence of Netanyahu's previous far-right coalition partners over the conduct of the war, which was one of Gantz's demands. 

Haaretz reported that former IDF chief of staff Gadi Eizenkot and Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer would join the war cabinet as observers.

On 29 October, Netanyahu blamed security chiefs for Hamas's attack in a post on X (formerly Twitter); this was later deleted following criticism.

Reactions in Gaza:

​Reactions in Gaza ranged from anger at the international community's tepid response to outright fear. The territory faced numerous major crises. The Israeli blockade caused significant difficulties, including a lack of food, medicine, and water. 

Azmi Keshawi, a U.S.-educated researcher in Gaza, expressed outrage, stating, "How the hell did the entire world just watch and let Israel turn off the water?" 

On 19 October, Omar Ghraieb, an officer at Oxfam, noted his lack of food, water, or internet, writing, "Families are displaced, humanitarian situation is beyond dire, thousands killed & injured, hundreds of thousands are traumatized".

Gazans in Israel on work permits were unable to return to Gaza. In interviews, workers indicated they were subject to intensive police questioning and abuse. Speaking to The Washington Post, one man stated, "I can't stay here, eating and drinking while my children are dying. There is no electricity or water or anything. Let me die there between my children".

Due to the Israeli Air Force's intense bombardments, many Gazans expressed fears they could die at any time. In an interview, 22-year-old U.S. citizen Mai Abushaaban, said, "People are worried, people are essentially preparing to die". Muhammad Smiry, a journalist, wrote, "We are losing everyone and everything". Saeb al-Jarz, a 27-year-old engineer, said, "I just really, really want to live".

Among healthcare workers in Gaza, reactions ranged from grief to outrage. One doctor at the al-Ahli Arab Hospital stated, "This is really a genocide". Hussam Abu Safiya, a pediatrics doctor at Kamal Edwan Hospital, described the situation in Gaza as "really dangerous". 

Abu Safiya described the difficulties of compliance with Israel's mandatory evacuation order, as transferring the children would mean "handing them a death sentence". As a result of Israel's denial of clean water, he noted babies in his ward were experiencing vomiting, diarrhea, and fever. 

Samer Tarzi, a doctor who survived the explosion at al-Ahli hospital, stated, "We collected bodies of children and many body parts. It's a sight that will remain in my mind even if I live a thousand years".

In response to the 27 October communications blackout in Gaza, Al Jazeera journalist Hani Mahmoud reported via satellite that the "fear just begins to mount." On 28 October, Mansour Shouman, a resident in Gaza, stated the public was "extremely angry" more aid had not been allowed into Gaza, noting his own family was drinking dirty water and suffering from malnutrition.

Dual citizens:

When both of Gaza's border points were closed at the start of the conflict, foreign nationals and dual citizens were trapped. This included some 500–600 U.S. citizens, who reported the US Embassy provided little to no support to them. 

Lena Beseiso, a resident of Salt Lake City, reported the embassy said their "emergency line is for Israel". 

Emilee Rauschenberger, a U.S. citizen visiting Gaza with her husband and five children, stated, "The double standard is incredibly harsh".

Amir Kaoud, stated, "America's not helping us, Biden's not helping us, the embassy is not helping us". 

Sammy Nabulsi, an immigration attorney in Boston, stated, "We are barreling toward a grave national tragedy, and the White House and the State Department do not seem to care". 

An Australian man trapped in Gaza with his family stated, "We are terrified that we may not live until tomorrow". 

Wafaa Abuzayda, a 30-year-old U.S. citizen, appealed for help for his child and complained that they had been unsuccessfully contacting the US embassy for two days.

Gazan officials:

The Palestinian Education Ministry said schools in the Gaza Strip were closed until further notice. 

On 7 October, the Palestinian Health Ministry appealed for blood donations.

On 13 October, the spokesperson for Gaza's Interior Ministry said Israel had not been honest about only striking military targets, and that "everyone in Gaza is a target".

Yahya al-Sarraj, the mayor of Gaza City, noted the Israeli siege was a violation of international law and urged the international community to "support the victims".

Hamas military aims:

Hamas stated it abducted Israelis to secure the freedom of Palestinian prisoners, currently estimated to number between 4,499 and 5,200, including 170 children.

Prisoner exchanges have long been practiced in the Arab–Israeli conflict. In 2006, Hamas exchanged Gilad Shalit for 1,000 Palestinians as part of a prisoner swap. Hamas deputy leader Saleh al-Arouri told Al Jazeera they had enough Israeli hostages to secure the release of Palestinian prisoners in Israel. 

Hamas spokesperson Abu Obaida said they were holding captured Israeli soldiers in "safe places" and tunnels.

On 13 October, Hamas claimed its aim was to attack Israeli military bases and instructions were given to not target civilians. Hamas official Basem Naim denied any civilians were killed, saying that only Israeli soldiers were killed. A spokesperson for Palestinian Islamic Jihad stated they did not consider Israelis to be civilians, due to Israel's mandatory military service.

Senior Hamas official Khaled Mashal said that the group was fully aware of the consequences of attack on Israel, stating that Palestinian liberation comes with sacrifices.

Reactions in the West Bank:

Initially, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas asserted the Palestinians' right to self-defense against the "terror of settlers and occupation troops" and condemned the orders by Israel for residents to evacuate north Gaza, labeling it a "second Nakba". Later, Abbas rejected the killing of civilians on both sides, and said that the Palestinian Liberation Organization was the sole representative of the Palestinians.

Following the attack, celebrations occurred in Ramallah. Neighborhood watches were established in 50 locations amid fears of reprisals by Israeli settlers, while a general strike was called for 8 October. 

Seven Palestinians were killed in clashes with Israeli forces on 7 October, while 126 others were injured. As of 19 October, Al Jazeera noted that 76 Palestinians were killed in the West Bank and Jerusalem, eight of them by armed Israeli settlers; the Palestinian Ministry of Health said that 61 people have been killed and 1,250 injured in the West Bank.

The Palestinian Prisoners Club said that 850 Palestinians, including lawmakers, prominent figures, journalists, and former detainees have been arrested by Israeli authorities since the start of the war.

Arab world:

In contrast to previous Palestinian–Israeli wars, the initial part of the war was marked by a more muted reaction. Many governments in the region have strongly negative views of Hamas due to its affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood and its ties with Iran.

This antipathy toward Hamas has had several impacts. The official reactions from many states in the Arab world, particularly states aligned with Saudi Arabia and Egypt, in the beginning of the conflict were neutral and confined to press statements.

News programs in countries such as the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia did not book Hamas officials for interviews, however Arabic-speaking Jews were frequently invited. In speaking of the IDF, anchors in the UAE and Saudi Arabia originally stopped referring to it as an "occupation army" but just the Israeli army, and referred to Palestinian casualties as "victims" rather than "martyrs".

The public reaction in the Arabic world was markedly different from that of regional governments. Hamas definitively won the propaganda war by producing videos such as one featuring a militant forcing a Jewish child to say "in the name of God" in Arabic, after killing the child's mother, this video was viewed over 1.4 million times on Al-Jazeera's Facebook and received over 75,000 likes.

Such videos were used as evidence that Hamas, unlike the Islamic State, followed Islamic law and aided in polarizing public opinion in the Arab world. Al Jazeera played a large role in magnifying Hamas' propaganda, and bringing it to a wider audience.

During Hamas' initial attack, one of Al Jazeera’s most prominent journalists, Majed Abdulhadi, celebrated it as it happened by reciting a kind of prose poem. 

This loss of the propaganda war, combined with the Al-Ahli Hospital Explosion which was originally blamed on an Israeli airstrike had a disastrous effect on the burgeoning diplomatic relations between Israel and many Arab states which were keen to avoid antagonizing their public and causing domestic unrest. 

Many regional governments which were originally circumspect in blaming both Hamas' and Israel's actions became more forceful in only blaming Israel and many government-sponsored news agencies such as Al Arabiya and Sky News Arabia which initially resisted Hamas's story line became more pliant as a result of public opinion and began to present a more pro-Hamas story line.

There have been numerous rallies in support of the Palestinians, nevertheless populism and polarization have also tempered public reaction in certain parts of the region.

While many Lebanese and Syrians are sympathetic to the Palestinians, Hamas's affiliation with Iran and Hezbollah, which are hated by many due to their actions in the Syrian Civil War and the 2006 Lebanon War, makes the population less sympathetic to the current war.

Many in Lebanon, Syria and Egypt also fear that they may unwillingly be drawn in to the conflict through the actions of Hezbollah and Iran. In Egypt populist pro-government talk show hosts have railed against the Hamas and Palestinian cause asking viewers, why Egyptians should suffer to help Palestinians. 

Egypt, despite having being pressed by the United States, refused to accept refugees from Gaza both for fear of security issues since Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups shares ties with militants in the Sinai, as well as for fear that a temporary refugee situation may turn permanent.

Iran:

Iran has praised the attack while being cautious to distance itself from the planning and execution of it. Hamas spokesman Ghazi Hamad told the BBC that Hamas had direct backing for the attack from Iran; European, Iranian and Syrian officers corroborated Iran's involvement, while senior Hamas official Mahmoud Mirdawi said the group planned the attacks on its own. 

The Israeli army and the United States say that there is no evidence that Iran is connected with the attack by Hamas. American intelligence appeared to show that Hamas's attack on Israel caught Iranian authorities by surprise.

According to a report by Al-Monitor, since the start of the war between Israel and the Gaza militias, Iran has tried to show a face of disinterest in the spillover of the conflict, and on the other hand, it has pursued an active diplomatic campaign to isolate Israel.

Supporting the cause of Palestine has been one of the ideological principles of Iran's Shia Islamic theocracy after the 1979 revolution, with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the first supreme leader of Iran, announcing the last Friday of every Ramadan as "Quds Day" and inviting all the Muslims of the world to express solidarity with the legitimate rights of the Palestinian Muslim people.

The Iranian government opened an account for people to deliver charitable aid. It also opened a website and reported that more than six million volunteered to fight. Khamenei threatened that Islamic resistance was going to become unstoppable should the war continue. His spokesperson later said that the 2015 Iran nuclear deal would have delayed it but Israel would have collapsed within five years. Khamenei pointed to foreign visits to Israel and said that the fall of Israel was imminent.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said that the IDF would be depleted through the ground invasion of Gaza.

Addressing the United Nations, Iranian foreign minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian warned Americans they would be unsafe if the conflict did not remain under control. US military forces conducted strikes on two facilities in eastern Syria used by the IRGC.

President Joe Biden warned Khamenei not to attack the US military.

On 1 November, the Iranian government criminalized expressions of support for Israel and making contact with its people. That same day, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei called on Muslim states to impose food and fuel blockade on Israel.

United States:
​
US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin ordered the deployment of the United States Navy's Carrier Strike Group 12—led by the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford, and supported by the cruiser USS Normandy and the destroyers USS Thomas Hudner, USS Ramage, USS Carney, and USS Roosevelt—to the Eastern Mediterranean.

The United States Air Force augmented its F-35, F-15, F-16, and A-10 fighter squadrons in the region, reportedly to deter other actors from entering the conflict.

On 15 October, it was reported that a US naval strike group composed of the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, the guided missile cruiser USS Philippine Sea, and the guided missile destroyers USS Laboon, USS Mason, and USS Gravely was deployed to the eastern Mediterranean.

On 17 October, it was reported that a US naval group consisting of the amphibious assault ship USS Bataan, the amphibious transport dock USS Mesa Verde, and the dock landing ship USS Carter Hall, was deployed to the eastern Mediterranean and the Red Sea to transport the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit in case they were needed in the area.

On 19 October, the US Department of Defense announced that the USS Carney had shot down three cruise missiles and eight drones that were northbound over the Red Sea. They said the missiles had been fired by Houthi rebels in Yemen and may have been en route to Israeli targets.

After multiple drone and rocket attacks on military bases in Iraq that house US troops, the US ordered all non-emergency staff to leave their embassy in Baghdad and consulate in Erbil on 22 October. 

A few days earlier, a false alarm in Al-Asad Airbase caused the death of a civilian contractor from cardiac arrest. Secretary of State Antony Blinken issued a threat to Iranians that their attacks would not be tolerated.

US officials said the Biden administration advised Israel to delay the ground invasion of the Gaza Strip to allow more time for hostage negotiations. President Biden said that Hamas' attacks on Israel were intended in part to scuttle the potential normalization of the U.S. ally's relations with Saudi Arabia. He mentioned that Hamas attacks aimed to halt Israel-Saudi Arabia agreement.

United Nations:

On 25 October, United Nations' General-Secretary António Guterres called for a ceasefire, during a speech in which he stated that the attacks by Hamas "did not happen in a vacuum" and needed to be understood in the context of 56 years of Israel's "suffocating occupation" of Palestinians, further stating that "the grievances of the Palestinian people cannot justify the appalling attacks by Hamas. And those appalling attacks cannot justify the collective punishment of the Palestinian people." 

Israel responded by saying it would ban UN representatives from Israel to "teach them a lesson", and called for the General-Secretary's resignation.

On 27 October, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution ES-10/21 calling for an immediate and sustained humanitarian truce and cessation of hostilities, adopted by a vote of 121 states to 14, with 44 abstentions.

North Caucasus:
Further information: 2023 wave of antisemitism in the North Caucasus

In late October 2023, an anti-Israel mob stormed Uytash Airport after the arrival of a flight from Tel Aviv, following messages spread via Telegram channels urging people to gather at the airport and prevent the landing of a plane. 

These messages were tied to rumors about refugees from Israel supposedly arriving in Dagestan. They were disseminated by the "Morning Dagestan" Telegram channel, associated with Russian-Ukrainian politician Ilya Ponomarev. 20 people were injured, among them nine police officers, of whom two were injured seriously. 

The passengers on the plane were unharmed. 150 suspects were identified, while 60 were detained.

The head of Dagestan, Sergey Melikov, called the incident a gross violation of the law. The Russian president Vladimir Putin ordered a meeting of his top security officials, while his spokesperson Dmitry Peskov blamed the unrest on "outside interference". 

The Israeli government called on Russian authorities to protect Israelis and Jews in Russia.

International:
Main article: International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war
Further information:
​International leaders, including from Argentina, India, the United States, and European countries condemned the attacks by Hamas, expressed solidarity with Israel, and said Israel has a right to defend itself from armed attacks and describing Hamas's tactics as terrorism. 

Most Latin American governments condemned Hamas's attacks in Israel, while some expressed solidarity with Palestinians such as Colombia. 

In a White House briefing, President Joe Biden expressed solidarity with Israel.

The European Union announced it would review aid to Palestinian authorities to ensure the aid was not funding terrorism, and subsequently announced that immediate humanitarian aid to Gaza would be tripled. 

Austria, Germany, and Sweden suspended development aid to Palestine in response to Hamas's attack and said that they would review other projects and aid given. 

The World Uyghur Congress released a statement condemning "horrific attacks by Hamas against Israeli civilians". 

Croatia's president Zoran Milanovic publicly stated that Israel had lost his sympathy due to its humanitarian crimes and "reprisal actions" in Gaza. 

Colombian president Gustavo Petro likened IDF attacks against Palestinians to Nazis and asked the Israeli ambassador to "apologize and leave the country" 

Spain's deputy prime minister Yolanda Díaz called on the international community to put pressure on Israel to stop what she called a massacre in Gaza.

Responses from African governments varied, showing division about the source of the conflict and who is to blame. However, most expressed grief and deep concerns about the outbreak of violence, with condemnations of attacks against civilians and calls for restraint and de-escalation to prevent further loss of Israeli and Palestinian lives.

As many as 20,000 Thai workers (around half of Israel's migrant work force) live all over Israel, including areas close to Gaza. Thailand's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said their stance towards "the deadly Hamas-led attack against Israel is one of neutrality, and the Kingdom promotes a solution that would allow Palestine and Israel to coexist"

Queen Rania of Jordan said leaders of Western countries had double standards and were "complicit" in civilian suffering in Gaza.

On 31 October, Bolivia severed diplomatic relations with Israel due to what the deputy foreign minister called "the aggressive and disproportionate Israeli military offensive".

Evacuations of foreign nationals:
Main article: Evacuations during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war

Brazil announced a rescue operation of nationals using an air force transport aircraft. 

Poland announced that it would deploy two C-130 transport planes to evacuate 200 of its nationals from Ben-Gurion airport. 

Hungary evacuated 215 of its nationals from Israel using two aircraft on 9 October, while Romania evacuated 245 of its citizens, including two pilgrimage groups, on two TAROM planes and two private aircraft on the same day. 

Australia also announced repatriation flights. 

300 Nigerian pilgrims in Israel fled to Jordan before being airlifted home.

On 12 October, the United Kingdom arranged flights for its citizens in Israel; the first plane departed Ben Gurion Airport that day. The government had said before that it would not be evacuating its nationals due to available commercial flights. However, the flights were commercial. 

Nepal arranged a flight to evacuate at least 254 of its citizens who were studying in Israel. 

India launched Operation Ajay to evacuate its citizens from Israel. Ukraine has facilitated the evacuation of around 450 of its citizens from Israel as of 18 October, with additional evacuation flights in the planning for the near future.

Visits by foreign leaders:
For a more comprehensive list, see List of serving heads of state and government that have visited Israel during the 2023 Israel–Hamas War.
​
​On 17 October, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz visited Israel to express solidarity with the country. On his departure from Ben-Gurion airport, he was evacuated to a shelter after a rocket alarm went off.

On 18 October, US President Joe Biden arrived in Israel and was received at Ben-Gurion airport by Israeli President Isaac Herzog and Prime Minister Netanyahu. At a news conference, he said Israel did not commit the al-Ahli hospital bombing in Gaza and blamed what he called "the other team" for the attack. 

In the wake of the attack, a summit in Amman hosted by King Abdullah II that was also to be attended by Biden, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el Sisi was cancelled by the Jordanian government.

British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak arrived in Israel on 19 October, in order to meet Netanyahu and offer his condolences for the civilians killed in the initial attacks. 

Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni arrived in Israel on 21 October.

On 24 October, French President Emmanuel Macron visited Israel to express solidarity with the country. He said that the anti-ISIL coalition should also fight against Hamas.


Regional and global effects:
Main article: Regional and global effects of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war

Effect on Palestinian factions:

According to Daniel Byman and Alexander Palmer, the attack showcased the decline of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the rise of Hamas as a power center in Palestinian politics. They predicted the PLO's further decline if the status quo held. 

Laith Alajlouni wrote that the immediate effect of the Hamas offensive was to unite Hamas and PLO. However it may soon lead to conflict between them, possibly leading the PLO losing control of the security situation in the West Bank, if more militant groups there begin to launch their own independent attacks.

Israeli intelligence failure:

Political journalist Peter Beaumont described the attack as "an intelligence failure for the ages" on the part of the Israeli government. 

The Jewish News Syndicate deemed it a "failure of imagination". A BBC report on the intelligence failure noted that "it must have taken extraordinary levels of operational security by Hamas." 

US officials expressed shock at how Israeli intelligence appeared to be unaware of any preparations by Hamas. Israeli officials later anonymously reported to Axios that the IDF and Shin Bet had detected abnormal movements by Hamas the day before the attack, but decided to wait for additional intelligence before raising the military's alert level. They also did not inform political leaders of the intelligence reports.

Effect on the Netanyahu government:

Amit Segal, chief political commentator for Israel's Channel 12, said that the conflict would test Benjamin Netanyahu's survival as prime minister, noting that past wars had toppled the governments of several of his predecessors such as:
Prior to the formation of an emergency unity government on 11 October, Politico described the then-potential move as Netanyahu's opportunity to correct his course and save his political legacy. 

Citing the Israeli intelligence failure, which some observers attributed to the incumbent government focusing more on internal dissent, judicial reform, and efforts to deepen Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories, some commentators criticized Netanyahu for putting aside the PLO and propping up Hamas, and described him as a liability.

Effect on Israeli–Saudi Arabian normalization:
See also: Arab–Israeli normalization

In an analysis by The Times of Israel, the newspaper wrote that "Hamas has violently shifted the world's eyes back to the Palestinians and dealt a severe blow to the momentum for securing a landmark US-brokered deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia."

Andreas Kluth wrote in his Bloomberg News column that Hamas "torched Biden's deal to remake the Middle East", arguing that the deal that was being discussed between Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States would have left Palestinians in the cold, so the group decided to "blow the whole thing up."

He added that, viewed from Gaza, things were only going to get worse, considering that Netanyahu's coalition partners opposed a two-state solution for the conflict. He suggested they would prefer to annex the entirety of the West Bank, even at the expense of turning Israel into an apartheid state.


Media coverage:
Main article: Media coverage of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war

Disinformation:

This section is an excerpt from Disinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war.

Disinformation has been wide-ranging, with the dissemination of false, misleading or unsubstantiated information on both sides in the conflict. Much of the content has been viral in nature, with tens of millions of posts in circulation on social media.

Some misinformation has also been widely distributed in mainstream media and repeated by heads of state.

Iranians:

Keyhan wrote that Zionism considers other races subservient animals.

Haniyah along with multiple Iranains generals and politicians claimed full collapse of Israel.

IRGC general Naghdi claimed it is Americans that Israeli regime is no longer in the existence.

IRNA quoted Israeli intelligence that their military have lost dominance.

China:

There were reports that Baidu and other Chinese-made maps removed Israel from appearing.


Reports of sexual violence, decapitation, and torture:

Decapitations

In the aftermath of the initial Hamas assault, witnesses from the IDF and the first responder organisation ZAKA reported seeing bodies of beheaded infants at the site of the Kfar Aza massacre. 

During Antony Blinken's visit to Israel, he was shown photos of the massacre by Hamas of Israeli civilians and soldiers; among other things Blinken confirmed that he saw beheaded IDF soldiers. 

US President Joe Biden separately said that he had seen photographic evidence of terrorists beheading children, The White House subsequently clarified that Biden was alluding to news reports on beheadings, which have not contained or referred to photographic evidence. 

NBC News stated that the claim was likely erroneous, and based on the conflation of two separate statements made by IDF soldiers. 

As of 12 October, CNN extensively reviewed online media content to verify Hamas-related atrocities but found no evidence to support claims of decapitated children.

A ZAKA volunteer reported on 14 October seeing bodies of children with severe injuries and burns. Some of the deceased children appeared to have been decapitated, although the exact circumstances were not clear. 

Chen Kugel, the head of the Israeli National Center of Forensic Medicine, said "We also have bodies coming in without heads, but we can't definitely say it was from beheadings. Heads can also be blown off due to explosive devices, missiles, and the like". 

On 24 October, Israeli authorities screened bodycam footage of Hamas atrocities for journalists, including "an attempt to decapitate someone who appeared to be still alive using a garden hoe", as well as a still image of a decapitated IDF soldier.

Sexual violence:

Rape and sexual violence against Israeli women were reported, notably during the Re'im music festival massacre. 

Reports in the following were sourced to named and anonymous eye-witnesss present in Israel: 
An 8 October report by The Times of Israel referenced videos it said "have raised concerns of sexual assault against women". However, as of 11 October, Yuval Shany wrote it was too soon to know whether there had been a pattern of sexual assault, as there had not yet been time to formally take testimonies from victims and witnesses. 

These reports of sexual violence were repeated by Israeli officials, US President Biden, UK security minister Tom Tugendhat, and several journalists or media outlets (e.g. 
On 11 October, Jewish-American news media organization The Forward said, "Biden, Netanyahu, celebrities and columnists have rushed to condemn rape. But the IDF does not yet have any evidence it happened". 

As of 13 October, FactCheck.org concluded "there are no publicly confirmed examples of sexual assault". An Arab Israeli council member in the city of Lod told The New York Times that local Arab youth had seen "images of slaughter, kidnap and rape", which weakened their initial support for Hamas.

On 14 October, Israel's military forensic teams attested that there were indications of torture and multiple rapes among the deceased. The Hostage and Missing Families Forum, a group representing the families of hostages taken by Hamas, told the International Committee of the Red Cross that some of the hostages had been victims of rape.

On 24 October, Israeli authorities screened footage of atrocities committed during Hamas's incursion to a small group of foreign journalists. In one clip a partially burnt female corpse was seen, with her dress pulled up to around her waist and underwear missing. An Israeli official said that authorities had evidence of rape.

Immolation:

On 20 October, the remains of victims from the Hamas attack and the analysis of the bodies by a team of Israeli and international forensic experts were displayed at Israel's Forensic Pathology Center for the media.

These included charred hands with marks indicating the victims' hands were bound behind their backs with metal wire before being burned alive. A large charred mass that when observed by CT scan show the remains of a parent and child who were bound together before being burned alive.

Many of the victims had soot in their trachea, indicating that they were executed through immolation.

​
See also ___________________________________________________________________________


All About Hamas
Pictured below: Hamas attacks music festival in Israel
Hamas , an acronym of its official name, the Islamic Resistance Movement , is  a Sunni Islamist political and military organization governing the Gaza Strip of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories. 

Headquartered in Gaza City, it also has a presence in the West Bank (the larger of the two Palestinian territories), in which its secular rival Fatah exercises control. Hamas is widely considered to be the "dominant political force" within the Palestinian territories.

In 1987, after the outbreak of the First Intifada against Israel, Hamas was founded by Palestinian imam and activist Ahmed Yassin. It emerged out of his Mujama al-Islamiya, which had been established in Gaza in 1973 as an Islamic charity involved with the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood. 

Hamas became increasingly involved in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict by the late 1990s; it opposed the Israel–PLO Letters of Mutual Recognition as well as the Oslo Accords, which saw Fatah renounce "the use of terrorism and other acts of violence" and recognize Israel in pursuit of a two-state solution.

Hamas continued to advocate Palestinian armed resistance, won the 2006 Palestinian legislative election, gaining a majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council, and took control of the Gaza Strip from Fatah following a civil war in 2007. 

Since then, it has run Gaza as a de facto autocratic and one-party state.
​
While historically seeking an Islamic Palestinian state over the combined territory of Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip (rejecting the two-state solution). 

Hamas began negotiating with Israel and the 1967 borders in the agreements it signed with Fatah in 2005, 2006 and 2007. 

In 2017, Hamas released a new charter that supported a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders without recognizing Israel.

Hamas's repeated offers of a truce (for a period of 10–100 years) based on the 1967 borders are seen by many as being consistent with a two-state solution, while others state that Hamas retains the long-term objective of establishing one state in former Mandatory Palestine. 

Under the ideological principles of Islamism, Hamas promotes Palestinian nationalism in an Islamic context; it has pursued a policy of jihad (armed struggle) against Israel. It has a social service wing, Dawah, and a military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades. 

Since the mid-1990s, Hamas has gained widespread popularity within Palestinian society for its anti-Israeli stance. The group's attacks, including suicide bombings against civilian targets and indiscriminate rocket attacks, have led many countries and academics to designate Hamas a terrorist organization. 

A 2018 attempt to condemn Hamas for "acts of terror" at the United Nations failed.
The Gaza Strip is currently under blockade. Israel and Hamas have fought a number of wars there, including in 2008–09, in 2012 and in 2014.

In the 2023 war, Hamas launched "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" and its fighters broke through the Gaza barrier, attacked Israeli military bases, massacred civilians and took civilian and soldier hostages back to Gaza. The attack has been described as the biggest setback of Israeli military since the 1973 war.

In response, Israel began its aerial bombardment of Gaza and announced its intention to destroy Hamas. The EU and the US have called for the elimination of Hamas.

Click on any of the following blue hyperlinks for more about HAMAS: ___________________________________________________________________________

​
Antisemitism

Pictured below: Prisoners in Sachsenhausen concentration camp at Sachsenhausen in December 1938
​Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is hostility to, prejudice towards, or discrimination against Jews. This sentiment is a form of racism, and a person who harbours it is called an antisemite.

Though antisemitism is overwhelmingly perpetrated by non-Jews, it may occasionally be perpetrated by Jews in a phenomenon known as auto-antisemitism (i.e., self-hating Jews).

Primarily, antisemitic tendencies may be motivated by negative sentiment towards Jews as a people or by negative sentiment towards Jews with regard to Judaism.

In the former case, usually presented as racial antisemitism, a person's hostility is driven by the belief that Jews constitute a distinct race with inherent traits or characteristics that are repulsive or inferior to the preferred traits or characteristics within that person's society. 

In the latter case, known as religious antisemitism, a person's hostility is driven by their religion's perception of Jews and Judaism, typically encompassing doctrines of supersession that expect or demand Jews to turn away from Judaism and submit to the religion presenting itself as Judaism's successor faith — this is a common theme within the other Abrahamic religions. 

The development of racial and religious antisemitism has historically been encouraged by anti-Judaism, though the concept itself is distinct from antisemitism.

There are various ways in which antisemitism is manifested, ranging in the level of severity of Jewish persecution. On the more subtle end, it consists of expressions of hatred or discrimination against individual Jews, and may or may not be accompanied by violence. On the most extreme end, it consists of pogroms or genocide, which may or may not be state-sponsored.

Although the term "antisemitism" did not come into common usage until the 19th century, it is also applied to previous and later anti-Jewish incidents. Notable instances of antisemitic persecution include:
Historically, most of the world's violent antisemitic events have taken place in Christian Europe. However, since the early 20th century, there has been a sharp rise in antisemitic incidents across the Arab world, largely due to the surge in Arab antisemitic conspiracy theories, which have been cultivated to an extent under the aegis of European antisemitic conspiracy theories.

In the contemporary era, a manifestation known as "new antisemitism" was identified. This concept addresses the exploitation of the Arab–Israeli conflict by a large number of concealed antisemites, who may attempt to gain traction or legitimacy for their antisemitic hoaxes by portraying themselves as criticizing the Israeli government's actions; this is distinct from people who view Israeli government policies negatively, which is not inherently antisemitic.

Likewise, as the State of Israel has a Jewish-majority population, it is common for antisemitic rhetoric to be manifested in expressions of anti-Israeli sentiment, though this is not always the case and such expressions may sometimes be part of wider anti–Middle Eastern sentiment without an exclusively antisemitic motive.

Due to the root word Semite, the term is prone to being invoked as a misnomer by those who interpret it as referring to racist hatred directed at all "Semitic people" (i.e., those who speak Semitic languages, such as Arabs, Assyrians, and Arameans).

This usage is erroneous; the compound word antisemitismus (lit. 'antisemitism') was first used in print in Germany in 1879 as a "scientific-sounding term" for Judenhass (lit. 'Jew-hatred'), and it has since been used to refer to anti-Jewish sentiment alone.

Click on any of the following blue hyperlinks for more about Antisemitism:







Foreign Policy of the United States along with 
Criticism of United States foreign policy that has pushed the United States into Military Conflicts!
​The officially stated goals of the foreign policy of the United States of America, including all the bureaus and offices in the United States Department of State, as mentioned in the Foreign Policy Agenda of the Department of State, are "to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community". 

Liberalism has been a key component of US foreign policy since its independence from Britain. Since the end of World War II, the United States has had a grand strategy which has been characterized as being oriented around primacy, "deep engagement", and/or liberal hegemony.

This strategy entails that the United States maintains military predominance; builds and maintains an extensive network of allies (exemplified by NATO, bilateral alliances and foreign US military bases); integrates other states into US-designed international institutions (such as the IMF, WTO/GATT and World Bank); and limits the spread of nuclear weapons.

The United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs states as some of its jurisdictional goals: "export controls, including nonproliferation of nuclear technology and nuclear hardware; measures to foster commercial interaction with foreign nations and to safeguard American business abroad; international commodity agreements; international education; protection of American citizens abroad; and expulsion". 

U.S. foreign policy and foreign aid have been the subject of much debate, praise, and criticism, both domestically and abroad.


Foreign policy development:

​Article Two of the United States Constitution grants power of foreign policy to the President of the United States, including powers to command the military, negotiate treaties, and appoint ambassadors. The Department of State carries out the president's foreign policy. The State Department is usually pulled between the wishes of Congress, and the wishes of the residing president. The Department of Defense carries out the president's military policy.

The Central Intelligence Agency is an independent agency responsible for gathering intelligence on foreign activity. Some checks and balances are applied to the president's powers of foreign policy. Treaties negotiated by the president require ratification by the Senate to take force as United States law. The president's ambassadorial nominations also require Senate approval before taking office. Military actions must first be approved by both chambers of Congress.

The Constitution grants Congress the power to approve the president's picks for ambassadors and the power to declare war. The president is commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces. He appoints a Secretary of State and ambassadors with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Secretary acts similarly to a foreign minister, because they are the primary conductor of foreign affairs. 

While foreign policy has varied slightly from president to president, there have generally been consistently similar goals throughout different administrations.

Generally speaking there are 4 schools of thought regarding foreign policy:
  1. First is Neo-Isolationists, who believe the United States should maintain a very narrow focus and avoid all involvement in the rest of the world.
  2. Second is selective-engagement which avoids all conflicts with other nations, and is semi-restrictive on its foreign policy.
  3. Third is cooperative security, which requires more involvement throughout the world, occasionally countering threats to the country.
  4. Finally is the idea of primacy which seeks to advance the United States well beyond all other nations of the world, placing it first in all matters.

International law:

Much of American foreign policy consists of international agreements made with other countries. Treaties are governed by the Treaty Clause of the United States Constitution. This clause dictates that the president negotiates treaties with other countries or political entities, and signs them.

For a treaty to be ratified, it must be approved by the Committee on Foreign Relations and then be approved by at least two-thirds of the United States Senate in a floor vote.

If approved, the United States exchanges the instruments of ratification with the relevant foreign states. In Missouri v. Holland, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to make treaties under the U.S. Constitution is a power separate from the other enumerated powers of the federal government, and hence the federal government can use treaties to legislate in areas which would otherwise fall within the exclusive authority of the states. 

Between 1789 and 1990, the Senate approved more than 1,500 treaties, rejected 21 and withdrew 85 without further action. As of 2019, 37 treaties were pending Senate approval.

In addition to treaties, the president can also make executive agreements. These agreements are made under the president's power of setting foreign policy, but they are not ratified by the Senate and as a result are not legally binding.

In contrast to most other nations, the United States regards treaties and executive agreements as legally distinct. Congress may pass a resolution to enshrine an executive agreement into law, but the constitutionality of this action has been questioned.

The State Department has taken the position that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties represents established law. Following ratification, the United States incorporates treaty law into the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties after they are ratified. This can overrule an agreed-upon treaty obligation even if that is seen as a violation of the treaty under international law.

Several U.S. court rulings confirmed this understanding, including Supreme Court decisions in Paquete Habana v. the United States (1900), and Reid v. Covert (1957), as well as a lower court ruling in Garcia-Mir v. Meese (1986).

As a result of the Reid v. Covert decision, the United States adds a reservation to the text of every treaty that says in effect that the United States intends to abide by the treaty but that if the treaty is found to be in violation of the Constitution, the United States legally is then unable to abide by the treaty since the American signature would be ultra vires.


Historical overview:
Main articles: 
The main trend regarding the history of U.S. foreign policy since the American Revolution is the shift from non-interventionism before and after World War I, to its growth as a world power and global hegemon during World War II and throughout the Cold War in the 20th century. Since the 19th century, U.S. foreign policy also has been characterized by a shift from the realist school to the idealistic or Wilsonian school of international relations.

Over time, other themes, key goals, attitudes, or stances have been variously expressed by presidential 'doctrines'.

​Main articles: 
The main trend regarding the history of U.S. foreign policy since the American Revolution is the shift from non-interventionism before and after World War I, to its growth as a world power and global hegemon during World War II and throughout the Cold War in the 20th century. 

Since the 19th century, U.S. foreign policy also has been characterized by a shift from the realist school to the idealistic or Wilsonian school of international relations. Over time, other themes, key goals, attitudes, or stances have been variously expressed by presidential 'doctrines'.

18th century
Further information: History of U.S. foreign policy, 1776–1801

Foreign policy themes were expressed considerably in George Washington's farewell address; these included, among other things, observing good faith and justice towards all nations and cultivating peace and harmony with all, excluding both "inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others", "steer[ing] clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world", and advocating trade with all nations.

Foreign policy in the first years of American independence constituted the balancing of relations with Great Britain and France. The Federalist Party supported Washington's foreign policy and sought close ties with Britain, but the Democratic-Republican Party favored France. 

Under the Federalist government of John Adams, the United States engaged in conflict with France in the Quasi-War, but the rival Jeffersonians feared Britain and favored France in the 1790s, declaring the War of 1812 on Britain. Jeffersonians vigorously opposed a large standing army and any navy until attacks against American shipping by Barbary corsairs spurred the country into developing a navy, resulting in the First Barbary War in 1801.

19th century:
Further information: History of U.S. foreign policy: ​
American foreign policy was mostly peaceful and marked by steady expansion of its foreign trade during the 19th century. 

As the Jeffersonians took power in the 1800s, they opposed a large standing army and any navy until attacks against American shipping by Barbary corsairs spurred the country into developing a naval force projection capability, resulting in the First Barbary War in 1801. 

The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 doubled the nation's geographical area. The American policy of neutrality had caused tensions to rise with Britain in the Atlantic and with Native American nations in the frontier. This led to the War of 1812 and helped cement American foreign policy as independent of Europe. 

After the War of 1812, there were diagreements between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton as to whether the United States should be isolated or be more involved in global activities.

In the 1820s, the Monroe Doctrine was established as the primary foreign policy doctrine of the United States, establishing Latin America as an American sphere of influence and rejecting European colonization in the region.

The 1830s and 1840s were marked by increasing conflict with Mexico, exacerbated by the Texas annexation and culminating in the Mexican–American War in 1846. Following the war, the United States claimed much of what is now the Southwestern United States, and the Gadsden Purchase further expanded this territory.

Relations with Britain continued to be strained as a result of border conflicts until they were resolved by the Webster–Ashburton Treaty in 1842. The Perry Expedition of 1853 led to Japan establishing relations with the United States.

The Diplomacy of the American Civil War emphasized preventing European involvement in the war. During the Civil War, Spain and France defied the Monroe Doctrine and expanded their colonial influence in the Dominican Republic and Mexico, respectively. 

The Alaska Purchase was negotiated with Russia in 1867 and the Newlands Resolution annexed Hawaii in 1898.

The Spanish–American War took place during 1898, resulting in the United States claiming Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, and causing Spain to retract claims upon Cuba.

Generally speaking the Foreign Policy of the United States during this era was anchored in a policy of wealth building for the nation.

20th century:
Further information: History of U.S. foreign policy, 1897–1913

Following the Spanish–American War, the United States entered the 20th century as an emerging great power with colonies in the Caribbean and the Pacific. Under Theodore Roosevelt, the United States adopted the Roosevelt Corollary, which indicated American willingness to use its military strength to end conflicts and wrongdoings in Latin America.

Following the independence of Panama, the United States and Panama negotiated the construction of the Panama Canal, during which time the Panama Canal Zone was placed under American jurisdiction. The United States established the Open Door Policy with China during this time as well.

The 20th century was marked by two world wars in which Allied powers, along with the United States, defeated their enemies, and through this participation the United States increased its international reputation.

World War I and Interbellum:
Further information: 
Entry into the First World War was a hotly debated issue in the 1916 presidential election.

In response to the Russian revolutions, 

President Wilson's Fourteen Points was developed from his idealistic Wilsonianism program of spreading democracy and fighting militarism to prevent future wars. It became the basis of the German Armistice (which amounted to a military surrender) and the 1919 Paris Peace Conference.

The resulting Treaty of Versailles, due to European allies' punitive and territorial designs, showed insufficient conformity with these points, and the U.S. signed separate treaties with each of its adversaries; due to Senate objections also, the U.S. never joined the League of Nations, which was established as a result of Wilson's initiative.

In the 1920s, the United States followed an independent course, and succeeded in a program of naval disarmament, and refunding the German economy. Operating outside the League it became a dominant player in diplomatic affairs.

New York became the financial capital of the world, but the Wall Street Crash of 1929 hurled the Western industrialized world into the Great Depression. American trade policy relied on high tariffs under the Republicans, and reciprocal trade agreements under the Democrats, but in any case exports were at very low levels in the 1930s. 

 Post WWI, the United States entered back into isolation from world events. This was largely due to the Great Depression of 1929.

World War II:
Main articles: 
The United States adopted an isolationist foreign policy from 1932 to 1938, but this position was challenged by the outbreak of World War II in 1939. Franklin D. Roosevelt advocated strong support of the allies, establishing the United States as the Arsenal of Democracy by providing military equipment without entering the war.

Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States joined the allies as combatants in World War II.

Roosevelt mentioned four fundamental freedoms, which ought to be enjoyed by people "everywhere in the world"; these included the freedom of speech and religion, as well as freedom from want and fear.

Roosevelt helped establish terms for a post-war world among potential allies at the Atlantic Conference; specific points were included to correct earlier failures, which became a step toward the United Nations.

American policy was to counter Japan, to force out of China, and to prevent attacking the Soviet Union. Japan reacted with an attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, and the United States was at war with Japan, Germany, and Italy. Instead of the loans given to allies in World War I, the United States provided Lend-Lease grants of $50,000,000,000.

Working closely with Winston Churchill of Britain, and Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union, Roosevelt sent his forces into the Pacific against Japan, then into North Africa against Italy and Germany, and finally into Europe starting with France and Italy in 1944 against the Germans.

The American economy roared forward, doubling industrial production, and building vast quantities of airplanes, ships, tanks, munitions, and, finally, the atomic bomb. The culmination of World War II ended in the defeat of Nazi Germany, and the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The post World War II era saw the rise of the United States as the global leader, which necessitated an effort by the United States to instill liberal democracy around the world.

Cold War:
Main article: Cold War

After the war, the U.S. rose to become the dominant economic power with broad influence in much of the world, with the key policies of the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine.

Almost immediately, two broad camps formed during the Cold War; one side was led by the U.S. and the other by the Soviet Union, but this situation also led to the establishment of the Non-Aligned Movement.

This period lasted until almost the end of the 20th century and is thought to be both an ideological and power struggle between the two superpowers.

The United States extended its influence in the years after World War II, enacting the Marshall Plan to support the reconstruction process in European countries and seeking to combat Communism through containment. This strategy of containment resulted in the Korean War and the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War in particular was highly controversial, and its perceived failures reduced popularity for foreign intervention in the United States. 

​The invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union contributed directly to fueling tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union. This began with President Carter announcing the United States interests in maintaining the status quo within the Persian Gulf region, resulting in the Carter Doctrine.

The Regan administration escalated the tensions by supporting freedom fighters around the world, most notably in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion. The Soviet Union and the United States did not engage in direct conflict, but rather supported small proxies that opposed the other.

​In 1991, the Soviet Union dissolved into separate nations, and the Cold War formally ended as the United States gave separate diplomatic recognition to the Russian Federation and other former Soviet states.

In domestic politics, foreign policy was not usually a central issue. In 1945–1970, the Democratic Party took a strong anti-Communist line and supported wars in Korea and Vietnam. Then the party split with a strong, "dovish", pacifist element (typified by 1972 presidential candidate George McGovern).

Many "hawks", advocates for war, joined the neoconservative movement and started supporting the Republicans—especially Reagan—based on foreign policy. Meanwhile, down to 1952 the Republican Party was split between an isolationist wing, based in the Midwest and led by Senator Robert A. Taft, and an internationalist wing based in the East and led by Dwight D. Eisenhower. Eisenhower defeated Taft for the 1952 nomination largely on foreign policy grounds.

Since then the Republicans have been characterized by American nationalism, strong opposition to Communism, and strong support for Israel.[30]

21st century:
Main articles: 
​Following the end of the Cold War, the United States entered the 21st century as the sole superpower, though this status has been challenged by China, India, Russia, and the European Union.

Substantial problems remain, such as: 
The September 11 attacks in 2001 caused a policy shift, in which America declared a "war on terror". The United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and invaded Iraq in 2003, emphasizing nation-building and the neutralization of terrorist threats in the Middle East.

During the war on terror, the United States significantly expanded its military and intelligence capacities while also pursuing economic methods of targeting opposing governments.

After a phased withdrawal from Iraq, In 2014, the Islamic State emerged as a major hostile power in the Middle East, and the United States led a military intervention in Iraq and Syria to combat it.

The extended nature of American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has resulted in support for isolationism and reduced involvement in foreign conflicts.

In 2011, the United States led a NATO intervention in Libya. In 2013, disclosures of American surveillance programs revealed that United States intelligence policy included extensive global surveillance activities against foreign governments and citizens.

In 2017, diplomats from other countries developed new tactics to engage with President Donald Trump's brand of American nationalism. Peter Baker of The New York Times reported on the eve of his first foreign trip as president that the global diplomatic community had devised a strategy of keeping interactions brief, complimenting him, and giving him something he can consider a victory. 

Before the Trump presidency, foreign policy in the U.S. was the result of bipartisan consensus on an agenda of strengthening its position as the number one power. That consensus has since fractured, with Republican and Democratic politicians increasingly calling for a more restrained approach. 

Foreign policy under the Trump administration involved heightened tensions with Iran, a trade war through increased tariffs, and a reduced role in international organizations.

Advancing a "Free and Open Indo-Pacific" has become the core of the U.S. national security strategy and has been embraced by both Democratic and Republican administrations.

The United States ended its wars in the Greater Middle East with the withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. Unlike the Trump administration, which is more concerned with containing China's influence, foreign policy of the Biden-Harris administration shifted to an increased focus on Russia following the attempted Russian election interference in 2016 and developments in the Russo-Ukrainian War.

With the rise of Russia and China as co-superpowers, the United States has had to shift its relations to more cooperation rather than coercion, with Russia and China pursuing a more self serving global system.

In early 2023, when China brokered the long-awaited reconciliation of Saudi-Arabia Iran relations, the U.S. found itself on the sidelines of political developments in the Middle East.

The JCPOA, which attempted to control the nuclear capabilities of Iran, was not fully reinstated after the Trump administration abandoned the international agreement supported by European powers in 2018.

As China attempted to fill this vacuum, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine further tested the international alliances with the U.S. Iran and other larger powers such as India as well as Arab nations did not adopt any of the economic sanctions imposed on Russia but to the contrary, increased their economic and strategic alliances with Russia or China.

As China is focussing primarily on the global expansion of its economy, Russia was able to maintain its military and energy-related influence not only in Asia but also in Africa and South America.

With regard to the Middle East, trade from these nations with China is three times greater than the trade with the U.S. As China is extending its mid-East reach, Russia despite its battered economy from sanctions still remains influential in South America with trade relations that are difficult to deconstruct through U.S. American influence.

While China's influence in the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Africa is still hindered by commercial and currency-related U.S. trade policies, it is perceived more and more as a peace negotiator than a communist aggressor, particularly outside of Europe and North America.

While the U.S. still upholds its moral dominance by advocating for democracy, its foreign policies are increasingly marked by a perceived inability to defend its image as an exporter of peace and prosperity.


Diplomatic policy:

The diplomatic policy of the United States is created by the president and carried out by the Department of State. The department's stated mission is to "protect and promote U.S. security, prosperity, and democratic values and shape an international environment in which all Americans can thrive."

Its objectives during the 2022-2026 period include renewing U.S. leadership, promoting global prosperity, strengthening democratic institutions, revitalizing the diplomatic workforce and institutions, and serving U.S. citizens abroad. 

As of 2022, the United States has bilateral relations with all but four United Nations members.

The United States government emphasizes human rights in foreign policy. 

Annual reports produced by the Department of State, such as "Advancing Freedom and Democracy" and the "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices", track the status of human rights around the world. The National Endowment for Democracy provides financial aid to promote democracy internationally.

International agreements:
Further information: 
The United States is party to thousands of international agreements with other countries, territories, and international organizations. These include arms control agreements, human rights treaties, environmental protocols, and free trade agreements. 

Under the Compact of Free Association, the United States also maintains a relationship of free association with the countries of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau, grants the United States military access to the countries in exchange for military protection, foreign aid, and access domestic American agencies.

The United States is a member of many international organizations. It is a founding member of the United Nations and holds a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.

The United States is also a member of other global organizations, including the World Trade Organization. Regional organizations in which the United States is a member include: 
As the largest economy in the world, the United States is also a member of organizations for the most developed nations, including the OECD, the Group of Seven, and the G20.

Non-participation in multi-lateral agreements:
Further information: List of treaties unsigned or unratified by the United States

The United States notably does not participate in various international agreements adhered to by almost all other industrialized countries, by almost all the countries of the Americas, or by almost all other countries in the world.

With a large population and economy, on a practical level this can undermine the effect of certain agreements, or give other countries a precedent to cite for non-participation in various agreements.

In some cases the arguments against participation include that the United States should maximize its sovereignty and freedom of action, or that ratification would create a basis for lawsuits that would treat American citizens unfairly. 

In other cases, the debate became involved in domestic political issues, such as gun control, climate change, and the death penalty.

Examples include:
Foreign aid:
Main articles: 
Foreign assistance is a core component of the State Department's international affairs budget, and aid is considered an essential instrument of U.S. foreign policy. 

There are four major categories of non-military foreign assistance:
  1. bilateral development aid,
  2. economic assistance supporting U.S. political and security goals,
  3. humanitarian aid, and
  4. multilateral economic contributions (for example, contributions to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund).

In absolute dollar terms, the United States government is the largest international aid donor. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) manages the bulk of bilateral economic assistance, while the Treasury Department handles most multilateral aid. 

Foreign aid is a highly partisan issue in the United States, with liberals, on average, supporting foreign aid much more than conservatives do.

The United States first began distributing regular foreign aid in the aftermath of World War II and the onset of the Cold War. Foreign aid has been used to foster closer relations with foreign nations, strengthen countries that could potentially become future allies and trading partners, and provide assistance for people of countries most in need.

American foreign aid contributed to the Green Revolution in the 1960s and the democratization of Taiwan and Colombia. Since the 1970s, issues of human rights have become increasingly important in American foreign policy, and several acts of Congress served to restrict foreign aid from governments that "engage in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights". 

In 2011, President Obama instructed agencies to consider LGBT rights when issuing financial aid to foreign countries. In the 2019 fiscal year, the United States spent $39.2 billion in foreign aid, constituting less than one percent of the federal budget.

War on Drugs:
Main article: War on drugs

​United States foreign policy is influenced by the efforts of the U.S. government to control imports of illicit drugs, including cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and cannabis. This is especially true in Latin America, a focus for the U.S. War on Drugs.

These foreign policy efforts date back to at least the 1900s, when the U.S. banned the importation of non-medical opium and participated in the 1909 International Opium Commission, one of the first international drug conferences.

Over a century later, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act requires the President to identify the major drug transit or major illicit drug-producing countries.

In September 2005, the following countries were identified: 
Two of these, Burma and Venezuela are countries that the U.S. considers to have failed to adhere to their obligations under international counternarcotics agreements during the previous 12 months.

Notably absent from the 2005 list were: 
  • Afghanistan,
  • the People's Republic of:
  • Canada was also omitted in spite of evidence that criminal groups there are increasingly involved in the production of MDMA destined for the United States and that large-scale cross-border trafficking of Canadian-grown cannabis continues.

The U.S. believes that the Netherlands are successfully countering the production and flow of MDMA to the U.S.

In 2011, overdose deaths in the U.S. were on a decline mostly due to interdiction efforts and international cooperation to reduce the production of illicit drugs.

Since about 2014, a reversal of this trend could be clearly seen as legal semi-synthetic opioids and cocaine stimulants were replaced by the fully synthetic fentanyl and methamphetamine.

By 2022, overdose deaths caused by illicit fentanyl led to the worst drug crisis the U.S. has ever experienced in its history, with 1,500 people dying every week of overdose-related cases.

By 2022, deaths caused by fentanyl significantly reduced the life expectancy in the U.S. and were also seen as a major drag on the U.S. economy.

Despite efforts to control the trade of chemicals used in the synthesis of fentanyl, the tide of fentanyl-related deaths continues to be a major threat to U.S. national security.


Regional diplomacy:
Further information: Foreign relations of the United States

Africa:
Main article: Africa–United States relations

American involvement with Africa has historically been limited. During the war on terror, the United States increased its activities in Africa to fight terrorism in conjunction with African countries as well as to support democracy in Africa through the Millennium Challenge Corporation.

Africa has also been the subject of competition between American and Chinese investment strategies. In 2007 the U.S. was Sub-Saharan Africa's largest single export market accounting for 28% of exports (second in total to the EU at 31%). 81% of U.S. imports from this region were petroleum products.

Asia:
Main article: Asia–United States relations

America's relations with Asia have tended to be based on a "hub and spoke" model instead of multilateral relations, using a series of bilateral relationships where states coordinate with the United States instead of through a unified bloc. 

On May 30, 2009, at the Shangri-La Dialogue, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates urged the nations of Asia to build on this hub and spoke model as they established and grew multilateral institutions such as ASEAN, APEC and the ad hoc arrangements in the area.

In 2011, Gates said the United States must serve as the "indispensable nation", for building multilateral cooperation. As of 2022, the Department of Defense considers China to be the greatest threat to the policy goals of the United States.

Canada:
Main article: Canada–United States relations

Canada has historically been a close ally to the United States, and their foreign policies often work in conjunction. The armed forces of Canada and the United States have a high level of interoperability, and domestic air force operations have been fully integrated between the two countries through NORAD. 

Almost all of Canada's energy exports go to the United States, making it the largest foreign source of U.S. energy imports; Canada is consistently among the top sources for U.S. oil imports, and it is the largest source of U.S. natural gas and electricity imports. 

Trade between the United States and Canada as well as Mexico is facilitated through the USMCA.

Europe:
Main article: Europe–United States relations

The United States has close ties with the European Union, and it is a member of NATO along with several European countries. The United States has close relations with most countries of Europe. Much of American foreign policy has involved combating the Soviet Union in the 20th century and Russia in the 21st century.

Latin America:
Main article: Latin America–United States relations

The Monroe Doctrine has historically made up the foreign policy of the United States in regard to Latin America. Under this policy, the United States would consider Latin America to be under its sphere of influence and defend Latin American countries from European hostilities.

The United States was heavily involved in the politics of Panama during the early-20th century in order to construct the Panama Canal.

Cuba was an ally of the United States following its independence, but it was identified as a major national security threat following the Cuban Revolution; Cuba–United States relations remain poor.

Middle East:
Main article: United States foreign policy in the Middle East

​​The Middle East region was first proclaimed to be of national interest to the United States during World War II, and relations were secured with Saudi Arabia to secure additional oil supplies. 

The Middle East continued to be regarded as an area of vital importance to the United States during the Cold War, and American containment policy emphasized preventing Soviet influence from taking hold in the Middle East. The Truman Doctrine, the Eisenhower Doctrine, and the Nixon Doctrine all played roles in the formulation of the Carter Doctrine, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region. 

Carter's successor, President Ronald Reagan, extended the policy in October 1981 with the Reagan Doctrine, which proclaimed that the United States would intervene to protect Saudi Arabia, whose security was threatened after the outbreak of the Iran–Iraq War. 

During the so-called war on terror, the United States increased its involvement in the region; some analysts have argued that the implementation of the Carter Doctrine and the Reagan Doctrine also played a role in the outbreak of the 2003 Iraq War.

Two-thirds of the world's proven oil reserves are estimated to be found in the Persian Gulf, and the United States imports oil from several Middle Eastern countries.

While its imports have exceeded domestic production since the early 1990s, new hydraulic fracturing techniques and discovery of shale oil deposits in Canada and the American Dakotas offer the potential for increased energy independence from oil exporting countries such as OPEC.

Oceania:
Main article: Oceania–United States relations

Australia and New Zealand are close allies of the United States. Together, the three countries compose the ANZUS collective security agreement. The United States and the United Kingdom also have a separate agreement, AUKUS, with Australia. After it captured the islands from Japan during World War II, the United States administered the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands from 1947 to 1986 (1994 for Palau).

The Northern Mariana Islands became a U.S. territory (part of the United States), while Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau became independent countries.

Each has signed a Compact of Free Association that gives the United States exclusive military access in return for U.S. defense protection and conduct of military foreign affairs (except the declaration of war) and a few billion dollars of aid.

These agreements also generally allow citizens of these countries to live and work in the United States with their spouses (and vice versa), and provide for largely free trade. The federal government also grants access to services from domestic agencies, including :

Defense policy:
See also: Category:Bilateral military relations of the United States

​Defense policy of the United States is established by the president under the role of commander-in-chief, and it is carried out by the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. As of 2022, the stated objective of the Department of Defense is to deter attacks against the United States and its allies in order to protect the American people, expand America's prosperity, and defend democratic values.

The department recognizes China as the greatest foreign threat to the United States, with Russia, North Korea, Iran, and violent extremist organizations recognized as other major foreign threats. 

Most American troops stationed in foreign countries operate in non-combat roles. As of 2021, about 173,000 troops are deployed in 159 countries. Japan, Germany, and South Korea are host to the largest numbers of American troops due to continued military cooperation following World War II and the Korean War. 

The United States has not been involved in a major war since the conclusion of the War in Afghanistan in 2021, though American forces continue to operate against terrorist groups in the Middle East and Africa through the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001.

The United States also provides billions of dollars of military aid to allied countries each year.

The Constitution of the United States requires that Congress authorize any military conflict initiated by the president. This has been carried out through formal declarations of war, Congressional authorizations without formal declaration, and through United Nations Security Council Resolutions that are legally recognized by Congress.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 limited the ability of the president to use the military without Congressional authorization.

Prior to 2001, 125 instances of American presidents using military force without Congressional authorization had been identified. Since 2001, the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001 (AUMF) has granted the president the power to engage in military conflict with any country, organization, or person that was involved in carrying out the September 11 attacks.

American presidents have since interpreted the AUMF to authorize military campaigns against terrorist groups associated with Al-Qaeda in several countries.

Alliances and partnerships:

The Department of Defense considers cooperation with American allies and partners to be "critical" to achieving American defense objectives. The department makes a distinction between alliances, which are formal military agreements between countries through a treaty, and strategic partnerships, which are military cooperation agreements that aren't bound by specific terms. 

The United States military works in cooperation with many national governments, and the United States has approximately 750 military bases in at least 80 different countries. In addition to military agreements, the United States is a member of multiple international disarmament organizations, including the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.


NATO:
The United States is a founding member of NATO, an alliance of 29 North American and European nations formed to defend Western Europe against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Under the NATO charter, the United States legally recognizes any attack on a NATO member as an attack on all NATO members.

The United States is also a founding member of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, an alliance of 19 North and South American nations. The United States is one of the three members of ANZUS, along with Australia and New Zealand, and it also has military alliances with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Thailand. 

Under the Compact of Free Association, the United States is responsible for the defense of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau. The United States has also designated several countries as major non-NATO allies. These are countries that are not members of NATO but are granted certain privileges in regard to defense trade and security cooperation, including eligibility for certain trade deals and research collaboration.

The president is empowered to designate additional foreign countries as major non-NATO allies.

Since it became a superpower in the mid-20th century, the United States has primarily carried out defense operations by leading and participating in multilateral coalitions. These coalitions may be constructed around existing defensive alliances, such as NATO, or through separate coalitions constructed through diplomatic negotiations and acting in a common interest.

The United States has not engaged in unilateral military action since the invasion of Panama in 1989. United States military action may take place in accordance with or in opposition to the wishes of the United Nations. The United States has opposed the expansion of United Nations peacekeeping beyond its previous scope, instead supporting the use of multilateral coalitions in hostile countries and territories.

Military aid:
Main articles: 
The U.S. provides military aid through many channels, including direct funding, support for training, or distribution of military equipment. Military aid spending has varied over time, with spending reaching as high as $35 billion in 1952, adjusted for inflation. 

The United States established a cohesive military aid policy during World War II, when the Lend-Lease program was implemented to support the Allied powers. After the war, the United States continued to provide military aid in line with other foreign aid programs to support American allies. Programs such as Foreign Military Financing and Foreign Military Sales oversee distribution of military aid.

According to a 2016 report by the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. topped the market in global weapon sales for 2015, with $40 billion sold. The largest buyers were:
  • Qatar,
  • Egypt,
  • Saudi Arabia,
  • South Korea,
  • Pakistan,
  • Israel,
  • the United Arab Emirates
  • and Iraq.

In 2020, the United States distributed $11.6 billion in military aid, the lowest since 2004. Military aid is one of the main forms of foreign aid, with 23% of American foreign aid in 2020 taking the form of military aid. Afghanistan was the primary recipient of American military aid in the 2010s.

In 2022, military aid policy in the United States shifted from Afghanistan to Ukraine following the end of the War in Afghanistan and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. As of 2021, the United States has military bases in at least 80 countries.
​
Missile defense:
Main articles: 
The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was a proposal by U.S. President Ronald Reagan on March 23, 1983 to use ground and space-based systems to protect the United States from attack by strategic nuclear ballistic missiles, later dubbed "Star Wars". 

The initiative focused on strategic defense rather than the prior strategic offense doctrine of mutual assured destruction (MAD). Though it was never fully developed or deployed, the research and technologies of SDI paved the way for some anti-ballistic missile systems of today.

In February 2007, the U.S. started formal negotiations with Poland and Czech Republic concerning construction of missile shield installations in those countries for a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system (in April 2007, 57% of Poles opposed the plan). 

According to press reports, the government of the Czech Republic agreed (while 67% Czechs disagree) to host a missile defense radar on its territory while a base of missile interceptors is supposed to be built in Poland.

Russia threatened to place short-range nuclear missiles on the Russia's border with NATO if the United States refuses to abandon plans to deploy 10 interceptor missiles and a radar in Poland and the Czech Republic. 

In April 2007, Putin warned of a new Cold War if the Americans deployed the shield in Central Europe. Putin also said that Russia is prepared to abandon its obligations under an Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1987 with the United States.

On August 14, 2008, the United States and Poland announced a deal to implement the missile defense system in Polish territory, with a tracking system placed in the Czech Republic.

"The fact that this was signed in a period of very difficult crisis in the relations between Russia and the United States over the situation in Georgia shows that, of course, the missile defense system will be deployed not against Iran but against the strategic potential of Russia", Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's NATO envoy, said.

Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, argue in Foreign Affairs that U.S. missile defenses are designed to secure Washington's nuclear primacy and are chiefly directed at potential rivals, such as Russia and China.

The authors note that Washington continues to eschew nuclear first strike and contend that deploying missile defenses "would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one; as an adjunct to a US First Strike capability, not as a stand-alone shield":

If the United States launched a nuclear attack against Russia (or China), the targeted country would be left with only a tiny surviving arsenal, if any at all. At that point, even a relatively modest or inefficient missile defense system might well be enough to protect against any retaliatory strikes.

This analysis is corroborated by the Pentagon's 1992 Defense Planning Guidance (DPG), prepared by then Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney and his deputies. The DPG declares that the United States should use its power to "prevent the reemergence of a new rival" either on former Soviet territory or elsewhere.

The authors of the Guidance determined that the United States had to "Field a missile defense system as a shield against accidental missile launches or limited missile strikes by 'international outlaws'" and also must "Find ways to integrate the 'new democracies' of the former Soviet bloc into the U.S.-led system".

The National Archive notes that Document 10 of the DPG includes wording about "disarming capabilities to destroy" which is followed by several blacked out words.

​"This suggests that some of the heavily excised pages in the still-classified DPG drafts may include some discussion of preventive action against threatening nuclear and other WMD programs."

Robert David English, writing in Foreign Affairs, observes that the DPG's second recommendation has also been proceeding on course. "Washington has pursued policies that have ignored Russian interests (and sometimes international law as well) in order to encircle Moscow with military alliances and trade blocs conducive to U.S. interests."

Exporting democracy:
See also: Democracy promotion by the United States

​Studies have been devoted to the historical success rate of the U.S. in exporting democracy abroad. Some studies of American intervention have been pessimistic about the overall effectiveness of U.S. efforts to encourage democracy in foreign nations. 

Until recently, scholars have generally agreed with international relations professor Abraham Lowenthal that U.S. attempts to export democracy have been "negligible, often counterproductive, and only occasionally positive" 

​Other studies find U.S. intervention has had mixed results, and another by Hermann and Kegley has found that military interventions have improved democracy in other countries.


Intelligence policy:
See also: 
Intelligence policy is developed by the president and carried out by the United States Intelligence Community, led by the Director of National Intelligence. The Intelligence Community includes 17 offices and bureaus within various executive departments as well as the Central Intelligence Agency. Its stated purpose is to utilize insights, protected information, and understanding of adversaries to advance national security, economic strength, and technological superiority.

The Intelligence Community provides support for all diplomatic and military action undertaken by the United States and serves to inform government and military decision-making, as well as collecting and analyzing global economic and environmental information.

The primary functions of the Intelligence Community are the collection and analysis of information, and it is responsible for collecting information on foreign subjects that is not available publicly or through diplomatic channels. Collection of information typically takes the form of signals intelligence, imagery intelligence, and human intelligence.

Information collected by American intelligence is used to counter foreign intelligence, terrorism, narcotics trafficking, WMD proliferation, and international organized crime.

Counterintelligence:

The Intelligence Community is responsible for counterintelligence to protect the United States from foreign intelligence services. The Central Intelligence Agency is responsible for counterintelligence activities abroad, while the Federal Bureau of Investigation is responsible for combating foreign intelligence operations in the United States.

The goal of American counterintelligence is to protect classified government information as well as trade secrets of American industry.
  • Offensive counterintelligence operations undertaken by the United States include: 
  • while defensive counterintelligence operations include:
    • investigating suspected cases of espionage
    • and producing analyses of foreign intelligence threats.

Counterintelligence operations in the United States began when the Espionage Act of 1917 was used to prosecute German infiltrators and saboteurs during World War I. Today, counterintelligence is applied in the United States as a tool of national security.

Due to its global influence, the United States is considered to be the world's greatest target for intelligence operations. Terrorists, tyrants, foreign adversaries, and economic competitors have all been found to engage in "a range of intelligence activities" directed against the United States.

Terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda have been found to employ intelligence practices similar to those of foreign powers, and American counterintelligence operations play a significant role in counterterrorism.


Covert action:

In addition to intelligence gathering, the Central Intelligence Agency is authorized by the National Security Act of 1947 to engage in covert action. Covert action is undertaken to influence conditions in foreign countries without evidence of American involvement.

This may include enacting propaganda campaigns, offering support to factions within a country, providing logistical assistance to foreign governments, or disrupting illegal activities.

The use of covert action is controversial within the Intelligence Community due to the potential harm to foreign relations and public image, but most individuals involved in American intelligence cite it as an "essential" option to prevent terrorism, drug trafficking, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Examples of covert involvement in regime change:

United States foreign policy also includes covert actions to topple foreign governments that have been opposed to the United States. According to J. Dana Stuster, writing in Foreign Policy, there are seven "confirmed cases" where the U.S.—acting principally through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), but sometimes with the support of other parts of the U.S. government, including the Navy and State Department—covertly assisted in the overthrow of a foreign government: 
Stuster states that this list excludes "U.S.-supported insurgencies and failed assassination attempts" such as those directed against Cuba's Fidel Castro, as well as instances where U.S. involvement has been alleged but not proven (such as Syria in 1949).

In 1953 the CIA, working with the British government, initiated Operation Ajax against the Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mossadegh who had attempted to nationalize Iran's oil, threatening the interests of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. This had the effect of restoring and strengthening the authoritarian monarchical reign of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. 

In 1957, the CIA and Israeli Mossad aided the Iranian government in establishing its intelligence service, SAVAK, later blamed for the torture and execution of the regime's opponents.

A year later, in Operation PBSuccess, the CIA assisted the local military in toppling the democratically elected left-wing government of Jacobo Árbenz in Guatemala and installing the military dictator Carlos Castillo Armas.

The United Fruit Company lobbied for Árbenz's overthrow as his land reforms jeopardized their land holdings in Guatemala, and painted these reforms as a communist threat. The coup triggered a decades long civil war which claimed the lives of an estimated 200,000 people (42,275 individual cases have been documented), mostly through 626 massacres against the Maya population perpetrated by the U.S.-backed Guatemalan military. 

An independent Historical Clarification Commission found that U.S. corporations and government officials "exercised pressure to maintain the country's archaic and unjust socio-economic structure", and that U.S. military assistance had a "significant bearing on human rights violations during the armed confrontation".

During the massacre of at least 500,000 alleged communists in 1960s Indonesia, U.S. government officials encouraged and applauded the mass killings while providing covert assistance to the Indonesian military which helped facilitate them. 

This included the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta supplying Indonesian forces with lists of up to 5,000 names of suspected members of the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI), who were subsequently killed in the massacres. 

In 2001, the CIA attempted to prevent the publication of the State Department volume Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, which documents the U.S. role in providing covert assistance to the Indonesian military for the express purpose of the extirpation of the PKI. 

In July 2016, an international panel of judges ruled the killings constitute crimes against humanity, and that the US, along with other Western governments, were complicit in these crimes.

In 1970, the CIA worked with coup-plotters in Chile in the attempted kidnapping of General René Schneider, who was targeted for refusing to participate in a military coup upon the election of Salvador Allende. Schneider was shot in the botched attempt and died three days later.

The CIA later paid the group $35,000 for the failed kidnapping.

According to one peer-reviewed study, the U.S. intervened in 81 foreign elections between 1946 and 2000.

The failed 1961 CIA Bay of Pigs Invasion in Cuba was an attempt by the U.S. government to overthrow a regime. Not only did this cause a diplomatic embarrassment, it also damaged the CIA's credibility internationally.
​

Public image:
See also: Criticism of United States foreign policy

United States foreign policy has been the subject of debate, receiving praise and criticism domestically and abroad. As of 2019, public opinion in the United States is closely divided on American involvement in world affairs. 53% of Americans wish for the United States to be active in world affairs, while 46% of Americans wish for less involvement overseas.
​American involvement in the global economy is received more positively by the American people, with 73% considering it to be a "good thing"

Global Opinion:

Overall, the United States is viewed positively by the rest of the world. The Eurasia Group Foundation reported that as of 2021, 85% of respondents from 10 countries have a favorable opinion of the United States and 81% favor American hegemony over Chinese hegemony.

Those with an unfavorable view of the United States most commonly cited interventionism, and in particular the War in Afghanistan, as their reason. It was also found that the exercise of soft power increased favorable opinions while the exercise of hard power decreased favorable opinions.

Citizens of Brazil, Nigeria, and India were found to have more favorable opinions of the United States, while citizens of China and Germany were found to have less favorable opinions of the United States.

International opinion about the US has often changed with different executive administrations. For example, in 2009, the French public favored the United States when President Barack Obama (75% favorable) replaced President George W. Bush (42%).

After President Donald Trump took the helm in 2017, French public opinion about the US fell from 63% to 46%. These trends were also seen in other European countries.

Many democracies have voluntary military ties with the United States. See: 
Those nations with military alliances with the U.S. can spend less on the military since they can count on U.S. protection. This may give a false impression that the U.S. is less peaceful than those nations.

A 2013 global poll in 65 countries found that the United States is perceived as the biggest threat to world peace, with 24% of respondents identifying it as such. A majority of Russian respondents named the United States as the greatest threat, as well as significant minorities in China, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Argentina, Greece, Turkey, and Pakistan.

Foreign Intervention:

Empirical studies (see democide) have found that democracies, including the United States, inflict significantly fewer civilian casualties than dictatorships. Media may be biased against the U.S. regarding reporting human rights violations.

Studies have found that The New York Times coverage of worldwide human rights violations predominantly focuses on the human rights violations in nations where there is clear U.S. involvement, while having relatively little coverage of the human rights violations in other nations. 

For example, the bloodiest war in recent time, involving eight nations and killing millions of civilians, was the Second Congo War, which was almost completely ignored by the media.

Journalists and human rights organizations have been critical of US-led airstrikes and targeted killings by drones which have in some cases resulted in collateral damage of civilian populations. 

​In early 2017, the U.S. faced criticism from some scholars, activists and media outlets for dropping 26,171 bombs on seven countries throughout 2016: Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.

Research on the democratic peace theory has generally found that democracies, including the United States, have not made war on one another. There have been U.S. support for coups against some democracies, but for example Spencer R. Weart argues that part of the explanation was the perception, correct or not, that these states were turning into Communist dictatorships.

Also important was the role of rarely transparent United States government agencies, who sometimes mislead or did not fully implement the decisions of elected civilian leaders.

Critics from the left cite episodes that undercut leftist governments or showed support for Israel. Others cite human rights abuses and violations of international law. Critics have charged that the U.S. presidents have used democracy to justify military intervention abroad.

Critics also point to declassified records which indicate that the CIA under Allen Dulles and the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover aggressively recruited more than 1,000 Nazis, including those responsible for war crimes, to use as spies and informants against the Soviet Union in the Cold War.

Studies have been devoted to the historical success rate of the U.S. in exporting democracy abroad. Some studies of American intervention have been pessimistic about the overall effectiveness of U.S. efforts to encourage democracy in foreign nations. 

Some scholars have generally agreed with international relations professor Abraham Lowenthal that U.S. attempts to export democracy have been "negligible, often counterproductive, and only occasionally positive". 

Other studies find U.S. intervention has had mixed results, and another by Hermann and Kegley has found that military interventions have improved democracy in other countries.

America's history of non-intervention has been criticized as well. In his World Policy Journal review of Bill Kauffman's 1995 book America First! Its History, Culture, and Politics, Benjamin Schwartz described America's history of isolationism as a "tragedy" and being rooted in Puritan thinking.

Today the U.S. states that democratic nations best support U.S. national interests. According to the U.S. State Department, "Democracy is the one national interest that helps to secure all the others.

Democratically governed nations are more likely to:
  • secure the peace,
  • deter aggression,
  • expand open markets,
  • promote economic development,
  • protect American citizens, combat international terrorism and crime,
  • uphold human and worker rights,
  • avoid humanitarian crises and refugee flows,
  • improve the global environment,
  • and protect human health."

According to former U.S. President Bill Clinton, "Ultimately, the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to support the advance of democracy elsewhere. Democracies don't attack each other." 

In one view mentioned by the U.S. State Department, democracy is also good for business. Countries that embrace political reforms are also more likely to pursue economic reforms that improve the productivity of businesses.

Accordingly, since the mid-1980s, under President Ronald Reagan, there has been an increase in levels of foreign direct investment going to emerging market democracies relative to countries that have not undertaken political reforms. Leaked cables in 2010 suggested that the "dark shadow of terrorism still dominates the United States' relations with the world".

The United States officially maintains that it supports democracy and human rights through several tools. Examples of these tools are as follows:
  • A published yearly report by the State Department entitled "Advancing Freedom and Democracy", issued in compliance with ADVANCE Democracy Act of 2007 (earlier the report was known as "Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record" and was issued in compliance with a 2002 law).
  • A yearly published "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices".
  • In 2006 (under President George W. Bush), the United States created a "Human Rights Defenders Fund" and "Freedom Awards".
  • The "Human Rights and Democracy Achievement Award" recognizes the exceptional achievement of officers of foreign affairs agencies posted abroad.
  • The "Ambassadorial Roundtable Series", created in 2006, are informal discussions between newly confirmed U.S. Ambassadors and human rights and democracy non-governmental organizations.
  • The National Endowment for Democracy, a private non-profit created by Congress in 1983 (and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan), which is mostly funded by the U.S. Government and gives cash grants to strengthen democratic institutions around the world.

Support for authoritarian governments:
See also: U.S. policy toward authoritarian governments
​
Both currently and historically, the United States has been willing to cooperate with authoritarian governments to pursue its geopolitical goals. 

The U.S. has faced criticism for backing right-wing dictators that systematically violated human rights, such as:  ​
Critics have also accused the United States of facilitating and supporting state terrorism in the Global South during the Cold War, such as Operation Condor, an international campaign of political assassination and state terror organized by right-wing military dictatorships in the Southern Cone of South America.

Regarding support for certain anti-Communist dictatorships during the Cold War, a response is that they were seen as a necessary evil, with the alternatives even worse Communist or fundamentalist dictatorships. David Schmitz says this policy did not serve U.S. interests.

Friendly tyrants resisted necessary reforms and destroyed the political center (though not in South Korea), while the 'realist' policy of coddling dictators brought a backlash among foreign populations with long memories.

The U.S. has been accused of complicity in war crimes for backing the Saudi Arabian-led intervention into the Yemeni Civil War, which has triggered a humanitarian catastrophe, including a cholera outbreak and millions facing starvation.

Niall Ferguson argues that the U.S. is incorrectly blamed for all of the human rights violations perpetrated by U.S.-supported governments. Ferguson writes that there is general agreement that Guatemala was the worst of the U.S.-backed regimes during the Cold War, but the U.S. cannot be credibly blamed for all of the estimated 200,000 deaths during the long Guatemalan Civil War. 

The U.S. Intelligence Oversight Board writes that military aid was cut for long periods because of such violations, that the U.S. helped stop a coup in 1993, and that efforts were made to improve the conduct of the security services.

Human rights:
See also:  ​
​Since the 1970s, issues of human rights have become increasingly important in American foreign policy. Congress took the lead in the 1970s. 

Following the Vietnam War, the feeling that U.S. foreign policy had grown apart from traditional American values was seized upon by Representative Donald M. Fraser (D, MN), leading the Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements, in criticizing Republican Foreign Policy under the Nixon administration.

In the early 1970s, Congress concluded the Vietnam War and passed the War Powers Act. As "part of a growing assertiveness by Congress about many aspects of Foreign Policy", human rights concerns became a battleground between the Legislative and the Executive branches in the formulation of foreign policy.

David Forsythe points to three specific, early examples of Congress interjecting its own thoughts on foreign policy:
  1. Subsection (a) of the International Financial Assistance Act of 1977: ensured assistance through international financial institutions would be limited to countries "other than those whose governments engage in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights".
  2. Section 116 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended in 1984: reads in part, "No assistance may be provided under this part to the government of any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights."
  3. Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended in 1978: "No security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights."

These measures were repeatedly used by Congress, with varying success, to affect U.S. foreign policy towards the inclusion of Human Rights concerns. Specific examples include El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala and South Africa.

The Executive (from Nixon to Reagan) argued that the Cold War required placing regional security in favor of U.S. interests over any behavioral concerns of national allies. Congress argued the opposite, in favor of distancing the United States from oppressive regimes.

Nevertheless, according to historian Daniel Goldhagen, during the last two decades of the Cold War, the number of American client states practicing mass murder outnumbered those of the Soviet Union. John Henry Coatsworth, a historian of Latin America and the provost of Columbia University, suggests the number of repression victims in Latin America alone far surpassed that of the USSR and its East European satellites during the period 1960 to 1990. 

W. John Green contends that the United States was an "essential enabler" of "Latin America's political murder habit, bringing out and allowing to flourish some of the region's worst tendencies".

On December 6, 2011, Obama instructed agencies to consider LGBT rights when issuing financial aid to foreign countries. He also criticized Russia's law discriminating against gays, joining other western leaders in the boycott of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Russia.

In June 2014, a Chilean court ruled that the United States played a key role in the murders of Charles Horman and Frank Teruggi, both American citizens, shortly after the 1973 Chilean coup d'état.

See also:






​
​Vietnam War (1955-1975)Pictured below:
Clockwise, from top left: U.S. combat operations in Ia Đrăng, ARVN Rangers defending Saigon during the 1968 Tết Offensive, two A-4C Skyhawks after the Gulf of Tonkin incident, ARVN recapture Quảng Trị during the 1972 Easter Offensive, civilians fleeing the 1972 Battle of Quảng Trị, and burial of 300 victims of the 1968 Huế Massacre.
The Vietnam War (Vietnamese: Chiến tranh Việt Nam), also known as the Second Indochina War, and in Vietnam as the Resistance War Against America (Vietnamese: Kháng chiến chống Mỹ) or simply the American War, was a conflict in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia from 1 November 1955 to the fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975.

It was the second of the Indochina Wars and was officially fought between North Vietnam and South Vietnam.

North Vietnam was supported by the Soviet Union, China, and other communist allies;

South Vietnam was supported by the United States, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, Thailand and other anti-communist allies. 

The war, considered a Cold War-era proxy war by some, lasted 19 years, with direct U.S. involvement ending in 1973, and included the Laotian Civil War and the Cambodian Civil War, which ended with all three countries becoming communist in 1975.

The conflict emerged from the First Indochina War against the communist-led Viet Minh. Most of the funding for the French war effort was provided by the U.S.

After the French quit Indochina in 1954, the US assumed financial and military support for the South Vietnamese state. The Việt Cộng, also known as Front national de libération du Sud-Viêt Nam or NLF (the National Liberation Front), a South Vietnamese common front under the direction of North Vietnam, initiated a guerrilla war in the south.

North Vietnam had also invaded Laos in the mid-1950s in support of insurgents, establishing the Ho Chi Minh Trail to supply and reinforce the Việt Cộng.16 U.S. involvement escalated under President John F. Kennedy through the MAAG program from just under a thousand military advisors in 1959 to 16,000 in 1963. 

By 1963, the North Vietnamese had sent 40,000 soldiers to fight in South Vietnam. North Vietnam was heavily backed by the USSR and the People's Republic of China. China also sent hundreds of PLA servicemen to North Vietnam to serve in air-defense and support roles.

By 1964, there were 23,000 US advisors in South Vietnam. In August, the Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred, in which a U.S. destroyer was alleged to have clashed with North Vietnamese fast attack craft. In response, the U.S Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, giving President Lyndon B. Johnson broad authorization to increase U.S. military presence. He ordered the deployment of combat units for the first time and increased troop levels to 184,000.

Past this point, the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) (also known as the North Vietnamese Army or NVA) engaged in more conventional warfare with U.S and South Vietnamese forces.

Every year onward, there was significant build-up of U.S forces, despite little progress. U.S Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, one of the principal architects of the war, began expressing doubts of victory by the end of 1966.

U.S. and South Vietnam forces relied on air superiority and overwhelming firepower to conduct search and destroy operations, involving ground forces, artillery, and airstrikes. The U.S. also conducted a large-scale strategic bombing campaign against North Vietnam and Laos.

The Tet Offensive of 1968 showed the lack of progress with these doctrines. With the VC and PAVN mounting large-scale urban offensives throughout 1968, U.S domestic support for the war began fading. The Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) expanded following a period of neglect after Tet and was modeled after U.S doctrine.

The VC sustained heavy losses during the Tet Offensive and subsequent U.S.-ARVN operations in the rest of 1968, losing over 50,000 men. The CIA's Phoenix Program further degraded the VC's membership and capabilities.

By the end of the year, the VC insurgents held almost no territory in South Vietnam, and their recruitment dropped by over 80% in 1969, signifying a drastic reduction in guerrilla operations, necessitating increased use of PAVN regular soldiers from the north.

In 1969, North Vietnam declared a Provisional Revolutionary Government in South Vietnam in an attempt to give the reduced VC a more international stature, but the southern guerrillas from then on were sidelined as PAVN forces began more conventional Combined arms warfare.

Operations crossed national borders: Laos was invaded by North Vietnam early on, while Cambodia was used by North Vietnam as a supply route starting in 1967; the route through Cambodia began to be bombed by the U.S. in 1969, while the Laos route had been heavily bombed since 1964.

The deposing of the monarch Norodom Sihanouk by the Cambodian National Assembly resulted in a PAVN invasion of the country at the request of the Khmer Rouge, escalating the Cambodian Civil War and resulting in a U.S.-RVN counter-invasion.

In 1969, following the election of U.S President Richard Nixon, a policy of "Vietnamization" began, which saw the conflict fought by an expanded ARVN, with U.S. forces sidelined and increasingly demoralized by domestic opposition and reduced recruitment. U.S. ground forces had largely withdrawn by early 1972 and support was limited to air support, artillery support, advisers, and materiel shipments.

The ARVN, buttressed by said U.S. support, stopped the largest and first mechanized PAVN offensive to date during the Easter Offensive of 1972.The offensive resulted in heavy casualties on both sides and the failure of the PAVN to subdue South Vietnam, but the ARVN itself failed to recapture all territory, leaving its military situation difficult.

The Paris Peace Accords of January 1973 saw all U.S forces withdrawn; the Case–Church Amendment, passed by the U.S Congress on 15 August 1973, officially ended direct U.S military involvement. The Peace Accords were broken almost immediately, and fighting continued for two more years. 

Phnom Penh fell to the Khmer Rouge on 17 April 1975 while the 1975 Spring Offensive saw the capture of Saigon by the PAVN on 30 April; this marked the end of the war, and North and South Vietnam were reunified the following year.

The scale of fighting was enormous: by 1970 the ARVN was the world's fourth largest army, with the PAVN being similar in size at around a million regular soldiers. The war exacted a huge human cost in terms of fatalities (see Vietnam War casualties): estimates of the number of Vietnamese soldiers and civilians killed vary from 966,000 to 3.8 million.

Some 275,000–310,000 Cambodians, 20,000–62,000 Laotians, and 58,220 U.S. service members also died in the conflict, and a further 1,626 remain missing in action.

The Sino-Soviet split re-emerged following the lull during the Vietnam War. Conflict between North Vietnam and its Cambodian allies in the Royal Government of the National Union of Kampuchea, and the newly-formed Democratic Kampuchea began almost immediately in a series of border raids by the Khmer Rouge, eventually escalating into the Cambodian–Vietnamese War.

Chinese forces directly invaded Vietnam in the Sino-Vietnamese War, with subsequent border conflicts lasting until 1991. Insurgencies were fought by the unified Vietnam in all three countries.

The end of the war and resumption of the Third Indochina War would precipitate the Vietnamese boat people and the larger Indochina refugee crisis, which saw millions of refugees leave Indochina (mainly southern Vietnam), with an estimated 250,000 of whom perished at sea.

Within the U.S, the war gave rise to what was referred to as Vietnam Syndrome, a public aversion to American overseas military involvements, which together with the Watergate scandal contributed to the crisis of confidence that affected America throughout the 1970s.

​Names:
Further information: Terminology of the Vietnam War

Various names have been applied to the conflict. Vietnam War is the most commonly used name in English. It has also been called the Second Indochina War and the Vietnam Conflict.

Given that there have been several conflicts in Indochina, this particular conflict is known by the names of its primary protagonists, in order to distinguish it from others.

In Vietnamese, the war is generally known as Kháng chiến chống Mỹ (Resistance War Against America), but less formally as 'Cuộc chiến tranh Mỹ' (The American War). It is also called Chiến tranh Việt Nam (The Vietnam War).

Click on any of the following blue hyperlinks for more about  the Vietnam War:






​
google080f63eb62078b87.html