4 ms·

> The last time a modern military in a major conflict actually took and held ground was probably the Korean War. Except for .. Falkland Islands Grenada Dese

by bdunbar 13y ago

> The last time a modern military in a major conflict actually took and held ground was probably the Korean War. Except for .. Falkland Islands Grenada Desert Storm OIF

bane 13y ago
I'd definitely strike OIF from that list as it suffered from the same lack of ground control that OEF has and I'm not sure I'd count the Falklands or Grenada as a major military campaigns. I specifically addressed Desert Storm (as the First Iraq War) as specifically a case where Western forces didn't hold territory. It was a hit, win and withdraw strategy and was over in what 100 hours? There was no ground held in the long term.
- bdunbar 13y ago
  > There was no ground held in the long term. We've had forces in Kuwait ever since Desert Storm ended.
CleanedStar 13y ago
Grenada was a "major conflict"? Only if the entire US military versus a bunch of infighting leftists on a 344 square kilometer island with a population of less than 100,000 counts as a major conflict.
- bdunbar 13y ago
  OP said 'take and hold ground'. Which is what Grenada was. I will allow it was not a major conflict.
lobster_johnson 13y ago
The Falklands are British. The British forces did not "take and hold ground", the repelled an invasion force. Desert Storm: The US did not hold any ground for a long period of time. They defeated the Iraqi forces and withdrew.
- tolmasky 13y ago
  Also, the population of the falklands is around 3000 total people. Even if it were an "occupation" (which I agree it is not since most people there identify as British), it would be like occupying a tiny village.
- bdunbar 13y ago
  > The British forces did not "take and hold ground", the repelled an invasion force. Incorrect. The Argentines surprised the small garrison, had the place in a few hours. The Brits then mobilized an amphibious force and had to take the Falklands back. > did not hold any ground for a long period of time. I don't recall there being a qualification for 'time spent on the ground'. And incorrect because we've had forces in Kuwait ever since.
  - lobster_johnson 13y ago
    You're arguing semantics. In the Falklands, the ground was British in the first place, and the Argentinians did not occupy the entire island; they repelled an invasion force, and saying that "held ground" is like saying the US has "held ground" from the British since the Revolution. Similarly, Kuwait was friendly territory; I was referring to Iraq.
    - bdunbar 13y ago
      > and the Argentinians did not occupy the entire island One of us needs to review that conflict. And it's not me.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

by bdunbar 13y ago

> The last time a modern military in a major conflict actually took and held ground was probably the Korean War. Except for .. Falkland Islands Grenada Desert Storm OIF

bane 13y ago

I'd definitely strike OIF from that list as it suffered from the same lack of ground control that OEF has and I'm not sure I'd count the Falklands or Grenada as a major military campaigns. I specifically addressed Desert Storm (as the First Iraq War) as specifically a case where Western forces didn't hold territory. It was a hit, win and withdraw strategy and was over in what 100 hours? There was no ground held in the long term.

bdunbar 13y ago
> There was no ground held in the long term. We've had forces in Kuwait ever since Desert Storm ended.

CleanedStar 13y ago

Grenada was a "major conflict"? Only if the entire US military versus a bunch of infighting leftists on a 344 square kilometer island with a population of less than 100,000 counts as a major conflict.

bdunbar 13y ago
OP said 'take and hold ground'. Which is what Grenada was. I will allow it was not a major conflict.

lobster_johnson 13y ago

The Falklands are British. The British forces did not "take and hold ground", the repelled an invasion force. Desert Storm: The US did not hold any ground for a long period of time. They defeated the Iraqi forces and withdrew.

tolmasky 13y ago
Also, the population of the falklands is around 3000 total people. Even if it were an "occupation" (which I agree it is not since most people there identify as British), it would be like occupying a tiny village.
bdunbar 13y ago
> The British forces did not "take and hold ground", the repelled an invasion force. Incorrect. The Argentines surprised the small garrison, had the place in a few hours. The Brits then mobilized an amphibious force and had to take the Falklands back. > did not hold any ground for a long period of time. I don't recall there being a qualification for 'time spent on the ground'. And incorrect because we've had forces in Kuwait ever since.
- lobster_johnson 13y ago
  You're arguing semantics. In the Falklands, the ground was British in the first place, and the Argentinians did not occupy the entire island; they repelled an invasion force, and saying that "held ground" is like saying the US has "held ground" from the British since the Revolution. Similarly, Kuwait was friendly territory; I was referring to Iraq.
  - bdunbar 13y ago
    > and the Argentinians did not occupy the entire island One of us needs to review that conflict. And it's not me.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.