>> In geopolitics, an invasion typically refers to a military offensive in which a polity sends combatants, usually in large numbers, to forcefully enter the territory of another polity,[1] with either side possibly being supported by one or more allies. While strategic goals for an invasion can be numerous and complex in nature, the foremost tactical objective normally involves militarily occupying part or all of the invaded polity's territory. Today, if a polity conducts an invasion without having been attacked by their opponent beforehand, it is widely considered to constitute an international crime and condemned as an act of aggression.
That definition includes what happened here. Drop all the optional conditions (“usually large numbers”, “possibly being supported”) and the core statement becomes:
“an invasion typically refers to a military offensive in which a polity sends combatants to forcefully enter the territory of another polity”
Can you at least appreciate the irony of someone using their own definition that disagrees with yours, you arguing against their using their own definition, and then there being another widely-cited definition that disagrees with your own, which you also argue against?
I’m not arguing against the Wikipedia definition because it does not disagree with mine. It says “usually in large numbers”, aka not necessarily large numbers. It says goals are complex but “normally involves militarily occupying”, aka not necessarily occupying.
Well, absent further interventions - possibly even a real invasion! - there is no reason for the current regime in Venezuela to change its policy very much (aside from beefing up its air defense maybe)
They've already been threatened to play ball: "While it is conceivable that Rodríguez has agreed to co-operate with the Trump administration to save her own skin – Trump said the US was prepared carry out a second wave of strikes if necessary – she will not be seen as someone willing to implement change."
Intent is 90% of the law. We still call someone a murderer even if their attempt failed. And today there were action behind the words. I don't see any reason to argue this is anything but an invasion.
I would not agree. Intelligence operatives are often in place for long durations in hostile sovereign territory, and some were likely used in this event. Their presence is not an invasion.
Air operations also are not seen as invasions, and the recent stealth strikes by the U.S. in Iran are not seen this way.
It appears to me that armed troops in place that are taking and holding territory for a prolonged duration are the definition.
The dictionary definition below is "the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder."
We have the president of the United States, who ordered the assault, saying openly that “we are going to run the country” and you ask what the object of conquest was?