As we can see, each of the examples given in the first definition points to military action, including an invasion of Scotland by Spanish invaders and a reference to invaders taking part in the Battle of Paradise Lost. In addition, another example implies that the indigenous peoples of Attica, a place in Greece, were never expelled because they were not exposed to the “fury of the invaders”. Again, all the examples indicate that military coercion was a key element of an invasion. The second definition – “an aggressor” – refers only to a person who physically attacks another. As for the second definition, “attack on a case”, it suggests a definition that has nothing to do with military subjugation. However, by “case” means undressing or undressing, even this case refers to a deliberate attempt to cause physical harm to another person. Therefore, even with the argument that the word “invasion” has a broader application on this basis, it would still have to be assumed that such an invasion would involve a physical attack rather than a mere resettlement. The results of an invasion may vary depending on the objectives of the invaders and defenders, the success of the invasion and defense, and the existence or absence of an agreement between the warring parties. The most common result is the loss of territory, usually accompanied by a change of government and often the loss of direct control over that government by the losing faction. This sometimes leads to the transformation of that country into a client state, often accompanied by demands for reparations or tribute to the victor. In other cases, the results of a successful invasion may simply be a return to the status quo; This manifests itself in wars of attrition, when the destruction of personnel and supplies is the main strategic objective,[19] or when a nation previously subjugated and currently occupied by an aggressive third party regains control of its own affairs (i.e.
Western Europe after the Normandy landings in 1944 or Kuwait after the defeat of Iraq in 1991). In some cases, the invasion may be strategically limited to a geographical area divided into a separate state, as in the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War. In modern times, the idea of building large-scale static defenses to combat land-based threats has become largely obsolete. The use of precision air strikes and large-scale mechanization made lighter and more mobile defenses desirable for military planners. The obsolescence of the great fortifications is demonstrated by the failure of the Maginot Line at the beginning of the Second World War. Nations that defend themselves against modern invasions usually use large population centers such as cities or villages as points of defense. The invader must conquer these points in order to destroy the defender`s ability to wage war. The defender uses mobile divisions of tanks and infantry to protect these points, but the defenders are still highly mobile and can usually retreat. A striking example of the use of cities as fortifications is the positions of the Iraqi army during the invasion of Iraq in Baghdad, Tikrit and Basra in 2003 in the main battles of the Iraq war.
A defender can also use these mobile means to launch a counteroffensive such as the Soviet Red Army in the Battle of Kursk or the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. [ref. needed] In most invasions, even in modern times, many fresh supplies are collected from the invaded areas themselves. Before the laws of war, invaders often relied heavily on the supplies they would gain by conquering cities along the way. During the Second Punic War, for example, Hannibal distracted his army to conquer cities just to gather provisions; his strategy for crossing the Alps required him to travel with as few provisions as possible, expecting Roman supplies to supply them when they crossed the border. [11] The scorched earth tactic used in Russia forced Napoleon to withdraw his forces for lack of food and shelter. Today, the Land War Act prohibits the looting and confiscation of private property, but local supplies, especially perishable goods, are still purchased when possible for the occupying forces, and aircraft often use parachutes to drop supplies to besieged forces. Even if the rules become stricter, the necessities of war become more numerous; In addition to food, shelter and ammunition, today`s military needs fuel, batteries, mechanical spare parts, electronics and much more. In the United States, the Defense Logistics Agency employs more than 22,000 civilians with a single logistical support task, and 30,000 soldiers graduate from the U.S. Army Logistics Management College each year. [12] In modern warfare, invasion by land often takes place after or sometimes during attacks on the target by other means.
Airstrikes and cruise missiles fired from ships at sea are a common method of “softening” the target. Other, more subtle preparations may include covert conquest of popular support, assassination of potentially threatening political or military figures, and closure of supply lines where they migrate to neighboring countries. In some cases, these other means of attack eliminate the need for a ground attack; the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 finally made it unnecessary for the Allies to invade the Japanese islands with infantry troops. In such cases, some ground troops are still needed to occupy the conquered territory, but they are allowed to enter under a treaty and, as such, are no longer invaders. As long-range unmanned combat develops, cases of simple ground invasions decrease; Often, conventional combat is effectively over before infantry arrives in the role of peacekeepers (see “Applications for non-state fighters” in this article). [ref. needed] A contrary theory is that in response to extremist ideology and unjust governments, an invasion can change the government and re-educate people, making continued resistance unlikely and preventing future violence. This theory acknowledges that these changes can take time – generations in some cases – but assumes that immediate benefits can still be achieved by reducing membership in these secret cells and stifling utility lines. Proponents of invasion strategy in such conflicts maintain the belief that a strong occupying power can still achieve its objectives at the tactical level, building on many small victories, which amount to a war of attrition. [15] Middle English invasioun “attack, attack”, borrowed from the Anglo-French invasion, envasioun, borrowed from the late Latin invÄsiÅn-, invÄsiÅ “attack, possession by force”, from Latin invÄdere “to enter with hostile intent, attack, attack” + -tiÅn-, -tiÅ, suffix of verbal action â more in invasion There are many different methods by which an invasion can take place, each method has arguments both for and against.
These include invasions by land, sea or air, or a combination of these methods. Ground invasion is the direct intrusion of forces into an area using existing ground connections, usually across borders or otherwise defined areas, such as a demilitarized zone, crushing defensive positions and structures. Although this tactic often resulted in a quick victory, troop movements were relatively slow and prone to disturbances in terrain and weather conditions. In addition, it is difficult to hide the plans of this method of invasion, since most geopolitical units occupy defensive positions in the areas most vulnerable to the above methods. [ref. needed] As soon as political borders and military lines are broken, the pacification of the region is the last and probably the most important objective of the invasion force. After the defeat of the regular army, or when one is missing, continued resistance to the invasion often comes from civilian or paramilitary resistance movements.