But you don't need a foreign army around to launch bombing raids. The Doolittle raid (US bombing of Tokyo in response to Perl Harbor) was only a few months in the future when the Pentagon was started.

> Perl Harbor

That's when Ruby overtook Larry Wall's language, right?

Yeah, but then Larry dropped a couple nukes on Matz.

> Probably because the US hasn't had a foreign army on its soil since like...1812

Inserting the clearly implied "hostile" before "foreign army", that's still off by more than a century, since we had one in 1916, even if we only consider the CONUS and so exclude some things in WWII.

The US faced a hostile foreign army on CONUS in 1916?

Pancho Villa's Division of the North attacked Columbus, NM, provoking the Punitive Expedition.

The last time there was a flagged and uniformed foreign military on US soil was in 2005. The Mexican army assisted with aid work in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_response_to_Hurricane_...

I think "and hostile" was implied.

I would think https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holloman_Air_Force_Base#Germ... has uniformed German military and flies German flags.

Pearl Harbor, although pedantically maybe that was just an air force/navy instead of an army.

Pancho Villa's raid on Columbus, NM, a few decades earlier was clearly an army, and well after 1812.

The Japanese also used ground troops to take over several Aleutian Islands during WWII.

Pedantically? If we take your new definition, how many countries is the US currently invading with its airforce (particularly drones)? It isn't invading them because it's armies aren't in them and that's what the term "on its soil" means.

Well, the parent was talking about _bombing_, so Pearl Harbor is a reasonable point.