"war of occupation" is a correct and usable phrase in written English.
It can be used to describe a conflict in which one country occupies another country, typically for political or territorial gain. Example: The aftermath of the war of occupation left the country devastated and its citizens displaced.
This is a war of aggression, a war of occupation.
The war of occupation — dubious in origin, incompetent in execution, opaque but ominous in ultimate consequences — continues.
Anyone who visited Kabul in the past eight years knew that a western war of occupation would end in tears.
On the rolling spring lawns of Kent State in the American heartland, students continued to press against an illegal, immoral war of occupation.
Their logic is clear: America is engaged in a brutal war of occupation; if you don't support the mission then you shouldn't support the troops.
Even so, Iraqis and others Middle Eastern countries remain wary about possible American shenanigans with Iraqi oil and are watching sales to see whether the United States waged a war of liberation or a war of occupation.
Not all wars of occupation are alike, but distinctions between Iraq and Chechnya blur at the body count.
Only a few years ago the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — wars of occupation, nation-building and counterinsurgency — looked like the face of modern conflict.
At a time of declining Pentagon budgets and a waning public appetite for large wars of occupation, the Obama administration hopes to rely more on foreign troops and security forces to tackle extremist threats abroad.
It is easy enough to say that the United States should no longer fight wars of occupation in the Middle East, or seek to promote democracy through regime change, or undertake counterinsurgency campaigns on a massive scale.
Trump argues that the government should do more to insure that workers have good jobs, speaks very little about religious imperatives, and excoriates the war in Iraq and wars of occupation in general.
