The question is have they replaced/maintained everything since then.
The problem with a lot of navies is that if you refuse to decommission old rust buckets you end up with an navy that looks impressive on paper but rarely makes it out of port and i suspect this is the case for the Argentinian navy.
you don't need dozens of blue water warships to patrol against pirate fishing, you need a few patrol boats and a few long range maritime surveillance planes.
This wouldn't be a navy issue. This is illegal fishing, a matter for a coast guard (law enforcement) rather than a navy. The navy guards the sea against other navies. A coast guard arrests criminals.
Very few countries other then the us and Canada actually maintain a blue/green water coast guard i.e. a lot of navies around the world does a lot of law enforcement doing peace time. This is the case for most European nations where almost anything bigger then a launch is classed as a navel vessel and potentially armed.
And then there is the oddities like japan who theoretically do not have an navy but who's cost guard(or self defense force) operate carriers.
The nature of the boats is beside the point. Navy vessels can be used, but they will usually carry law enforcement people. It is like using an army to arrest drug dealers. While it is physically possible, nearly every nation would only deploy military assets "in aid of" local police. Very few nations would tolerate their militaries enforcing local laws, especially when that would mean those militaries also spying on citizens. Police are allowed to do that, not soldiers. By that same token, just as a cop can be aided by a navy destroyer they could be supported by a foreign navy vessel too.
It may be more that police is trained to do that compared to soldiers, as in order to be effective in what they supposed to do, they all should be specialized. And yes, when it comes to fighting drug dealers and all around looks more like a war zone instead of a "misbehaving civilians" affair, then a more appropriate tool use gets warranted.
That is how the US organizes its two navies, but that doesn't means that all countries need to have two different navies - most don't, they just have a coast guard, with enough ships that could cross the ocean to put on a show of having that ability, but in practice those ships stay in port all the time.
In all of those cases there is one or more nations with an much stronger claim to victory then the US.
The cold war was an implosion by economics and the vast bulk of the preasure came from western europe who alost harvested nearly all of the victory gains, and that happened years before the first gulf war.
The US Acted as a poorly paid mercenary force for the houses of Said doing the first and second gulf war and the long term strategic goal went in Iran's favor when the US/Saudi backed puppet government of Iraq imploded and someone else had to step in and deal with ISIS(that someone else originally turned out to be Iran's republican guard backed by Russian advisors and hardware).
Kosovo again had Europe playing they leading role in the diplomacy both post and doing the war and harvesting most of the benefits.
Outside of late western Roman empire, i can think of few nations where the army was as impotent in terms of actually backing the diplomatic game or rather where the diplomats where as incompetent that despite having the best trained/funded army no tactical victory was too great to turn into an strategic defeat.
Iraq was concurred in 2 months the 2nd time. That was the war. If the leader of an enemy was hiding in a dirt hole in the ground and then hanged and that isnt a win to you then your definition is wrong. You are confusing nation building with war.
