War in South China Sea?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

Wo, wait, what? I had seen China's drawing of its coastal waters to include pretty much everything this side of Tahiti, but er...what?

Pro-tip, USA should stay out except for offering to intermediate disputes ala Switzerland.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysis/Walker/2011/10/03/Walkers-World-War-in-South-China-Sea/UPI-23491317637140/#ixzz1ZleJF5zB
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/MJ05Ae03.html

War in South China Sea?
Published: Oct. 3, 2011 at 6:19 AM
By MARTIN WALKER, UPI Editor Emeritus

LONDON, Oct. 3 (UPI) -- An ugly momentum is building in the South China Sea, where an official Chinese newspaper called last week for war against Vietnam and the Philippines to uphold China's assertion of sovereignty over the mineral-rich seabed, estimated to hold 7 billion barrels of oil and 900 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

The lead article in the Chinese Communist Party newspaper Global Times

Tuesday carried the headline "The time to use force has arrived in the South China Sea; Let's wage wars on the Philippines and Vietnam to prevent more wars."

"The South China Sea is the best place for China to wage wars," the article said. "Of the more than 1,000 oil rigs there, none belongs to China; of the four airfields in the Spratly Islands, none belongs to China; once a war is declared, the South China Sea will be a sea of fire [with burning oil rigs]. Who will suffer the most from a war? Once a war starts there, the Western oil companies will flee the area, who will suffer the most?"

The article went on to argue that "the wars should be focused on striking the Philippines and Vietnam, the two noisiest troublemakers, to achieve the effect of killing one chicken to scare the monkeys."

GALLERY: Signs of China's new wealth

The Global Times is China's main newspaper for international affairs, widely distributed internationally in English, and is published under the authority of the central committee of the Chinese Communist Party. The article also argued that the United States wouldn't intervene, too preoccupied with its war on terror, its quagmire in Afghanistan and its own economic problems.

There were three immediate triggers for the extraordinary reaction from Beijing.

The first was the successful move by the Philippines to arrange talks within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, excluding China, on cooperating and "clarifying consensual and disputed claims in the South China Sea."

The second trigger was India's rejection of Chinese objections to its own new agreements to explore for oil in Vietnamese waters, in partnership with Vietnam. Global Times had criticized the Indian approach, saying in an editorial that Vietnam's efforts to bring in foreign companies to explore for oil amount to a "serious political provocation."

India hasn't been intimidated.

"We will proceed with drilling at our block (in the South China Sea) on a schedule established according to our technical convenience," India's Oil and Natural Gas Corp. announced last month, adding that India's foreign ministry had told ONGC the area where the oil firm wished to explore was "very much inside Vietnam's territory."

The third trigger was last week's agreement of Japan and ASEAN, at a meeting of defense officials in Tokyo, to intensify cooperation and consultation on the South China Sea. Japanese Vice Minister of Defense Kimito Nakae said the relationship between Tokyo and ASEAN has "matured from dialogues to one where Japan plays a more specific cooperative role" on a range of regional security issues."

Nakae also suggested that the recent tensions over oil exploration and military posts in the South China Sea would require more cooperation with the United States and other countries, including India.

Immediately before the defense officials met, Japan and the Philippines affirmed their security links into a "strategic partnership" in a joint statement signed by Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda and Philippine President Benigno Aquino in Tokyo.

GALLERY: China's military might

"Chinese naval activism will not likely be a temporary phenomenon but will be a permanent feature of Asian politics in the years to come," commented Toshi Yoshihara, a professor of Asia-Pacific studies at the U.S. Naval War College. "Maritime Asia is going to be a busy place. It is going to be a busy theater as China fulfills what it believes is its rightful maritime prerogative."

China's decision to steer more of its growing economic strength into defense spending and a regional naval buildup, including a new aircraft carrier and submarines, has given weight to Beijing's rhetoric over its rights to the South China Sea.

Former Philippines President Fidel Ramos, visiting Washington last week, indicated that the real issue would be U.S. readiness to deter China and support the rights of smaller nations.

"We expect South China Sea tensions to continue because the root cause is really China's perceived need to break out from under the strategic dominance of the Western allies," Ramos said. "China's proximate aim, it seems to me, is to limit American freedom of access" and "erode the credibility of Washington's security guarantees to the East Asian states, including and especially the Philippines."

The Pentagon plans to boost its presence in the region by strengthening the military capability of its air, naval and marine bases in Guam are in question because of plans to cut the defense budget. The plans include a new aircraft carrier berth, submarine and logistics bases, facilities for more stealth warplanes, B-2 and B-52 bombers on Guam and to move 8,600 U.S. Marines to the island.

© 2011 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Any rep

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysis/Walker/2011/10/03/Walkers-World-War-in-South-China-Sea/UPI-23491317637140/#ixzz1ZoxZzlMw

**AlmightyWalrus**

Wow, India vs. China has the potential to turn into something that I'd rather not imagine (said Captain Obvious

). As a non-American, I don't have much important to say about what the US should or shouldn't do, but to me it seems as though the US is caught in a bit of a scrape (which is what China wants): either they [the US] honours their promises and defends their allies or they pull out and leave their allies, losing a lot of international respect in the process. If the US decides to not back down, it'll be dragged into another costly war that will no doubt make the current economic issues worse. It's more or less a win-win for the Chinese gov't., as they don't care much about how many lives they'd lose in a conflict such as this.

**Swordwind**

The Chinese have been hating on the Viets for ages. This isn't too new, although the increasing tension could be bad, as my country is nearby.

**dogma**

This has been talked about for a while, and predicted for even longer.

Its an interesting question, because, while the Chinese are definitely the regional power, taking on the majority of ASEAN is a daunting task.

**LordofHats**

I'd be curious to see how China plans to wage a naval war that will inevitably pull in the United States (and possibly European powers depending on how things play out in the coming years) with no blue water navy.

Come on China. If you want to play gunboat diplomacy, you need the boat first.

**M_Stress**

the situation been going on for a while (6 month & +) and strangly (

) the US Navy was there this summer.
In the hope that people will play nice, I suppose.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/15/us-vietnam-usa-ships-idUSTRE76E15220110715

**Frazzled**

LordofHats wrote:I'd be curious to see how China plans to wage a naval war that will inevitably pull in the United States (and possibly European powers depending on how things play out in the coming years) with no blue water navy.

Come on China. If you want to play gunboat diplomacy, you need the boat first.

They have a carrier now. More importantly they have lots of aircraft and missiles. You don't need a bluewater navy if its near your own coast.

I don't think China wants a fight with the US, yet. Its not in their interest. They are talking Vietnam/Phillipines. Pushing them and taking their stuff definitely is in their interests.

As noted, time for the US to get some popcorn and sit one out. This lets have a war every 3-5 years thing is getting crazy.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
They have a carrier now.

Well, they're building one, and have two former Soviet carriers that are now hotels.

**Ketara**

I do not see the US getting involved over a spat in the South China Sea any more than they did in the conflict in Georgia. When it comes to stomping on smaller countries, the US usually pulls out the big guns, however when it comes to drawing a matchup against an opponent that hits even anywhere near its level, it has a habit of engaging in nothing more than heated rhetoric if its own interests are not substantially involved.

India is in no position to wage a war against China here navally. They'd be outnumbered, outgunned, and have terrible logistics.

No, if China wants the South China Sea, it's there's for the taking. However, the flexing of its military muscle like that would cause a substantial threat re-evaluation over in the US, and half a dozen carrier fleets being based in South Korea and Japan a short time later I would imagine. It's all very well and good to define yourself a sphere of influence, but playing games like that has high costs.

**AustonT**

If China starts a war in the SCS India virtually HAS to intervene. The conflict between those two will decide the reigning superpower on the Rim for at least a couple decades.
From an analysis point of view India has a qualitative edge on China in naval hardware, and while China is now building a carrier, and naval fighters India has had a carrier since 1961 and has gained more than 50 years of experience in blue water naval air operations. India was supposed to launch the second ship bearing the name Vikrant this month but she's not even 10% complete. Despite thier home Shipbuilding woes India has a trained modern navy supported by an experienced Naval Air Wing and access to purchasing markets in tue east and west. china only has access to contract built and reverse engineered Russian designs and NO access to western military technology. When it comes to a purely naval confrontation China is on the short end of the stick. If they choose to duke it out on land too it'll get ugly fast.
Let's all hope a Sino-Indian war doesn't develop, and if it does the West stays out; and I mean all of us.

**Frazzled**

AustonT wrote:If China starts a war in the SCS India virtually HAS to intervene. The conflict between those two will decide the reigning superpower on the Rim for at least a couple decades.
From an analysis point of view India has a qualitative edge on China in naval hardware, and while China is now building a carrier, and naval fighters India has had a carrier since 1961 and has gained more than 50 years of experience in blue water naval air operations. India was supposed to launch the second ship bearing the name Vikrant this month but she's not even 10% complete. Despite thier home Shipbuilding woes India has a trained modern navy supported by an experienced Naval Air Wing and access to purchasing markets in tue east and west. china only has access to contract built and reverse engineered Russian designs and NO access to western military technology. When it comes to a purely naval confrontation China is on the short end of the stick. If they choose to duke it out on land too it'll get ugly fast.
Let's all hope a Sino-Indian war doesn't develop, and if it does the West stays out; and I mean all of us.

Why would a war between China and India be limited to a naval engagement? After all in the 1962 war, China cleaned India's clock.
Indeed both are nuke powers now. This would be an unprecedented conflict (Frazzled's gets popcorn).

**mattyrm**

I fething love wars me.

I can stay home and watch this one on TV as well, so I don't have to miss out on Beer and Multi-player Space Marine on my PC!

Its good news really, we cant afford to spend any more cash on our militaries and Iraq and Afghanistan has cost us a fortune, so we need other people to have expensive wars to level the playing field by making them spend their money/blood!

I hope India and Pakistan level each other with nukes, Russia gets bogged down in aggressive OBUA fighting in Chechnya, Dagestan, Moldova, Georgia and Ingushetia, and the Chinese are held for years by a determined guerilla Vietnamese/Philippines alliance.

Then, were back on top again boys!

Oh no waitaminute....

We will have to send aid and take in refugees!

AIIIEEEEEEEEE!!!

**dogma**

Ketara wrote:
No, if China wants the South China Sea, it's there's for the taking. However, the flexing of its military muscle like that would cause a substantial threat re-evaluation over in the US, and half a dozen carrier fleets being based in South Korea and Japan a short time later I would imagine. It's all very well and good to define yourself a sphere of influence, but playing games like that has high costs.

As the article claims, the US is already bolstering the facilities in Guam. India will reportedly have 3 carriers by 2014, and I believe they're launching refitted Russian carrier next year.

Interestingly, the Chinese have noted that building their own carriers is prudent given that both India and Japan will carriers of their own, this is strange given the Japanese vessels are only helicopter carriers; which makes me wonder at the specifications of the Chinese vessel.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Why would a war between China and India be limited to a naval engagement? After all in the 1962 war, China cleaned India's clock.

Because the relevant interests of both parties are in a naval theatre, and the Indian military is not the same one that fought in 1962. Plus, both countries are nuclear capable now, meaning that there are larger risks for both sides.

**frgsinwntr**

I'd rather not see a WW3... but that could cause it. And as for the gent from the UK saying the US stays out... I'm not so sure thats fair to say...

I think the US has fought vs the smaller weaker countries simply because the cost benefit analysis showed it was cheaper than negotiating... where vs a larger group... well war is costly.

We'll see how things go though. I can only hope people don't war over OIL... again

**Flashman**

Well as Vizzini says in The Princess Bride, "Never start a land war in Asia."

Oh wait, this will be a sea war. Go for it!

**biccat**

frgsinwntr wrote:I think the US has fought vs the smaller weaker countries simply because the cost benefit analysis showed it was cheaper than negotiating... where vs a larger group... well war is costly.

The US could quite easily wipe out either (or both) the Indian or Chinese navies.

The tactical play for China isn't defeating the United States, it's keeping us away from the center of conflict long enough to cripple an opponent (usually imagined as Taiwan) and fortify their position before US forces arrive.

frgsinwntr wrote:We'll see how things go though. I can only hope people don't war over OIL... again

What other natural resource is worth fighting for?

**sarpedons-right-hand**

Surely the US has a vested interest in the Philippines? It's been a US stopover since the Americans liberated them from the Japanese towards the end of WW2....
The Americans had (have?) a permanent base there, it was Subic naval base I believe. Although I think that South Korea now have docking rites there. I'm not sure on that one actually...
The last time I went there it was under American control but that was 4 years ago now. I'll do some digging (my missus is Filipino) and come back on that one. I hope it dosnt escalate though. Supposed to be going to the Philippines next March and I have property out there. War would feth up the property Market for sure!

**Ketara**

dogma wrote:
Ketara wrote:
No, if China wants the South China Sea, it's there's for the taking. However, the flexing of its military muscle like that would cause a substantial threat re-evaluation over in the US, and half a dozen carrier fleets being based in South Korea and Japan a short time later I would imagine. It's all very well and good to define yourself a sphere of influence, but playing games like that has high costs.

As the article claims, the US is already bolstering the facilities in Guam. India will reportedly have 3 carriers by 2014, and I believe they're launching refitted Russian carrier next year.

Interestingly, the Chinese have noted that building their own carriers is prudent given that both India and Japan will carriers of their own, this is strange given the Japanese vessels are only helicopter carriers; which makes me wonder at the specifications of the Chinese vessel.

However, the Indian carriers aren't scheduled to hit the waves for a few years yet. The Chinese also supposedly have two to three carriers of their own under construction, although details of that are naturally shrouded in secrecy.

There's also the factor of their more recent buildup of hidden submarines and submarine pens, carrier killer missiles, and general numerical superiority over the Indian fleet, in addition to the nearby Home player advantage from a logistical and aerial sense.

Guam is nearby enough that it has force projection in that part of the world, but distant enough that the US have no large vested interest in the South China Sea. The news that they're planning on sticking an aircraft carrier berth there indicates the presence of at least one carrier fleet in that part of the world in a few years. If China went ahead and seized the SCS though, I would imagine the US naval operations in that part of the world would be scaled up substantially, and be much higher than a single carrier fleet. You guys have something like 11 carriers and another 4 under construction, so you could spare five or six for that region of the world.

Ultimately though, the US will not get involved in a clash between the 3rd and 4th premier world powers unless it has to. It's already starting to retreat towards a more isolationist policy on the whole after its been stung a few times, and a war with a nuclear capable superpower on the other side of the globe is not in any way in its interest.

Well, actually, it would probably sell both sides ample weaponry, but no interest beyond that....

biccat wrote:
The US could quite easily wipe out either (or both) the Indian or Chinese navies.

This is true, but overly simplistic.

For the US to do so, it would need several carrier fleets sitting off the Chinese coast. Those carrier fleets would probably wipe the floor with the Chinese Navy, before being gradually whittled down and destroyed over the course of a month by continuous aircraft runs and missile launches from mainland china. If the carrier fleets retreat from the area, the chinese can rebuild, if the US occupied the coastal land, it would be crushed in no short order.

The only way the US could ever hope to defeat China would be an amphibious landing operation of scale and size such as the world has never seen, and that would take years to prepare the equipment for.

And they'd probably just set off a nuclear exchange if they tried it.

**AustonT**

The Indians are indeed commisoning a Russian refit, and have long maintained maritime operations Chinas blue water navy is just now cutting it's teeth in somolia. Like I said in a purely naval conflict China is screwed. They've been so duplicitous about thier actual land power that no one really knows how capable thier Army and National Police are.
The US navy has considered China a legimate military threat since and during the cold war, them agitating US interests isn't saber rattling, they are pushing to see how far their economic hold over the US will get them. There's always a myriad of influences when diplomac is involved but the Sino-US relationship is particularly labyrinthine.

**Frazzled**

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:Surely the US has a vested interest in the Philippines? It's been a US stopover since the Americans liberated them from the Japanese towards the end of WW2....
The Americans had (have?) a permanent base there, it was Subic naval base I believe. Although I think that South Korea now have docking rites there. I'm not sure on that one actually...
The last time I went there it was under American control but that was 4 years ago now. I'll do some digging (my missus is Filipino) and come back on that one. I hope it dosnt escalate though. Supposed to be going to the Philippines next March and I have property out there. War would feth up the property Market for sure!

The US returned Subic Bay to the Phillipines in the 70s or early 80s. We have no tie to the Phillipines now.

**Melissia**

While this is a bit cynical of me, at the moment my opinion is that the US should sell India some of its better military technology and lend advisors to train them in its use to even the score so both of them grind themselves silly over the whole issue.

**biccat**

Ketara wrote:You guys have something like 11 carriers and another 4 under construction, so you could spare five or six for that region of the world.

I think 2 are replacements and the expectation is to add another 2 carriers, although I don't think we're adding new carrier strike groups.

Ketara wrote:For the US to do so, it would need several carrier fleets sitting off the Chinese coast. Those carrier fleets would probably wipe the floor with the Chinese Navy, before being gradually whittled down and destroyed over the course of a month by continuous aircraft runs and missile launches from mainland china. If the carrier fleets retreat from the area, the chinese can rebuild, if the US occupied the coastal land, it would be crushed in no short order.

It would ultimately depend on how much interest the Chinese have in waging war against the U.S. and how much the U.S. is willing to devote to the war. The US would establish air superiority pretty quickly, so it would be difficult for China to threaten the U.S. strike groups. If China mounted a full-on assault on the US fleet, it could pull back to deep water until the Air Force (there are 2 fighter squadrons in S. Korea and 4 in Japan) got involved, or until the naval forces stationed in the western U.S. arrived. Total time for reinforcement would be a maximum of a month, and there's no way that China could build and launch a ship or a significant number of aircraft (with trained pilots) in that time.

Again, that's assuming the U.S. was willing to fully engage China to protect the S. China sea, and China were willing to devote all of their resources to wiping out the US threat to their expansion (short of nuclear weapons). If the U.S. were interested in occupying China (I'm pretty sure we wouldn't), then, as you point out, it couldn't be as an invading force, it would have to be as a peacekeeping/police force, such as Iraq and Afghanistan - wipe out significant military threats first then send in the troops to re-establish order and government.

Ah, here's one article on the subject. TLDR version: modern war with conventional weapons is far too expensive.

**dogma**

Ketara wrote:
Well, actually, it would probably sell both sides ample weaponry, but no interest beyond that....

You mean sell ample weaponry to India, and a few weapons to China so they can reverse engineer them and undercut our own exports on the global market?

Ketara wrote:
However, the Indian carriers aren't scheduled to hit the waves for a few years yet.

I thought the first was scheduled late 2012/early 2013? That's right around 1.5 years.

Ketara wrote:
There's also the factor of their more recent buildup of hidden submarines and submarine pens, carrier killer missiles, and general numerical superiority over the Indian fleet, in addition to the nearby Home player advantage from a logistical and aerial sense.

Yeah, the submarine fleet is a problem, and India has little territorial interest in the SCS. They might support Vietnam in the conflict, but its not likely they would engage in actual combat unless attacked directly.

Ketara wrote:
The only way the US could ever hope to defeat China would be an amphibious landing operation of scale and size such as the world has never seen, and that would take years to prepare the equipment for.

And it would be outnumbered by something like 4-1 if you factor in other US deployments, and the unlikelihood of conscription being reinstated.

Though its worth remembering that the US Navy has a significant advantage in terms of the number of operational combat aircraft. The issues are cost, as biccat said, and personnel available. If I remember correctly there aren't enough active duty naval personnel to man the entirety of the carrier fleet, which significantly reduces the effective number of available combat aircraft.

**Ketara**

I read the article. Interesting enough.

I think the fact remains that Chinese ground base capability would ultimately be capable of fending off any American Naval or aerial assets. China is simply too big for America to reasonably maintain aerial superiority 24/7 over the entire nation, and the massive losses that would be incurred in even trying would soon result in a withdrawal.

**The Foot**

Melissia wrote:While this is a bit cynical of me, at the moment my opinion is that the US should sell India some of its better military technology and lend advisors to train them in its use to even the score so both of them grind themselves silly over the whole issue.

Yeah, LBJ tried that one, then we started full on operations in Vietnam a few years later. We should not get involved unless it is in a mediator capacity.

**Mr. Burning**

if this moves beyond anything other than politcial sabre rattling I would expect nothing other than seizure of disputed mining platforms, occupation of some rocks in the sea along with planting of national flags etc.

Thre will be some talks, someone backs off, then we wait a few years before someone else wants the map redrawn or a large deposit of unobtanium is found.

IIRC occupation of drilling rigs has occured in the past.

Maybe a few patrol boats will exchange fire - this has happened before as well.

**Melissia**

The Foot wrote:
Melissia wrote:While this is a bit cynical of me, at the moment my opinion is that the US should sell India some of its better military technology and lend advisors to train them in its use to even the score so both of them grind themselves silly over the whole issue.

Yeah, LBJ tried that one, then we started full on operations in Vietnam a few years later. We should not get involved unless it is in a mediator capacity.

The difference is that an actual land war between the two nations is unlikely at the moment-- instead of it being a civil war within the same country that was almost entirely land war.

**LordofHats**

Frazzled wrote:They have a carrier now. More importantly they have lots of aircraft and missiles. You don't need a bluewater navy if its near your own coast.

You need a blue water navy to stand a chance against a blue water navy. Any conflict involving the Phillipines, Japan, and the South Korea, and China will pull the US into it. We out ton every power in the world by a factor of two. China can't win that fight. They won't stand a chance of winning for at least another 50-60 years and even then, numerous things would need to transpire to weaken the US Navy (very likely that tho). China is no position to flex any naval muscle.

Besides, what good is one retrofitted obsolete Russian aircraft carrier against the US Navy? We have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined and our Carries are nearly twice the tonnage of others. This is probably just Chinese propaganda for now. I doubt China is dumb enough to potential start a conflict with the US and western powers at this time. They won't win.

As noted, time for the US to get some popcorn and sit one out. This lets have a war every 3-5 years thing is getting crazy.

The sad part is that we pull outselves into conflicts we don't really need to get involved in with our whole world policing thing. Then, when there's an actual state that needs the US beat down, everyone groans about the 'next' war.

China is not a power that I would ignore at this time. Not while we can still trash them.

**Rented Tritium**

We can't sit this out if it really goes down. The Philippines are of BOTH strategic and cultural/political importance. If we let them hang they'll never forgive us.

It also sends a message to our other allies: America can't defend one of its best allies, what could you expect from them if it was you?

**Ketara**

Dogma wrote:You mean sell ample weaponry to India, and a few weapons to China so they can reverse engineer them and undercut our own exports on the global market?

Hey, there's nothing to stop you producing cheap low grade weaponry en masse for a while to sell to China.

LordofHats wrote:
Frazzled wrote:They have a carrier now. More importantly they have lots of aircraft and missiles. You don't need a bluewater navy if its near your own coast.

You need a blue water navy to stand a chance against a blue water navy. Any conflict involving the Phillipines, Japan, and the South Korea, and China will pull the US into it. We out ton every power in the world by a factor of two. China can't win that fight. They won't stand a chance of winning for at least another 50-60 years and even then, numerous things would need to transpire to weaken the US Navy (very likely that tho). China is no position to flex any naval muscle.

Besides, what good is one retrofitted obsolete Russian aircraft carrier against the US Navy? We have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined and our Carries are nearly twice the tonnage of others. This is probably just Chinese propaganda for now. I doubt China is dumb enough to potential start a conflict with the US and western powers at this time. They won't win.

I'm sorry, this post just comes across to me as you comparing the tonnage of the two aircraft carriers and saying, 'Well, ours are bigger, and we have more of them, so we'll obviously win really easily!'.

The Chinese national hobby for the last few years has been building submarines and carrier killing missiles. When you throw in hidden submarine pens, difficult logistics, and local airfields, the scenario changes completely. It's not so simple when all the other factors are considered.

I also must admit I instinctively dislike the inherent arrogance behind the statement of, 'China is in no position to flex any naval muscle', when the dispute in question actually has nothing to do with America or American capabilities. I'm afraid the rest of the world doesn't actually run itself according to the convenience of American foreign policy.