I don't recall you being this upset when SEAL Team 6 literally invaded Pakistan and whacked Bin Laden. Where's your outrage? Oh, right, that's different, right? Also don't recall you raising any objections to eradicating Libya's government.

You don't see a difference between going after Bin Laden, who actually orchestrated a physical attack against the United States, and someone who (like thousands of other people) was involved in drug trafficking? Right....

The post WWII order of an exhausted Europe and a polar orientation of global power centered on the US and USSR had more to do with it. Even so, you're going to be disappointed at the amount of covert activity that went on in direct contradiction to "the rules".

Bah. The USSR has been gone for three decades now - and Europe has been "un-exhausted" for far longer - and the Pax has held. The fact that activity was limited to what could be done covertly is hardly a disappointment - it's something to be celebrated from the rooftops. We have spent many decades free from Clausewitz's world where it was common for nations to use war as just another tool for achieving political aims, no different than any other.

They lacked the capability to project power. It's as simple as that. That fact is rapidly changing, however. By 2027-2029 they're going to be ready to move.

Right. China - which has had three million or more soldiers in the People's Liberation Army since the early 1990's - lacked the ability to take on the mighty armed forces of Laos (approximately 30,000 soldiers), or even the Philippines (about 160K soldiers) until just the last couple of years. Got it. Nothing to do with the fact (as you noted above) that global trade is a major consideration for them in their assessment, as well as taking into account the responses of other countries to any military incursions.