Re: Time to Invade Burma?
- 05.09.2008 - 2:00 PMWell, what if the UN doesn’t come along? And don’t we need to draw up an exit strategy first? And what evil multinational corporation will get the job of bringing the physically decimated country back to life? And who’s going to protect the religious minorities in the absence of a strong central government? And how are we going to keep the peace between the dissidents and the former junta members? And how long do we stay? And what kind of regime do we leave in place? And why should American soldiers risk their lives and American tax payers spend their money to fight people thousands of miles away who pose no threat to us and our way of life? And won’t this just be perceived as a way of positioning troops in
I raise all these questions somewhat facetiously. They’re deadly serious, of course, and need to be considered. But the point is that even cases for the most transparently humanitarian international military intervention are fraught with deeply complicated and interwoven considerations. Which is absolutely no reason in itself to rule out aggressive action.
It’s easy to find endless reasons to let thousands or even millions die. And you don’t even have to bring up oil, Bush, lies, or WMD.
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
May 9th, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Ah jeez! Why do WE have to fix it?
May 9th, 2008 at 3:11 PM
How long before America will be blamed for it’s racism for not intervening in Burma? When will it begin to be compared to Rwanda? Just remember according to Algore that cyclone was due to global warming and that’s George Bush’s fault.
May 9th, 2008 at 3:15 PM
Those are good questions. If only the author’s intent weren’t satifical.
May 9th, 2008 at 3:25 PM
I looked up Burma in the foreign policy dictionary and the primary meaning was “not our problem.” Okay, maybe it was a somewhat unusual foreign policy dictionary - a realist one.
We should encourage nations with more time on their hands right now to do their utmost to help the Burmese people. Perhaps, if asked, we should be willing to join a coalition of the willing, but any personnel we send should be restricted to a strictly noncombat role and should be stationed only in those parts of the country that are fully pacified. Oh - and whoever organizes the coalition of the willing should send us aid to offset the cost of our effort.
May 9th, 2008 at 3:31 PM
I think we all know that no one else is willing to do anything. They will just talk about it, hold meetings, and criticize us for not doing anything.
The people who think Bush is a war criminal will completely ignore Burma until five years have passed, then they will write books about what a crime it was for us not to intervene.
May 9th, 2008 at 3:38 PM
“Satirical,” not “satifical.” I coined a new word; any suggestions as to what it might mean?
May 9th, 2008 at 4:13 PM
The real question is this: when should we subdue a tyrannical regme by force and when not? There are many such regimes. Even if we add various qualifications such as outright bellicosity, there are still too many. If we intervene militarily in one we have to intervene in all that qualify.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:07 PM
The Burma tragedy has, it is hoped, put paid to the lie “nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people.” Wonder if B.H. Obama would like to take that one back?
How much of the tragedy was caused by the dictatorship (late or no notification; blocking aid) is not and will likely never be known with any accuracy. But we must know this by now: it’s not our problem as a nation. It may be our problem as individuals; the Burmese remain our “neighbors” and we must love them.
But let that love not blind us to the reality that it is not right for us to use our already stretched-thin military for un-military purposes.
Regime change in Burma? Why not start in Sudan, to end the Arab genocide of black Africans? Why not assassinate Mugabe and all his co-conspirators in Zimbabwe? Iran looks like a tempting target, as well. The list is long. But our limited success in Iraq should have taught us a little humility before we talk of regime change backed by our military elsewhere.
Let us provide material aid to Burma as best we’re able to; perhaps on the sly through the United Nations (those idiots ought to be good for something).
May 9th, 2008 at 9:24 PM
Before we listen to you about Burma, how about a little accountability on your last prediction, Mr. Greenwald? On April 13, you published a cheerful article about Lebanon called “The Arab Spring Is Now.” Now that Beirut has been occupied by Hezbollah without a whimper of resistance from the Lebanese Army, I guess we know what you meant: it’s springtime if you happen to be cheering for Hezbollah and Iran.
Will any apologies for this outrageous misreading of Lebanon be forthcoming? A little humility?
Only kidding, of course. As if you’d ever admit you were wrong!
May 9th, 2008 at 11:44 PM
There are US military assets all over Asia ready, willing and capable of helping in Burma. Those who think our military is “stretched too thin” have bought into the defeatist propaganda of our enemies. We are plenty capable of helping, if George Bush gives the word, and he should.