WTH? Wouldn’t that be a preemptive invasion?
That’s why it’s time to consider a more serious option: invading Burma. Some observers, including former USAID director Andrew Natsios, have called on the U.S. to unilaterally begin air drops to the Burmese people regardless of what the junta says. The Bush Administration has so far rejected the idea — “I can’t imagine us going in without the permission of the Myanmar government,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday — but it’s not without precedent: as Natsios pointed out to the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. has facilitated the delivery of humanitarian aid without the host government’s consent in places like Bosnia and Sudan.
A coercive humanitarian intervention would be complicated and costly. During the 2004 tsunami, some 24 U.S. ships and 16,000 troops were deployed in countries across the region; the mission cost the U.S. $5 million a day. Ultimately, the U.S. pledged nearly $900 million to tsunami relief. (By contrast, it has offered just $3.25 million to Burma.) But the risks would be greater this time: the Burmese government’s xenophobia and insecurity make them prone to view U.S. troops — or worse, foreign relief workers — as hostile forces. (Remember Black Hawk Down?) Even if the U.S. and its allies made clear that their actions were strictly for humanitarian purposes, it’s unlikely the junta would believe them. “You have to think it through — do you want to secure an area of the country by military force? What kinds of potential security risks would that create?” says Egelend. “I can’t imagine any humanitarian organization wanting to shoot their way in with food.”
I’m for it (as long as it’s just air drops and we don’t actually invade), how about you lefties? Would you support an invasion for humanitarian purposes? Of course, you know they might take it as an act of war.
So, here’s the question for those who think that we are too pushy and throw our weight around in the world: should we do it to help those in need when their government won’t let us help?
posted May 11, 2008 at 11:29 am
Well we don’t have any troops available anyways thanks to President Retard, so I guess it’s a moot point isn’t it?
posted May 11, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Only if they bring back those funny Burma Shave signs.
posted May 11, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Their military government is scared to death of allowing outside help and possibly having the people catch a glimpse of outside influence. There are reports of military persons stealing care packages. Also they want to distribute the donated items themselves as if it is coming from them. Sad situation. I’m sure that “government” does not enjoy this big spotlight. I hope the international community figures out a way to help.
posted May 11, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Would you support an invasion for humanitarian purposes?
It seems to be right up our alley.
posted May 11, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Burma is a client state of China, so it would need to be done in a way that doesn’t risk tensions there. Remember that spy plane incident at the beginning of the first Bush term? We don’t need something like that again.
Actually landing troops and securing territory to distribute the aid is craziness, but air dropping supplies against the wishes of the government might be OK.
More broadly, the junta in Burma brutally put down demonstrations earlier in the year and now they letting people die because they’re afraid of letting outsiders into the country. This kind of behavior is likely to topple them like it did to Nicolae Ceau?escu in Romania back in ’89.
posted May 12, 2008 at 2:06 pm
I think if we invaded Burma in order to deliver humanitarian aid, there would shortly be a coalition against the U.S. occupation of Burma.
Seriously, I hope the poor Burmese people rise up and kick the ruling junta to kingdom come. These generals are so afraid that their people may realize that they have support in the international community that they would rather let them die than risk ending their isolation.
posted May 12, 2008 at 8:17 pm
by the way of bushies katrina disaster thinking,
1. isn’t this an issue for the LOCAL government to manage?
2. mustn’t the LOCAL government first REQUEST u.s. federal help?
3. does this require bush to fly over days afterward to assess the damage and then land for photo ops and declare a job well done by someone named “brownie”?