Should we (the West) invade Burma?
 

I wanted to ask the question as it is an interesting contrast to situations in which various powers, Western or otherwise, have interceded with military and political force. We have spoken about or actually invaded nations at various times in order to remove regimes on the premise, in whole or more commonly in part, that the regime was evil and fatally detrimental to its citizens.

Burma's complete mishandling of the aftermath of the cyclone is leading to many more thousands of dead from further floods, dissentry, malnutrition, exposure, etc - all due to the fact that the regime is just this side of North Korea in terms of reclusiveness and xenophobia and every bit as corrupt as any banana republic you'd care to name.

Would you be in favour of taking military action against nations who are, without doubt, causing death and suffering to it citizens. And not suffering because the nation is dirt poor - but rather suffering because, like Burma, they just don't want the UN, the Red Cross, or any other body helping its dying people?

Or do you think that the destabilizing effect of outside intervention would be worse than suffering through the regime's corruption and inefficiency?

I'm a little torn here - to some extent I think a quick "mercy mission" to deliver supplies and fix up a few water sources - might be worth doing in this specific situation, but with a very finite timeline and very specific goals.

We should probably ask Doug Goodyear and Doug Davenport, two McCain advisors and partners in the DCI Group, who have received nearly $1/2 million in lobbying fees representing Myanmar’s ruling military junta.

If only we weren't so tied up destabilizing the middle east...

If we had competent military and civilian leadership,
if we had a good understanding of how the people of Myanmar would respond to our presence,
if we decided not to hire mercenaries to do the work that our soldiers could do,
I wouldn't mind.

It's too bad they don't have pretend WMDs.

The West needs to keep it in its pants, generally speaking.

Agreed

Also agreed. Thirded, if you will.

If any intervention should be necessary, I believe this would be a great opportunity for the U.N. to step up with commitment to demonstrate it's ability to actually do what they're supposed to do.

Why not work on fixing our own country, and figuring out how to restore ourselves, before trying to fix other countries? If we can't take care of our own, how do we take care of them?

I think this is a job for the UN. Everyone thinks the UN is the cat's pajamas, let's see them deal with what should be a relatively straightforward humanitarian crisis.

To paraphrase a famous Russian - "How many divisions does the UN have?".

Right now there are French, US and British naval ships full of supplies waiting off the coast.

I don't agree that "we" should invade, but I wonder what the Generals would do if they just stemaed in and started to unload.

but.... but....... but....... that would be unilateral and unauthorized!!!

"The cat's pajamas"? Is that legal jargon?

Yes. Others come to mind ... "the beez-kneez", "21 skiddoo" and "swell".

Will, you never heard of "the cat's pajamas?" Gadzooks!!

Yes, just rarely outside of court. :expressionless:

The situation in Burma is precisely the kind of situation where a Chapter VII authorized UN force is useful. Unfortunately, we and others have made such a mockery of UN participation, by not using force when we should, and using force when it's not needed, that it's difficult to make any convincing argument these days. Case in point: how can one argue for intervention in Burma when we have yet to effectively intervene in Sudan?

The way I see it is with Burma I might be supportive of a strictly humanitarian intervention - not to overthrow the Burmese government, just a 6 week mission to restore a bit of infrastructure, deliver medicines and supplies, and build a few tin roofed houses and save a few thousand lives.

And then get out again.

And how do you propose we do that sort of thing against the Burmese government's will without also fighting with, and consequently overthrowing, that government?

in both cases, the un has run up against the limitations of its humanitarian mission as it's presently understood. in both cases, attempting to deliver aid would result in conflict with the state. the principles of the humanitarian mission would lead you to think that it is an international affair and that the consensus of the global community would override national sovereignty--but obviously the ways to implement this idea are not worked out.

personally, i think both sudan and burma point to limitations that really should be addressed--but doing it would be a deceptive radical business--for example, imagine the american right shrieking about national sovereignty being thrown out the window and the militia movement taking this as a prompt to revive itself--the world is increasingly post-national--the jurassic park of conservative politics that is the us is self-evidently not--but in this case, i think the same limit holds across the board.

sooner or later, this will have to be addressed at the international level.
i'm not sure enough people have died yet to force the issue.
and i wonder what the magic number of deaths is, the magic amount of unnecessary suffering.

Very possibly, the Burmese government would just stand back if confronted by force majeure, especially if the mission is a short one with very defined goals.

Having said that, even if it were not so easy, I'm a little surprised - 10s of millions of people were for "regime change" in Iraq and were happy to sacrifice tens of thousands of lives in the process, purportedly because that government was very evil towards its own people, but not many are keen on saving a few thousand lives at a much lower cost.

On a seperate but parallel issue - in the past couple of weeks somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 people died in Burma and China and it really seems these tragedies have been quite underplayed in the Western media. Even here, I think this is the only thread about either incident on TFP.

I dunno, I hear about both situations constantly, but I guess public radio isn't considered mainstream media?

There's no way the Burmese government would tolerate our invading their country, even if we say it's for humanitarian purposes. That ignores the entire reason we are even discussing this: that they are so paranoid that they resist any sort of aid because they think other governments are out to get them. You better believe that they'd fight back were we to invade, whatever our reasons, and I don't know whether or not the citizens would "greet us as liberators." This is a people who are quite afraid of and superstitious about their government. The Burmese government is known to consult astrology before making major decisions, and many of the Burmese people wonder what kind of "inside" info the government has.

Don't get me wrong: like I said before, this is exactly the kind of situation where I intervention is appropriate. Just because it's appropriate, though, doesn't make it simple. It would be nearly impossible to intervene without dedicating ourselves to overthrowing the junta and rebuilding the Burmese society. As much as I think the current situation demonstrates a time when such action should be seriously considered and may be appropriate, there is also the reality that the idea of external intervention is quite tainted. When we (and others) intervene militarily and politically so often and so unnecessarily in order to enforce our own interests time and time again, and yet ignore other situations over and over again where such intervention may be less important to our interests but far more important in humanitarian terms, we totally lose any moral authority to intervene at all.

One day, perhaps there will be a world where reasonably minded countries mind their own business when other reasonably minded countries come to political conclusions that may differ from their own, and one day those reasonably minded countries which disagree about how best to govern may still come together in solidarity to intervene when unreasonably minded governments ignore the welfare of their own citizens on a massive scale.

Unfortunately, that day is not today.

I dunno if anyone can help me out with this, but with all this UN talk being thrown out there, hasn't China, just like in the instance of Sudan, been backing the Burma Junta as is?

At any rate, this case is interesting if you are searching for ways to legitimize invasion of Burma. As far as corrupt/authoritarian governments go, Burma is most certainly not the worst (not trying to play it down), still no peach of a nation. They are inept and cruel no doubt, but that seems like a fairly shaky precedence to come in and crack some skulls.

And building off the UN, you have to factor in what a cluster fuck the scope of the mission would be. What, we go in gangbusters so we can get aid to the people? What does that mean for rules of engagement? What does that mean for the Junta? How long does the presence last? Where does the long term picture come in to play?

I'm all for helping people, and the Burmese guys are a bunch of jack asses I would have no problem offing. I guess one plus is there would probably be no cluster fuck insurgence like we have in Iraq, things would probably be more feasible and smooth. But then again instead of having a country like Iran start meddling in the affairs of the nation, we would probably be facing some major issues with China.

But the bottom line is the world community is spineless, so they'll blab and decry about the horrors facing the people in Myanmar, but they won't do shit. Tragic really, I can live and forgive selfishness, but spinelessness is no good.

The Generals have agreed to foreign aid coming in but it must be brought in by members of ASEAN (of which they are a member state).

I wonder what would happen if China invaded and pulled another Tibet? Well, maybe if the UN could do it, it may work out eventually, but the Chinese military would have to play a big part.