Invade Burma?

Last weekend, there was an interesting discussion in comments here on the blog about the merits of forcably bringing humanitarian aid to the people of Burma/Myanmar, the junta be damned. Now the New Yorker's George Packer ponders the same question, asking, "Should Burma Be Saved from Itself?" He writes:

Forcing the regime to let the rest of the world save its people would have a devastating effect on morale. Burma’s leaders are so isolated and irrational that they actually believe their own propaganda about being the only group that can hold the country together. It’s possible that the junta would collapse out of sheer humiliation. It’s also possible, though it seems unlikely to me, that Burmese military units would be ordered to engage the foreigners. Shots might be fired, people might be killed. No one knows what will happen if British sailors and American airmen arrive on soggy Burmese soil. Hanging over the question is, of course, Iraq. No one expects an intervention to go smoothly anymore; now we expect it to go terribly wrong. I doubt the American, British, French, Australian, and other governments, with or without U.N. consent, will decide to invade Burma with boxes of oral rehydration kits and high-energy biscuits. But if the fear of Baghdad and Falluja is what keeps foreign powers from saving huge numbers of Burmese from their own government’s callousness, that will be one more tragic consequence of the Iraq war.

On the other hand, if it’s going to be done, it should be done quickly. I know all the arguments why we shouldn’t. But there are at least a million counterarguments why we should.

Andrew Sullivan links to Packer's piece, and explicitly jumps on the bandwagon with the title, "Invade Burma, Please." He writes: "A brief, decisive international effort to reach the starving and sick seems important to me. If it helps demystify this vile regime, great. But in its demonstration of humanity, it is also a great way for the US to enhance its soft power in the developing world."

Discuss.

P.S. Meanwhile, Dr. Jeff Masters notes that the seasonal monsoon rains are rapidly approaching the Irrawaddy Delta.

Comments

[Angrier and Angrier]

You can argue it the other way. Should the international community, in its effort to help the victims of the cyclone, further prop up a regime that is killing its own people? If we let things continue on their current course, doesn't this increase the odds that the junta will be deposed by the Myanmar people?

[Aaron]

I honestly don't know what I think we should do in this situation. Regarding Sullivan, I'll just note that he's been down this road before, and that paragraph sounds awfully familiar. At least we can assume, I think, that there will be no talk of "fifth-columns" this time around. But it doesn't help that he's mimicking Ledeen with that post title.

[yea]

while intervention might be justified in this instance, the entire international community will be highly skeptical of our intentions because of what happened in iraq.

i think if this is going to happen it would have to be a true international effort that was spearheaded by non-us entities with the us only providing support as part of a coalition.

[Becky]

I'm sure that the starving people give a rat's ass about the geopolitics involved.

[PenguinSix]

And I'm sure most of the world gives a rat's ass about starving people.

I mean honestly, we have real live acts of genocide going on around the world in countries we could take out with a division or two of troops, and there are calls to invade a swamp in Asia? 2.8 million died over three years from starvation in North Korea and no troops moved, nor were then any talk about troops moving.

Be careful of setting a standard we cannot live upto in the next 12 months to come, let alone the next decade.

[Youngblai]

Put...the...crack...pipe..._down_.

Three reasons this will be a disaster if we try it:

1.) Treaty of Westphalia. You know, that whole state system we've established? Yeah, flush that down the toilet. Nations get to treat their citizens, within reason, how they want to. Within reason being "we will chase our citizens down across international borders if we have to." Be careful saying the U.N. supersedes nation states lest you have a bunch of blue helmets helping us out if we have a major disaster (and boy, you want to talk about all hell breaking loose then).

2.) With what troops, Dear Liza? I know the U.S. better not be lead. Because I'd _love_ to see what the Joint Chiefs would say if this got beyond the "We'd like to..." stage. If they have any professional ethics at all, the'd resign. Why? Because now, in addition to fighting two wars, we're going to engage in a relief operation that's going to require a hell of a lot of supplies, security, and may cause larger problems than we started with. Which leads to...

3.) What do we do with Burma after we "save" it? Because the junta is not going to survive an international intervention, if for no other reason than they would be dumb enough to engage the incoming forces. So who is going to administer the steaming pile of pooh that used to be Myanmar after we depose the junta?

I'm with Penguin Six--the world stood by and watched while Kim Jong Il smoked almost 3 million of his people, all the while dining on caviar and Western goods. Know why we didn't intervene then? Because we would've probably killed more people than we saved in a Second Korean War. So why is Myanmar any different?

[Youngblai]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a2MoHibLtLow&refer=home

BTW, another reason everyone needs to take a deep breath.