I love it. When it comes to Burma the left thinks we should be doing something to stop the suffering and brutality going on over there.
If this disaster had happened ten years ago–that is, before Iraq–plans would almost certainly be on the table for some form of humanitarian intervention designed to resolve the situation. Maybe we would be talking about deposing the Burmese regime outright; maybe we would be discussing–as Robert Kaplan did in a recent New York Times op-ed–more modest steps, such as sending U.S. Marines on boats to deliver supplies to the hardest-hit areas. But, either way, realistic options would be considered for saving Burmese lives, even if those options involved violating Burmese sovereignty.
I see. But when we went into Iraq and stopped the rape rooms, acid baths and the thousands of mass graves, this wasn’t good. Change the situation to Myanmar and its all different. Hell, the writer at TNR even says we don’t have to change the regime…just force the aid in:
The goal of such an intervention need not be regime change; it should simply be to make sure that a vulnerable population receives the supplies it desperately needs.
Of course the writer forgets that the countries leaders have refused these supplies. So that being the case I’m guessing the writer believes we should use force to get the supplies in, meaning waging war on the government.
Oh, and lets not forget that once we are inside that country we will be in the middle of a real civil war seeing as how there are more then a few internal rebellions going on.
But you see…this would be a “good” war. Not like Iraq don’t ya know.
See author page