Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Saving Burma from Itself?
Posted by: Dale Franks on Thursday, May 15, 2008

George Packer is wondering if a military intervention to forcibly deliver relief supplies to Burma is needed.
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.
It's certainly troubling to see thousands die from the deliberate malfeasance of a paranoid, authoritarian regime. It's troubling to have to shrug our shoulders, and say, "Well, there's nothing we can do. It's their country."

Even worse, though, would be to set up the principle of the acceptability of 'forced humanitarian interventions".

Who decides when such interventions are necessary? Who does the intervening? What constitutes the "bright line" between acceptable an unacceptable interventions?

In real terms, life in much of the developing world is nasty, brutish and short. Governments have a large hand in making it so,bit, then again, so does culture, economics, tribalism, and a host of other deplorable conditions.

Historically, the "bright line" has been national interest. nations intervene in the affairs of others when it is in their interest to do so. Now, that's not a high-minded reason, nor is it a standard that is immune to abuse. But in general, national interest standard tends to deter abuse. If a nation cannot credibly make the national interest argument, it tends to be labeled an aggressor, which opens it up to the possibility of forceful resistance from other states.

The humanitarian standard, on the other hand, is nearly illimitable. In many nations in Africa, Asia, and South America, there are innumerable humanitarian reasons for intervention. Do we invade Zimbabwe to prevent Robert Mugabe from completely cratering the country? Do we invade Israel to relieve the suffering of the poor Palestinians?

We would do well to remember that we are talking about sending soldiers in to kill foreigners. The Kaplokistanis aren't providing enough earthquake assistance? Well, let's go in and kill some Kaplokistanis to bring relief to other Kaplokistanis. The conscript soldiers that get whacked when we go in? Oh, well. Omelettes. Eggs. You know.

It is the business of the Kaplokistani government to govern the country, and the business of the Kaplokistani people to object forcefully if that government is not to their liking.

Once get into the business of deciding that we have some responsibility to act directly on behalf of the Kaplokistani people, what we have really done is to declare that we in principle have the right—as long as a sufficient number of other nations agree—that we can overthrow any government that displeases us for any reason.

I'm pretty sure that the results of that kind of operating principle would devolve into serious unpleasantness, and do so in ways that we might not like at all.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Tuesday night, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) was the only member of the House of Representatives to vote against resolution conveying "condolences and sympathy" to the people in Myanmar affected by deadly Cyclone Nargis. It’s not all that surprising of a move for a guy who earned the nickname "Dr. No" by so frequently refusing to march along with the parade of feel-good legislative acts that often dominates the days of our Congress. (The resolution, it should be noted, doesn’t actually do anything for the people suffering in Myanmar.) You see, if you want to earn hollow well wishes from Ron Paul on the House floor, you have to do something a little more special than just get totally wiped out by a massive cyclone and then be left for dead by your own government.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
If it came to action, you know exactly who would have to do the actual work. Then it would be backseat driven by the every corrupt turd (sic) world bureaucrat.

The result would make the Somali intervention look like a precision drill team on parade.

Stay away or do it alone (no UN, absolutely no one from the EU, just Australia and maybe the UK, and Thailand). no other options
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Wow....this is a clever way for the writer to blame Bush for the deplorable state of Burma.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
George Packer is wondering if a military intervention for forcibly deliver relief supplies to Burma is needed.
The answer is ’no’.

Let’s see what happens when the ’great satan’ isn’t as generous as it usually is. Do you suppose our world footing will change, once it’s recognized that nobody else will leap to their aid, either?




 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Daniel Schorrrrrrrrrrrr did the same thing on NPR this afternoon. He began his disjointed rambling, I mean, commentary with the statement "It is a shame that the Bush Administration’s adventures in Iraq have given intervention such a bad name..."

After that, I kept waiting for his explanation as to exactly how Danny knew that the Burmese military junta’s xenophobic paranoia was all attributable to Bush, but he never got around to it.

Guess he just figured that it was common knowledge.
 
Written By: Terry
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider