| Submit your comments on this article |
| Southeast Asia |
| Asia Times: The case for invading Myanmar |
| 2008-05-11 |
| With United States warships and air force planes at the ready, and over 1 million of Myanmar's citizens left bedraggled, homeless and susceptible to water-borne diseases by Cyclone Nagris, the natural disaster presents an opportunity in crisis for the US. A unilateral - and potentially United Nations-approved - US military intervention in the name of humanitarianism could easily turn the tide against the impoverished country's unpopular military leaders, and simultaneously rehabilitate the legacy of lame-duck US President George W Bush's controversial pre-emptive military policies. Myanmar's ruling junta has responded woefully to the cyclone disaster, costing more human lives than would have been the case with the approval of a swift international response. One week after the killer storm first hit, Myanmar's junta has only now allowed desperately needed international emergency supplies to trickle in. It continues to resist US and UN disaster relief and food aid personnel from entering the country. Officially, 60,000 people have died; the figure is probably closer to 100,000. The US is prepared to deliver US$3.25 million in initial assistance for survivors, which if allowed by the junta could be rapidly delivered to the worst-hit areas using US Air Force and naval vessels, including the US C-130 military aircraft now in neighboring Thailand, and the USS Kitty Hawk and USS Nimitz naval warships, currently on standby in nearby waters. |
| Posted by:Pappy |
| #22 I think the only president who hasn't launched military strikes in/against a foreign country in the post-WWII period is Jimmy Carter. Yeah, he did - the botched hostage-rescue. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2008-05-11 23:03 |
| #21 OS: Oh yeah? Againts people that were not a threat to us, or against people actively engaged in actions against us, hmm dumbshit? What a crock of equivocation this article was. It goes way beyond that. I think the only president who hasn't launched military strikes in/against a foreign country in the post-WWII period is Jimmy Carter. (The pre-WWII period wasn't exactly a model of supine inaction either - I'm just pointing out the post-WWII period for those who think either that anything before WWII is ancient history or that WWII changed everything). |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2008-05-11 21:45 |
| #20 As for CHINA, Myanmar's Govt. suppors China becuz China was the major world power that economically helped Myanmar. OUTSIDE OF ECON $$$, MYANMAR IS AT BEST A HOSTILE RELUCTANT ALLY OF CHINA E.G. ANTI-EVERYBODY VIETNAM. THE US + USSR HAD THEIR CHANCES BUT BLEW IT REPEATEDLY DURING THE COLD WAR. The above being said, I don't think its too late for the US, ESPEC GIVEN THAT RADICAL ISLAM IS FIGHTING FOR "LAND BRIDGES" INTO THE PACIFIC + AMERICAS. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-05-11 18:54 |
| #19 Invade, assist, cross Burmese borders with U.S. troops for any reason, no matter how defined? NO. HELL NO! NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WHATSOEVER. LET THE DAMNED EUROS OR UN DO IT IF THEY WANT IT DONE. BURMA ISN'T WORTH THE BLOOD, MUCH LESS THE BONES, OF ONE AMERICAN MARINE. |
| Posted by: Thaimble Scourge of the Pixies4707 2008-05-11 18:52 |
| #18 Typical context-dodging asshole idiot reporters. In an era when the US routinely launches pre-emptive military st Oh yeah? Againts people that were not a threat to us, or against people actively engaged in actions against us, hmm dumbshit? What a crock of equivocation this article was. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-05-11 18:40 |
| #17 IMO/IMB, iff the former Reagan-Bush 1 Admins made any mistake(s), it was failing to establish a stronger US presence in SOUTH-SE ASIA vv Myanmar/Burma. UNFORTUNATELY, COLD WAR > THE US FOCII WAS GENER ON THE LARGER, MORE DEV NATIONS OF THE REGION + ASIA. THE RULING JUNTA WANTS TO FEEL THE LOVE AS PER THE US-WEST/S DECADES-LONG IGNORANCE = DOWNPLAYING OF THEIR NATION IN THE COLD WAR "GREAT GAME" OF GEOPOL. IN MYANMAR, IMO THE US COULD HAD BEEN IN A POTENT PRE-9-11 MILPOL POSITION TO PRECLUDE THE RISE OF AL QAEDA + TALIBAN, ETC. ISLAMIST TERROR GROUPS AFTER THE SOVIET DEFEAT IN AFGHANISTAN + VV THE DRUG TRADE. But-t-t, thats just me + MADONNA > OOOOOPPPPSIES! The final decision was up to Reagan-Bush 1, etc. NOT THE ARMY-USDOD. QUE SERA SERA - BETTER LATE THAN NEVER??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-05-11 18:40 |
| #16 This is the sort of thing the liberals like to use the military for, the type of war that make them feel morally superior while doing nothing in the interest of the US. They don't care if our soldiers die because the military votes Republicans any way. |
| Posted by: RWV 2008-05-11 18:10 |
| #15 The only way I'd even consider going into Burma is with India as a full and equal partner in the venture. That will keep China at arm's reach, especially if Thailand, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Indonesia were supportive. The Chinese fear India, and for good reason. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2008-05-11 16:36 |
| #14 Of course, to the MSM, this is just more "proof" that we never should have gone into Iraq. If we weren't in Iraq, we would have the military resources to do this. Bush should have foreseen this. |
| Posted by: Rambler in California 2008-05-11 15:57 |
| #13 It'll be another "drain" and "bleed" war for the US, only without being on the borders of Saudi Arabia and Iran where we can exert pressure back. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2008-05-11 14:07 |
| #12 China could easily tie us down in Burma by funding an 'insurgency' against us once we went in. And the various liberal do-gooders talking today about how 'right' it would be to 'help' the Burmese people would, of course, start talking about quagmire, etc. Especially if Bush/McCain were in charge. No thank you, we can't fix all the problems in the world. Let the Chinese or the Euros do this one. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2008-05-11 13:54 |
| #11 No. No more humanitarian missions. We can send aid but no boots on the ground. We will need our military power to defend ourselves. Our military is not a meals-on-wheels service. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2008-05-11 13:49 |
| #10 This is a political move on the order of the collectivization of the Chinese or Ukrainian farms, and the deaths will be on the same order, millions if closer to Pol Pot's single digits. The area devastated contributes 40% of the rice crop for Burma. With the monsoon season starting in less than a month and possibly earlier, the crop will be planted and Burma would face severe food shortages next year. I suspect the dear leaders have decided that it would be better to have them die now as a result of an act of nature than to have to beg the west for food next year or have them starve then and make trouble in the meantime. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-05-11 13:47 |
| #9 g: OK, the US does it or China does it. They have one day to decide. If the US does it, I say that that everyone who cares can pony up to help pay for the operation. Right? The Chinese aren't going to rescue the Burmese population. They will jump in to rescue the government if Uncle Sam intervenes in Burma. The replacement of the existing government by Uncle Sam would probably see the expulsion of the Chinese colonists who have entered Burma with the permission of the quisling government currently in power. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2008-05-11 13:14 |
| #8 OK, the US does it or China does it. They have one day to decide. If the US does it, I say that that everyone who cares can pony up to help pay for the operation. Right? |
| Posted by: gorb 2008-05-11 13:07 |
| #7 MK: You know, if there ever WAS a reason to go in, punch somebody in the face and tell 'em to sit down and shut up while we try to take care of their people, this place is providing one. Your perception is accurate. The problem is that China sits next door. If they choose to fund an insurgency against us (a la the French phase of Vietnam), or send PLA troops in-country (a la the Korean War), things could go messy and expensive in men and money real fast. My view is that China would come to the rescue of its tributary state and land of opportunity for Chinese colonists. At the same time, though, I don't think there's a lot of zeal for defending the regime. Burma already has a popularly-elected leader who was prevented from taking office (Aung San Suu Kyi). Bottom line, it comes down to whether intervention in Burma is worth a confrontation with China, indirectly or otherwise. A naval and air war with China over Taiwan favors us. A land war with China over Burma favors the Chinese. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2008-05-11 12:26 |
| #6 Wasn't Saddam Hussein viciously oppressing his population? Did the world shower us with accolades for deposing that tyrant? Once bitten, twice shy. And even if we had the resources and willingness to accomplish this, Myanmar is of far less strategic importance to us. |
| Posted by: Gliling Lumplump3518 2008-05-11 12:26 |
| #5 A unilateral - and potentially United Nations-approved - US military intervention in the name of humanitarianism could easily turn the tide against the impoverished country's unpopular military leaders, and simultaneously rehabilitate the legacy of lame-duck US President George W Bush's controversial pre-emptive military policies. Translation: we know you Americans are suckers for humanitarian rhetoric & UN approval. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-05-11 12:20 |
| #4 Tell it to the French. |
| Posted by: Keystone 2008-05-11 12:18 |
| #3 Yeah, right, just after the UN solves Darfur. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-05-11 12:07 |
| #2 Let the Euros do it. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-05-11 11:21 |
| #1 ...You know, if there ever WAS a reason to go in, punch somebody in the face and tell 'em to sit down and shut up while we try to take care of their people, this place is providing one. Myanmar's army is actually what Jim Dunnigan calls a 'police army' - more of a danger to their own people than anything else and whose resistance time to US Marines can be measured in seconds. If we did go I suspect after the first die hards got taken out, the rest of the army would stand aside and the generals would be tripping all over themselves to tell the world how they invited the US in. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2008-05-11 10:44 |