But the regime is not keen on our direct help, so now the Concerned American community wants America to invade Burma to ensure that aid will reach the victims of the May cyclone?
A coercive humanitarian intervention would be complicated and costly. During the 2004 tsunami, some 24 U.S. ships and 16,000 troops were deployed in countries across the region; the mission cost the U.S. $5 million a day. Ultimately, the U.S. pledged nearly $900 million to tsunami relief. (By contrast, it has offered just $3.25 million to Burma.) But the risks would be greater this time: the Burmese government's xenophobia and insecurity make them prone to view U.S. troops — or worse, foreign relief workers — as hostile forces.
Ratnesar has a lot of nerve.
First I want to see plans. Lots of 'em. With every conceivable deviation from the plan and our response. In English and French, naturally.
Second, I want allies that total more than half of the forces going in--otherwise it is just "unilateral."
Third, France has to be involved. And Germany.
Fourth, we need a UN resolution--no wait, two UN Security Council Resolutions. And don't tell me that China would veto a resolution authorizing international intervention in the internal affairs of a member state. That just means we need to keep talking about that resolution.
Fifth, what's our exit strategy? And a timetable for withdrawing our troops is a must. Otherwise, how will the Burmese learn to respond to humanitarian crises without us?
Sixth, I want Congress to declare war. And this time they have to mean it, not like that 2002 authorization to use force against Iraq that many on the left want to repeal or just forget. The declaration should specifically mention that it has no expiration date.
Seventh, we'll need to give our baby-killing and raping troops proper sensitivity and human rights training so they won't abuse the locals. Oh, and the International Criminal Court must be given jurisdiction.
Eighth, what is the total projected cost out to ten years, including interest and every possible expense resulting from the intervention?
Ninth, what guarantees do you have that the corrupt locals won't squander the aid?
Tenth, we need to give cyclone inspectors time to determine if there really is a crisis in Burma. At least a year, I'd say.
Eleventh, this can only be a last resort to other non-military solutions.
Twelfth, why Burma and not China? Or North Korea, which has a far greater humanitarian problem? Or Congo? Or Darfur? If we can't invade them all to feed them, why are we rushing to war with Burma alone? Is there oil involved? Are Jews associated with this intervention? Will any Moslems of the excitable variety be offended?
Thirteenth, we need benchmarks for the Burmese to meet otherwise we risk wasting our money on an effort that is bound to fail.
Fourteenth, we have to have a military draft so that service in Burma is shared by all.
Am I too harsh? Am I a little sensitive over the ability of our more liberal citizenry to advocate military action and then cut and run the first time we have to shoot a poor underprivileged native who understandably wants to car bomb our outposts?
Nah. I'm just capable of learning from experience.
Oh, there is one more requirement:
Advocates of military intervention to deliver aid to Burma can kiss my ass.
But once my objections have been met, full speed ahead by all means.
UPDATE: This article is a helpful counter to the usual sniping at America. I appreciate the author's sentiments. And no, I'm not ready to tell the world to take a hike and good luck. We are better than our mindless critics and we will help those in trouble. We will help because that's what Americans do. We will help in Burma. And we should help in China. And after we help, we will endure the mindless critics who condemn us for not rushing to a unilateral invasion of Burma to save Burmese cyclone victims from the neglect of their own government. And then we'll help again in the next disaster. That's what America does.
