We’re in complete agreement

its the James Baker realist pro-stability doctrine that led up to 9/11, the current Lebanon disaster, and the mess in the middle east with fanatic/fascist/pan-arabic regimes free to scapegoat the US as the great satan.

Agreed, the Bush doctrine isnt all that, but in my opinion, its a step in the right direction, (until we formulate something better) away from tolerating regimes like Myanmar/Burma that if something isnt done, could be another khmer rouge, with noone left alive but fearful, cowed, terrorized citizens.

Whats sad is that we are the only superpower to take a step to promote liberal values of individual freedom abroad in recent times. And ridiculed by its own elites for doing so.

It’s been put on hold due to total lack of support by the media and the Congress, The CIA, the State Dept….

We’ve returned to James Baker style diplomacy. I guess we have to relearn the lessons of 1990-2001

And of course the potential and likely use of nuclear weapons threaten
every human being, not just americans, even though for the moment we
may seem most in danger.

I’m not calling for a world free of nuclear weapons; this isn’t a
genie that can be put back in the bottle. But I am saying that the
reduction in the number of groups that have access to this should
be at the top of our priorities.

And further that this should be a legitimate pretext for invasion. The
only pretext really, because our power is limited. If we systematically
go after small countries that seem on the verge of acquiring nuclear
weapons then maybe we can change the future, or at least alter the
odds.

We need to create a world where it’s acceptable to demand and get
proof that a small country is not developing or acquiring nuclear weapons.

We need to be aggressive in demanding that proof and actually invade
even if we are less than certain the activity is actually occurring.

I don’t imagine this advice is going to be followed. I’m sure we will
only really start to do this after ten million americans are dead.
Unfortunately at that point this will seem like moderate advice. Many
will be arguing for the total nuclear annihilation of suspected enemy
nations.

I’m afraid we will give in to that temptation.

So to those suffering under the evils of the Burmese junta or the depredations of the Sudanese muslims, I guess the answer is to look to the EU for your salvation. I suggest not holding your breath, at least while you can still draw one.

And, to what degree should fear of being so tarred determine my nation’s collective response to this disaster?

Stayin’ tuned…

Were we, theoretically speaking, to actually invade, we would need to define success down to control of certain geographical areas and restoring sovereign control to the majority in those areas only. There are parts of that country controlled by minority groups that have intractible grievences with the central government, and isn’t a conflict we want to insert ourselves in. Nor is the area that these groups inhabit particularly accessible: it’s not good ground for an invader to fight on.

We could invade the bulk of the country and ignore the areas of worst insurgency, leaving it to the new Myanmarese government to deal with (or not). Whether we actually should is a whole different question, however.

How about rounding up all military-age illegals in this country, arming them, and then air-dropping them over Burma, in a Dirty Dozen-style operation, with the proviso that if they succeed and survive, they’ll automatically receive U.S. citizenship.

Works for me.

That was rather my point. Establishing even the limited amount of order necessary for relief work would be a long term project.

In colonial days, colonial powers could make a credible threat to merely punish and perhaps kill the leadership of groups who crossed them. We lack that ability today. Nobody will believe we will do act until we do so.

How many posters have spent time in that part of South/South East Asia? Because this talk about “averting” humanitarian this or disaster that in that part of the universe isn’t as neat as it looks on a neo-colonial map from the U.S. or Europe. On one side is a slice of India that not even the Indian military really controls. On another side is Bangladesh, a 150 million person Country that’s pretty much chronically in a state of chaos and civil mayhem. On another side is Cambodia, which itself has yet to recover from a genocidal civil war so bad the Vietnamese actually sent THEIR military over the border to squash their former ideological pals. And right smack (apropos pun) in the middle of Burma’s border with China and it’s other neighbors is the Golden Triangle, which after Afghanistan is the second largest producer of the universes raw opium harvest, controlled marginally by… NO ONE (although the warlords pay off all the areas militaries).

In other words, one would have to have just about zero experience with the area to imagine establishing “order” there is possible without the local militaries (i.e. the allied factions of “officer corps” who rule those places). lol. “Hey, Heroin Warloard! Stop enslaving locals to harvest your crops and drafting children into your gang! Or else we fat rich civilians are going to sic the U.S. military on you! We mean it! We have a VOTE and we’ll MAKE our Congressmen or President ORDER those other Americans volunteering in the military to kill you!” lololol. Good luck.

you are naïve in your assertion that “A government is made legitimate not by international recognition but by the consent of its people it holds authority over.”

My definition is not naive, rather it speaks to morality of war and sovereignty. If you purpose to that the state of “sovereignty” protects an arbitrary region from being attacked, then you must propose a real world mechanism for establishing which areas are sovereign and which are not. I offered the only practical means of doing so.

Unfortunately for much of the rest of the world, a government that holds power over its people doesn’t give a damn about our thoughts of legitimacy, democracy, fairness, or morals.

So? Why do we care what others who do not hold our values think? Come that, how do we actually know what the people of the world think as opposed to their self-interested ruling class? Being popular and accepted is nice and all but being right and making the world a more free, just and prosperous place is even better.

I can think of several countries that the US considers allies that are ruled by a government not elected by the people.

Again, so what. The lack of moral sovereignty doesn’t require us to intervene it just allows to intervene if we judge it necessary without having to worry that we are subverting the will of the people who live there.

My point is, if we are to start “bumping off governments …

You making a strawman argument. No one is suggesting we start simultaneously trying to improve everything, everywhere at once. We could however, intervene in the worst 5% of cases in order to prevent mass death or to further our own security interest.

I should have qualified my comment – their government is ‘legitimate’ in that it is recognized by other nations.

However, you are naïve in your assertion that “A government is made legitimate not by international recognition but by the consent of its people it holds authority over.”

That’s an American way of thinking (and one that I happen to agree with).

Unfortunately for much of the rest of the world, a government that holds power over its people doesn’t give a damn about our thoughts of legitimacy, democracy, fairness, or morals.

I can think of several countries that the US considers allies that are ruled by a government not elected by the people. Do you propose that we after we finish with Burma, we pay a visit to Saudi Arabia? What about Egypt? For that matter, what about Vatican City? It’s considered a sovereign state, and I don’t see too many Catholics voting for the Pope (okay – bad example).

My point is, if we are to start “bumping off governments and restore sovereignty to the people” because we think we “have the moral right to invade or otherwise subvert the government anytime we want,” then we truly are an imperial superpower imposing our will and our views on the world, and we are in for a lot of “humanitarian invasions.”

I suggest we start with N. Korea for a real challenge. Same rationalle.

…saving the citizens from their evil, yet legitimate government…

Sovereignty rest only in the people. A government is made legitimate not by international recognition but by the consent of its people it holds authority over.

For the government of Burma to be considered legitimate it would need broad support in the population expressed by some explicit mechanism such as an election.

If our goal is to bump off the government and restore sovereignty to the people, we have the moral right to invade or otherwise subvert the government anytime we want.

Let some other country have this one. Russia seems anxious to show off its new military toys – let them handle this humanitarian invasion.

I’m with Lexington.

The US military is busy. NATO on the other hand doesn’t have the stones to offer up 3,500 troops from a combined military of 3.5 million.

Want military intervention in Burma? Ask NATO. Ask the EU. Ask the UN.

Don’t bother US.

They love to propose this kind of give-a-damn armed social work (as long as a Republican isn’t in charge), but their record of follow-through is spotty at best.