Invading Burma?

Romesh Ratensar asks in Time a question that others are throwing around: should we invade Burma because their government is so indifferent to the suffering of their people in the wake of the recent cyclone?

Um, no?

Actually, I have mixed feelings over military actions based on humanitarian purposes. This kind of action appeals to the human rights instincts within me. If you have a large military, there has to be a time and place to use it. On the surface, this seems like the correct opportunity.

On the other hand, the problems with such an invasion would be myriad.

1. Haven't we already invaded 2 other countries in the last 6 years? And how has that gone? Oh yeah, not so well. Where would the troops come from for such an action? Where would the money come from? What would the American public do? These are some serious questions.

2. What kind of invasion would it be. Ratensar suggests a sort of humanitarian invasion that would essentially bypass the regime and provide aid directly to the people. What evidence is there that this would work in Burma? Ratensar suggests similar situations in the Ivory Coast, Bosnia, and Sudan have worked. But Burma is probably stronger than any of those nations. Their leadership is certainly as brutal. Would their military fire on UN or US troops? It is quite likely. And what would the response be from the invading force? I believe we would have to be prepared for a full fledged invasion with regime change if we were to start such an action. Are we prepared for that? Absolutely not.

3. China. Related to the previous question, what would China's response be? While the Chinese have interests in the Sudan and Russia certainly is a major supporter of Bosnia, the Chinese and Burmese governments are very close. China would likely veto any security council measures regarding Burma. China is going to see such an action as a western attempt to increase their presence in one of their major suppliers of natural resources. Certainly I doubt the Chinese would send in their military in response to a humanitarian or even a full-fledged invasion, but they do have massive economic power. They could completely undermine the dollar if they chose to. I don't know that they would take such a large step. But the Chinese would have to either play a central role in an invading force or at least be reckoned with very carefully. I don't see the UN or US willing to take that on.

4. It seems like regime change in Burma would be fairly popular with the people. There was a major rebellion just last year and clearly the junta is far from liked by most. But like Iraq, I suspect the U.S. foreign policy community knows next to nothing about Burma. Are we willing to deal with the Karen rebellion in the north? What role would Thailand and India play in such a situation? And of course, there is China, Singapore, and other less than democratic powers in the region to reckon with.

I would just like to point out that I just provided more deep thinking about a potential invasion of Burma and its aftermath than did the Bush administration before they entered Iraq. This puts me in a bad position. That I am thinking about this at all makes me clearly overqualified for a leading foreign policy position in a Republican administration. Obviously I have no expertise and the Democrats are likely to appoint competent people so I'm screwed there too. I guess if I had just shut up and created rosy fictions about the consequences of a Burma invasion, I'd be helping my future career as a Republican foreign policy expert tremendously. Me and my stupid big mouth.