At the Weekly Standard, anyway.
One would be hard-pressed to find another magazine that vehemently supports intervention and endless conflict as much as Bill Kristol's Weekly Standard. How a man like Kristol still has an outlet for his demented beliefs is beyond me, and it never ceases to amaze me how short of a memory Kristol and his staff must have after getting the Iraq War (as well as every other major foreign policy decision) almost exactly wrong.
But I digress. I normally make a daily trip into neocon hell--visiting National Review, Weekly Standard, etc.--partially for laughs but mostly because I'm curious to know what makes such evil minds work.
Most articles on neoconservative sites are predictable in their analysis of an issue or a person. Like talk radio, they follow a similar strategy: complain incessantly, offer no coherent solution to the problem (except war and intervention, of course), cram heavy doses of patriotism down your audience's throat, ALWAYS blame someone else for your mistakes. Oh, and above all, the American government is benevolent and infallible.
The linked article reeks of typical neocon ignorance. Although the entire article is a brief journey into the mind of two madmen, the second paragraph is what shocked me most:
The Burmese regime is guilty of atrocities far worse than the "criminal neglect" Secretary of Defense Robert Gates ascribes to them. It is guilty of crimes against humanity. Prior to the cyclone, the regime received dozens of warnings from India that the storm was on its way--yet did nothing to prepare its citizens. When the cyclone struck, the government sat on its hands and refused international help. Neither material aid nor aid workers were allowed to reach the victims, causing the needless deaths of tens of thousands. A trickle of assistance has gotten in, but aid workers are still restricted and much relief has been seized and sold on the streets. The junta now declares the relief phase is over: Its military thugs are forcibly evicting thousands of people from their shelters, even though they have no homes to return to. An estimated 2.5 million people have been displaced by this crisis.
Hmmmm, kind of sounds like a situation from three years ago, doesn't it?
It is not until the last half of the article that we discover the author's solution to the humanitarian crisis. True to form, their recommendation should surprise no one:
The United States, with a democratic coalition that could include Great Britain and France, should prepare immediately to intervene in Burma to ensure humanitarian aid reaches the tens of thousands of cyclone victims whose lives are still at risk.
Given the success of America's "Coalition of the Willing" in Iraq, I'm surprised Britain and France aren't beating down our door to begin immediate intervention. You can't make this stuff up.
When did the mentality that America needs to use its military force to intervene in humanitarian crises seep in to the American way of thinking? Have no other options been considered, like, say, non-military relief organizations like the Red Cross and UNICEF? I'd like to think natives would be more receptive towards receiving aid if it was not provided at the tip of a bayonet.
Then again, the bayonet may be what the ruling government fears most as it may incite an internal revolution and oust the regime. The authors address this issue towards the end of the article by quoting a letter from Burmese democracy groups to President Bush (emphasis mine):
"Intervention will be seen as divine intervention by the Burmese people, not only to help the cyclone victims but also to finally free the entire nation from the military yoke," wrote a coalition of Burmese democracy groups to President Bush. "Please do not compare Burma with Iraq, because Buddhist monks, students, Burmese patriots will happily assist you with whatever you need to go inside Burma and help the cyclone victims and entire nation Many concerned Burmese citizens are willing to join the intervention. Please do not waste precious time."
Aside from accepting military force as the only means available to provide aid to Burmese citizens, there are two things wrong with citing this letter as justification for intervention. First, there's the question of honesty; specifically, are US forces there to provide humanitarian aid or to overthrow the government? Second, what's preventing these "many" Burmese citizens from rising up and overthrowing their government on their own?
In my view, the authors are suggesting that the revolution--should it occur--is simply a byproduct of the greater good that arrives with American military aid. If my view is correct, then the authors have also (in a subtle way) provided justification for their belief that military resources are the only viable option for relief efforts. It's as if they're saying, hey, let's use the military to distribute aid...and if a revolution happens, all the better!
The problem is, America has been down this path before and it hasn't worked out well for us. America has ostensibly rushed to the aid of oppressed people throughout the world for the greater part of the past one hundred years, sacrificed millions of lives and unknown quantities of treasure and dignity, and for what? How many more times are we going to fall for the ruse that American military muscle is necessary--and the only viable means--to change the world for the better?
I'm not suggesting that life is peachy in Burma and that the Burmese are not living under an oppressive regime. To believe such nonsense is to subscribe to the simplistic viewpoints of the faux intellectuals writing articles like this. What I am saying is that military intervention has not worked in the past, and it is likely to fail miserably in the future. Further, there are other reputable (non-military) agencies--like the Red Cross and UNICEF--that are capable of providing aid during a crisis of this magnitude...yet those options are conveniently ignored by the authors (I consider UN intervention to be the same as using military assets to distribute aid). Until someone can explain to me how responding to a natural disaster, where a massive amount of damage was done to property and infrastructure, with even more destruction of property and infrastructure via military force is good for a country, I'll remain steadfast in my belief that the best relief is the kind that is not accompanied by bayonet.
Finally, if the authors are so hell-bent on overthrowing the oppressive Burmese government, I have a suggestion: become a mercenary, move to Burma, and join the "many" other Burmese citizens who are hungry for revolution. Keyboard killers have no qualms when committing American service members towards their pet projects like overthrowing a government, yet I'd be willing to bet the ranch that they'd never put their money where their RAM is when the revolution came calling for volunteers.
No comments:
Post a Comment