SORT BY 
ISSUES
WRITERS
DATE
3 posts in the last 24 hours
Suggest a post:
undispatch@gmail.com
Get help:
Report a problem
Robert Kaplan: Invade Burma

RT @SayNO_UNiTE: RT @safeworld4women: YOU can support #IVAWA (International Violence Against Women Act) http://is.gd/7DXw5
from UNIFEM
New Blog Post: #Peacekeeping -- International Forum Helps Turn Talk into Action http://bit.ly/cPTDEY
from DipNote
I posted 14 photos on Facebook in the album "UNIC Memorials for Haiti Earthquake" http://bit.ly/aVrjeG
from UN


|
|
|
Visitor:
1 Feb 3:39pm
We are shipowners and we like to offer our vessel to the responsible agency
for contracting vessels
read more
Visitor:
26 Jan 1:15pm
WHo is this idiot? Tom Miller, president and CEO of the United Nations
Association of the United Sta
read more
Visitor:
26 Jan 4:16am
Haiti,Haiti, world waves, there are a survivalsituation, water, fire(energy),
shelter(whetherdefence
read more
Visitor:
25 Jan 10:17am
We have to keep Haiti in the news
read more
Visitor:
24 Jan 1:57pm
I think only good buildings will help them to prevent the disaster
read more
Visitor:
23 Jan 11:15am
Como podemos Ayudarsi El personal de las Naciones Unidas o la Fundación no
correso respoden los
read more

Final Durban Thoughts
John Boonstra - April 24, 2009 - 2:06 pm
Haiti Earthquake
Mark Leon Goldberg - January 12, 2010 - 5:52 pm
One Laptop Per Child - The Dream is Over
Alanna Shaikh - September 9, 2009 - 8:06 am
The Coup Caucus
Mark Leon Goldberg - July 7, 2009 - 11:05 am








DISPATCH TWEETS






Mark Leon Goldberg - May 14, 2008 - 12:44 pm
Robert Kaplan's NYT op-ed today is infuriating on a number of levels. Kaplan argues that the United States and a number of our European allies should consider mounting an invasion of Burma. He concedes that once such an an operation is mounted, the regime might fall so we should also be prepared to impose security afterward. Kaplan acknowledges that a Security Council resolution authorizing an invasion would likely be shot down by the recalcitrant Chinese, but proposes we send a coalition of the willing anyway.
No problem with that, right? It's not like American forces are already fighting two costly wars. As for the Europeans, I foresee two problems. One, it's a big step to think that the Europeans will circumvent the Security Council. They take international law very seriously. Second, European forces are also bogged down around the world in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chad and Lebanon. Fact is, most European (and Commonwealth) governments are under strong domestic pressure to scale back their military commitments oversees. A new "coalition of the willing" for Burma is basically a non-starter.
Also bothersome about the piece is that he believes the fantasy that we can just airdrop food and humanitarian assistance to the affected areas. This is just not so. Without intelligence on the ground (i.e. where to drop the relief) and a ready-to-go distribution mechanism, airdrops can do more harm than good. The strong will fight off the weak and people with guns will sell the relief on the black market. The aid will not go to the people who need it most.
Yes, we do have a moral obligation to help the suffering Burmese. The way to fulfill that obligation is not to froth at the mouth for toppling another odious regime, but by working diplomatic channels to force the junta to relent their obstruction of humanitarian relief efforts. This may mean taking a harder line with China over its support of the junta. It certainly does not mean we need to ready the gears of war to invade and occupy the country. That, frankly is a distraction and counterproductive to first imperative of helping those in danger.
UPDATE: Robert Farley has a couple of thoughts on the wisdom and utility of invading Burma.