Burma is a huge country, its leadership cowardly despots, and its future uncertain. There's a chance the pro-democracy people will persevere, but it'll be bloody in either case.
Usually, military intervention in these countries is messy. Huge ethnic divisions complicate things, the political and military commingles with the civilians, and destroying infrastructure disproportionately hurts civilians.
Not so in Burma. The military junta robbed the rest of the people to build a new, remote capital they've called Naypyidaw, where only purebloods get to go. Think Berchtesgaden in 1944.
So it should be easy: bomb the place. Hit it hard, hit fast, and with overwhelming precision and force. Use it as target practice. There will be little collateral damage, as the whole city exists for one purpose and one purpose only.
Maybe China will grumble a bit, but nobody can really defend what the Burmese generals are doing.
I had exactly the same thought. George W Bush forgot Burma when he spoke about the "Axis of Evil". Bush and Blair claimed higher humanitarian purposes as good enough motive to overrule the dear old international community and attack Iraq. However, most of us know too well that the Iraq campaign was not a successful illustration of humanitarianism.
Bush seems to care about little these days besides going down in history in a less-than-disastrous manner. As far as humanitarian purposes go, I'm covinced an attack on the infamous Burmese regime would serve as a way more convincing example than Iraq. And I hear Burma too is rich in natural resources...
Posted by: Per Arheim | October 01, 2007 at 05:15 AM
I frankly do not think that politics is motivated by humanitarian issues. The latter are just for public consumption.
Burma is indeed rich in natural resources. Sanctions imposed by the US gov't exclude Chevron, however (grandfather clause), which extracts the natural gas. The gas and oil sector have other big names (http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/dirty_list/dirty_list_details.html). The junta makes a killing, making money and buying weapons to suppress the population. It's a perfect scenario. We see it in Nigeria too.
You're pissed off. I am pissed off. But as long as business is good, I rather doubt anyone of consequence will be pissed off. I hope I am wrong.
Posted by: Suha | October 05, 2007 at 04:43 AM
Suha, I obviously agree about the public consumption and the rest of your comment. I'm basically just reflecting upon some slight irony of the political rhetoric, without any serious hope that the US would launch into a Burmese campaign. I encourage everyone who wants to make a difference to contact the listed companies on your link!
Posted by: Per Arheim | January 05, 2008 at 05:13 AM