Kaplan explains how we could invade Burma and how it would work. (Thanks Eddie!)
The New York Times
May 14, 2008
Aid at the Point of a Gun
By ROBERT D. KAPLANMae Sot, Thailand: MORE than 60,000 people may have died as a result of Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar, and at least 1.5 million are homeless or otherwise in desperate need of assistance. The Burmese military junta, one of the most morally repulsive in the world, has allowed in only a trickle of aid supplies. The handful of United States Air Force C-130 flights from Utapao Air Base here in Thailand is little more than symbolic, given the extent of the need.
France’s foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, has spoken of the possibility of an armed humanitarian intervention, and there is an increasing degree of chatter about the possibility of an American-led invasion of the Irrawaddy River Delta.
As it happens, American armed forces are now gathered in large numbers in Thailand for the annual multinational military exercise known as Cobra Gold. This means that Navy warships could pass from the Gulf of Thailand through the Strait of Malacca and north up the Bay of Bengal to the Irrawaddy Delta. It was a similar circumstance that had allowed for Navy intervention after the Indian Ocean tsunami of December 2004.
Because oceans are vast and even warships travel comparatively slowly, one should not underestimate the advantage that fate has once again handed us. For example, a carrier strike group, or even a smaller Marine-dominated expeditionary strike group headed by an amphibious ship, could get close to shore and ferry troops and supplies to the most devastated areas on land.
The magic of this is that an enormous amount of assistance can be provided while maintaining a small footprint on shore, greatly reducing the chances of a clash with the Burmese armed forces while nevertheless dealing a hard political blow to the junta. Concomitantly, drops can be made from directly overhead by the Air Force without the need to militarily occupy any Burmese airports.
In other words, this is militarily doable. The challenge is the politics, both internationally and inside Myanmar. Because one can never assume an operation will go smoothly, it is vital that the United States carry out such a mission only as part of a coalition including France, Australia and other Western powers. Of course, the approval of the United Nations Security Council would be best, but China — the junta’s best friend — would likely veto it.
And yet China — along with India, Thailand and, to a lesser extent, Singapore — has been put in a very uncomfortable diplomatic situation. China and India are invested in port enlargement and energy deals with Myanmar. Thailand’s democratic government has moved closer to the junta for the sake of logging and other business ventures. Singapore, a city-state that must get along with everybody in the region, is suspected of acting as a banker for the Burmese generals. All these countries quietly resent the ineffectual moral absolutes with which the United States, a half a world away, approaches Myanmar. Nonetheless, the disaster represents an opportunity for Washington. By just threatening intervention, the United States puts pressure on Beijing, New Delhi and Bangkok to, in turn, pressure the Burmese generals to open their country to a full-fledged foreign relief effort. We could do a lot of good merely by holding out the possibility of an invasion.
The other challenge we face lies within Myanmar. Because a humanitarian invasion could ultimately lead to the regime’s collapse, we would have to accept significant responsibility for the aftermath. And just as the collapse of the Berlin Wall was not supposed to lead to ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, and the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein was not supposed to lead to civil war, the fall of the junta would not be meant to lead to the collapse of the Burmese state. But it might.
About a third of Myanmar’s 47 million people are ethnic minorities, who have a troubled historical relationship with the dominant group, the Burmans. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the heroine of the democracy movement, is an ethnic Burman just like the generals, and her supporters are largely focused on the Burman homeland. Meanwhile, the Chins, Kachins, Karennis, Karens, Shans and other hill tribes have been fighting against the government. The real issue in Myanmar, should the regime fall, would be less about forging democracy than a compromise between the Burmans and the other ethnic groups.
Of course, Myanmar is not the Balkans or Iraq, where ethnic and sectarian rivalries were smothered under a carapace of authoritarianism, only to erupt later on. Myanmar has suffered insurgencies for 60 years now, and may be ripe for a compromise under a civilian government. But neither can we be naïve. Just because Myanmar is not Yugoslavia doesn’t mean it isn’t like Russia; it is a mini-empire ruled by the ethnic-Burman military that could crumble into its constituent mountainous parts, especially as the democracy advocates have demonstrated little ability to run a country. Here in Mae Sot, a center for non-Burman ethnic dissident groups, complaints over the disorganization of Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi’s movement are rife.
It seems like a simple moral decision: help the survivors of the cyclone. But liberating Iraq from an Arab Stalin also seemed simple and moral. (And it might have been, had we planned for the aftermath.) Sending in marines and sailors is the easy part; but make no mistake, the very act of our invasion could land us with the responsibility for fixing Burma afterward.
Robert D. Kaplan is a national correspondent for The Atlantic and a fellow at the Center for a New American Security in Washington.
Sorry but I refuse to accept the “Rambo 4″ solution for Burma. A “coalition” invasion would sicken the ASEAN nations, piss off China, and likely poison the “fixing Burma” process, not that Kaplan has any stake in that whatsoever. Burma isn’t the Balkans but neither is it located in a parallel universe where an “invasion” would solve its problems. Please.
Why does Kaplan feel the need to rush to extremes? “This is doable” looks to be the beginning and end of it.
The Nikkei editorial board this morning called the junta’s non-response to the disaster a “crime against humanity” and also stressed the international responsibility to provide aid if the junta is unwilling. But it is highly dangerous and irresponsible to conflate condemning this atrocity and the argument that “We could do a lot of good merely by holding out the possibility of invasion.”
American freedom bombs have done so little “good” in the world that I am surprised Kaplan even has the gall to suggest such a thing. And how would an invasion at this point actually save lives from the *cyclone*, the very event that triggered this bellicose response?
At this point, the best the West can do is try to push Asean to more, try to include China, and continue to offer aid. And any sort of military response will, for better or worse, require China’s OK.
What is the “fixing Burma” process?
From the American Spectator: http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp
The Pentagon should deploy Robert D. Kaplan to Burma immediately. If necessary, we should send every think-tank wonk in Washington — pack ‘em into C-130s and airdrop them on Burma. We ought to be willing to fight to the last “senior analyst” over this Burma thing, and I look forward to watching the Beltway policy establishment flock to the Marine Corps recruiting stations to volunteer for this “simple moral decision,” as Kaplan calls it.
And China’s answer is most likely a “NO”.
I was angry when Fukuda didn’t make any initiative to push Hu Jintao while they were playing Ping Pong and talked about renting of Panda.Especially when Tokyo had send about 60 personal from newly established Central Readiness Regiment for Cobra Gold in Utapao,Thailand.
Perhaps this disaster could end the Burmese junta just like East Pakistan was overthrown by Awami league and the independence of Bangradesh.
But Curzon,Like I’ve said a few times,Kaplan is not an Asia hand.
1)Bangkok would never allows using their territory for the attempt of invading Burma.
2)Same goes to Bangradesh where the government has awful record on disaster relief even compare to Burmese.
3)Burmese troops are the most battle hardened troops in South East Asia.and so far the generals had proved many times in the past twenty years that they have the grip of their soldiers.
4)Burma has very guerrila friendly terrain.That’s why the Karens and Khun-sa could keep on fighting and it takes very little effort for China to back the Burmese who oppose Americans.
I second Adamu,Rambo 4 solution ain’t work in Burma.
Kaplan is totally wrong this time.
The USA is not going to go to war to provide aid to the population of some foreign country.
Good American Spectator quote.
Sir,
The American Spectator comment is very amusing indeed.
As my knowledge of English is not that good I wonder whether the term “airdrop” implies that a parachute is provided to the individual who is to be dropped or not.
From the context I wd judge that a parachute is supposed to be part of the offer, from the tone of the comment, well … Maybe an internet vote is in order on who among the analysts deserves a parachute or not.
BTW, the Germans used a PAG (Personenabwurfgerät) to drop agents in WWII without para training. A grotesque wooden Rube Goldberg contraption resembling a bomb with a capacity of up to three which somehow reminds me of the excellent war tubas.
The comments on this post are a let-down. I thought that just maybe someone had come up with an invasion plan that worked!
Actually the significance of Kaplan’s comment is more profound when read after reading Gwynne Dyer (“Ignorant Armies”, “Future: Tense”) – the trick is to get the world to think that we might be crazy enough to do it. That does not work if your adversary is also crazy though – if you have ever seen two drivers that both have road rage you know what I mean.
You know, I’m not sure if this was meant as a joke by Herr Curzon, but I’m getting pretty sick of this whole ‘lets force Burma to accept our humanitarian aid’ thing. Look, cyclone is bad and the acts of the junta are terrible, but, you know what, DPRK is several orders of magnitude worse(hell, a man made disaster that’s lasted the last 15 years, if you know what I mean) and a major threat to Asian region stability. But, let’s invade Burma! YOu know, I remember when the whole Boz thing was in the making that someone said it would lead to a slippery slope of Albright types doing this kind of nonsense. And, lo, that chucklehead was right(wasn’t me).
Gawd, I’m getting so sick of smart people thinking this is such a good idea.
Hey, with this earthquake China has shown how competent they are in handling disaster relief. Isn’t anybody going to suggest that we support them in liberating Burma from the Junta?
I don’t think China has shown how competent they are in handling disaster relief wirh this earthquake.Roy.
vKT:
“The trick is to get the world to think that we might be crazy enough to do it”
Jee,that sure sounds familiar to my Japanese ears.
Tora Tora Tora!
Hundreds of thousands will end up dying in Burma for no good reason. The junta will remain in power. Low-grade civil war will likely end up reoccuring, perhaps even evolving into one that goes beyond ethnic trappings and into something like making even the junta’s low standards of governance impossible (like blowing up pipelines, kidnapping Chinese workers, etc).
Now, given that most of us can agree responsibility to protect and never again are totally bs concepts, what do we have here? A no-win situation that only gets worse.
Is there anything we could that could help change that?
Yes. There are fissions in the Burmese military, ones that are likely to widen as the weeks go by and the death toll rises. Natural disasters like this are unique geopolitical events that have a variety of consequences. The religious implications of this disaster coming so soon after the defiling of the Buddhist temples and monks in Burma must weigh in significantly on a number of Burmese mid-grade and senior officers in the junta as well as the moneymen behind them.
Exploit that via the Chinese, Indians & Thais. A Chinese-backed coup against the junta would be far preferable to the Burmese people than what we have now. Its already essentially a Chinese colony with Thai & Indian pockets of influence, albeit Burmese xenophobic thugs at the top jealously hoarding and guarding their power and funds. Again, a Chinese puppet state could be a better endgame than the potential we have now.
Does any of this take American force? No. Should the use of force have been considered when this disgraceful abandonment of their own people came to light? Absolutely. Instead, much like Clinton promising no ground troops before and during the Kosovo campaign, the US undercut most of its potential influence over the situation.
In addition, dropping the insane sanctions against Burma itself would help to encourage Western investment that would undermine to some degree the isolation the junta thrives on, perhaps even furthering the cause of promoting dissent and rebellion in the military.
Unfortunately, in the last two administrations, US power has not been considered wisely and rarely has been utilized in a complex fashion. Neither has power by most other nations. The utterly preventable deaths of probably close to half a million Burmese are just another remainder of that utter failure.
YOu know Eddie, the problem I have with it is that it is entirely inconsistent. We cannot think of other places that are manmade disassters to go into long before we get to Burma? Wait, you mean the junta wasn’t bad enough to turn out before the cyclone hit? Come on. DPRK is several orders of magnitude worse and has been for a much longer period of time. Pick an AFrican country(not entirely true, but you get the point). Strategy by televised disaster is typically a bad thing, IMO.
No. emphatically no. If the world wants to be multipolar they’ve got to step up and do the work instead of looking to the US to do all the moving, shaking, and heavy lifting(and by that I mean the being logistical provider). So, if anyone’s going to do jackall about Burma let someone else do it. It in the long run is better, even though I know it sucks diseased moose wang accutely for the Burmese. So, no.
More upset bloggers:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/05/14/nyt-columnist-enthuses-over-magic-military-invasion-myanmar
However,here in Japan.The liberal Asahi is possitive about Kouchner/Kaplan proposal.
Pingback: Its Not Just Intervene Or Beg In Burma « Hidden Unities
At least someone is in favor of RDK’s plan:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/weeklystandard/20080517/cm_weeklystandard/untoburmadropdead
Eric Margolis wrote some interesting comments with a bit of insight into the geopoltics at play (at risk of sounding cold, of course, in the face of so much loss):
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2008/05/18/5603681-sun.php …
“… the army’s loss of power could cause Burma/Myanmar to fly apart and destabilize the entire region. That’s why Burma’s neighbours and allies, Thailand and China, quietly back the junta.
The generals, however callous and brutal, are not far wrong. ‘Humanitarian intervention’ may be coming to play the same role that ‘peacekeeping’ did in recent years – a way for foreign powers to insert their influence into Third World regions under the guise of good works. Potentially oil-rich Darfur is the latest example…”
“… China is Burma’s closet ally. The U.S., its allies and particularly India are deeply alarmed by the opening of a Chinese-run port in Burma at Kyauk Phyu and its connection by rail and pipeline to southwestern China. For the first time this gives the Chinese navy access to a port on the Indian Ocean, hitherto dominated by U.S. and Indian navies.”