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.”

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.

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.

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!

Gawd, I’m getting so sick of smart people thinking this is such a good idea.

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.

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 USA is not going to go to war to provide aid to the population of some foreign country.

Good American Spectator quote.

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.

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.