Time Magazine Advocates invading Burma

For Time magazine's World Editor Romesh Ratnesar, two failed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq aren't enough to dissuade him from invading another country. In his ridiculous, irresponsible and downright idiotic article Is It Time to Invade Burma? Ratnesar argues the U.S military should take out the Burmese government for its incompetent handling of the humanitarian disaster.

The military junta in Burma is a disgusting government guilty of vicious crimes against its own people. No one wants to see them continue in power, and everything should be done to help the Burmese rid themselves of the regime.

But invading them unilaterally is not only illegal, but criminally stupid.

"The trouble is that the Burmese haven't shown the ability or willingness to deploy the kind of assets needed to deal with a calamity of this scale," writes Ratnesar. "And the longer Burma resists offers of help, the more likely it is that the disaster will devolve beyond anyone's control."

"That's why it's time to consider a more serious option: invading Burma."

Joining the list of imperialist geniuses that got us into Iraq, Ratnesar's inexplicable faith in the U.S government's ability to nation build defies rational belief.

"As the response to the 2004 tsunami proved, the world's capacity for mercy is limitless. But we still haven't figured out when to give war a chance," he writes.

We still haven't figured out when to give war a chance? Really? Where has Ratnesar been for the last 5 years? War is about the only thing we have given a chance, and it isn't exactly going well. Taking a hammer to every international problem has not only bankrupted America, but destroyed its image around the world. Illegally invading another sovereign nation, no matter how abhorrent it is, would not do much to improve it.

The fact is, invading countries mean people, including Americans, will die. The Burmese government won't sit back quietly while foreign troops take over their country, and neither will the people. As much as they hate their government, they will not take kindly to an American 'liberation,' and the blow back would likely be vicious.

While Ratnesar's intentions may be noble, his cavalier assertion that war is the answer is symptomatic of the arrogance that has led to the hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.

International law exists for good reason: To protect the weak from the powerful. Unilateral and preemptive aggression is illegal, with a nation's sovereignty being paramount. This particular facet of the U.N charter was written in specific response to Hitler's aggression throughout Europe, and they apply to everyone, including us. The Burmese government may be disgusting, but that does not trump international law, and we have no right to invade.

Ratnesar has an impressive resume of work, having reported from Iraq, Israel, the Hague and the Persian Gulf. Given his international perspective, it seems bizarre he would advocate such blatant disregard for international law. The situation in Burma is dire, and constructive thinking is needed from the international community on how to best aid the people suffering. Regime change and war should be the last thing on anyones mind, and Ratnesar's article is irresponsible to say the least.

Using his logic, if a countries incapability to handle a disaster was grounds for an invasion, China should have launched a war on the Bush government for the humanitarian disaster it would not take seriously in New Orleans. For that matter, perhaps China should have also invaded after the U.S failed to avert massive disaster in Iraq.

There is no record of Ratnesar advocating these positions, most likely because they are ridiculous.

And so too is his.

Ben Cohen is the editor of www.thedailybanter.com and a contributing Mixed Martial Arts writer to www.espn.com. He can be reached at [e-mail]

Follow Ben Cohen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/thedailybanter

Comments

[RobtBrock]

They got any oil?

[3fingerbrown]

The world would be a better place if Burma invaded Time magazine.

[Sumocat]

Your definition of "advocate" is questionable. First, the "advocacy" is posed as a question and presented as one of a few options, admittedly in a provocative manner. Second, air dropping food and supplies directly to those in need is a far cry from the action and occupation we took in Iraq and Afghanistan. Per the sentence that follows the invasion consideration statement: "Some observers, including former USAID director Andrew Natsios, have called on the U.S. to unilaterally begin air drops to the Burmese people regardless of what the junta says." True, these supplies would be dropped by military aircraft, but that hardly constitutes the type of military invasion you infer. Furthermore, I fail to see where the "advocacy" of invasion mentions "taking out" the Myanmar junta. War and invasion do not necessarily mean regime change. Circumventing the government to provide relief aid does not necessarily mean we would overthrow it. (For the record, I would not support a unilateral overthrow of the government.)

[shrugged]

People never learn. Easy to yell for action at the start. Great chance for nation building
They also yell "Do something about Darfur" "This shouldn't happen, we should do something about it"
The USA government doesn't have such a great track record of making things better? And you want this group to "fix" what? It seems the USA government generally irrevocably breaks 9 things for every one thing it does right. So there is a 90% chance that if the USA goes in, things will get worse. Would you ever call on the Federal Government to fix something in your home? Knowing the governments track record, it would cost 1,000X more, it would need to be fixed 10 times, and would end up worse than when you started. And you now want this group to invade yet another country? People never learn.

[livegreen]

This neo-conservative logic of "war as a first option," in addition to being completely ridiculous, is starting to border on hypocritical considering the horrible job our own government did in responding to the Hurricane Katrina disaster. If our government can't properly prepare for and handle a natural disaster in our own country, then what makes us think that we should do it in another country? Typical American arrogance, perhaps we should stop trying to dictate how the rest of the world conducts their business until we can handle our own with some level of competence.

[delhigirl]

There is no comparison in terms of cost to human life between the Katrina disaster and the tsunami and the current cyclone. Life is cheap in the third world, this is a fact of life. But if anyone deserves a break from the US, it is the Burmese, who have been fighting long and hard for relief from the current govt. After all, if the US had invaded Cambodia at the right time, perhaps we could have prevented the terror there.

[twofish]

C'mon people, tell me you haven't fantasized about an army marching in from the north (or even the south), arresting Bush/Cheney et al, handing us back the keys to our government, and then going back home? But if they are planning to invade us, it's probably to stop the warmongers from attacking Iran, not to avenge the victims of Katrina/the Army Corps of Engineers.

It's especially tempting to think about invading Burma when it looks like if you just cut off the top layer of repression, a healthy country would be revealed underneath. That was true in some countries in Eastern Europe, for instance. Once the threat of Russian tanks rolling was removed, they shook off their decaying communist governments. There have been problems and dictatorships (eg Georgia, Ukraine) but no massive bloodletting. In Cambodia, the invasion by the Vietnamese helped put an end to the murderous insanity of the Khmer Rouge; I don't know what it's like there today, but it certainly isn't as bad as that.

When the army in Burma refuses to attack the people and the generals have to skedaddle to some other country (China, or maybe Switzerland, where the looted billions probably are) is when the reign of the junta will end.

[wolfgangmo]

Two Fish,

Here is the problem with your argument; most of us in freedom loving countries [i.e. ones who did NOT vote Bush in TWICE] do not [in] fantasize about invading your country and fixing your problems. We, unlike you, do not believe in unilateral action.

Stop dreaming and start fixing your own problems.

[unitron]

Hey, Ratnesar, you go on in first and we'll be along right behind you real soon now.

[Ben Dixon]

The trouble with invading another country, no matter what the reason is be it noble or otherwise, is that once you have removed the current government you now own that country. And who ever own's it has the burden of rebuilding, espeically if they intend to rebuild in an image more to thier liking. This is something America has a poor record on doing, we can kill people and break things well enough, but its the post conflict occupation and reconstruction we are lacking on.

[Merlin7]

Just so, Mr. Cohen. Unfortunately, the prospect of more mass homicide and mayhem is not enough to deter some desk drivers and PowerPoint commandos who defend freedom from the hazardous holdouts of Time-Warner, Fox News and the American Enterprise Institute. They advocate more wars -- especially against Iran -- in honor of their intellectual heroes in the vice president's office who were overrun by moderates, brutally fired and sentenced to long stretches running the World Bank and teaching at Georgetown. Besides, the REAL MEN wouldn't stop with just invading Burma. They''d insist on a sharp right turn to invade Vietnam all over again! God, they love the smell of napalm in the morning -- even if that pungeant odor really is just the Starbucks next door.

[AnotherHuddy]

Should European nations have invaded us for the government's mishandling of Katrina? Of course not. Free and effective government in Burma can only be achieved through political pressure by major powers. Right on, Ben. The idea of military intervention for "humanitarian purposes" is right out of the PNAC playbook (which I believe is sitting in a landfill somewhere in Maryland) which got us into Iraq.
~s~

[tompoe]

AnotherHuddy used the wrong tense. The question is not whether they should have, but rather, whether they should. Katrina may have happened over two years ago, but the tragedy continues, today. I think it's time we considered whether the international community might want to invade us for our government's protracted mishandling of Katrina. Time magazine, by the way, is a joke. Corporate media is little more than a bunch of clowns, making money off readers that should know better. Why they're given a platform on Huffington Post is beyond me.