Beer in the Headlights

I thought our military was already at the breaking point.

I guess not. At least not according to those at Time Magazine. They suggest we take unilateral action to force ourselves upon the Burmese people in order to render aid.

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

But I thought we were supposed to respect and honor other nations' sovereignty. We were told we shouldn't be hegemonic and overly simplistic about flaunting military power.

The cold truth is that states rarely undertake military action unless their national interests are at stake; and the world has yet to reach a consensus about when, and under what circumstances, coercive interventions in the name of averting humanitarian disasters are permissible. 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.

Look, the situation in Burma is awful. It's a terrible tragedy. Hundreds of thousands could end up dying. Burma's military dictatorship is making foreign aid next to impossible. The cold, hard truth is that if we send in our military to distribute aid then the Burmese military will attack our troops. That would then keep the Burmese troops from doing what little they are to help their own people.

Unilaterally forcing ourselves upon the situation would make matters worse in Burma. I just don't see it any other way. A carrot and stick approach is what's needed. After the humanitarian situation in Burma settles then it's time to take their regime to task.