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.
I'm sorry but the U.S. military is currently on tour. Those calling for an "invasion" of Burma (for humanitarian reasons, of course) will have to find another organization to fill its wants. I would suggest Code Pink, moveon.org, The Democratic National Party, and the population of Berkeley, California as starting places for the draft.
Not that helping the Burmese people in its time of need isn't a priority. But currently, our military is still fulfilling its obligations after we decided to "intervene unilaterally", acting on behalf of the 27.5 MILLION people in Iraq who were also facing an oppressive regime. So forgive them if they are not currently available.
"We're in 2008, not 1908," says Jan Egeland, the former U.N. emergency relief coordinator. "A lot is at stake here. If we let them get away with murder we may set a very dangerous precedent."
Oh, reeeeaaaalllly? You mean like the precedent we set in 1979 when we didn't go in and kick some Tehranian ass when they took our citizens hostages? Or the precedent we set in 1991 when we failed to go all the way in to Baghdad and kick some Saddam ass after his invasion of Kuwait? Or the precedent set when we failed to hold the same man (and regime) accountable for the atrocities against the Kurds? Or the precedent that was set in 1993 in Somalia (like Wretchard ponders...do Muslims have epiphanies?)?
A coercive humanitarian intervention would be complicated and costly.
Wait a minute...aren't we already in a recession? Isn't it because of the war in Iraq??
That's what I thought.