Invading Burma to disburse humanitarian aid seems (note my ironic understatement) like sort of a bad idea. But if they continue refusing to let aid workers in, what's wrong with violating their airspace to carpet bomb the place with relief air drops?
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
And if they send up fighter jets to warn away the air drops, you...?
Also, I suspect most aircraft are designed to be unloaded, not to drop things in flight. I doubt anyone but possibly the US military has the capability to airdrop a remotely relevent amount of material.
What's their anti-air capability look like? Would they start taking out the relief bombers?
Also, what's to stop the army from forcibly collecting the relief packets? Could we potentially be giving the Junta an excuse to crack down on the population at large in an effort to "preserve their integrity" or "protect the people from poisonous food" or some other bit of despotic newspeak?
Getting our planes shot down. Then what do we do?
There's a strong argument that the Myanmar government has abandoned large parts of southwest Burma. Just as liberals love to regard the constitution as a living, evolving document, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be interpreted to authorize responsible state occupation and administration of abandoned properties where the rights of individuals are in jeopardy.
Myanmar has abandoned these regions, as obligations under Article 3 and 25 are no longer being provided. Perhaps a coalition of India, the United States and Thailand could readily assist immediate rescue and recovery efforts and provide temporary administration of these UN-guaranteed rights. Japan, Russia and numerous others should be welcome in the effort.
Of course, my recommendation predicated on UN declarations of rights has its own ironic understatement. That the UN has done nothing material to immediately force assistance given Myanmar's absolute failure is further evidence the organization has no further productive utility.
We looked the other way with the killing fields in Cambodia, permitting a nihilistic government to eradicate millions. Myanmar's leftist thugs probably regard the elimination of a million or so and the exclusion of outside assistance that would expose their true worth as a step forward in their retention of control. How many must die before intelligent but confused persons on the left finally say enough?
At some point don't the Burmese people need to be held responsible for tolerating their continued misrule? At some point, are they not obligated to rise up and overthrow the government? We did, the French did, the Chinese did, the Romanians did, the Russians did, etc. etc. etc.
One would need to risk one's life, liberty and property, as well as ones family, to accomplish this. But, at some point doesn't a situation become intolerable? At some point you have only yourself to blame...
The major flaw in my argument: As an American I have no idea how hard it is to overthrow the government.
Burma's air force.
Starting a war or a confrontation with the Chinese won't help.
Like Paul Collier says in his book, we shouldn't pretend that we have hard power. We don't. So, we should work with what we have.
Since Burma is next to China, we don't have nearly as many economic and diplomatic tools as we do elsewhere. We've already sanctioned the hell out of them.
We live in an international society which does not distinguish between democracy and dictatorship.
Forced from democracies going into Burma will be used to justify every single tyrannical depredation from now on.
For some reason when I read that suggestion I thought of the WKRP "turkey drop."
Like Paul Collier says in his book, we shouldn't pretend that we have hard power. We don't. So, we should work with what we have.
I'm not familiar with this author or book. Could you summarize the argument?
jmo-
Are you for serious?
we can easily drop stuff, but it will be difficult to do the important stuff, like water, and in the long run, dealing with the dead. These are the things that also impact life, quite a bit. :shrug: Anything we do, we will have to de-flag our assets and re-flag temporarily as UN... but even the Junta isn't interested in dealing with the UN. There may be no answer for this, as they hate us the most, and yet we have the best aid projection capacity in the region.
Who gives a flying f--- about what happens in Myanmar? It's their own problem, and if they don't want to accept any help, well, that's a matter of state sovereignty. They can deal with the consequences of a starving population themselves.
There's a strong argument that the Myanmar government has abandoned large parts of southwest Burma. Just as liberals love to regard the constitution as a living, evolving document, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be interpreted to authorize responsible state occupation and administration of abandoned properties where the rights of individuals are in jeopardy.
Jesus H. cock-gobbling Christ, Redherkey. What in the name of my big hairy balls do liberals have to do with this discussion? Are you f---king unhinged?
I'll tell you what. I will personally pay the costs of a plane ticket/boat ride/air balloon soiree so you, redherkey, can personally travel to Myanmar and do what you see fit to help out the local population. If it will shut you up.
Mostly I'd be against it because it smacks of short-term thinking. As some of the earlier posters have brought up, exactly how far are you willing to go? How much are you willing to lose? If you're going to engage in the international equivalent of shoving another guy in a bar, you'd best be prepared for all kinds of adverse responses.
Also, like shoving another guy in a bar, it's technically unlawful assault, for which the United States could be prosecuted. And if it's going to happen by claiming some form of lawful restraint, America no longer has the credibility to say it with a straight face. Someone else who hasn't invaded Iraq for its own good and walked all over the UN in the process would need to do it.
rickm,
Yes. If you were living in some third world hell hole, wouldn't you, at some point, reach the conclusion that things need to change?
If you saw what happened in Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong, Japan, or China wouldn't you think; "Hey maybe if we weren't so ignorant and backward and were able to get our act together, we might one day not be a third world hell hole?"
It's a lousy situation for the Burmese folks, but you are talking about an act of war. As an evil neo-con warmonger, I am not adverse to acts of war, but you better be prepared for all the consequences that follow. Even if the Burmese airforce chooses to let our planes do the relief drops unmolested (ie they show a hint of common sense), it will give them an excuse to crack down more later on once world attention moves on to the next kidnapped blond chick. Also, other countries which suffer such disasters in the future will be more reluctant to accept US aid, since it will be case by their domestic and/or foreign opponents as knuckling under to the evil American warmongers.
As to going all the way and changing the regime - this just isn't an area of vital concer to the US, and the downside from further tensions with China is too high.
Let me clarify that when I say "we" I mean every nation in the entire world that isn't a member of Myanmar's insane junta. China isn't any happier about this than we are.
"At some point don't the Burmese people need to be held responsible for tolerating their continued misrule? At some point, are they not obligated to rise up and overthrow the government? We did, the French did, the Chinese did, the Romanians did, the Russians did, etc. etc. etc. "
Yes and no.
The examples you cite are people who rebelled against governments with essentially the same technology as their people. During the cold war, many governments were able to obtain fairly modern military capacity despite the bulk of the people living in very backward conditions. The modern state also allows for a more efficient rapine by a military elite. This allows them to placate the rank and file soldier so they don't form common cause with the common people. A rebellion in Burma would require a neighboring state to allow training and equipping of guerillas on its soil.
jmo-
"Yes. If you were living in some third world hell hole, wouldn't you, at some point, reach the conclusion that things need to change?"
Honestly, I'm not arrogant enough to think that I can put myself in the shoes of another person whose entire life experience--from day one--was and is different than mine. Moreover, I'm not callous enough to suggest that these poor people need to 'get their act together.' I imagine every moment of their life is infected with paralyzing fear, and that, to me, is unconscionable.
Let's let the UN show us how it's done. Maybe get some French diplomats involved, just to add a little sophistication and nuance. We've been told that we shouldn't exercise hegemony over world affairs any more, so let's let someone else take the lead and do the heavy lifting, while we sit on the sidelines and carp.
Europe, this is your big chance to "counterbalance" the American "hegemon." Time's a-wastin'.
Invading Burma to disburse humanitarian aid seems (note my ironic understatement) like sort of a bad idea.
No, it's not.
I don't see how letting people starve to death is a better idea than helping them.
Njorl,
The Romanians I'm refering to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution
They Romanians finally said enough is enough and revolted, they arrested, tried, and executed their leader and his hated wife back in 1989.
I'm sure you will agree that the Romanian State had far greater resourced than the Romanian people. None the less, a revolution occured.
"Yes. If you were living in some third world hell hole, wouldn't you, at some point, reach the conclusion that things need to change?"
Maybe yes, maybe not, if you were so overwhelmend with just getting by from day to day. And anyway, even if you managed to imagine some better state of affairs, what good wiould it do to die in jail under torture or just get shot in the street?
People revolt when they have some hope of improvement, not when they are rock-bottom miserable.
"I'm sure you will agree that the Romanian State had far greater resourced than the Romanian people. None the less, a revolution occured. "
It was a little more complicated than that. The Romanian Army sided with the revolt. The Securitate did in fact have more and better of everything than the Army, but 1) the Army after all was one of the state's assets and 2) it meant that people were not exactly reduced to fighting the state with sticks and stones.
This seems to be a nearly perfect opportunity for China to assert itself as a world leader through a massive humanitarian effort.
This seems like a nearly perfect opportunity for us to say we offered assistance and our assistance was rejected.
This seems like a nearly perfect opportunity to thoroughly document the effectiveness of the UN as a humanitarian organization.
Sounds like a plan to me.
Disbursing aid via planes is incredibly inefficient and slow, in terms of delivering aid in the quantities that would make a difference. For that you need ships and/or lots of trucks.
Nelson:
I nearly left exactly the same comment. Glad I searched the page for "turkey".
Nelson -
Me, too! "I swear I thought turkeys could fly."
"China isn't any happier about this than we are."
Are you kidding? Do you honestly think that the Chinese leadership is all worked up over the deaths of some genetically inferior (i.e. non-Han Chinese) foreigners? Is your belief based on the great concern China has shown over the deaths in Sudan?
These are people that wouldn't get all that squeamish over the deaths of a few million Han Chinese, if it served the greater good of Chinese Communist Party members. China plans to continue to buy oil from Sudan and gas from Burma, and it wants those countries 'stable'. If the governments had to kill 90% of their populations to achieve that stability, China would support it.
For a situation where you're worried about people starving within 2 weeks, this is not an absurd idea. The downside would be that you're humiliating and threatening the Burmese leadership, and they will be much more likely to shut you out in the longer term. If there's any hope the Burmese will let foreign emergency relief come in in a more sustainable fashion, it's probably not a good idea to humiliate them and foreclose that option. On the third hand, in the longer term, we're not going to be able to do much good for Burma anyway: even in highly cooperative situations like Banda Aceh after the tsunami, foreign aid was very useful in the short term but had a very mixed record in terms of medium-term impact. In a situation like Burma where you're going to have a very obstructionist government, there's probably little that foreign aid can accomplish in the longer term.
FYI
http://www.military.com/news/article/us-may-airdrop-myanmar-aid-if-junta-resists.html
I didn't realize Megan was so well plugged in to the Military Industrial complex.
"Air drops (are) not the most efficient manner in terms of providing relief assistance and, in the end, may create more harm than anything else." - Ky Luu, US director of emergency disaster relief.
As I recall in Sudan airdrops often lead to riots in the area where the food comes down since there is no food-security infrastructure on the ground for equitable distribution; if the drop comes down in a dangerous or difficult-to-reach spot people may get killed trying to get to it; and occasionally people actually get injured by the falling crates themselves. And in a flooded area with no transport, much of the drop would probably go to waste -- better than nothing, but reducing the margin of usefulness.
Still, like the US said, it's considering it if all else fails, which seems to be a reasonable posture. Also could use it as a bargaining chip with the regime to get them to let more structured aid in.
Now the junta has seized flown-in supplies while continuing to block visas and reject all other assistance. They clearly want the death of a million plus rather than face any external threat to their authority.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90I3ORG0&show_article=1
It's sad but important to see: this is where liberalism ends up. How many more example do you pacifists need before you'll change heart, or is it just not possible in you to have real, active compassion that leads to actions for the rescue of millions of innocents?
Under similar circumstances in 1998-2000, sufficient international political capital existed to mount hybrid military-humanitarian missions in Sierra Leone, Kosovo, and East Timor. In 2001, that international political capital was extended to Afghanistan -- a nation that borders China.
What has changed? Iraq. Iraq has destroyed that international political consensus.
It is no exaggeration to say that if the US had never invaded Iraq, international political will would exist today to mount a multinational effort to force Burma to accept aid. Because of Iraq, the US and the advanced democracies lack the unity of vision and the credibility to pressure China into acquiescing to a mission like this.
brooksfoe:
It is no exaggeration to say that if the US had never invaded Iraq, international political will would exist today to mount a multinational effort to force Burma to accept aid.
Yes, it is.
The most analogous of the other examples is Kosovo (in that, e.g., they had a functional state and a semi-respectable army), and the EU dithered endlessly about the disaster on their borders until Bill Clinton overrode Colin Powell's qualms (justified or not) and ordered intervention. This on the borders of the EU!
Maybe the people of Burma will get desperate enough to enter the government buildings and cook the military leaders over a pit. Then we can come in - but not before. So long as the people accept those who rule them, we have no business interfering in their leadership (or lack thereof).
"Someone else who hasn't invaded Iraq for its own good and walked all over the UN in the process would need to do it."
Uh, didn't we wait until he had a UN resolution?
It is no exaggeration to say that if the US had never invaded Iraq, international political will would exist today to mount a multinational effort to force Burma to accept aid.
So you're saying that thanks to Iraq we don't get recreate Somalia in SE Asia? And people say nothing good has come from the Iraq experience...
But out of curiosity, why does Burmese suffering trump Iraqi suffering anyways? I mean, if the argument is that we should have kept our interventionist powder dry, why is Burma the place it should be expended (as opposed to Iraq)? Both populations were suffering at the hands of a repressive, authoritarian leadership. What makes the Burmese more deserving recipients of a heavy-handed foreign intervention against the wishes of the sovereign government?
I'm not arguing for invading Iraq, I'm only pointing out that when you're talking about invading a sovereign country for humanitarian reasons, that argument works in both places. You've drawn a distinction between the two that I don't see.
At some point don't the Burmese people need to be held responsible for tolerating their continued misrule?
Is this not the doctrine of the Natural Slave?
"These people deserve to be slaves, for they have not sucessfully rebelled."
What do you think about, eg, slavery before the Civil War, or the Killing Fields of Cambodia?
Now the junta has seized flown-in supplies while continuing to block visas and reject all other assistance.
This, obviously, is a problem with airdropped supplies too.
I'm sooooo glad the consensus among all the "reasonable" people, like Megan, is that invading Burma to save tens (hundreds?) of thousands of lives is a terrible idea. Now we can all go back to our own happy places, content to think that everything would be right with the world if it wasn't for that awful George W. Bush invasion of Iraq, which is clearly the source of all suffering in the world.
Hey, I'm thinking that if it wasn't for the Iraq invasion, not only would we be able to have a consensus on how to approach the problem, but it likely wouldn't be a problem at all, as the only reason that the junta is still in power is the George W. Bush invasion of Iraq. Iraq probably caused the cyclone too!
But, again, it makes me soooo pleased that the "reasonable" consensus among people like Megan is that saving lives is overrated if we have to do something icky, like use force. That's so Bush.
The most analogous of the other examples is Kosovo (in that, e.g., they had a functional state and a semi-respectable army)
In each of those categories, Indonesia/East Timor is a more apt example. Burma is only a borderline functional state -- nowhere near as effective as Serbia in 1999 -- and its armed forces are nothing like Serbia's battle-hardened veterans in 1999. What Burma's state can do is exert effective totalitarian political control through the secret police, which Serbia never could because it was never totalitarian. But that's almost all Burma can do. None of its baseline institutions function -- which is precisely why the typhoon response is so threatening to it.
I'm not arguing for invading Iraq, I'm only pointing out that when you're talking about invading a sovereign country for humanitarian reasons, that argument works in both places. - SG
Yes, but I would never argue for "invading" Burma and deposing its government for humanitarian reasons. I would argue that one might mount a threat of deploying humanitarian aid to affected areas without Burmese government permission, and with military backup from the US, French, British and (ideally) Indian and Singapore navies, authorized by a UN resolution based on the "responsibility to protect" approved by the General Assembly in 2005.
And then you could see whether the Burmese government might not cave on allowing international aid organizations in, as the lesser of two evils. The mission would be limited to humanitarian aid in the immediate aftermath of the disaster and would have a strict timeline of a few months.
I do not think it would be a good idea to invade Yangon and that weird new capital and install Suu Kyi as President, try to protect her against assassination by Burmese Armed Forces, watch the Karen areas in the north secede and plunge into civil war, and so on.
brooksfoe:
So you don't view Iraq as the model for a Burmese intervention, you view Somalia as the model. I don't see what about the Somalian experience provides justification for your view that this intervention would be a success.
Indeed, your plan (a heavily international, military backed humanitarian intervention done under UN authority but against the will of the local power structure) seems a near duplication of that particular failure. Can you explain why you think it would have a different outcome? Or do you view the Somalian experience as a positive one?
If there's anything the last few decades has taught, I would argue it's that will matters more than capability and the will of well-intentioned foreigners with great capabilities is easily dwarfed by the will of locals with little capability but bad intentions. If the Burmese government really doesn't want us there and we intervene anyway, I doubt that UN resolutions and the Singaporean navy will mean much. People will die - often the wrong people (our soldiers and the intended beneficiaries). I wonder how seriously you've considered the downsides of your plan.
And as a practical matter, by the time the UN to passes a resolution authorizing the effort (and don't tell me that China is going to acquiesce easily to such a resolution - there's a lot of horse trading before such an intervention is authorized) and the various nations get all the logistics worked out, the acute nature of the problem will be long past. On no level can I see the UN as being an effective route for dealing with these kinds of humanitarian crises. But that's a tangent.
I do not think it would be a good idea to invade Yangon and that weird new capital and install Suu Kyi as President
She does have a better claim to legitimacy (in the eyes of the Burmese) than anyone else. So if you recognise her and her party as the legitimate government such an operation would be supporting a friendly government against a bunch of rebellious army officers...
I cannot help but think of the Indian invasion of East Pakistan in 1973...
But it is academic: the US Army is tied up in Iraq and will be for some time.
Short of an Indian-US alliance I really do not think it possible, but it may be worth noting that Burma does offer the possibility of an overland trade route from India to China.
So you don't view Iraq as the model for a Burmese intervention, you view Somalia as the model. I don't see what about the Somalian experience provides justification for your view that this intervention would be a success.
No, Somalia is not the model. When the UN forces went into Somalia there was no government; the country was suffering from a famine with no end in sight; and much of the cause of the famine was factional clan warfare.
Burma has a government, which we would not and should not try to unseat by force. The cause of hunger and disease is a recent typhoon; a humanitarian effort to mitigate that single-even disaster could be wrapped up after a few months; and we need expect little clan warfare.
More importantly, if there were some unanimity in the international community, the chances would be good that the threat of a humanitarian mission backed by force would press the Burmese government into acquiescing to a mission, much as Indonesia acquiesced in East Timor in 1999. But the fracturing of the international community after Iraq means there's almost no chance of getting such unanimity for a humanitarian mission backed by force.
will matters more than capability and the will of well-intentioned foreigners with great capabilities is easily dwarfed by the will of locals with little capability but bad intentions.
I believe that is true in proportion to the square of the time spent on the ground. In the short term locals are likely to be cooperative as they are starving, and the government may be unable to reach suffering areas for the same reason they haven't been able to distribute aid there. The East Timor operation was cobbled together in the space of 2 weeks; that could have happened in Burma, and the fact it didn't is a reflection of the overstressed, fractured international environment in the post-Iraq era.
When the UN forces went into Somalia there was no government
And if we go into Burma in opposition to its government?
Things might go well.
brooksfoe,
So we should not have gone into Somalia because it had no government. We should go into Burma because its government and its armed forces are likely to oppose us.
Wow. Just.... wow.
"The fracturing of the international community after Iraq"
WTF are you talking about??? What does Iraq have to do with Burma, besides its effect on strategic airlift and transport capability?
The international community was all hunky dory prior to 2003?
brooksfoe,
I think the idea that anyone could mount a major operation in Burma, against the wishes of its government, without having a major impact on its internal politics is literally incredible.
On the other hand, I see no reason why the Junta's behaviour should ever change, without a major external shock.
(I have just read The River of Lost Footsteps, and its conclusions left me feeling very depressed.)
Let me make this clearer. The problem with going into Somalia when it had no government was that there could be no exit strategy. There was no one to hand control over to. So the commitment quickly became indefinite because there was no way to acceptably leave. In Burma, it would be far easier to spend a few months delivering aid and then get out and return control to the Burmese government.
Again, I think such an intervention would not in fact work, and it has by now been obviated by the fact that pressuring the Burmese government to accept aid appears to be working slowly. But in the international environment that obtained from about 1988 to 2002, such an operation would have been thinkable. After Iraq, it is not. That's what I'm saying.
The NY Times just re-posted an op-ed from January 1990 which makes the difference in the international environment clear. The op-ed points out that in January 1990 Sec of State James Baker said the US would have approved an intervention in Rumania by the Soviet Union if it were necessary to end the resistance of Ceausescu and stabilize the country. Just think about that for a second when you're getting all skeptical about differences in levels of international cooperation in the '90s vs. today.
What does Iraq have to do with Burma, besides its effect on strategic airlift and transport capability?
As I said, the invasion of Iraq fractured the international community on questions of humanitarian intervention and destroyed American credibility on any such ventures. In 2001 the strong majority of the European public, let alone EU governments, backed US intervention in Afghanistan. After the US went into Iraq in 2003 against strong public opposition around the world, most people assume US humanitarian interventions are fig leafs for American geostrategic or imperial motives, and governments will not follow the US into any such ventures.
It is important to think about more than physical objects like boats and planes when considering such issues.
As I said, the invasion of Iraq fractured the international community on questions of humanitarian intervention and destroyed American credibility on any such ventures.
This is nonsense. The international tsunami relief effort in 2005 (note: post-Iraq) was spearheaded by the US and was not considered a "fig leaf for American geostrategic or imperial motives". Your thesis has already been disproven by facts on the ground.
There's plenty of reasons to dislike the Iraq intervention, there's no reason to make up false ones. And you still haven't really explained why a Saddam-ruled Iraq's well-documented humanitarian crises (Kurdish persecution, Marsh Arabs genocide, Shi'ite repression) didn't warrant intervention, while Burma's current crisis does.
Again, I'm not arguing for the Iraq War, I'm just continuing to point out that identifying a suffering population that is being ruled by a government that refuses to allow help and is actively abetting the persecution, doesn't in and of itself justify intervening. You've articulated a best-case scenario and it sounds fine (see: "the oil revenue will pay for the cost of reconstruction"). But what's the worst-case scenario of a Burmese intervention against the wishes of the local government? Does that change your view?
And using Iraq as some sort of justification for inaction doesn't wash. It didn't stop the "international community" in 2005, it need not stop it now. What do you think should be done (or not done)?
And to repeat; unless you're willing to destroy the Burmese airforce (which the US could do easily, India or China likely could), you can't mount any large scale operation without their acquiescence.
The international tsunami relief effort in 2005 (note: post-Iraq) was spearheaded by the US and was not considered a "fig leaf for American geostrategic or imperial motives".
That's a tendentious confusion of terms. The tsunami prompted a "relief effort", as you say, not an intervention. The Indonesian government welcomed the aid. Kosovo was a humanitarian intervention; the term refers to humanitarian efforts backed by force.
Again, I'm not arguing that in the case of Burma it would be a good idea to intervene against the wishes of the government. What I'm pointing out is a difference in the international diplomatic environment. In Kosovo and East Timor, far lesser humanitarian crises led to international coalitions and humanitarian interventions backed by force, without initial consent of the governments involved. In Burma, no such coalition is thinkable. There are two reasons for that. One is the rise of China. The other is the obliteration of the legitimacy of international humanitarian military intervention, particularly when led by the US, and that is due to the Iraq war. Similarly, there has been and will be no strong action in Darfur, unlike Kosovo or East Timor, because of the fragmentation of the international community since Iraq. Ditto Zimbabwe. Ad liberandum. And these are probably just the first of a long series of humanitarian crises in brutal, failing autocratic states in which the international community will fail to mount much of a response -- in sharp contrast to the flagship responses before Iraq II, such as the first Gulf War, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, and finally Afghanistan.
The tsunami relief effort was largely implemented by the US military. The fact is that US military was the leading agency and that fact didn't hamper international cooperation in the slightest. The tsunami proves that Iraq simply has not made the US military, or US government, an unwelcome leader of international humanitarian interventions.
Now if fighting becomes part of the intervention, then political calculus changes somewhat, but I think you grossly overstate the willingness and success of the international community to conduct military interventions over humanitarian crisis.
Let's take your list:
Gulf War I - success
Somalia - failure
Haiti - failure
Bosnia/Kosovo - failure of UN mission, partial success when (unsanctioned by UN) US began action.
East Timor - success, but mission not actively opposed by Inodnesian government.
Afghanistan - mixed success, but limited international cooperation.
And don't forget all the places where the international community failed to intervene in despite massive suffering: Sudan, North Korea, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, (well, pretty much all of sub-Saharan Africa...). And, if your prescriptions had been followed, we would have to add Iraq to that list as well. (Again: why does Burma justify a military intervention while Iraq did not?)
Which is not to say that Iraq hasn't had any effect on international relations, surely it has. But you're stealing several bases to claim that pre-Iraq was some idyllic period where the international community regularly and successfully dispatched military forces in opposition to governments that were though action, inaction or incompetence causing there populations to suffer. It did happen intermittently; mostly to little effect. Before Iraq, nations participated in, or opposed, intervention efforts depending on what they felt best served their national interests. They continue to do so today.
I simply do not believe that absent Iraq, the international community would quickly have moved to force assistance to Burma in opposition to the ruling junta. The list of reasons why it wouldn't happen is plenty long enough without Iraq (and it starts with China). Iraq was not the apple, nor Bush the serpent, in the Garden of Eden.
And out of curiosity, if the US is so untrustworthy and has become such a pariah, why isn't the rest of the international community doing anything to the exclusion of the US? Why aren't they developing capabilities such that US isn't required for these sort of efforts? Surely if we've spoiled the desired state of affairs, other nations should be stepping up to take over, shouldn't they? I mean, you're not positing that the US would exercise it's security council veto over an international coalition to intervene in Burma - accepting your argument, the US is unable to lead anymore but you're not claiming the US would actively oppose an operation.
What Iraq has done is sap the US domestic will for more US-led military interventions (a situation which I would have thought you would support). So why can't other nations do something? Except for the UK and Australia, they're not bogged down in Iraq, nor have they spent (or wasted...) their international political capital doing so. Where are the rest of the nations - and why do you let them justify their inaction by shifting the responsibility the US?
I agree with SG. Even before Iraq, the international community did nothing about the famine in North Korea, worse than nothing in Rwanda, and generally only acted for personal motives.
And it's hard for me to long for the past that you describe, when the US would cheerfully have allowed Russia to take over in Rumania and would have taken temporary control of Burma, only to hand it back to SLORC. Or when you mentioned returning control to the Burmese government, did you mean the legitimate, elected government?