When Is It Okay to Invade?

I'm still obsessed with the disaster in Burma/Myanmar, despite other tragedies vying for my attention like the earthquake in China or the tornado deaths in the U.S. With the death toll now over 100,000 (the population of the city of Albany), and likely to rise significantly due to collateral deaths from lack of clean water, food, shelter, and medical supplies, some have begun to speculate as to whether the U.S. should invade* the country to provide humanitarian aid to the dying civilians. I am deeply disturbed by this idea.

On the one hand, it's awful to sit back and watch the death toll numbers rise due to the ignorance and hubris of a corrupt and inept military regime. On the other hand, this kind of policy decision is a really slippery slope. Which crises warrant invasion and which can we ignore? If we invade Burma, why not Sudan or countless other countries where people are dying needlessly? We also can't just swoop in, oust the junta, drop off the Red Cross, and leave the country without a significant investment in rebuilding the country's government and infrastructure. Let's face it -- our efforts at nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq have hardly been successful. Destabilizing another country without a long-term commitment for rebuilding is probably just as disastrous as not doing anything.

For now, I think the best the U.S. can do is continue working through the U.N. and Burmese allies like China to pressure the junta into doing the right thing. Here are other suggestions for helping the people in Burma through humanitarian organizations.

*The NYTimes republished an opinion piece from 1990 which asked this same question about Burma then. It's sad how little has changed in nearly 20 years. There's also a discussion about this topic on a good legal studies blog called Controlling Authority.