Friday, September 28, 2007


As I'm watching video smuggled out of Burma ("Myanmar" to appeasers and moral relativists [CNN]) of protesters being fired upon by soldiers with automatic weapons, I'm wondering what ought to be done.

More specifically, I'm asking myself if America and the world would be willing to use military force to put an end to the oppression and what is unquestionably murder. All of which is happening as I type and the world watches.

Asking nicely hasn't resolved the situation, neither does observation, hence the military intervention.

To be more concise: What are we willing to fight for?

The media, organizations, Hollywood stars, even our political leadership have been doing a great job telling us what we shouldn't be fighting for. They've painted our current war ("War on Terror"), not just for America but the world, as illegal and imperialist. They ignore any bit of news that brings hope, encouragement, or progress while highlighting every tragedy, unintended victim, and war crime.

Military intervention, likely to be the world's only effective response to the Junta, in any situation could be described as "illegal" or "imperialist." There will always be unintended victims. Always be "insurgents" or a "resistance" to the "occupation." There will always be protesters, always detractors. Always a Cindy Sheehan ready to snuggle up with Castro and Chavez (Osama was otherwise engaged) or a Jane Fonda ready to explain how just and fair the Vietcong are and how wrong we've been.

Would we listen?

The Burma situation is not unique to our experience; a cruel totalitarian government that brutalizes it's people. If confronting such governments in Vietnam, Cuba, Panama, Iraq, and Afghanistan has been wrong. How could military intervention in Burma be right?

Such logic damns the people of Burma, and any future victims of such brutality, to disaster.

No comments: