Ambassador J. Rambo
In a response to a comment by George posted a few days ago I said that every President in recent memory has authorized the use of American military force at some point during their tenure in office, even the Democrats. I was referring to an assumption among Europeans that Republicans are bad while Democrats are good and that Republicans are warmongers and Democrats are always looking for a peaceful way out. That’s decidedly not the case. While George W. Bush appears to be particularly fond of war - a result, most likely, of his complete absence of actual experience of war thanks to his pathetic abuse of privilege to avoid real service - that wasn’t the case during his father’s tenure. Bush Senior attempted to avoid conflict in the Middle East and went only as far as the UN mandate dictated. Clinton, on the other hand, was the Commander in Chief during what many Greeks - and I mention Greeks specifically because of George - consider to be America’s most egregious abuse of power.
I say this not to defend GOP Presidential actions or deride Democrats, only to point out that there is a certain inevitability to conflict when you’re the largest and most powerful nation in the world. Force should certainly be avoided where possible - an area where past Presidents have shown much more capability then Bush Jr. - but the option can never realistically be taken off of the table. Democrat or Republican, the responsibility for our next President is in judgment and precise application of our military strength.
Why do I bring all of this up? Because of the new Rambo movie. More specifically, because of the effect that the new Rambo movie is having in Myanmar. The military junta that’s currently in control of the nation has condemned the new film because it shows Stallone’s iconic Rambo fighting the Myanmar army after they capture a group of Christian missionaries. Here’s the thing, though - people in Myanmar are getting their hands on the movie and they are, if reports are to be believed, “going crazy” for it.
The most pertinent quote of the article was emailed to Reuters by a resident of Yangon, “this movie could fuel the sentiment of Myanmar people to invite American troops to help save them from the junta.” Assuming that this comment is real and that it is representative a major question is raised for the incoming American administration. Is it justifiable for the US to intervene in a nation like Myanmar if the people are asking for military assistance against their oppressive and unjust government?
Bush’s most recent reason for the conflict in Iraq was to bring freedom to the Iraqi people but it’s questionable as to whether or not he would have been able to sell the American people on the war if that was the original intent. As everyone knows, the reason initially given for the war was national security - we were lied to about intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction and Sadam’s willingness to use them. There was an underlying assumption that the Iraqi people would prefer freedom to Sadam’s regime as well as a naive belief that they would welcome, with open arms, the chance to engage in a Western-style democracy but neither were backed up by facts nor were they primary concerns when our president started the war. Had the Iraqi people, with a unified voice (a difficult thing to be sure) asked for our intervention in order to free them from tyranny would we have intervened?
Something of the sort did happen after the first Gulf War but Bush Sr. decided against continuing the offensive because it would have violated the UN mandate. The Iraqi people, at that point, expected the US troops to roll into the nation and free them, with many going so far as to prepare themselves for their coming liberators only to have their hopes dashed as Sadam’s stranglehold was enforced with even more violence. As an aside, it’s my feeling that Bush Sr.’s willingness to abide by the UN mandate and Bush Jr.’s irresponsible flaunting of it are representative of their generations.
Let’s say that this desire for foreign assistance takes hold in Myanmar and let’s also say that a representative sample of the population is able to form a legitimate opposition to the ruling junta and let’s also say that this opposition group requests military assistance from the US to win their freedom. What do we do? As a nation, would we be willing to send American troops into that situation? Would that action be justifiable to ourselves, to the parents of dead American soldiers and to the international community?
When we end the war that we’re currently mired in it’s doubtful that either the military or civilians will be willing to toss our troops into another conflict even if it is “the right thing to do.” Thanks to Bush’s immoral militarization and his policy of lying to the American people we have become cynical and jaded, especially where military matters are concerned. A chance in administration won’t change that.
The really amazing that about all of this, to me, is the realization that there are still parts of the world where people see Americans and the American military as bearers of freedom and liberty and who actually want us to intervene in their affairs. Living in an international environment of righteous indignation bordering on hatred it’s difficult to imagine that there are people who still view us as the good guys and put their hopes in our intervention. Apparently to the people of Myanmar Rambo is still a symbol of hope.
Sphere It
it’s “change in administration” not “chance in administration”
also: we’ve been doing this for over 50 years as a country (half-assed for sure) and always come out looking like idiots (normally due to a lack of stomach).
what’s interesting about iraq, is that it might be the first time we come out and the country is united, not split down the middle
i’m thinking about north/south vietnam/korea & east/west germany here…..
that sort of vein. it’s part of the american psyche. it went on holiday for awhile after vietnam, but i really think this time blame rests with the president, not in sentimentality.
Comment by chuck — February 1, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
I felt like making a mean comment about the apparent state of education in Myanmar if its people see Rambo as a symbol of hope, but I decided against it.
The thing about intervening in a foreign nation in order to “restore a proper government” is well… it can be argued back and forth, both sides have strong arguments backing them up. I think personal beliefs will always be the deciding factor on which side you take on this, at the end of the day.
Personally, I feel that the strongest nations have a sort of moral obligation to weaker nations. In other words, intervening in their affairs should not be immoral, if they are asked to and if it seems that there is no other viable solution.
Naturally, there’s a million things that could go wrong with this (see Iraq), so my idea might not be realistically possible, but in an ideal world that’s what I think should happen.
On this specific issue however, and as an outsider, I feel that it’s far too soon for the U.S. to do such a thing. The Iraq fiasco is too recent for people to forget it.
Even if there is a legitimate reason for intervening with the affairs of, say, Myanmar, people will think “But you fucked up in Iraq, get the fuck out!” and outright dismiss the whole thing.
I think it’d be time to lay low for a few years after this mess in Iraq is solved.
Comment by George K — February 1, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
Re-reading what I just wrote, I think that’s the most right-wing thing I’ve ever said or wrote. I may have been play too much Rome: Total War lately.
(yes, I still play that game, yes I prefer it to Medieval 2.)
Comment by George K — February 1, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
First to Chuck: Every conflict that you mentioned had an ulterior motive. “Liberating the oppressed people” wasn’t the reason we went into those countries - well, arguably in WW II that was the case and you can’t lay all the blame to the East/West Germany split at our feet - as there was always some other, larger geopolitical or economic reason. In Myanmar there really wouldn’t be - it would be just to liberate the people and end the junta.
I’m not suggesting that the blame for Iraq rests with sentimentality. It is squarely at the feet of the Bush administration and their lies.
Comment by Tom — February 1, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
Now George: see, it’s that very moral question that’s so difficult to answer. There is a line of philosophy that says that the strong have an obligation to protect the weak - and that is not right-wing - and there is also the notion, rapidly gaining strength in the States, that we should get the fuck out of everyone else’s business. The latter is the more right-wing, “suck it up and deal” mentality then the former.
Iraq can’t be an example because the intention was not to “bring democracy” or “free the people,” it was to ensure our national security. Turns out that was BS so the government had to come up with another reason and so they played on American’s sense of morality and national pride, as Chuck suggested.
I suppose you can look at it like this: Iraq was a right-wing war because it was a “cover our asses first” situation. The idea behind it, ignoring the many and valid conspiracy theories about oil and business interests and so forth, was that we had to use force in someone else’s backyard in order to protect our interests. We were not, in any way, trying to help. Iraq 1 would be a better example of a “righteous” war but that was still strongly buttressed by economic interests. The best example in recent memory of us - and in this case by “us” I mean Western nations, not the US - acting out of concern for civilization first and economics second was the situation in the former Yugoslavia. There were clear aggressors who were killing and ethnic cleansing entire populations as well as using systematic sexual torture in order to gain control. Intervening was not a matter of economics or national security - it was simply the right thing to do. The entire Western world felt the same way.
I agree with you that it’s probably too soon for the US to do anything even if it were considered the “right thing to do.” The sad part is that this is a situation where our intervention might have actually resolved something but our hands will be tied both practically and diplomatically because George W. Bush is a complete and utter moron.
To the question of moral responsibility… it’s a difficult one and I don’t think that answering “yay” is the right wing response. Quite the contrary, I see it as far more left-leaning but you need to disassociate “use of force” with “right” and “diplomacy” with “left.” I suppose that my view on the matter is that it is the responsibility of powerful nations to foster stability and freedom on as broad a scale as is realistic. To a certain degree if people want to fight and if people need to fight - it’s a sad but sometimes true state of affairs - then the more powerful nations shouldn’t immediately be called to step in. They certainly have a responsibility to help civilians and displaced populations and to act as a “referee” to a certain degree but if two groups with trained fighting forces want to engage in conflict then it’s not our place to stop them. If that conflict threatens broader stability, however, the situation changes.
What if the situation is such that one group is actively oppressing another and those oppressed people ask for assistance? That’s the moral quandary. How far do you defer to a nation’s right for self-determination? How involved to you get in the conflict and how do you avoid the negative side-effect of empire-building? At the same time, if you have a nation where the government sanctions rape squads and the killing of babies, how can you not act in as swift and decisive a manner as possible? Isn’t it shameful that we’re fighting in a country where no one wants us but we’re ignoring a country where the raped mothers of murdered infants are screaming for help?
Comment by Tom — February 1, 2008 @ 6:35 pm