×
From Mark Krikorian, we find that Bill Kristol has suggested the use of military force against Burma. Kristol:
As Sen. Joseph Lieberman has suggested, "The junta has tried to cut off the ability of peaceful demonstrators to communicate to the outside world through the Internet and cellphone networks; we should be examining how the junta's ability to command and control its forces throughout the country might itself be disrupted." What about limited military actions, overt or covert, against the regime's infrastructure -- its military headquarters, its intelligence apparatus, its rulers' lavish palaces? Couldn't such actions have a deterrent effect, or might not they help open up fissures in the regime? Have we really done all we can to avert the disaster that is unfolding?Properly flummoxed, Mark responds:
I'm sorry — is this a joke? What possible American interest is there in Burma? Even the president's talking about Burma at the UN was too much for me, but at least vigorous hand-wringing can be harmless, so long as it doesn't lead to anything (my graduate advisor used to say "the American people support all steps short of action"). Burma's irrelevant to the world economy, exports no oil, isn't in a strategically important location. I eagerly anticipate the day when Burma's long-suffering people rise up and lynch the criminals who oppress them, but, really, what's it to us?What you don't understand, Mark, is that force always has to be on the table, and by "on the table" Bill Kristol means the preferred option. Kristol's learning curve is flat; he never updates, never reconsiders, never pays any heed to empirical reality. It's as if the saying "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" was developed with Kristol in mind. And yet he still receives platform after platform after platform ...--Robert Farley
