Journal Notes: 5/17/08

Journal Notes. 5/17/0

It seemed pretty obvious from the beginning that the Chinese’s government’s quick response to the catastrophic earthquake was conditioned by the negative worldwide response to the slow, callous and largely indifferent reaction of the repulsive Junta to the cyclone in Burma, and to China’s ham-fisted response to the Tibetan insurrection and their difficulties with protesters in the Western world in regard the carrying of the Olympic flame. They have softened their attitude somewhat and have scored some points with the international community with their response to the earthquake. I would not call it altruism exactly, but everyone is ready to salute them for getting to the region swiftly and with thousands of troops. It has everything to with the upcoming Olympics and how desparate they are for it to come off without a hitch and for it to be a showcase for a positive China in the world’s eyes. Three weeks after the horrendous cyclone in Burma the cruel Generals that rule in that unhappy land have still not allowed international aide workers into the Irrawaddy delta, their fear of foreign intervention is that great.

A part of me wants an intervention, as it seems the only answer to helping the people in the badly effected area. But that’s the heart’s response not the head’s. My wife chided me for even contemplating such a thought, as another military invasion. In my own mind I saw intervention as Humanitarian not as a military takeover. Perhaps those two things would ultimately be hard to distinguish. Like in Iraq. But to my surprise the author Robert Kaplan, whose books I have read, except the latest ones on the military, has written an op-ed piece in the New York Times that advocates a military intervention in Burma on Humanitarian grounds, but at the same time he realizes such a thing would probably bring about the downfall of the Junta, which would undoubtedly involve us once again in nation-building. He would need some Western partners in this effort; they could join with forces we already have in the region. Sounds great. It would be like Iraq: The first phase would be the quickest and easiest; the aftermath of ‘Mission Accomplished’ is the burr under the saddle and why nothing of the sort will happen. The U.S. Military is so stretched as it is, and the repercussions with China could be huge; as it is their sphere of influence. It would be viewed as a move only an empire would think about making. The motives to help may be anchored in good intentions, but the Bush Administration would not be trusted. If Obama was President it might be perceived differently.

Still, it is irksome to have to accept the situation as is. Thinking of the Generals one says to oneself, “What’s wrong with those people?” But that’s a cry in the wilderness with no echo. Neither does Kaplan have good things to say about Aung San Suu Kyi’s democratic movement. In his judgment they are not capable of running the country.

Big Media has convinced the country that Obama is the Democratic candidate. It’s a bit curious, and paradoxical, that the final switch took place right after Hillary’s trouncing of Obama in West Virginia. It’s the math, stupid! That’s what they all say. Bush and McCain believe it too, as they are in full-throttle attack mode already. In the last couple of days they have indicated how they will stress National Security and treat Obama as a know-nothing junior officer still wet behind the ears. Yesterday they both tried to label Obama an “appeaser,” in the same camp as the likes of Neville Chamberlain in 1939 and a U.S. senator who advocated talking to Hitler to prevent the war—a Republican I might add. This is a criticism that is hoary with age, but a favorite with the G.O.P. They still believe it has some clout behind it; to their base it might, but not much beyond it. It has worn thin in recent years. You can cry wolf only so many times. Nonetheless, Obama and his handlers need to deal with that kind of crap for the next 5 months. “McBush” oppose any discussion with enemies or radicals, as if it is like getting cozy with the devil. Of course it is all right for Bush to walk hand in hand with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, and kiss his ring pleading for Saudi Arabia to pump more oil. We have also talked to the North Koreans and Condi Rice has talk to Iranians through proxies. McCain, sounding disingenuous and cynical, said, “It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don’t have enemies. But that is not the world we live in, and until Senator Obama understands that reality, the American people have every reason to doubt he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe.” Obama’s response to McBush was they were “replacing strategy and analysis and smart policy with bombast, exaggeration and fear-mongering.”

New York Times columnist, David Brooks, took a broader view of Obama’s attitude about terrorists and radicals. He sought out the senator to get his views up close and nuanced. He told Brooks he flat out rejects the notion that diplomatic moves are equivalent to appeasement and surrender. “Those are the terms of the debate that have led to blunder after blunder,” he said. Obama’s stance in regard talking to radical groups does not pivot on “moral disgust,” (Brooks) but rather on “an argument between ideology and foreign policy realism.” He believes nothing ventured is nothing gained. Brooks sees something of the first Bush in Obama, who has no quarrel with Desert Storm, and that there is also something of James Baker in his make-up. That sounds like a begrudging approval from a sane Republican.