At least you have to give him points for being consistent.

He wants to kill everyone.

Perhaps someone should remind Kristol that Burma shares a border with a Certain Country that has the largest standing army in the world, and also happens to hold the debt that makes his adventure in Iraq possible?

How can anyone actually suggest that we have the power to do anything in Burma unless China says to?

Oh, right, it's Bill Kristol.

Burma's "military infrastructure" consists of trucks, rifles, and truncheons. Lots and lots of them. Also some very dedicated (evil, but dedicated) photo intelligence guys who are willing to search through the file containing the pictures of /every single citizen/ to find one that matches the latest demonstration photo posted on Western web sites then send out the guys with the truncheons to take care of that person. They had a dozen Mig-21s at one point but they couldn't keep them flying even with Chinese help and the Chinese have since cut off spare parts.

That's it. What exactly does this dingleberry propose to attack?

Crank

This Wilsonian foreign policy will either bankrupt us ordestroy our military infrastructure. Or maybe both. These people have no clue what it means to fight in war, classic chicken hawks. While I am no liberal, I am certainly no neo-con, nation building, war mongerer. This guy gets it wrong about 99% of the time.

Kristol is such an ends-justify-the-means guy that I wouldn't be surprised to see his columns in a collection titled, The Pseudo-Intellectual's Guide to Terrorist Tactics You Can Use. Exactly what, except for the side he's on, distinguishes him from the bad guys?

I blame Tom Clancy.

Yes! Shoot! Shoot! Bomb them! BAAAARRRRMMMMM! KABOOM! KAPOW! Chucka-chucka-chucka-chucka. Bam! Bam! I shot your first, you're dead. No, you didn't I shot you first, YOU'RE dead. Pow! NO, you're dead! I'm going home, and I'm not playing with you EVER AGAIN!

-William Kristol

OK, I give. What's in it for Israel?

Kristol must think that he is bound to get it right sometime in his lifetime if he keeps answering "invade".

As that deep philosophical treatise "War Games" taught us, sometimes the only way to win is to never play.

Why is it that a guy who thinks U.S. military action is always the answer is any more credible than the peacenik who thinks it never is?

You seem to be drawing an equivalence between those who always think killing people is a good idea with those who always think it isn't. On behalf of the latter group, I send a rude noise in your general direction.

First, we'll take out the Bridge over the River Kwai, then.........

I do not think we should use military action against Burma; indeed - absent some sort of remarkable, improbable analysis - I think it would be a very bad idea.

Still, if the United States were to engage in such action, it should not "send in the marines," which is probably what Kristol is advocating. ( I haven't bothered actually to read his argument and - I am sorry - won't .)

Rather, if it is given that the United States must for some reason intervene, then we should, instead , support a guerrilla insurgency.

There are many reasons for this - but the basic one is that Iraq and Afghanistan are demonstrating that guerrilla warfare is more sophisticated and more potent than the current high tech military.

So, if we were to intervene in Burma - which we probably should not - the way to do it would be to help Burmese insurgents.

Does he have any idea how big that country is?

I figured Kristol would try to fix a problem in Burma by invading Iran.

let's give rambo bill a gun and a parachute, push him out of a plane and let him have at 'em.

I'll just repost my Yglesias comment:

While Kristol is right that China is the largest arms supplier to Burma, he is (like seemingly everyone) wrong about China's trade with Burma. Thailand is Burma's largest trading partner, not China. And while he advocates bombing palaces and such, he avoids advocating the one thing that would really hurt the regime: bombing their gas pipeline to Thailand. Perhaps if a Chinese company owned the pipeline rather than an American one, he might think otherwise. Regardless, I don't think China would appreciate military action in their back yard. And Thailand certainly wouldn't. Any military action would have to be launched from either Australia or the Bay of Bengal because nobody else nearby will let us launch an attack from their country. Indonesia might not even grant us flyover rights. Air operations will be difficult and land operations impossible. Our best hope is that the "turning over the alms bowl" protest will slowly split the military. This is the most important aspect of the recent protests (for Buddhists, anyway) and it appears to be ongoing. Those in the military will fear bad Karma from not being able to give alms to the Sangha. Hopefully, they will put pressure on their leaders.

What is it about these retards and the desire to start land wars in Asia?

You forget Bill Crystal is a comedian.

let's give rambo bill a gun and a parachute, push him out of a plane and let him have at 'em.

Might be useful, actually. He could bloviate them to death.

The Serious People are Seriously Crazy.

I wonder if (and why) corporate leaders and major stock holders are comfortable with crazy people in charge of things?

The sad part is that even after the Iraq debacle there are many people in Burma who think that US intervention is a possibility.

Cranky

Let me get this straight -- Kristol, worshipper of the invisible hand, wants to initiate military force against a regime because they removed subsidies on fuel (thereby sparking the current round of violence)?

So much for free market principals -- when a warmonger wants to get an erection, nothing else will suffice but lots and lots of dead brown people.

One way or another the Israelo-fascists seem determined to somehow incite and drag us into WWIII. It's like they don't get that they are gonna fry along with the rest of us.

Such a shame for Viagara sales to Bill K - Lost another one to Necrophilia.

Mr. Kristol's description of what should be done in Burma has nothing to do the nature of the regime, life in that sultry country (if you travel there you will see very little from the outside including from India and China), and nothing at all to do with the realities of making war on the other side of the world in a fetid swamp. Mr Kristol's conceptualizations are insultingly stupid and his solutions reliably ugly. His "strategic thought" has all the verve of a middlebrow prankster playing the enfant terrible at a Manhattan cocktail party. You just want to bury your head in your hands and have a double martini.

I hate to even partially agree with anything that man says but maybe he's right.

Burmese democracy under U Nu arguably had almost all the necessary cultural and economic prerequisites for success. What it lacked was a military under effective civilian control.

And when it failed the West didn't care because it wasn't going communist and the Soviets cheered because it was more proof to them that democracy and capitalism couldn't succeed in the region (and the new regime wasn't aligning itself with Washington).

The regime has never faced serious pressure from the West and crucially there is (unlike in most of the Muslim world) a genuine, pro-western democratic movement in Burma with significant popular support.

> The regime has never faced serious pressure
> from the West and crucially there is (unlike in
> most of the Muslim world) a genuine, pro-western
> democratic movement in Burma with significant
> popular support.

One of my politically-aware teenagers raised that same point yesterday when we were discussing the NYT article on the depth of the junta's killing. My response was "yeah: if the United States had a President with any kind of moral authority in the world we might actually be able to take some significant action. We don't, and we can't".

Giving the Radical Right and George W Bush they keys to the White House is going to have very deep, very serious consequences for a long time. And that right there is one of them.

Cranky

Why is it that a guy who thinks U.S. military action is always the answer is any more credible than the peacenik who thinks it never is?

Because there's money to be made by military action, whereas peace is much too peaceful.

Duncan Kinder:

So, if we were to intervene in Burma - which we probably should not - the way to do it would be to help Burmese insurgents.

I agree with both you and Linus - also, unlike Iraq and Iran, there is also a defacto leader of the movement with impeccable credentials (Aung San Suu Kyi). Out of Iraq, Iran, and Burma, supporting a Burma insurgency makes the most logical sense. Of course, Kristol is still an idiot.

His "strategic thought" has all the verve of a middlebrow prankster playing the enfant terrible at a Manhattan cocktail party. You just want to bury your head in your hands and have a double martini.
Posted by: bellumregio

Is that before or after kicking him in the nuts?

Make mine a very dry Sapphire with three olives.

Gotta tip my hat to Kristol. He has been wrong on everything yet still has his job.

Blows my mind to see him still on the Sunday talk.

Cranky Observer. "Burma's "military infrastructure" consists of trucks, rifles, and truncheons."

The reminds me of back in the Viet Nam War when the hawks said, "Let's send in the B-52's and bomb them back to the Stone Age." And then someone pointed out it wouldn't do anything to stop the North because it was already in the Stone Age. And they were right.

"People read this stuff and believe it."

I think you have that a bit backwards.

People generally read Glenn because they ALREADY believe that kind of crap, if not that exact crap.

You will never be able to reason with them, because they are not open-minded at all.

So take some solace in that -- he is not convincing anyone who has not already drunk a vat full of Kool-Aid.

So has anyone actually given a reason why we should not use some sort of military action in Burma? I've read through the post thus far, and have not come down on one side or the other, but I haven't seen much in developed refutation.

One person briefly mentions China and then later on refers to Ygelias post about Burma. However, Matt also wrote a post which talked about the fact that China is not as friendly with Burma as people seem to believe.

Sorry about that. I clicked the comments button and the wrong thread came up. Don't know how that happened, but it did. I will try to repost on the correct thread.

In Kristol's world, is Iraq a "limited" military action or not?

And when was a "limited" military action actually enough for this guy?

Isn't this suggestion just a prelude for "we need to invade Burma?"

"So has anyone actually given a reason why we should not use some sort of military action in Burma?"

How's about this Phil? We HAVE no military that's not already tied up in Iraq or Afghanistan. Tho the surge guys (30,000 or so) should be home by next spring.

But I suppose you and Bill "The Comedian" Kristol think bombing some trucks and buildings from way up in the blue might do the job, huh?

So has anyone actually given a reason why we should not use some sort of military action in Burma? I've read through the post thus far, and have not come down on one side or the other, but I haven't seen much in developed refutation. Posted by: phil

Two words, Viet Nam.

No seriously, are you serious? You may have been reading all the posts here and can't figure out the downside of a "land war in Asia." But at this point in time, unless you were born in 1981 and a product of a contemporary American public education ending in middle school, and if you haven't been following the news much over the last three + years, how can you ask such a question?

In short, we all know the reasons why we shouldn't be considering military action against Burma. If you don't, then you need to read a few books. We're not really here to fill in the obviously cavernous gaps in your education.

Now, if you're studying to be a troll, good job!

Kevin

I actually read the article. I think you are mistating Kristols argument. You imply that Kristol is advocating a full invasion into Burma or using launching airstrikes.

That is SO not what Kristol suggests. In fact his first solution to pressure Burma is very, passive and non invasive.

He says:

Couldn't we give at least some of Burma's generals and soldiers reason to doubt the wisdom of slaughtering political opponents? Couldn't we turn our intelligence-gathering capabilities on Burma to monitor, document and publicize what is happening? Couldn't we tell the generals who are ordering and the soldiers who are carrying out this crackdown that they are being watched, that their names are being recorded -- and that the day will come when there will be plenty of evidence to hold them personally accountable for their deeds?

Thats hardly calling for an invasion and to leave out this context to Kristol's comments is very shady on your part.

Also, Kristol's advocacy of "military" force is to sneak into the country and destroy their satlities and telecommunications. HARDLY INVASION OR AIRSTRIKES. Barely even military actions.

I don't think you can cite someone saying we should use covert ops to blow up a satilite dish as proof that someone is war mongering.

This is a very dishnonest post of you Kevin.

We can always invade Burma too, we did so in Iraq in the name of "democracy." Why not Burma?

Ahh, these old communists just never know when to give up revolution do they?

Two words, Viet Nam.

No seriously, are you serious? You may have been reading all the posts here and can't figure out the downside of a "land war in Asia." But at this point in time, unless you were born in 1981 and a product of a contemporary American public education ending in middle school, and if you haven't been following the news much over the last three + years, how can you ask such a question?

Contrary to ignorant belief Asian countries are not the same nor are all circumstances in Asia. Maybe you should stop being a dick and actual provide an ARGUMENT with ANALYSIS rather than saying "well Burma is in Asia and ummm one time we did something in Asia and it didn't work..umm um so this time it won't work um ummm"

Is that before or after kicking him in the nuts?
JeffII

Timing would depend on foot apparel. Kicking him while wearing a pair of embroidered velvet and satin Harad Manolos would require a before and after martini.

How about this one Phil: Do you think that the US, fatally-compromised by Iraq, should go about indiscriminately bombing (or, perhaps "shocking and awing") a country that we know next to nothing about? Again?

Believe it or not, before the Bush administration we had teams dedicated to this thing called "diplomacy" and engaged in statecraft. Sometime said approach used to put Americans in contact with people we'd rather not talk to, but we did for reasons self-interested and not.

It's long and frustrating and hardly has the beautiful optics of a giant explosion, but it can be effective.

Well that didn't take long. I've never seen a concern troll out himself as a full out wingnut so quickly.

Also, Kristol's advocacy of "military" force is to sneak into the country and destroy their satlities and telecommunications. HARDLY INVASION OR AIRSTRIKES. Barely even military actions.

There are no half-virgins, you've either had sex or you haven't.

There are no half-virgins, you've either had sex or you haven't.

I don't think anyone would argue that oral sex is the equivalent to vaginal sex. Sorry to be graphic but I think your analogy is false.

Also kind of weak.

Couldn't we give at least some of Burma's generals and soldiers reason to doubt the wisdom of slaughtering political opponents? Couldn't we turn our intelligence-gathering capabilities on Burma to monitor, document and publicize what is happening? Couldn't we tell the generals who are ordering and the soldiers who are carrying out this crackdown that they are being watched, that their names are being recorded -- and that the day will come when there will be plenty of evidence to hold them personally accountable for their deeds?

"... the day will come..." Well that ought to get results. He's got all the sophistication of a third grade substitute teacher who's in over his head. Empty threats from an empty suit.

Well, finally the troll has proffered an argument: we should attack Burma because oral sex and vaginal sex are different. Fucking brilliant.

Is that before or after kicking him in the nuts?
JeffII

Timing would depend on foot apparel. Kicking him while wearing a pair of embroidered velvet and satin Harad Manolos would require a before and after martini. Posted by: bellumregio

On the completely unlikely circumstances that I would find myself at an Upper East Side cocktail party, and also never one to stand on sartorial convention, I might just have on my Craftsman steel toe work boots.

I guess my only requirement might be that Wolfowitz jumps in as his "second."

Probably just trying to cover up his somewhat unfashionable Zionism (neoconservatism) by pretending he is consistent in not just wanting to use American blood for Israel, but also against other countries besides the enemies of Israel.

How about this one Phil: Do you think that the US, fatally-compromised by Iraq, should go about indiscriminately bombing (or, perhaps "shocking and awing") a country that we know next to nothing about? Again?

Hmm how does this respond to my point that Kristol isn't calling for an invasion?

Also ummm since when does military force = not gathering intelligence. Even if your Iraq analogy were true it does not follow that we would not seek intelligence if we were to attack Burma.

Also your Iraq analogy is incorrect. It's not a lack of intelligence that caused a failure in Iraq it was the lack of reconstruction planning that lead to chaos in Iraq.

Believe it or not, before the Bush administration we had teams dedicated to this thing called "diplomacy" and engaged in statecraft. Sometime said approach used to put Americans in contact with people we'd rather not talk to, but we did for reasons self-interested and not.

I agree. We should use more diplomacy. And we should specifically puruse aggressive diplomacy with Burma. However I am also aware that diplomacy only gets one so far particularly when there is a regime like Burma. Lets look at North Korea. I love the fact we brokered a deal with them and are not invading. However what did our diplomatic negotiations do for the starving North Korean population. People are still eating grass and children are still dying.

Look, nobody wants to use the sword when the pen will do. But I think its irresponsible to pretend that the pen is the only tool we should use just like I think its irresponsible when certain neo conservatives think that the sword is the only tool we should use.

Make sense?

Well, finally the troll has proffered an argument: we should attack Burma because oral sex and vaginal sex are different. Fucking brilliant.

Haha...is calling me a troll supposed to hurt my feelings. OMIGOD HE HAS AN OPINION DIFFERENT THAN MINE...GASP..HE MUST BE A TROLL.

If you're going to rely on "wit" you should at least try to be funny.

I don't think anyone would argue that oral sex is the equivalent to vaginal sex. Sorry to be graphic but I think your analogy is false. Posted by: Phil

Like you'd know, about analogies that is.

To me, the American people understand that another "Red Plain" reality movie is what Mr Kristol wants to be scripted for Burma(Myanmar). A Proxy War against its future "nemisis" and the "fragmentation" of the Union of Burma . A Civil War in the making of Myanmar, Shan, Karen , Rakhine and Kachin States. THe Balkanisation of Burma and the final struggle , between two collosal economic giants-- China and India. One championing the workings of pluralistic democracy and the other state determined Chines democracy. - Plural DEmocracy and Dictatorship.

I don't think anyone would argue that oral sex is the equivalent to vaginal sex. Sorry to be graphic but I think your analogy is false.

Uh oh. Not only is this your first foray into thinking about foreign policy; you also appear to be one of those Christian kids who spelunk in every orifice except the Sacred Vagina, thereby preserving "virginity." Sorry to be graphic but I think you're an idiot.

Haha...is calling me a troll supposed to hurt my feelings.

That's what I love about wingnuts... they assume everyone else is as shallow as they are.

... I think its irresponsible to pretend that the pen is the only tool we should use just like I think its irresponsible when certain neo conservatives think that the sword is the only tool we should use.

And I think it's irresponsible to return from the crapper in anticipation of round two, or -- more accurately, round three -- before wiping your ass. You've got hot wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and one of the most vocal advocates of each of those wars wants to flirt with the possibility of another when we haven't succeeded in either of the first two. The best intelligence & military minds can't figure out how to get things straight in those two countries, yet you & Kristol think it's a good idea to either divert their attention toward this crisis, or, even worse, enlist the second & third rate military minds who aren't already tied up with either Afghanistan or Iraq so they can overthrow a completely insular regime backed by -- of all the people we need to get tangled up with -- China. We're doing so well with everything else that you can afford to squander attention on this right now? You guys get stupider by the day.

Dropping bombs on Burma would be the same as dropping turds on Aung San Suu Kyi's Peace Prize. Must we take it upon ourselves to do violence on behalf of a non-violent activist?

And for those who don't think blowing up a few satellite dishes counts as "violence," imagine how we would react if they blew up ours.

Burmese website Democratic Voice of Burma was buzzing in Burmese language with Bill Kristol's comment yesterday.
This is a first concrete suggestion anyone has made that could rattle the regime and could possibly either tear them apart or consolidate them even further.
But as a Burmese who has seen Burmese bullies in her own life time the author favors Mr. Kristol's idea and wants to applaud him for a bold suggestion.

And for those who don't think blowing up a few satellite dishes counts as "violence," imagine how we would react if they blew up ours.

This is exactly right, and it's what Phil can't wrap his pea brain around. Kristol is saying, in no uncertain terms, that we should seriously consider committing acts of war -- independent of any international backing -- against yet another country that has done absolutely nothing against us or our interests. At the risk of sounding isolationist, we've already fucked up enough of our brilliant plans to make the world a better place.

And for those who don't think blowing up a few satellite dishes counts as "violence," imagine how we would react if they blew up ours.

The greater irony is that the warmongers want to punish the Myanmar gvmt, who have cut communications to the country, by... cutting communications to the country.

If we really want to stick it to the gvmt, instead of bombing them, we should restore inet access to the country. But then Bill and Phil would never get their sought after hard-ons. (Or is that hards-on?)

Oh, my, oh my, Barney, if only they had Oil.

But as a Burmese who has seen Burmese bullies in her own life time the author favors Mr. Kristol's idea and wants to applaud him for a bold suggestion.
Posted by: May Ng

Me smells a troll or a merry prankster. Either that or they're getting only certain channels on the Internet(s) there in Rangoon.

gregor: "He wants to kill everyone."

Not personally, of course. That would be so messy. And there's risk involved.

These are the same people who dream of giant laser beams in outer space when most of the world's citizens would be happy to make things or just sit under a tree and hang out with family and friends.

There is something seriously wrong with this crowd -- and wrong with us for letting the fat kids with briefcases run the planet.

I'm beginning to think Kristol is simply looking for a quick and easy war for GWDeserter to win. Put something in the trophy case, so to speak, before time runs out on playtime.

I read your post, Kevin, then googled 'Bill Kristol is insane,' with results 1-10 of 8,120.
So utterly impressed with himself, this BIll Kristol, having an enormous sense of self, and a lot of inappropriate smiling, as we say in the business.
Ha--defense planning guidance. Project for a New American Century.

I started to remember when I first started blogging, logging onto Smirking Chimp. Here's what Timothy Gatto had to say about this narcissist:
"He praises Bush for putting Roberts and Alito on the court. I guess he is getting a kick out of not having to see white kids go to school with black kids, or a woman having a right to choose if she lives or dies if something horrible goes down in the maternity ward."

"...By the way, he used to be the Chairman of the project for a New American Century. What crap, they should just call that entire group another outgrowth of AIPAC. He goes on to say that if not for Bush that Saddam Hussein would have been victorious over the U.S. and would have restarted his nuclear weapons program. He says that if we could only stop Iran’s “meddling” in the war, General Petraeus could do his job and be successful in September. Sure, and if only the U.S. would leave Iraq maybe the Iraqi’s would stop killing each other to the tune of over a hundred a day..."

"This guy is dangerous. I don’t understand how he is on talk show after talk show, and they never mention that he belongs to the radical right. They always introduce him as a “respected” journalist. Respected by whom, The Project for a New American Century? I’m disgusted with the news shows that never give out this guy’s credentials. I know what they are now, and if they try to introduce him as a “respected journalist” instead of a “respected right-wing conservative journalist” they are missing the boat. He’s so far to the right, he make Rush Limbaugh look like a Marxist. Sometimes I wonder how these guys live with themselves."
Timothy V Gatto

Does anyone think Kristol will advocate bombing when the Republicans invade St. Paul next September?

Well, lets at least bomb something, for chrissakes, an irrigation canal or something, just enough to show we care, like a christmas card.

The asshole also wants a war with Iran and China.
Losing two at a time isn't enough for him.

Fascists always see violence as the first resort to any problem. Fascism cannot compete with either democracy or socialism, as it is government by and for the privileged, so fascists must govern by fear and intimidation.

Considering the way they waste the lives of our troops, it's accurate to state that a Republican is a guy who thinks he can show you how tough he is by waving somoeone else's dick around.

Look, nobody wants to use the sword when the pen will do.

Not true. Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the neocon hacks and "serious" foreign policy "experts" want and have done exactly this.

So has anyone actually given a reason why we should not use some sort of military action in Burma?

No proposal for using force that has any reasonable prospects for acheiving any good proportional to the harms it would cause has been offered; that alone is sufficient reason not to use military force.

Phil: Barely even military actions.

Like we "barely even invaded Iraq."

Phil: I don't think anyone would argue that oral sex is the equivalent to vaginal sex.

A whole slew of conservatives made this very argument when Bill Clinton was in office.

Your premise, therefore, is incorrect.

Phil: I don't think anyone would argue that oral sex is the equivalent to vaginal sex. Sorry to be graphic but I think your analogy is false.

Hello Bill! Boys and girls, it's the Big Dog himself! Welcome to the Washington Monthly, Bill.
Say hi to Hillary for us.

Great site. Good info.

Perfect site, i like it!

Great. Now i can say thank you!

Perfect site, i like it!

aym6fk Great site. Good info.

cx5EdQ Perfect work!