Well in the case with Saddam, the UN should have ordered the SOB taken out. Technically they did when they said "disclose, allow inspectors in, or else", but they seemed to have trouble getting around to the "or else" part, especially when Kofi, France, Germany, and a few others were getting some nice money from the Oil for Food scandal. Saddam violated the surrender terms from the 1991 war, routinely launched SAMS at NATO aircraft overflying the patrol areas dictated by the surrender terms (launching SAMS at planes flying under UN mandate is an act of war, btw) and was to everyone's belief - including the NATO and the UN - secretly developing and stockpiling WMD's. All he had to do was stop launching SAMS and say "OK, come in and inspect, 100% compliance, I have nothing to hide!" and there would have been no Iraq war. No idea why he didn't do that if he wasn't up to something, but it's history now.
Strategically, yes, Iraq was a threat to the stability of the world's oil supply, as well as a regional threat to friendlies like Israel, and countries the US has defense treaties with, like Saudi Arabia (yes, that one is for oil, courtesy of Nixon). It also was under UN sanctions and a surrender treaty after hostile action against Kuwait in 1991. I have no problem with the US acting in its own interests to a certain degree, and if that happens to coincide with enforcing international law when the UN is too corrupt to do so, and it happens to coincide with removing a dictator from power - so be it. I don't like how it's been handled after the initial invasion, but I have a fairly black and white view of how wars should be waged. To me, the primary goal is total and complete victory with little or no risk of reprisal. That means you use overwhelming force to annihilate the enemy. If avoiding civilian casualties and avoiding infrastructure damage is desired, that has to be balanced short-term to long term. Will it cost more in damage and lives to go in hard and heavy, or will it cost more later in a long-term slug out if you go in too light? Borders must be secured, and sectors cleared of hostiles and weapons caches systematically. This was not done, and Iran and Syria have just been stirring up a mess. It's being done now, but that's only because Petraeus is a more competent commander and is being given more troops to secure the more hostile areas. Rumsfeld was an idiot and should have never been put in charge of the operation. They needed more troops from the beginning and I think everyone planning things underestimated Iran and Al Qaeda's influence and ability to wreak havoc.
Enough of talk about Iraq though, or this will go off-topic in a hurry. It is true that Myanmar is of no strategic concern of the US, and I'm not sure of what status it is with the UN. The UN, as far as I'm concerned, is absolutely worthless and will do absolutely nothing in the face of this problem. I think the only way a nation like the US could intervene would be if a UN military action were mandated, or if the US were to adopt a formal declaration of war with the Myanmar government - something the US has no legal cause to do. Declarations of war typically require an aggressive act to be committed against the US first. What's happening in Myanmar would be classified as an internal problem with a non-allied nation.
So in short, the US can't do anything unless the UN security council orders it. That won't happen. With Saddam there were UN resolutions with military consequences, and the President was given full congressional authority to enforce the binding UN resolutions. This situation is different. There's no legal way to intervene militarily. God knows I wish there were.
|
