One of the themes of A Conservative History of the American Left is the inability of leftists to learn from their own mistakes, an amnesia that at once propels an ideology that by virtue of natural selection should have long been extinct and dooms the Left to repeating its own history. But the Left doesn't just forget its own mistakes, it fails to learn from the mistakes of adversaries as well.

Case in point: after the nation-building debacle in Iraq, Time magazine hubristically asks: "Is It Time to Invade Burma?" Time's Romesh Ratnesar writes, "The military regime that runs Burma initially signaled it would accept outside relief, but has imposed so many conditions on those who would actually deliver it that barely a trickle has made it through.... That's why it's time to consider a more serious option: invading Burma." In other words, take our gifts or we will kill you. Hurricane Katrina was a mess, but I didn't hear anyone suggest that foreign soldiers should invade New Orleans because of the mishandling of relief measures.

I have no doubt that the military officers who rule Burma are deplorable in the same way that the tyrant who ruined Iraq, the clerics who ran Afghanistan, and the warlords who ruled Somalia were deplorable. And certainly the U.S. military could overthrow them with alacrity. But what next? If leftists believe things can get better, perfect even, conservatives know they can get worse. True conservatives know overthrowing a stable government is an endeavor fraught with danger, particularly when done by outsiders who don't stand to be harmed much by the havoc they unleash. Though the American military is excellent at wiping out bad guys, it's not very good at social work, nation building, regional policing, or any of the traditionally periphrial missions that have somehow become central.

If righting wrongs becomes the threshold by which to conduct military action, America will forever be at war. Only someone ignorant of history and human nature would make the eradication of non-threatening evil doers a priority of foreign policy. A better standard for interventions, universally accepted by conservatives until very recently, is whether the military action serves America's interests and justice. The Sharon Statement, for instance, concluded with the line: "That American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States?" Ignoring this bit of wisdom, as Iraq shows and Burma would undoubtedly demonstrate too, comes at great cost in blood, treasure, and power.

America is not, and should not be, a superhero state--crusading against evil throughout the globe. Elements of the Right and Left, unfortunately, think that we should be. On the Right, proponents of a Superhero America want their crusader to act alone, a la Christian Bale's Batman. On the Left, they think Superhero America should work with the Justice League (the United Nations). The only thing the interventionist Left learned from Iraq apparently is the idea that interventionist catastrophes-waiting-to-happen should involve as many countries as possible. Here's a novel idea: if the Burmese want new leaders, they, not the UN or the US, should do something about it.

"Though the American military is excellent at wiping out bad guys, it's not very good at social work, nation building, regional policing, or any of the traditionally periphrial missions that have somehow become central."

And how can ask it to be? Its proper end is to defend our republic from being destroyed by our enemies, not to rebuild the political, economic, and social institutions of foreign peoples in our image.

I find the talk of invading Burma to be alarming, to say the least. Your post is spot on.

Excellent post and right on the money. It is amazing that the same people who would use the war and nation building efforts in Iraq as a club would have us use our military might to invade and then nation build in places like MyaBurma or Darfur. But, as they've made clear, one invasion is for humanitarian purposes and the other was for oil. Right? Right. Can't have it both ways.

Hey I agree , Hitler had every right to lead germany. and just because Japan were raping and killing chinese why was it our concern. and if my crackhead neighbor wants to share his stuff with the kids, its not my concern. know what i mean?

If our government (read: military) stepped in for every global skirmish, inhumane junta, oppressive dictatorship, etc. that’s going on right at this moment, we couldn’t provide the troop strength to be effective. We can’t solve all of the World’s ills. So in the meantime, we hopefully mind our own business and only address those Global events that impact us.

That’s not to say that we can’t provide humanitarian support (which we always do). But toppling a military oligarchy that poses no direct threat to us doesn’t add up.

TagM: Japan invaded China in 1931. Hitler was in power for almost a decade before a state of war existed. What triggered war was that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war on the United States. It's interesting that even hawks get this history wrong in stretching to link altruism and humanitarianism to a war that was fought for our just national interests (even though fighting the war certainly had some humanitarian results).

I know history, and its safe to say 90% of americans were against any involvment in foreign affairs. japan attacked because it felt it would die because of the embargo we slapped on them. but anyway this talk about burma is silly. but say their was a rebel group in Hugos back yard,and they asked for help, i think so. i this world now you cant live in a "hole" and let things be, cuz next pearl harbor is gonna be the nuke bomb.