<p>Now that the death toll in Myanmar is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-myanmar-cyclone.html?_r=1&amp;hp&amp;oref=slogin">nearing 100,000</a>, one wonders if military intervention -- with the express reason of getting food and medicine to the Burmese people, and fast -- is a solution. I'm not an anti-interventionist. Like <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2008/05/is-there-an-exa.html">George Packer</a>, I think that one tragedy of Iraq is that it's ensured that the U.S. can't perform humanitarian interventions without its moral intentions every being questions.</p>

Not that it ever performed many purely humanitarian interventions.

But that's beside the point. Should we risk a fight with the Burmese military, potentially bog ourselves down, and risk infamy in the eyes of the world? Packer says maybe. I'm thinking that if it saves 100,000 lives, there's no question what we should do.