“Congress shall have the power … to declare war”
Article I, Section 8, U.S. Constitution
In what may become the nation’s shortest and most unpopular use of military might, President Clinton stands poised to order American soldiers, sailors and airmen to intervene in the internal affairs of an independent sovereign nation which poses absolutely no threat to our national security. This insane adventurism is more irrational as it’s being orchestrated by a Commander-in-Chief who, as a youth, actively avoided military service while openly protesting what millions of Americans deemed a foolish and unjust war in southeast Asia.
As with his postwar predecessors, the president has attempted to frame American involvement in any Haitian invasion as a police action … with U.S. forces simply part of a larger international coalition. Yet with the United States supplying 95% of the total forces and virtually all of the invasion troops, their argument rings hollow. Excepting token troops from Israel, Great Britain, Belgium and the Netherlands, the balance of the thirteen nation “international” force will be supplied from such military juggernauts as Belize, Guyana, St. Vincent and Dominica.
The dictionary defines war as “a period of armed conflict between nations or states”. Thus, when one nation’s armies are dispatched into the territory of another, with or without cause, a state of war exists. When the aggressor nation’s vital interests are not at risk, a charge of imperialism is clearly warranted. No matter how you cut it, the president is preaching war!
Yet, even President Clinton recognizes the need to build a base of public and Congressional support for such a foreign policy move.
The restoration of democracy and return of Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power were the initial battle cries. While reinstating Aristide is easily accomplished, imposing democracy on a people who have never known democratic institutions is doomed to failure unless we are prepared to remain indefinitely. Such a strategy has been tried twice before in Haiti; and failed miserably on both occasions. Meantime, the politics of Haiti’s born-again democrat Aristide remain in question.
The Administration subsequently pitched the guilt trip of ending human rights violations. In recent confrontations with nations whose human rights records are equal to or worse than Haiti’s, U.S. responses have included renewal of MFN trading status (China), tightening economic embargoes (Iraq and Cuba), and pontificating while doing nothing (Bosnia). Unfortunately, the president appears to covet his predecessors’ machismo approaches of engaging third world nations with two-bit armies … unless they sit on vast oil reserves!
News footage of boat loads of refugees provided yet another premises for invading Haiti, stemming the tide of illegals trying to reach American shores. Meanwhile, we’ve heard of no plans to send troops across the Mexican border or to storm Cuba’s coastline!
The latest vindication for President Clinton’s Haitian policy is preserving U.S. credibility. While not a new rallying cry, it smacks of the bullying, gunboat diplomacy tactics which breed anti-American sentiment around the globe in decades past.
Fortunately, the American public hasn’t “inhaled” from the president’s smoke screen. Despite a well-crafted campaign to justify a Haitian war, 73% of the public remains opposed to any invasion. Concurrently, whether for reasons of moral conscience of partisan political gain, majorities on both sides of the Congressional aisle have expressed grave concerns over any attempt to overthrow General Cedras and his henchmen by force.
An invasion of Haiti is legally indefensible and a morally bankrupt use of American military power. The president’s Thursday evening pleas to the contrary, Haiti poses no threat to America nor is there any compelling reason to invade the tiny island nation. Neither President Clinton, President Aristide nor anyone else has defined any realistic, short-term exit strategy designed to guaranty the survival of the democratic institutions for which young American men and women will be asked to go in harm’s way.
Tragically, the president has backed himself into a foreign policy quagmire from which there is no easy extrication. The moral choice is to lead America back from the brink of war, accepting whatever criticism that decision provokes. By so doing, he may take a giant step toward shedding his image as a slick politician for the mantle all presidents seek as a legacy, that of a statesman.
If, however, he pursues the path toward war, his presidency and its lofty domestic agenda may, for practical purposes, be over … and could conceivably trigger calls for his impeachment.
