FREE ESSAY ON DECISIVE ACTION? (HAITI)

DECISIVE ACTION? (HAITI)

The flood of refugees and disorder of democracy in the island nation of Haiti created the
great controversy of whether the United States (US) should intervene and restore order in
the country. The US turned to its worldview of disengagement to provide guidance; the
conclusion questioned if even a drop of American blood should be spilled to aid Haiti.
The experience in Vietnam modified attitudes so that the US wouldn't be so quick to
intervene militarily in foreign conflicts. In accordance with its worldviews, the US
shouldn't have intervened in Haiti since the situation not only lacked a clear threat to
the US, but also the substantial benefit and strong public support-reasons deeming
intervention necessary and proper at the time. The wave of refugees was hardly a threat
to the US; yet reasons, at the time, for intervening was more of a political than
military necessity and Haiti was in a state of domestic turmoil. 
The US has undergone three worldviews since the 1920s-each offering valuable lessons and
shaping the foreign policy of the era. Munich-Pearl Harbor, also known as
antiappeasement, was a dramatic shift from isolationism, which developed after World War
I. When adhering to the isolationism, the US eventually found itself amidst a terrible,
but preventable, war. When the British and French attempted unsuccessfully to satisfy
Hitler's territorial demands at the conference in Munich, the world learned that
appeasement will not prevent war; thus Munich became associated with weakness. Japan drew
the US into the war through the attack on Pearl Harbor, ending the isolationist attitude.
Both Europe and the US learned that they must contain the spread of communism, even if it
may seem insignificant, to possibly to prevent the ensuing war. However, the
antiappeasement policy led the US to enter the Vietnam conflict, revealing the weaknesses
of the Munich-Pearl Harbor worldview-the US would be led into costly conflicts with
little probability that it could win. The disaster in Vietnam led to the creation of the
disengagement view, which was a combination of the Munich-Pearl Harbor and isolationism
paradigms. This view suggests that the US fight only particular battles with high chances
of success. Also, Vietnam portrayed that winning a war is doubtful if it doesn't have the
support of the people and there shouldn't be any interventions in civil conflicts. 
The call for military action is justified if a clear and immediate danger is evident;
however, the situation in Haiti lacked such a danger to the US. The only clear effect
Haiti had on the US were the refugees attempting to reach American soil, which aroused
the public enough to call for a stop to the influx of refugees. However, this request
doesn't necessarily constitute major public support for military intervention in Haiti.
Refugees are not considered a clear and immediate threat; therefore the use of the
military is questionable. The US also learned from Vietnam that involvement in a conflict
that the public does not condone hinders the chances of success. There wasn't strong
public support for intervention in Haiti, as there was to enter World War II, thus it may
become a regretful decision militarily as well as politically. Without a clear threat or
overwhelming public support, the US lacked a definite reason to take action in Haiti. 
One lesson the US learned from Vietnam is that it shouldn't become involved in the civil
disputes of other countries. The situation in Haiti was very much a civil situation. If
the current worldview were followed, the US would have not gotten involved. The people of
Haiti were divided between the supporters of democracy and those fearing the return of
the democratic president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Therefore, attaining a clear mandate to
assist the people of Haiti would be difficult. Vietnam exemplified that we shouldn't
become militarily involved in foreign matter that do not have the support of that
country's majority. Also, whether Haiti wants US help is unknown. When the US strived to
restore stability in Haiti in 1915, the Haitians became upset and didn't want US aid,
proving that the exact situation could occur now. The fact that Haiti was in a civil
dispute weighs against support for intervening in the country.
The actual reasons to finally take action with Haiti were not out of necessity, but
rather out of political reasons. When action is taken from this direction, it will lack
the widespread support found if action is taken out of necessity. The argument the US was
intervening in Haiti to restore democracy was not the actual reason action was taken.
Action was finally taken in order to appease particular interest groups, such as the
black congressional caucus, to pass President Clinton's healthcare bills. The restoration
of democracy was also unlikely because it never had a foothold in Haiti, where
dictatorship and political turmoil long existed in its history, even before a democracy
was established. Therefore, the restoration of democracy may be a temporary episode that
may be soon upturned by another coup d'etat. The non-political benefits in invading Haiti
were weak and the political reasons cannot justify the loss of American lives.
The US' actions regarding Haiti appear to contradict the disengagement worldview because
there wasn't sufficient reason to take action. An immediate threat didn't exist, nor was
there clear support for action, and the results were questionable. Once the US took
action, it didn't secure democracy and soon Haiti was removed from the political agenda.
Hence, it can be inferred that the US never took a long-term interest in Haiti and the
sole purpose of the military action was to appease the interest groups. Such action
should only occur if there is a compelling reason (which was lacking during the US
involvement), or if there is now a departure from the disengagement worldview into a new
paradigm.