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 i
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. 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 th
Some common words found in the essay are:
President Clinton's, Munich-Pearl Harbor, , Jean-Bertrand Aristide, War II, Haiti Refugees, Pearl Harbor, British French, World War, munich-pearl harbor, reason action, public support, political reasons, military action, disengagement worldview, action haiti, situation haiti, strong public, world war,
Approximate Word count = 967
Approximate Pages = 4 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
