Interesting item on TPM that relates to the thread... I'm assuming that once things settle down a bit, we'll gradually swap out military for civilian... I hadn't really considered a long-term military presence like this guy does.
Leaving aside humanitarian issues, which you appear to be unswayed by, there is a direct national security interest in us stabilizing Haiti. Considering Haiti's location a complete collapse of Haiti would destabilize much of the Carribean along with Florida as waves of Haitian boat people to the ocean. On top of that if Haiti becomes a failed state along the lines of Somalia it could become a lawless base for everyone from drug smugglers to pirates to anti-US terrorists. On the other hand a stable Haiti could end up being a trading partner with the US and Haitian reconstruction could benefit US construction and other industries. I will point out though that reconstructing Haiti is not going to be easy. The US occupied Haiti from 1915 to 1934 and has sporadically occupied it a few times since then. None of those efforts have led to Haiti becoming stable and or successful. Not to forget the environmental devestation from deforesting that has befallen the country too. The one silver lining though that could be taken from this situation is that this earthquake is so devestating that it breaks the cycle of corruption and violence in the Haitian governments and gives them something of a clean slate to start with.
I know this is a direct shot at me, but incidentally the Chinese have peacekeepers stationed there who have been killed (eight dead, ten others missing) and have been very quick with aid. That's really irrelevant to this topic though but whatever. need a hug?
This is not a Darfur or Sudan situation, and you might also want to review how the Sudan situation turned out. The problem with “forceful” US interventions for humanitarian purposes is that they too often become forceful US interventions for “humanitarian purposes”. Remember Iraq? If one believes in freedom - and I’ll note that your record on this board shows that you clearly don’t and that the concept is merely convenient rhetoric for you – then these people and their country have a right to self-determination. That doesn’t mean we don’t offer aid, of course, - and we have and they’ve accepted it – and it doesn’t mean that things can’t be done to aid their progress towards becoming a first world country, but it’s their country and they get to make the key decisions. If the US forced any major change on them it would be acting in an anti-democratic and dictatorial way. Doing this would be immoral, and it would fly in the face of everything the US stands for.
I agree with the trade ideas. How do countries pull themselves out of abject poverty? China would be the most prominent example. If Haiti could learn from China’s experience, and not repeat its mistakes, then maybe with the help of free trade and investment from western countries it could duplicate some of China’s manufacturing success.
Those were different times and it wasn't just the US that helped build those countries back up. Also we're talking about a country that hasn't been stable in over a century, Germany and Japan had a solid foundation before the war so it would have been easier to restore.
really? who other than the US helped rebuild Japan? how well did the Sovs do rebuilding east germany?
IMO the Japanese, in 7 years they were better than they were before the war but they had the will and the previous infrastruction to build upon along with our guidance. Nothing from nothing leaves nothing; ie. Iraq.
It's of no consequence, baiting me with worthless dribble won't make this conversation any more intelligent.
