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
An immediate threat didn't exist, nor was there clear support for action, and the results were questionable. 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. One lesson the US learned from Vietnam is that it shouldn't become involved in the civil disputes of other countries. 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. The situation in Haiti was very much a civil situation. 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. tself amidst a terrible, but preventable, war. Therefore, the restoration of democracy may be a temporary episode that may be soon upturned by another coup d'etat. 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 US' actions regarding Haiti appear to contradict the disengagement worldview because there wasn't sufficient reason to take action. Vietnam exemplified that we shouldn't become militarily involved in foreign matter that do not have the support of that country's majority. 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 US also learned from Vietnam that involvement in a conflict that the public does not condone hinders the chances of success. 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.
Common topics in this essay:
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,
|
Acceptance Essays
