(7 of 9)
Though Republicans especially have pressed the attack in Congress, a clear majority of Democrats oppose invasion also, and for a reason that will not cease to be relevant however U.S. troops go in. Their basic argument: Haiti is simply not worth the sacrifice of U.S. lives. Even an American diplomat on the scene concedes privately that in the "narrow, traditional" sense of the words, Haiti is not a vital interest for the U.S. It has no strategic position, no economic importance in terms of raw materials, markets or U.S. investment. Its army is no threat to the U.S., the Caribbean, Latin America or anybody except the unfortunate subjects of the dictatorship. The sarcastic summary of this position is that "Haiti is a dagger pointed at the heart of Dade County," the Florida region around Miami that might be overwhelmed by a flood of refugees.
The Administration counters with a moral argument: the U.S. should do what it can to foster democracy and remove a murderous tyranny. Well, then, say critics, why not use military force in Bosnia or Rwanda, where worse atrocities have been committed, and on a much larger scale? Because they are far away and would require a major effort entailing heavy casualties with uncertain support from allies, Clinton's aides rejoin. The U.S. has a special obligation to promote democracy and oppose tyrannous atrocity in its own hemisphere. Haiti is one place where that can be done quickly, with worldwide backing and minimal loss of life. The U.S. should indeed promote democracy among its neighbors, reply the critics, but by political, diplomatic and economic pressure, not military force. Washington has no divine commission to impose democracy on its neighbors by brute strength.
Then, embarrassingly, there is the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the sole power to declare war, though it also makes the President the Commander in Chief of the armed forces and thus able to order them into harm's way. The debates over the constitutional status of an invasion of Haiti have been wildly distorted by partisanship. Democrats who insisted George Bush had to seek congressional approval to start the Persian Gulf War -- as he finally did, successfully -- contend that an invasion of Haiti would be a much smaller, less dangerous undertaking. Comparable, in fact, to the Reagan Administration invasion of Grenada and George Bush's pre-Kuwait invasion of Panama, which the Democrats now retroactively approve. Republicans who backed those invasions even though Congress was never consulted in advance now insist the plain sense of the Constitution is that the President must not send troops into combat on his own hook if it can be avoided. Discounting for hypocrisy on both sides, Clinton's critics would seem to have the better of the argument. In the case of Haiti, the President can hardly claim he must act quickly to ward off a threat to the U.S. or to save American lives -- the two traditional excuses for shooting first and telling Congress later.