Before an Invasion, a Barrage of Words : Clinton, through debate, must seek Haiti-policy consensus

Secretary of State Warren Christopher asks for unity as the Clinton Administration turns up the propaganda heat and uses every forum available to signal that its long-threatened invasion of Haiti may be near. Senate Republican Leader Bob Dole argues that before unity behind the President’s policy can reasonably be demanded there had better be a full debate over the whys, wherefores and what-ifs of an invasion to rid the Caribbean island nation of its despotic military rulers. There’s merit to both urgings.

It could invite political disaster if Clinton, lacking a consensus, nonetheless plunges ahead with a foreign policy undertaking as serious as an invasion involving thousands of U.S. troops, even if the result would expectably be a military pushover. Consensus is possible only if there’s general agreement about the need, the aims and the end point of the intervention. The extended congressional debate that led to a resolution supporting U.S. military action against Iraq in 1991 did much to clarify the issues for a confused country. A similar clarification of policy toward Haiti seems to us to be essential.

A SECONDARY ISSUE: We’re not talking about another recycled argument over whether the President can commit U.S. troops to combat without specific approval from Congress. That question of course remains important, but for now at least, barring an unlikely appeal to and a definitive ruling by the Supreme Court, it also remains unresolvable. Congress generally insists that its unique constitutional power to declare war requires that its voice be heard and heeded. The President, every President, of whatever party, traditionally cites the powers of the chief executive as commander in chief and his role as the originator of foreign policy to insist on freedom of action in committing the armed forces. Congress tried to settle the issue in 1972 with the War Powers Act, which calls on a President to seek congressional approval within 30 days of committing troops to conflict. Presidents have responded by simply ignoring the act.

The discussion that’s needed is on the rationale for going into Haiti, the extent of American involvement that is planned and just what the United States intends to do after the nasty and brutish clique of high military officers and policemen that grabbed power in Haiti is chased from power. What invasion skeptics want to have defined is just what national interest would be served by returning U.S. troops to Haiti, 60 years after an earlier American occupation. And having gone in, they ask, how soon could they be replaced by other peacekeepers?

These are not fussy questions. They reflect basic and reasonable concerns, among them just what political objectives American troops might have to die for, and just how long U.S. stewardship over that miserably poor and perpetually misgoverned country might last. The last American occupation lasted 19 years.

THE CRUCIAL ‘WHY’: Clinton’s greatest wish is, clearly, that Haiti’s rulers would simply sneak off into exile, without a shot having to be fired. That’s what all the endlessly repeated threats from Washington have been about. But intimidation hasn’t worked, and now, with U.S. credibility on the line, invasion seems to have become not just a likelier but an imminent option. If that’s the fact the Administration must move quickly and responsibly to make its case.

That there is more than a touch of partisanship in the line taken by Dole and others, including Ross Perot, is self-evident. But partisanship or not, the relevance of the questions being asked isn’t in doubt: Why is an invasion of Haiti necessary to U.S. interests, and how realistic is the plan for bringing American forces home quickly once the immediate objectives of an invasion are achieved? The President seeks a consensus behind his Haiti policy. He can get it only with clear and cogent responses.