I'm surprised the last of the elected officials didn't call for foreign intervention, though I'm sure no country wants to go in there and fight the street gangs for control.
I think the US would have the best shot of restoring order (assuming the Hatian govt asked them). I would imagine no gang in Haiti wants to (or is even capable of) a ground war with the US Army, so the "intervention" would be 90% aid and 10% a show of power.
But who knows. I'm Monday Couch Quarterbacking this.
> I would imagine no gang in Haiti wants to (or is even capable of) a ground war with the US Army, so the "intervention" would be 90% aid and 10% a show of power.
The mechanics and operations of a ground war against a civillian population are terrible.
"surely the US will dominate because we have tanks and missiles and nuclear bombs!"
The net situation seems to me to be that you're fighting in civillian-dense areas against a group which is difficult to distinguish from civillians meaning your operations and people are absurdly constrained while theirs are very open and free.
Every mistake you make (and you're going to make mistakes) compounds to make people hate the invaders more (regardless of how altruistic the mission may be) and pushes more people to their side.
Every loss you incur on your side erodes your political support back home and hardens your troops against the population (those bastards killed kenny).
It's an incredibly vicious cycle which seems unwinnable.
Did we forget the lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan so soon?
I don't think people really understand or think about what happened in Afghanistan. Like maybe we were just holding back or something. The final drone strike we carried out in Afghanistan is both deeply symbolic and enlightening. We killed a guy, his family, and bystanders including 7 children. The reason is that somebody thought the water bottles the guy was loading into his truck looked suspicious, so that was a good enough reason to kill him and everybody around him - even knowing full well this strike was likely to receive far more attention than average.
The army initially claimed they took out a terrorist with a vehicle full of explosives. They blamed any 'collateral damage' on secondary explosive discharges. The excessive scrutiny on this, the final symbolic drone strike, revealed those water bottles were full of water. And not only were the target and his family not terrorists, they were aid workers literally working for a US NGO in the process of trying to get a visa to the US. Nobody was held accountable or punished in any way. [1]
The point of this is that we certainly weren't "holding back" or anything of the sort. We were absolutely brutal in Afghanistan, and this went on for 20 years. But ultimately winning an occupation against a civilian population that is both hostile and armed, is basically impossible. Afghanistan now has the honor of being the only country to have defeated both the USSR and the USA. And they did it, for the most part, with "obsolete" weapons and improvised explosives, all while kitted out in robes and sandals.
> I don't think people really understand or think about what happened in Afghanistan.
I hope that's not true. I know it's more present for me because I lost family there, but, I was against the wars long before that and I'm against them long after he died.
> The point of this is that we certainly weren't "holding back" or anything of the sort.
You misunderestimate the power of the US Military. We could have reduced the entire country to ashes, and it probably would have cost a fraction of what it ultimately cost the US.
> But ultimately winning an occupation against a civilian population that is both hostile and armed, is basically impossible.
> But ultimately winning an occupation against a civilian population that is both hostile and armed, is basically impossible
Spain and the United States used to do that all the time. Just look at the indian tribes. You just have to be willing to be mean (wipe out nearly every male).
Every single time we do this, it's held up by the rest of the world as evidence of the US being a bloodthirsty colonial power.
Another comment said "Haiti refuses to hold themselves to any standards" - I agree, knowing a lot of Haitian-Americans. _Those_ people are lovely, and their stories of what dealing with the government, cops, and local enterprise is horrible. Most do very well here and refuse to ever return. Haiti seems permanently fucked, some say it has to do with the history with France, some with the breakup of the farmland. I'm not sure, but I'm not sending my son to die for their corruption.
We did a poor job, especially in our most recent situations in Iraq/Afghanistan.
Granted, I'm not sure it's actually possible to do this job well, I think there are flaws in the system and human nature which intrinsically make it impossible to do it. See: Abu Ghraib among many other options.
We do a poor job because it’s not possible to square the circle with our stated rules of engagement.
Russia did a GREAT job with Syria, they’ve managed to nearly end the war. They brutally murdered anyone that was opposed to their puppets and didn’t follow rules about protecting civilians, but they did win. I don’t think purging corruption from Haiti is possible without something similar.
We could save Haiti by carpet bombing it, killing everyone there and hanging a "free land" sign on the door and telling the Dominican Republic to have at it.
I know you're not actually advocating that :)
My point is (and I think we largely agree) is that peacekeeping or nationbuilding missions like what we would need to do in Haiti are incredibly difficult, if not impossible. Too permissive and the opposing forces have free reign and take over. Too harsh and you turn the average population against you and they start supporting the opposing forces and now you're just fighting a whole country. It's a lose/lose.
As you say, no country wants to get involved. The US would be the most capable power in the area, but it’s almost impossible to imagine that ending well.
That would be a shocking violation of Haiti's sovereignty. It would be colonialism.
Civil wars are sometimes a necessary thing in the organic development of a nation. In general, it's not the business of other countries to prevent them.
Exactly! For Europeans to develop to the point they could dominate the rest of the world, they took a thousand years to recover from Roman imperialism and develop distinct ethic/national identities. We have to not interfere with the third world and be willing to not interfere for a thousand years for them to sociologically mature to the point they can operate effectively in the first world.
The solution to problems caused by imperialism is never more imperialism. The solution to such problems can only come from within those people.
The US has a problematic history of intervention in Haiti, so we aren't the first choice of pretty much anyone on the ground. And consensus is Haiti isn't where anyone is going to be able to shoot their way to a solution. There have been some negotiations around getting Canada to lead an intervention [1], but that hasn't apparently gone too far. So...it'll get a lot worse for most Haitians before it gets better.
Honestly, it should be the French. If there were a Black African Francophone country that had the spare resources, that would be even better - maybe Algeria in 50 years. I don't think that Haiti wants a bunch of Yankees running around, with our crappy history there.
You're probably not wrong, but the French have some crappy history there as well, and haven't had much luck with conflict intervention in former colonies recently (see: Mali). The only certainty is that it's a really complicated problem.
Haiti has a unique humanitarian history going back to being the first successful slave revolt and subsequently isolated economically by France and her friends namely USA ... with this comes no major trading partners and poverty ... no blog post on Haiti should leave out this origin story of their misery going back 3 centuries
Maybe China wants to dip a toe into great power style politics, so it can see what being on the world stage actually entails?
After all, China is looking for friends, and what better way to make friends than to prop up a failing regime? Propping up Haiti can't be more expensive than propping up North Korea.
Your comment is so weird. China has not shown colonial mindset in the last few hundred years. Even when it had by far, the highest GDP country in the world, it did not colonize other countries.
All China wants is for North Korea to not collapse because that would create a huge humanitarian crisis at its borders.
Also, Chinese people are more practical. Leave this problem to the Chinese and they’ll find a way to solve it that does not involve sending its army to Haiti. They’re not warmongers like Americans are.
China does not invade countries the same way European and American countries do in the last few hundreds of years. Past that, I do not know enough about history.
I'm not sure how you can dispute this.
Chinese people do not yearn for war like Americans and Europeans do.
Taiwan is a disputed territory and the US has been provoking China intensely in the last few years. Obama administration got it right. Trump and Biden have not. If the US was in China's position, it would have authorized a Taiwan invasion decades ago.
The first instinct for Americans in any international conflict is how soon can we send a couple of fighter jets and blow some stuff up.
The first instinct for the Chinese is how can we hash this out without any physical violence. The second instinct is the same as the first. The 3rd instinct is the same as the first. And if you have to make it to the 4th instinct, then it's all out war. This mindset reflected in Chinese culture and Chinese Americans as well. Chinese people have a lot of patience when it comes to violence. But if you provoke them enough, they're willing to lose everything to make a point.
This is the reason why I believe China will be a better world police enforcer than America.
I don't think disputed territories are considered as colonial. I think you need to stay objective even if this is you (Indian) vs China.
Tibet has been with China since 7th century according to a quick wikipedia search.
Nothing I said in my original comment is dissuaded by your arguments. If you think so, then you should study more European colonial (GB colonized India) and Chinese history.
As someone who has a large amount of Dominican family and friends, they would never want that. They are so far apart in terms of their culture, values, standards, and overall way of life. Dominicans want nothing to do with Haiti. Haiti wants nothing to do with setting standards for themselves.
> That may be true, but I'd also be interested in hearing the best argument for the alternative.
You haven't presented yourself a single argument as to why would the Dominican Republic want to do that at first place, how would that benefit them exactly?
The unification of la Hispaniola under a new regime untied to french colonialism could be a strong foundation for political and economical improvements (if made in respect of both cultures). If Canada ever merges with the nearby Turks and Caicos Islands, they could also help improve the economic status of the area by bringing a nice influx of money. Also Canada has a big Haitian diaspora in Quebec, so there are cultural ties already.
I don't mean to be disrespectful, but your line of thinking is very detached from reality. The Dominican Republic doesn't need economic improvements. Sure, every country could always improve their economy. But the quality of life in the DR is good, healthy, stable. Haiti has refused to step up to the plate and improve their country. They don't work their land.
Only Haiti stands to benefit from any "unification". And more importantly, the Dominicans should be the only ones to determine their destiny; not academics who think "improving economic status" is a valid reason for merging one country with another -- without any regard for the preservation of culture, ethnic makeup of the country, history, national identity -- and most importantly: values.
The DR is one of the wealthiest Caribbean countries, and is rapidly getting their shit together. They're also a Spanish speaking nation with enormous cultural, economic, familial, and transportation ties to the rest of LATAM (particularly their hated cousin Puerto Rico).
Haiti is less a country and more corruption as an enterprise, on the back of robbing farmers who own very small plots of destroyed soil.
> The DR is one of the wealthiest Caribbean countries, and is rapidly getting their shit together. They're also a Spanish speaking nation with enormous cultural, economic, familial, and transportation ties to the rest of LATAM (particularly their hated cousin Puerto Rico).
As I asked in the comment you answered to, you didn't explain why would the DR want to have anything to do with Haiti since they are successful on their own as you claim. What does the DR gains from merging with Haiti, one of the poorest country in the world?
You seem to have read my comment backwards. I'm not advocating for them taking over, or claiming that the DR speaks French, or interested in taking over all of Dominica.
> You seem to have read my comment backwards. I'm not advocating for them taking over, or claiming that the DR speaks French, or interested in taking over all of Dominica.
Then what's the point of your comment at first place then? if you were just trying to argue that DR isn't "poor", poverty is obliviously relative, there are poorer countries (Haiti) and there are far richer countries (USA). It's seems like that's the only purpose of your message.
Do you think that those invasions went well for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq? Do you think there were no armed gangs in those countries? Do you think the U.S. has any prurient interest in repeating or revisiting those operations?
I think the US would have the best shot of restoring order (assuming the Hatian govt asked them). I would imagine no gang in Haiti wants to (or is even capable of) a ground war with the US Army, so the "intervention" would be 90% aid and 10% a show of power.
But who knows. I'm Monday Couch Quarterbacking this.