Haiti left with no elected government officials as it spirals towards anarchy
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
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.
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?
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.
[1] - https://www.newsweek.com/afghan-targeted-us-drone-strike-wor...
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.
Yes.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_occupation_of_Ha...
The parallels to the current situation are uncanny. I hope we don't make the same mistakes again.
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.
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.
The solution to problems caused by imperialism is never more imperialism. The solution to such problems can only come from within those people.
There was such a call in October last year, but the population doesn’t seem to want an intervention (https://therealnews.com/haitians-reject-us-oas-calls-for-for...). That’s not completely surprising, given the recent UN mission that
- seems to have imported cholera into the country from Nepal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Stabilisation_M...)
- had UN peacekeepers rape citizens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Stabilisation_M...)
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-haiti-intervention-....
You should start a talk radio program or a podcast or something
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.
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.
So, the annexation of Tibet and the repopulation of Xinjiang didn't happen?
> All China wants is for North Korea to not collapse
That must be why they bully their smaller neighbours.
> Also, Chinese people are more practical.
Right. Like we saw with the spectacular success of Zero-Covid and their refusal to authorise foreign mRNA vaccines.
> They’re not warmongers like Americans are.
That must be why they keep violating the Line of Control and firing missiles over Taiwan.
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.
We (at India) have fought wars in the past 50 years to protect our land from the Chinese invaders.
Furthermore, leaving India aside, let's think about Tibet, the uighur muslims for a moment.
The current Dalai Lama is in exile also.
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.
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?
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.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/dominican-...
Why would the neighbor which is also poor take on that burden? The USA are wealthy, maybe they should annex Haiti instead.
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.
USA are incredibly more wealthy than DR.
https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/
Haiti speaks french, not Spanish.
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?
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.