a408: Re: a379: nation-building gone awry - Dorce to Knowles (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: LAKAT47@aol.com

In a message dated 01/17/2002 7:02:43 AM Pacific Standard Time, Phil Knowles
<Phildk@prodigy.net> writes:

<< This issue has been debated over and over, and I guess there is merit on
 both sides. Whether the coalition forces (mostly US, but several other
 important contingents were clearly in evidence) could have, in real
 practical terms, disarmed the whole country has never been clear to me, but
 I'm sure they could/should have done more. My point is, you can't simply say
 "..the multi-national force ....DID NOT disarm the Haitian army."
  >>
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Maybe that statement is an oversimplification but the US Army was given
orders not to intervene when they saw Haitian on Haitian violence.  They
stayed behind their fences and watched as makouts and ex-army soldiers
terrorized the people.  That is when the people of Haiti lost their faith in
who they THOUGHT were their saviors.  Many US soldiers were as disillusioned
with their mission (which was not as Clinton imagined) as the people of Haiti
were.  Of course, many US soldiers relished their mission......much to my
disgust.  I see no merits on the side of the US military other than replacing
the rightful president to his office.  Everything after that was a travesty.

Kathy Dorce~