23679: (Reply and discuss) Durban: re. 23672 Wilson and Morse (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Lance Durban <lpdurban@yahoo.com>

In his otherwise good analysis, Wilson writes:

   This interim government is in place because it was a
   necessity.  The United States was in a lose-lose
   situation with the rebellion against Aristide.  If
   they did nothing and he had been killed it would have
   been their fault.  If they acted to protect him (which
   it seems they did despite the cries of kidnapping)
   they were wrong.

A third option would have been to assist Mr. Aristide in the
remaining 24 months of his term... take over all responsibility
for his personal security, in exchange for his complete
cooperation in the constructive governance of his country,
including collaboration on the organization of the next
presidential election.  (Yup, that's the same presidential
election that today's CEP is arguing over and Prime Minister
Latortue is pinning the future on).

Would a behavior modification program imposed upon Aristide and
enforced by international peacekeepers been any more successful
than what we have now?

It's all Monday morning quarterbacking, but it IS an option that
might have been tried. Aristide's back was certainly to the wall
that morning of February 29th, and he had already been tossing
out public concessions in an effort to hang onto his job.  This
would have left the U.S. (and perhaps the U.N.) pulling the
strings, and by that I include securing Aristide's visible
support in the disarming of both the chimere and rebels.  Many
would argue that the international community ended up pulling
the strings anyway, but without Aristide.

L Durban