Imposing 'democracy' in Haiti.

• Position: Includes related article

Seems like old times. Once again U.S. troops in combat fatigues, guns at the ready, are patrolling the streets of a foreign capital. They are not there, of course, as an occupation army but as peacekeepers and protectors of the democratic process and defenders of America's invariably virtuous and altruistic interests. Shades of Vietnam and Grenada, Panama and the Persian Gulf, Lebanon and Somalia. Shades of the last U.S. occupation of Haiti, which lasted from 1919 to 1934.

How long will the present occupation last and what will it entail? Nobody really knows--least of all the Clinton Administration, which seems to be improvising policy from day to day. In mid-September, Administration officials and high-ranking military officers spoke of keeping an American force of up to 15,000 "on the ground" for a very short time--perhaps only a few days. By October 1, the U.S. military presence in Haiti had reached 20,000 and was still climbing, and the Administration raised strenuous objections to a nonbinding House resolution suggesting that all troops be withdrawn by March 1.

Is this another quagmire in the making? Perhaps. What's certain is that another American President has arrogated to himself the prerogative of dispatching U.S. military personnel on an overseas combat mission, disregarding the constitutional mandate that only Congress may declare war. There is no doubt that an overwhelming majority of both the House and Senate--and, indeed, an overwhelming majority of legislators in the President's own party--were adamantly opposed to the intervention in Haiti. In fact, the timing of Bill Clinton's decision to mount an invasion of Haiti during the night of September 18--an invasion obviated only by the deal struck at the last minute by former President Jimmy Carter, Senator Sam Nunn, and the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell--was directly related to the threat that Congress, returning from recess on the morning of September 19, would adopt resolutions condemning an invasion. The President was determined to present the House and Senate with a fait accompli so that they would, in time-honored fashion, have no choice but to "support our troops."

In this instance, at least, Congress correctly read the mood of the American people. Every public-opinion poll that raised the question showed massive opposition to U.S. military intervention in Haiti--and relatively few Americans--or Haitians, for that matter--were persuaded by Clinton's speech to the nation on September 15. In Miami's Little Haiti neighborhood, an exile named Fedy Brierre told reporters, "I don't think he was very convincing. The Duvalier dictatorship was a lot more brutal than this one, and there was never any threat from the United States to intervene then."

But the President insisted that he knew better-better than Congress, better than the American people. His ambassador to the United Nations, Madeleine Albright...