Paul Greenberg: A Conspiracy Theory Is Born

The Washington Times ^ | March 5, 2004 | Paul Greenberg

[quidnunc]

Nothing became Jean-Bertrand Aristide in office like his leaving it — and so not inviting still more bloodshed.

The country's president and demagogue-in-chief decamped in the style of other Haitian dictators over the years. How many other presidents of Haiti have been forced out over its troubled history — 10, 20, 30? We lose count, though the more colorful stand out, like Papa Doc and Baby Doc Duvalier, father-and-son tyrants.

Also, do you count Jean-Bertrand Aristide twice, since this is the second time he has fled into exile? The first time to the United States, and now apparently to any African country that will have him. (It wasn't easy for Colin Powell, secretary of state and travel agent par excellence, to find lodgings for him.)

Having come back to power on American bayonets, Mr. Aristide was ushered out in much the same way. And his country is left to shake off his memory like a bad voodoo spell.

It all sounds like a bad travelogue: "And so, as the sun sets on the land of the machete and the Tonton Macoutes, the Peron of the Caribbean League takes flight to ancestral Africa...." As if that continent didn't have enough dictators of its own. This one will doubtless find a comfortable hideout there. Like Napoleon on Elba, he can while away the time plotting his Triumphant Return. Everybody needs a hobby.

Somehow you knew all this would be blamed on the United States, but it's difficult to see how Washington could have sent the Marines in any earlier. Then it would have had to side with the dictator's thuggery — unthinkable — or fight it, which would have risked even more violence than Haiti has had to endure of late.

Washington moved with painful slowness, but at least it moved. One of the strangest reactions to the arrival of the Marines on the chaotic scene came from John F. Kerry, the senator and Democratic front-runner. He said the administration should have acted sooner — in support of the Aristide regime. Why? Intervening on behalf of democracy is chancy enough. Why intervene on behalf of a dictator?

-snip-

[smoothsailing]

Greenburg is one of the best opinion writers we have. A real treasure.

Thanks for the post.

The bonus for me is that it will be in my paper tomorrow and I can show it to others.

[endthematrix]

A lotta truth here, and a little lie there and mix in some history, CIA and Oliver Stone and you end up with worthless drivel. The average memory of a gossip monger at your water cooler is one month. Remember that regime change is possible without sending 500K troops to do it. The play book works, why change it when America sleeps. Welcome to the Americas, Guy Phillipe!

[LibertarianInExile]

I wonder this every time I read about Haiti and its constant coups and scumball gangs:

Why doesn't someone, a corporation or group of like-minded individuals, bring guns and boats and move there and take over? The country has what, 8 million people? It was taken over by 250 idiots who the populace nominally supports, but now, the riots are rampant anywhere te U.S. and international military groups ain't!

The only real military opposition would be the penny-ante national police force. Couldn't a smart businessman with mercenaries herd the people out of the productive regions, which are at least somewhat easy (just looking at the map, anyway) to isolate, and make a go at establishing some sort of peaceful, stable benevolent despotcy on a nice peninsular corner of the island? It's not like the Dominican Republic is somehow different--they're on the same island--and it seems to do just fine!