Books on "Military Intervention"

I have decided to review two books with this entry because they have many similarities. The books are: China, 1900: The Eyewitnesses Speak, published in 2000, about the Boxer Rebellion; and The Immaculate Invasion, published in 1999, about President Clinton's invasion of Haiti in the mid-1990s.

The first thing that struck me about these books is that, even at the turn of the 20th century (China, 1900 goes into 1901), before there were two World Wars, America was already taking a stance that it is not "at war" with anyone; we just have "military actions," become a part of "UN Peacekeeping Missions." It's got to be salving to the consciences of citizens of the USA that we don't go to war, hardly ever, apparently, even though we have a "presence" nearly everywhere on earth!

Another thing that these books have in common is the lack of really identifying the enemy or what the plan is to defeat said foe (if a clear identity is given). Sometimes the enemy is named, only to have that enemy suddenly become the friend of the Allied Forces (or the USA). The reign of confusion of who exactly we are "after" gets further complicated by the fact that, since that is unclear, the entire "mission" is unclear. We continually remind the "opposition party" (or parties) that we are not at war with them, yet we are in another country with guns, tanks, special forces, you name it! "If it looks like war..."

The third striking resemblance, even though nearly 100 years separate these two events, their outcomes are, generally speaking, the same: we blew people and things up and went home, wondering why we ever came. Neither China nor Haiti were better off after we left. The "boxers" finally just started removing their distinctive red garments, flags, and bandanas, and melted in with the rest of the population, so there was suddenly no enemy to fight anymore (to the chagrin of many late-comers of the invasion forces); the Haitians never had to do anything differently, no matter who was "in control" of the "government," because the people didn't trust anyone but their own clans or the ones they were controlled by. The return to power of Aristide (what the people wanted at one point, though earlier they supposedly had wanted him deposed) did not change the lives of the people or the corruption of government or stem the violence in the streets by the massive "gangs" who controlled different regions of the country.

Another interesting correlation between these two books is the role of religion, morals and ethics in these "military interventions." For instance, the boxers were well-trained kung fu fighters (those of the righteous harmonious fists), deluded into thinking that they were impervious to Western bullets; the gods would protect them from these horrid outsiders who were the reason China was having troubles. In Haiti, voodou (voodoo) would make people do things that were simply outrageous and no "normal" human being would attempt, let alone carry on in a sustained manner - especially the brutality against each other. Then there is the conflict of Christianity or at least those who were in these countries to make a difference, to help the suffering, the downtrodden, the helpless. Their hands were tied. Neither the forces in command nor the "enemy" wanted outside intervention and, if they wanted help, it was not forthcoming because that was not the "mission."

Both of these books were good reads and they caused me no end of thinking and rethinking America's (or any country's) involvement in the problems of other nations. Should we be there? Are we, because we are so strong and have so many great resources, obliged to help other nations out when they are in a pickle? The confliction of the soldiers and missionaries is tragic; they want to help, not just kill. In the end, they are the most confused and frustrated ones.