Outside Reading post 11 of 12

A pressing question that grips the sociality of our world today is, "Is it morally right to invade a country just to forcefully impose democracy at the cost of American lives?". A section in the book I am reading, All Too Human by George Stephanopoulos, talks about when Clinton had to make a decision weather to invade Haiti or not. Military dictators had taken over in the past few years, so the entire country was in disarray. Although the Haitian military wasn't exactly a formidable force, American lives could be lost in the process. In the end, Clinton chose to invade, based on many political variables. For example, Stephanopoulos writes, "But although the invasion was not politically motivated, and full of political risk, it could be a political plus. Clinton was constantly being called "spineless" and "wishy-washy" - Doonesbury was depicting him as a talking waffle" (308). The invasion overall was a big risk, but in politics, you have to risk big to win big. In politics, self-image is obviously immensely important. You have to watch what the general public is thinking of you, especially in the year before an election. Many people do not consider how smart a politician is or what his/her viewpoints are, sometimes people just vote for the person they like best. In the book, Paul Miller made a good point when he said, "People want to hear value and cost. But you have to hit them where they live. Tell them there are nine million Haitians off our shores- and they all want to be your neighbor" (309). Miller brings up a good point in that most people, though on the outside they seem to be sympathetic, are faced with unfamiliar people invading their territory they aren't acceptant. These two great political points lead Clinton to the decision to invade Haiti, rational or not. Because in politics, the only thing that matters is winning in a political sense.