From: Philippe Clérié <philippe@xxxxxxxx>
I am truly deeply puzzled by these incessant attempts at resuscitating
the army. The short story is that none of the arguments put forward in
support of that goal, do actually support it.
- There are no discussions of _any_ interests, geographical, economic,
political, religious or otherwise, that might require military power to
defend or expand.
- There is no definition, much less identification, of what or who might
constitute a foe to defend against. It is significant that no one will
designate as a potential enemy the only country to have intervened
militarily in Haiti at least twice.
- Not surprisingly then, as Stuart points out, on paper at least, the
official goals being set so far are _all_, bar none, civilian missions.
So, and this is the puzzle: what is _really_ going on? Because there is
a real, serious movement to create an army and it's not based on
anything even remotely reasonable. It's a quietly popular effort, and
these official papers are really attempts at reducing opposition from
the "international community". (I presume they don't expect to convince
anyone!)
This is one of those times when I really wish I had a deeper
understanding of Haiti. And when I really, really wish I was more privy
to the _informal_ discussions around power, its usage, its preservation,
among people with power. None of what I hear in public makes sense. Are
there more reasoned deliberations elsewhere? I hope so.
--
Philippe
------
The trouble with common sense it that it is so uncommon.
<Anonymous>
======
Note: I'm including links to a couple of articles I published on the
subject way back when on Le Nouvelliste.
https://www.iconoclaste.ht/articles/army-to-do-what.pub.html
https://www.iconoclaste.ht/articles/obsession-armee.pub.html
Thank you. If you wish to join or unsubscribe please click on this link:
//www.freelists.org/list/corbettlist
