[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 138 (Wednesday, September 28, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                                 HAITI

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, it is my intention at the appropriate time 
to offer an amendment on the bill that is before the Senate which would 
involve a sense-of-the-Senate resolution with regard to the withdrawal 
of our forces from Haiti. Mr. President, I have wanted to offer an 
amendment dealing with Haiti for some time and at the request of the 
various members of the Appropriations Committee have held off on 
offering this to accommodate their concerns that, indeed, the 
consideration of those issues might delay some of those appropriations 
measures.
  The reason I intend to proceed on this bill is, after discussion with 
a number of members of the Appropriations Committee, they have advised 
me that this amendment being offered on this particular bill would not 
unduly delay the appropriations process.
  It had been my hope that the leadership amendment that was offered 
with regard to Haiti would have dealt with the withdrawal of our 
troops. It was a feeling of leadership that agreement could be reached 
only if this issue was held off. So I agreed at that time to hold off. 
But we should not go out of session without dealing with Haiti and 
without making our intentions clear as a body. There are some Members 
who believe that it makes sense to send our troops into Haiti to run 
that country and to do it without some termination date--but I am not 
one of them. I think it would be remiss of us to deal with the subject 
and not note that this Congress had expressed its feelings that before 
United States troops were sent to Haiti, before we invaded that 
country, that we at least have a vote of Congress to authorize that 
action.
  Unfortunately, the President did not come to Congress to receive 
authorization to invade that country. And this Congress has not acted 
decisively on that issue. But out in front of us, I think, are some 
very important questions. Reasonable men and women will disagree 
whether or not it makes sense to invade Haiti. Reasonable men and women 
will disagree on whether it makes sense to try to occupy that country 
and run it. I believe it is a great mistake. And I believe it is a 
mistake that reflects upon mistakes of the past. This country surely 
learned in our experience in Vietnam that half-hearted commitments of 
military forces where we do not make our intentions clear can be 
mistakes. Surely this country learned from our experiences in Lebanon 
that sending United States troops in without a commitment to win and 
without a clear purpose can be disastrous.
  No one needs to be reminded of the several hundred American marines 
who lost their lives because, incredibly, the guards at the gate did 
not have bullets for their guns. This country had subjected those 
marines to danger because they were afraid of the political 
ramifications, if the guards had bullets for their guns, if there was 
an accident.
  How can anybody forget the tragedy in Somalia where, having received 
a request from the commander in the field for armored military vehicles 
as essential to perform their mission in Somalia, the Secretary of 
Defense refused to allow the commander in the field to have the 
equipment he said was needed for his operation. Resulting from that 
were the deaths of a number of American military personnel when their 
helicopter went down. They virtually ran out of bullets before they 
were killed by enemy forces. They would have had that ammunition if 
reinforcements had been able to get to them. And they held out for as 
long as they could, but eventually they ran out of ammunition. And the 
reason the reinforcements could not get to them--the reason 
reinforcements could not get to them was because we did not have 
armored personnel vehicles which could withstand the sniper fire. 
Attempts were made to get to those fighting men but, because the 
reinforcements went in open cars and were subjected to snipers, they 
could not get through. So the fact that the Secretary of Defense had 
refused to provide the vehicles requested by the commander on site, 
Americans lost their lives.
  Using U.S. forces is something I believe should be done with great 
care. Not so many years ago, former Secretary of Defense Weinberger 
issued six points that he felt were essential before U.S. forces are 
committed to combat. I will not deal with all of them. But I think 
several are worth mentioning and worth focusing on.
  Secretary Weinberger, first of all, indicated that before we send 
U.S. troops into a combat zone or into harm's way we ought to make sure 
that it is vital to our national interest; that it should not be a 
casual act. I do not believe the administration has spelled out why 
occupying Haiti is vital to our national interest.
  Let me remind the Members that occupying Haiti is not an adventure 
that is unknown or unheard of or untried. The Haitians are very proud 
of the fact that they broke off the yoke of colonialism. The Haitians 
survived 19 years of United States occupation earlier in this century, 
from 1915 through 1934. It is quite clear from the reports of that 
occupation that, far from bringing democracy, a viable long-lived 
democracy to Haiti, that we failed. I do not believe the Weinberger 
guidelines have been met with regard to Haiti. To suggest it is vital 
to our national interest to occupy that island--I do not believe the 
case has been made for that.
  Former Secretary Weinberger also spelled out that any time we use 
U.S. troops, the mission ought to be clearly defined. Have we clearly 
defined what the mission is in Haiti? We have put young men and women 
at risk of their very lives but we have not spelled out clearly what 
the mission is. I draw the attention of the membership to a couple of 
facts. Far from having clearly defined what the mission is, it appears 
that this country is in a state of vacillation. Originally, the 
President pointed out that the purpose of the mission was to restore 
democracy and not to engage in nation building--a clear commitment of 
the President--not to engage in nation building and to restore 
democracy.
  But the reality is that we have taken over Haiti and we have changed 
the mission. From not providing police support we are now actively 
involved in providing police, with our military forces in Haiti. From a 
commitment that said no nation building, we are now actively involved 
in the distribution of food. We are actively involved in a wide range 
of governmental functions. We even have equipment that has been sent to 
Haiti that is capable and designed to build their roads. It appears 
that the commitments of the President--that is, to restore democracy 
and not be involved in nation building--have been violated and violated 
within a few days of when those commitments were made.
  Some have called it mission creep, but the simple fact is we have 
committed our forces in a dangerous area without clearly defining the 
mission that they are to perform. Secretary Weinberger's guidelines, 
that were meant to protect us from that, have clearly been violated. 
Secretary Weinberger also spelled out that we should not commit 
military forces unless we have a clear commitment to win. It is a 
mistake we tragically made as a country in Vietnam. We never made our 
intentions clear and, as a consequence, almost 50,000 American lives 
were lost in South Vietnam without achieving victory and without ever a 
clear commitment from the United States--clear objectives, clear 
missions, clear commitment to win.
  How many times do we have to learn the lesson? How many times must 
American men and women die before the leadership of this country 
understands the seriousness of committing U.S. troops to combat areas? 
Do the men and women who put on the uniform of this country not deserve 
a clear mission before their lives are put in danger? Do the men and 
women who put on the uniform of this country not at least deserve the 
political leaders to commit to win the combat that they are engaged in 
before we risk their lives?
  Do not the American people have a right to demand before we put men 
and women in the field, that it be essential to our national interest? 
I believe they do.
  One thing I do know; the judgment of this body may be that they want 
to have troops in Haiti. Without a clear mission. Without clear 
objectives. Without a commitment to win or achieve those objectives. 
And without seeing that our national interests --our vital national 
interest is involved. That is their discretion.
  But this Member believes that we at least ought to go on record, and 
we at least ought to make clear when this mission is completed.
  Almost every military adviser that has looked at these kind of 
adventures has advised that we ought to have some clear ending date. We 
ought to have some clear definition of when the commitment is over. 
When the battle is won. When we can bring our men and women home. It is 
why I offered an amendment that sets a date for withdrawal. It will be 
a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, but it will make clear to the 
executive and the American people a target date when they will bring 
them home.
  Now the Senate has already acted to spell out to the President that 
we want them brought home as soon as possible. Yet, we have heard 
conflictive stories from the executive. Originally they would only be 
there until we have restored democracy. And then some said it would be 
a couple of months. Now lately we hear stories that it could be several 
years.
  Before, Mr. President, before we make policy, before we make policy 
through neglect, we ought to make policy through planning. To send 
troops into another country and to occupy it, without at least spelling 
out clear objectives and clear goals and a time certain for the 
withdrawal, is folly.
  Some will say, well, there are too many contingencies. There are too 
many unknowns. Mr. President, at least we ought to let the young men 
and women who go in harms way know that we insist that what they are 
there for be spelled out before we ask them to surrender their lives.
  I, for one, think it is a mistake for us to have invaded and occupied 
that country at all. Others may think it was worthwhile. Perhaps we 
will never know a final judgment on whether that made sense.
  But one thing I do know. To leave Americans there with no clear 
mission, and to leave Americans there with no departure date, is to 
invite disaster.
  It will be my hope to have a record vote on a measure that sets a 
departure date.
  Ultimately my hope is that this Nation learn from its mistakes in the 
past, not simply repeat them. That we not only honor those who gave 
their lives in Somalia, but that we make sure it does not happen again.
  Americans understand that when we send troops into harms way that 
some can be killed. Some injured. And while that is tragic, we 
understand it may well involve the responsibilities of a greater power 
in this world. But what I believe is inexcusable, is to risk those 
lives without clearly spelling out a mission for them. Without clearly 
spelling out an objective. And without clearly making every effort 
possible to defend themselves and protect themselves and accomplish 
that objective.
  Surely the U.S. Congress has that responsibility to those who wear 
the uniform of this Nation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and make a point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Murray). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________