[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Page 5496]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 5496]]


                      BAD NATIONAL DEFENSE POLICY

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, bad national defense policy is about to 
get us into serious trouble--again. As I speak, United States Armed 
Forces are in direct danger because they are being used as social 
workers in a very dangerous country--Haiti. Most Americans will be 
greatly surprised that I am saying the United States Army is still in 
Haiti. Why are most Americans surprised? Because it has been more than 
4 years since the September day in 1994 when the President sent a force 
of 20,000 troops to this island. Despite what the United States did in 
Haiti, not much has changed, except that the United States force has 
become tiny and in a great peril. No elected official has been able to 
bring peace or democracy to Haiti. Factional fighting has immobilized 
the government and stymied efforts at economic recovery. The 
factionalism has provoked assassinations and bombings reminiscent of 
the bad old days.
  Fortunately, Congress has been put on-call by a voice of honesty 
coming from our uniformed ranks. Last month, General Wilhelm, Commander 
of the U.S. Southern Command, directly and honestly described the 
mounting danger surrounding his troops. The 500 United States military 
personnel left to help prop up Haiti are doing mostly social work and 
spending much of their time defending themselves from attack. Let me be 
clear about what kinds of work our troops in Haiti are doing. They are 
not fighting an enemy. They are involved in tasks like digging wells, 
providing medical services, and training police and military officers. 
Such work might be understandable if it contributed to stability. It is 
not. The 500 United States troops still in Haiti spend much of their 
energy just trying to protect themselves against those they came to 
help. Unfortunately, it is now difficult for the administration to 
accept a clearheaded understanding of these dire circumstances and call 
for a pullout. Doing so will concede the failure of a peacekeeping 
mission regularly touted as one of the shining achievements of recent 
years.
  The list of the administration's failed peace missions is long and 
growing. I am unconvinced that trying to resuscitate these failed 
nation-states is in the U.S. vital interest. The costs of U.S. 
involvement in peacekeeping are not in our national interests and 
should be reduced. The price tag of the Bosnia mission, for example, 
has already hit $12 billion, with no end in sight. Haiti has cost more 
than $2 billion. However, today the 500 soldiers in Haiti--mostly Army 
reservists rotating through on short-term assignments--remain in Haiti 
at a cost of about $20 million last year.
  The question is simple: Is it in the United States' best interest to 
have our troops in imminent danger, preoccupied with defending 
themselves against people whom they have come to help, who have shown 
little inclination for reform at a cost of $20 million annually to 
America? This is the path down which the administration has taken the 
United States. We are now involved in a steady run of civil wars 
without clear solutions which involve failed nation-states. We will 
soon drown in this kind of foolishness. Stemming civil wars should not 
be the main strategic challenge for the United States. These kinds of 
misadventures do not really engage the strategic interest of the United 
States. Certainly, such ill-conceived adventures do arrogantly endanger 
our troops.
  Because of this, I call on the administration to swiftly withdraw the 
500 service men and women who are currently in Haiti.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________