A problem with using force: Clinton's macho critics - Editorial

Christian Century, Oct 12, 1994 by James M. Wall

THE SUCCESS of Jimmy Carter's mission to Haiti hasn't stopped the steady drumbeat sounded by President Clinton's critics. Perhaps George Carlin's comedy sketch about the difference between football and baseball is relevant here. In football, says Carlin, the quarterback throws the big "bomb" to "penetrate the enemy's defenses"; in baseball, the players want to go "home" and "be safe." The critics of Carter's mission seem to identify with the macho world of football. Carter accomplished the goal set forth by the United Nations: remove the de facto government of General Raoul Cedras and restore the elected president, Jean-Betrand Aristide. Carter told Haiti's military leader they had two choices: leave office voluntarily or be removed by a military invasion. In the end, a military invasion was replaced by a peaceful occupation.

To be sure, we don't know what will happen by the October 15 deadline set for the generals to leave office. The U.S. forces in Haiti are in a dangerous setting. And there is no guarantee that Aristide's government will assume power without conflict. But at least the U.S. has put itself in a position to direct this transitional period without the damage and destruction of a military invasion.

The Carter mission initially led to widespread public relief and praise for the former president. But the next news cycle brought out a rash of naysayers. Newsweek's cover story asked a nonsensical question: "Who's in Charge Here?," with a cartoonish Carter looming over a small Clinton figure. Since when did an emissary stand taller than the man who had the courage to send him in the first place? Whenever military action is involved, Clinton's critics deplore the president's lack of military experience. As one who has worn a uniform, I can attest that doing so does not bestow command wisdom. Nor is it fair to keep saying that Clinton does not "like" the military. As he stated so eloquently in his letter to the Arkansas draft board, Clinton admires the military. What troubled him then was not the military, but the war the politicians sent the military to fight.

Perhaps it is time to ask, How many of Clinton's critics have ever served as president? Yet they continue to speak with authority on the relationship between the present and the former chief executive. Carter sat in the Oval Office for four years, and he is well aware of, and very sensitive to, the caution a presidential emisary must exercise.

Still, critics like Newsweek columnist Eleanor Clift denigrate Carter as a "lone Ranger." How does Clift support such charges? By way of jealous mid-level staffers who either don't like Clinton's decisions or Carter's methods of achieving Clinton's goals, or both, and are eager to talk--off the record, of course--and provide the quotes that Clift and others need to justify their anti-Clinton, anti-Carter stance.

Morton Kondracke, one of the administration's more vigorous opponents in the media, recently observed that journalists no longer confine themselves to reporting data, as did their predecessors 30 years ago. Instead, they find sources with whom they agree that are then used to bolster their personal opinions.

One result of this style of journalism is that the adversarial point of view is increasingly transparent. Joe Klein, who early in the Clinton presidency was seen as a strong admirer of the president, seems to be trying to compensate by writing a series of nasty articles. Klein recently contrasted reagan and Bush with Clinton in the use of military power. "Democrats Can't Do Wars" chortles the cover headline announcing Klein's piece (Newsweek, October 3). To protect himself against the event that Clinton's policy succeeds, Klein acknowledged that it is even possible that "his bizarre Caribbean adventure will not prove cataclysmic. The Haitian army may be disarmed and the police restrained. The junta may resign. Aristide may return (he may even be a reasonable democrat). The extremists on both sides may choose not to shoot, beat and necklace each other ... But don't bet the farm."

In any case, Klein insists, Clinton "has done massive, perhaps irreparable, damage to his presidency, to his party--and worse, to America's status in the world" because his "jittery performance seems a vindication of the perennial Republican canard about how Democrats act in office: they either launch the country frivolously into war or act cravenly, undermining American power." Clinton has done this, according to Klein, with an "all-star cast--a timid secretary of stae, an invisible moralizing national-security adviser; an ignored, technocratic secretary of defense ... and, to top it all, Jimmy Carter, Prince of Peace."

Linger for a moment on that last slur: Prince of Peace. I do not believe I have ever heaard this term, familiar to all Christians and Jews as the title for the messiah, used sarcastically--especially not to attack someone who has just persuaded a group of military leaders to put down their arms and allow their nation to be peacefully occupied. Is there some anti-Christian sentiment here? Does Carter's religious identity help fuel some of this fury? Why would a writer want to twist a successful peace mission into just another example of Democratic Party ineptitude? As Klein would say, "The mind reels."