I admit, I have a nasty, nasty reaction to White Man's Burden stuff like this:

(The people of Haiti would be better off today if we long ago invaded the country or won it as a prize in a war with France ... but let's put that aside.)

As it happens -- and I didn't know this the last time you brought this up, though I should've guessed -- we've been down this road before.

the U.S. has played a long and devastating role in Haiti, including a brutal nineteen-year military occupation, from 1915 to 1934. Writes Historian Mary Renda: While in Haiti, marines installed a puppet president, dissolved the legislature at gunpoint, denied freedom of speech, and forced a new constitution on the Caribbean nation-one more favorable to foreign investment. With the help of the marines, U.S. officials seized customs houses, took control of Haitian finances.... Meanwhile, marines waged war against insurgents (called cacos) who for several years maintained an armed resistance in the countryside, and imposed a brutal system of forced labor that engendered even more fierce Haitian resistance. By official U.S. estimates, more than 3,000 Haitians were killed during this period; a more thorough accounting reveals that the death toll may have reached 11,500. Renda continues: "This extended breach of Haitian sovereignty constitutes an infamous but crucial chapter in Haitian history." Yet, "the occupation has earned little more than a footnote in standard accounts of U.S. history." This occupation was in fact a crucial moment in the development of American imperialism, and the brutality and betrayal of the long occupation is consistent with the treatment meted out to Haiti by the U.S. throughout its history to the present day.

Makes you a little misty-eyed and patriotic, don't it?

That's the Wikipedia version. The official American history provided by the U.S. State Department ... doesn't actually look any better:

President Wilson sent the U.S. Marines to Haiti, claiming the invasion was an attempt to prevent anarchy. In reality the Wilson administration was protecting U.S. assets in the area and preventing a possible German invasion.

The invasion ended with the Haitian-American Treaty of 1915. The articles of this agreement created a Haitian gendarmerie, essentially a military force made up of Americans and Haitians and controlled by the U.S. marines. The United States gained complete control over Haitian finances, and the right to intervene in Haiti whenever the U.S. Government deemed necessary. The U.S. Government also forced the election of a new pro-American President, Philippe Sudr? Dartiguenave, by the Haitian legislature in August of 1915. The selection of a President that did not represent the choice of the Haitian populace increased unrest.

Some of the Gendarmerie?s more unpopular policies?including racial segregation, press censorship and forced labor?led to a peasant rebellion from 1919 to 1920. The U.S. Senate sent an investigative committee into Haiti in 1921 to examine claims of abuse, and subsequently the U.S. Senate reorganized and centralized power in Haiti.

Did Haiti have problems before and (obviously) after the American occupation? Sure. We even built some really nice roads there. But far from being a salve, American occupation and control of Haiti vreated even more problems and made the Haitians angry. Lots of people died. The "enlightened self interest" of the American occupiers wasn't all that benign, and it alienated the people it was supposed to help. Which almost always happens in imperialistic situations. What's more, even though we don't have much historical memory of this occupation, the Haitians do. Your continued fantasies of a new U.S. occupation are ahistorical and anti-freedom. They're unbecoming of you. I wish you'd stop it.

Philosophically, too, I should add that this continued Haitian fantasy represents a backtracking on your own avowed philosophy. "You know what would really make the country better? A strong military rule that can impose a better society on the country than it is creating on its own." What?

Small government for me but not for thee?That's what it sounds like.

If I'm to add up your recent positions, Jim -- favoring the "freedom" of big companies to flood elections with cash, the "freedom" of big companies to control our access to the Internet and the belief that we should remake other, dysfunctional countries through the use of force -- I'd say your definition of freedom is a pretty narrow one: The freedom of big guys to dominate the little ones. That doesn't actually sound like freedom to me.

Then I'd say that this comment of yours is breathtakingly broad to the point of meaninglessness:

As Tim Graham at NewsBusters notes, it was just last year that Penn won the Best Actor Oscar — and used his moment in the international spotlight to rip the kinds of people who join the military

I followed the link, expecting to see some troop-bashing. But no. Tim Graham quotes Penn getting after Prop 8 supporters, George W. Bush and the conservative media. Followed the other links: No bashing of troops or of "the kind of people who join the military." Just a rather aggressive criticism -- even offensive criticism -- of the folks who send the military abroad. But that is is NOT THE SAME THING.

You reached too far. You saw Sean Penn praise the troops, so you decided to contrast that against his troop-bashing. Only you can't provide a good example of troop-bashing, so you broaden the category to "the kinds of people" who join the military -- and even under that expanded, awful definition, you still can't provide the goods.

You're on solid ground, I'd say, arguing that Penn wants the American military only to do nice, peaceful things instead of rough, violent military things. You can make that argument without unsupported and overbroad assertions that Penn has said worse things than he's actually said. It's an unfair distortion, and it renders your entire analysis suspect.

crywalt,

As someone that spent 20 years in the United States Army, I'd like to address your comment:

"Korea and Vietnam certainly seem to have rebounded quite well. On the other hand, was it worth the wholesale devastation? I guess compared to North Korea the U.S. military was better. That's a pretty sad comparison, though, when our imperialist army is an improvement over Frenchmen, madmen and Soviets. I'd like to think, as a nation, we should aim a wee bit higher.."

Fuck YOU.

People far better than YOU have given everything they have to insure your right to sound like a fucking idiot if you want to smear politicians and their motives but shut the fuck up about an Army you know nothing of. The United States Army is not "imperialist" and to suggest that it is certainly calls into question the integrity, intelligence, intentions, and patriotism of those that serve in it.

This brings us back to your rush to defend Penn. Whether he has spoke ill of the military or not, why would you say that the Army is "imperialist" in his defense? You insult soldiers to defend Penn. Brilliant.

The way you lump "Korea and Vietnam" together is ridiculous. Vietnam is not a success beyond the fact that it can feed itself, unlike North Korea. Vietnamese people, while fed, are deprived of liberty. I guess by your standards, a life of slavery is a success as long as there is enough rice to go around. North Koreans are deprived of nearly everything but misery and you "guess compared to North Korea the U.S. military was better"? You must be an idiot.

I've been to Guam and The Philippines. I'm not sure why you feel the need to look down your nose at them. Maybe it was an attempt at humor but it comes across as arrogant and rude.

You ask "Was it worth wholesale devastation?". Germany, France, and South Korea were all pretty much in ruins after the wars fought in their respective countries but I don't think those living there today would trade what they have now for a return to say, 1940. Even North Koreans would not want to return to a life a servitude to 1940 Japan, let alone should you expect to hear South Koreans ever wish they could trade places with those living in the North. And don't fool yourself into thinking that the decision would be a measure of comparison over individual prosperity. It's about liberty unless you can provide a compelling argument showing how Vietnam has to fight off hordes of Filipinos searching for work.

America's military is not imperialist. I don't listen to Sean Penn so I don't know if he has ever said anything about our military that even approaches the slur you laid down here, but I can tell you that your attempt to criticize Dr. Zaius did Penn no favors.