Politics and morality often make interesting bed-fellows, and the Clinton administration has not been able to avoid this phenomenon. Consider Bosnia, Rwanda and North Korea. In one instance, Washington rattle saber in scabbard threatening embargoes, air strikes or outright intervention; in the next peace offerings are sent with ex-presidents, who dole out hugs and handshakes. And yet the seemingly ever-present spectre of a protracted military presence in Haiti looms large on the Clinton foreign policy horizon.

The situation in Haiti is sad but predictable. Like many other Carribean basin countries, Haiti's economy has not changed in a decade and a half; Haitian farmers grow thousands of acres of sugarcane for which there is no market in either Europe or the United States. Moreover, when Reagan's Carribean Basin Initiative failed to stimulate growth and create new markets in the mid-1980s, Haiti's faltering economy crumbled. With the collapse, poverty, disease and hunger wracked the population, and misery became the easiest thing to find in the country.

Likewise, the political situation shows even less deviation from the Carribean norm. Throughout the 20th century, the area has been volatile, with regular cup d'etats infrequently interrupted by fair elections. Since 1986, coups and countercoups have rocked Haiti, culminating in the September 1991 ouster of firebrand President Jean-Bertrand Aristide by a military junta.

Enter Lt. Gen. Raoul Cedras, head of the current junta and target of the current State Department and White House attacks. General Cedras unleashed his "attaches," roving bands of paramilitary thugs to ruthlessly attack and pillage pro-Aristide neighborhoods. This terror coupled with years of economic privation is the reason Haitians now flee their country in droves.

However, the one thing that has changed, over and over again, is the American policy towards these refugees. The Bush administration held to a strict deportation policy without the benefit of asylum hearings; candidate Clinton attacked this dictum as both "immoral" and "illegal" throughout the campaign. In January 1993, President Clinton proclaimed that he would temporarily continue the Bush policy until an "acceptable" alternative is found. In June of the same year, Clinton announced economic sanctions would be imposed on the Haitian regime.

Yet in May 1994, the President reversed himself, granting asylum hearings aboard U.S. ships. One month later the President announced that no boat people would be resettled in the U.S., but only in neighboring regions. The only problem was that Panama's President Endara revoked his pledge to take 10,000 new refugees, and Grenada and Antigua followed, taking their combined 4,000 beds with them. Currently the only haven for refugees is the 12,500 bed facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Of course it is already filled to capacity.

So what have we learned so far? Millions of people languish in a brutal military dictatorship in Haiti. Thousands more try to flee to the U.S. every day. President Clinton linked himself to helping the Haitian boat people during the campaign, although many Americans are opposed to allowing those people in the country. There is no place else that will accept them besides the U.S. That leaves two questions left: what ought to be done and what will be done?

The United States should stay out of Haiti. Military intervention is the wrong answer to the Haitian crisis. True, the 7,000 man army that Cedras controls could be subdued within a matter of days. The difficulty would then be taking care of the other 7 million Haitians with no governmental infrastructure. We could go in, but how do we get out?

Moreover, the United States has a long history of intervention in the region that many have not forgotten. The "attaches" have pledged to take to the hills and conduct guerrilla operations against U.S. troops. American forces would take casualties weekly.

American men would end up giving their lives when no vital national interests are threatened. And America would be alone. Clinton has failed to convince key allies to join in or support an invasion. Even Aristide opposes United States armed intervention.

Nonetheless, the U.S. probably won't stay out of Haiti. Clinton has taken his after hit for his foreign policy, or lack thereof, Sanctions will not work quickly enough to stem the human tide, but more importantly sanctions hit the wrong people. The military takes what it wants from Haiti's flagging economy, and the people have to do without. After his continual harping on the refugee situation during the election,

Clinton cannot distance himself from the issue without seeming even more confused in the eyes of the rest of the world. Clinton helped create this monster, and because Haiti is in "our backyard" it won't go away until the administration confronts it.

So the die is cast, the Marines are sailed in and the 82nd Airborne stands by. Clinton will wait until August, when Congress is out of session, to send in the troops. Maybe we will ask later if this is really necessary later How quickly a nation forgets, though.

Nearly seventy-nine years ago, in another July President Wilson faced a similar situation. On July 28, 1915, President Wilson sent the Marines to establish Marines faced demobilized Haitian troops who terrorized the countryside. That long Haitian summer ended in August many years later.

On August 15, 1934, nearly 19 years later, President Roosevelt ended the futile occupation, lest we forget.