Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
The public opinion differences in support for the Haiti and Panama interventions were that the latter was viewed by the people (prompted by the media) simplistically, as a mission of good guys (the U.S.) fighting bad guys (Noriega); on Haiti, the public (again prompted by the mainstream media) was the reverse—intervention was unnecessary and was just a case of Clinton trying to get the spotlight off his own back. This paper will compare and contrast the way the government handled the two interventions and discuss the media’s role in the interventions and how a “rally ‘round the flag effect” occurred for the Panama intervention—but not for the Haiti intervention.
In the Panama intervention under Bush, the media depicted the soldiers as effectively bringing Christmas and Santa Claus to the Panamanians (Milburn Panama Video 1, n.d.). The propaganda campaign made it appear as though Noriega was a ruthless dictator who was keeping presents and joy from the children. The Panamanians were shown celebrating the birth of Christ and singing Panamanian Christmas songs in the streets. The “rally ‘round the flag effect” was clearly being implemented by the media in conjunction with the U.S. government throughout the Panama intervention. The government of Noriega was overthrown, the Panama Canal re-opened, and the people liberated. The conditions of the “rally ‘round the flag effect” were all in play for the Panama invasion: there was increased support...
These conditions were met in the Panama intervention—but not in the Haiti intervention. The limits, of course, are that it is time limited and has to take place outside the scope of everyday life for Americans. That is why the Panama intervention had to be quickly conducted and end with a happy “just-in-time-for-Christmas” ending.
The Haiti intervention was different, from the media standpoint alone. For example, the tone of Tom Brokaw on NBC during the U.S. intervention in Haiti under Clinton was completely different: skeptical, sly, and mocking with a smirk spread across his face as he reported that Americans were wondering why Clinton felt he needed to send the army into Haiti and that Haitians, for their part, showed no signs of being frightened—all of this indicated that Brokaw along with the rest of the mainstream media was not going to support the intervention. As Edelman (“Rally ‘round the Flag Effect,” n.d.) notes, the “President must have control over information with which to arouse” the public if he wishes to win the public’s support for foreign intervention (slide 9). In the case of the Haitian intervention, Clinton did not have control…
Military Intervention Is Military Intervention in Other Countries Justifiable? The Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms defines military in tervention as "The deliberate act of a nation or a group of nations to introduce its military forces into the course of an existing controversy." The United States military has been intervening in other countries for a long time. In 1898, it seized the Philippines, Cuba, and Puerto Rico from
Schmidt, Hans. The U.S. Occupation of Haiti: 1915-1934. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1995. Hans Schmidt's The U.S. Occupation of Haiti was originally published in 1971, after the folly of American intervention in Vietnam had become all too stark and clearly apparent to the U.S. public. Schmidt wrote his book to tell a sordid tale of another, earlier example of a misguided U.S. intervention in a foreign land. After the people of
USA Hegemony There are no fundamental differences between now and what international politics used to be in the first half of the 20th Century. It is true that the post-WWII period has been more peaceful, but it is not because of a fundamental transformation in the way international politics works. To state that there are no fundamental differences between international politics in 1900-45 and afterwards would be to carry the argument to
U.S. Sanctions Economic sanctions are an important tool of U.S. foreign policy. They are used for a variety of reasons and often have substantial repercussions for countries on the receiving ends. Sanctions are used as a way to stop objectionable actions of foreign governments such as: to stop military adventures, arms proliferation, support of terrorism and drug trafficking, and human rights abuses among others. (Department of the Treasury website, 2002)
Military, as exemplified in the two (2) real-Life international incidents that you have researched. Justify your response. America is not merely a superpower -- the nation is also commonly known as the 'Policeman of the World', owing to its many interventions in resolving global issues. Time and again, the world has expected USA to intercede and play the role of mediator when issues crop up around the world. The world feels
Peace Freedom is the Foundation of Peace. Without freedom, there is no peace. America, by nature, stands for freedom, and we must always remember, we benefit when it expands. So we must stand by those nations moving toward freedom. We must stand up to those nations who deny freedom and threaten our neighbors or our vital interests. We must assert emphatically that the future will belong to the free. Today's