Well, it all seems to be a bit clearer to me now that I have something to compare it with. What am I talking about you ask? I am talking about when it is acceptable, internationally, for the United States to use force in quelling violence and injustice within another nation. With the recent uprising in Haiti bringing in responses from the big guns of France and Canada, we now have a clear set of guidelines as to when the United States can use its forces to right wrongs.

Haiti, the small Caribbean nation adjacent to the Dominican Republic and south of Cuba, is no stranger to upheaval. Perhaps it is because of the heat. Perhaps it is because they speak French. Blame it on the fact that one of the predominant religions there happens to be voodoo. Or blame it on the fact that the tiny half-island nation’s leaders have been propped up for many years by various governments around the world while doing nothing to make their country better for its citizens. Blame it on Rio for all I care, the fact is Haiti is no stranger to upheaval.

In fact, President Bill Clinton sent 21,000 American troops to Haiti in 1994 to oversee the restoration of order and the reinstatement of Jean-Bertrand Aristide as president after he was overthrown in a coup. Of course this effort of humanitarian outreach was meant to save lives and protect a newly formed democratic government in a region new to the benefits of democracy, goals that have nothing in common with what we are trying to do in Iraq and the Middle East today…ahem.

But situations being as they are in the Caribbean, things didn’t turn out exactly the way they were planned. Once again, blame it on the heat or what have you. Supporters as well as critics of Aristide are expressing their disappointment with his performance since his restoration to power, courtesy of the Clinton White House, saying he has done little in 10 years to heal the nation or alleviate their incredible poverty. Because of this the people of that nation have embraced upheaval yet again.

In a move that can only be described as novel, the Bush Administration, through Secretary of State Colin Powell, has indicated they do not intend to interfere with the process taking place in Haiti directly even though violence among Haitian gangs and political allies and foes of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide has killed more than 40 people. "There is, frankly, no enthusiasm right now for sending in military or police forces to put down the violence that we are seeing," Secretary Powell said. "What we want to do right now is find a political solution, and then there are willing nations that would come forward with a police presence to implement the political agreement that the sides come to." And these willing nations just so happen to be France and Canada, go figure.

But there is a catch. France and Canada will only send troops and police within the context of a peacekeeping effort. France's foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, said France was prepared to provide police officers or troops to help maintain the peace once it was restored. "We are working with all these [Canada, Germany and Brazil] countries to consider the feasibility of a peacekeeping force that would deploy if the conditions allowed because of an end to the fighting," Mr. de Villepin said. Bill Graham, the Canadian foreign minister, said his country would be willing to send approximately 100 French-speaking police officers if the violence subsided under a political deal.

What does this mean? It means that all of the fighting has to stop before any French or Canadian boots would hit the ground. I suppose that would be to ensure the safety of their troops, brave souls that they are. But what about the violence, you ask? What if the fighting doesn’t stop and the carnage continues? Well, the French and the Canadians have an answer for that too.

Because some of the observers in Haiti believe the situation may already be too polarized for any political solution to be embraced it has been suggested that the United States, along with a coalition of other governments, a coalition of the willing, if you will, might be compelled to send forces to bring peace under less than ideal conditions. Yes, you read that correctly, the French and the Canadians would have the United States and a group of nations willing to do what they themselves know is the right thing to do, without the approval of the United Nations and without their involvement, quell the unrest, murder and injustice happening in that country. I know -- my jaw dropped as well.

At a time when every know-it-all, hemp-wearing college graduate armed with a liberal science degree is calling for George W. Bush’s head on a platter for removing a tyrant that slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people the French and Canadians would have us "be compelled to send forces to bring peace under less than ideal conditions.” At a time when the political opportunists of the Democratic Party are calling President Bush’s intentions less than honorable in removing a dictator from power who played host to the likes of Abu Nidal because they contend the president played a game of semantics, contentions that France and Canada themselves helped to foster, the French and Canadians would have us "be compelled to send forces to bring peace under less than ideal conditions.” I find the suggestion galling at the very least.

If I were President Bush there would be a few things I would have to say about this but because I would be a God fearing man and a gentleman I would only be limited to expressing this one idea. I would phone Jacque Chirac and tell him the US would be happy to entertain the idea of "sending forces to bring peace under less than ideal conditions” in Haiti as long as he mobilized his entire military force to take over operations in Iraq and place them under American military command. But of course, Chirac would never have his military participate in such a dangerous arrangement, after all, there is still fighting going on and we all know that’s no place for the French military. Perhaps the ungentlemanly sentiment is more appropriate, now that I think about it.

Frank Salvato is a political media consultant and the managing editor for The New Media Journal.us. He is a contributing writer for The Washington Dispatch, GOPUSA, OpinionEditorials, Men’s News Daily, Canada Free Press & AmericanDaily. His pieces are regularly featured in Townhall.com. He has appeared as a guest on The O’Reilly Factor, The Kevin Matthews Radio Show (Chicago) and The Brad Messer Radio Show (San Antonio). His pieces have been recognized by the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention and are occasionally featured in The Washington Times and The London Morning Paper as well as other national and international publications.