Laurence Vance says no, and I agree. Why not? Well, as has been discussed here at the YAL blog already, it's wrong for the US government to respond to this horrible situation with forced charity. Where the military specifically is concerned, it's also a complete violation of military purpose:
The main reason the U.S. military has no business going to Haiti is simply that the purpose of the military should be to defend the United States against attack or invasion. Nothing more (like invading other countries), and nothing less (like failing to defend its own headquarters on 9/11). Using the military to establish democracy, spread goodwill, change regimes, train foreign armies, open foreign markets, enforce no-fly zones, protect U.S. commercial interests, serve as peacekeepers, furnish security in other countries, contain communism, and provide disaster relief and humanitarian aid perverts the purpose of the military.
Moreover, there are other good reasons no to take the secretary of defense up on his offer to send in the troops. Vance particularly mentions three: First, this is what private charity is for -- and private organizations, I'd add, are much better at actually aiding those in need:
Private charities have an incentive toward greater efficiency and effectiveness since they are competing with other charities for money and volunteers. If they fail in their mission, they may experience declining contributions, possibly to the point where operations will cease. In simple economic terms, the amount of assistance that reaches the recipients of government welfare benefits are only a fraction of the resources consumed by the supporting bureaucracy.
I did extensive original research resulting in a 70-page paper on exactly this subject and I can tell you, he's right.