It’s naïve to think that the United States government is a generous institution that genuinely looks after the general welfare of its republic and others in need. After a long history of mismanaged occupation and indebtedness, the US feels the obligation to aid Haiti victims in the wake of the earthquake disaster. For those who believe the United States is operating benevolently and unselfishly, they should think again.

Given the mismanaged history of US-Haiti relations, it is safe to say that if the United States had no stake in Western hemisphere politics it wouldn’t be contributing so much to the relief effort. But it does. In the government's conception of the US’s best interest, glorifying American wealth and manpower is nothing short of how a state operates when its global hegemony feels threatened. The constant reminder of the 82^nd Airborne’s presence in Haiti is all too similar to Russia’s May Day parades during the Cold War, US troops parading through Paris in 1944, and Caesar’s military showcase after his conquest of Gaul. And after American conquest in the Middle East, what better way to boast military power in the Western hemisphere than to remind a poor country how powerful and wealthy America can be when it taxes its citizens promptly and without adherence to law?

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.

No.

What they do hate is the military's unnecessary, unconstitutional, and immoral acts of aggression.  Laurence Vance explains:

First and foremost is the claim that antiwar libertarians hate the military. I don’t recall ever writing anywhere that I hated the military. And neither do I remember reading where some other antiwar libertarian said that he hated the military. I hate many things that the military does, and think I have good reasons for doing so, as I mention below. I certainly don’t hate any individual members of the military or any other organization. I can’t speak for all antiwar libertarians, but here are some things I hate about the military:

• I hate the military fighting without a constitutional congressional declaration of war.
• I hate the military garrisoning the planet with bases.
• I hate the military targeting impressionable high school students (thanks to the NCLB act).
• I hate military recruiters lying to potential recruits.
• I hate the military fighting foreign wars.

I meant to get this post up yesterday, but never quite got around to it.  Fred Reed recently wrote for LewRockwell.com about the American military and the unfortunate mindsets it reinforces in its members.  Reed begins with a questions:

In re Afghanistan, why, you might ask, is the world’s hugest, expensivest, most begadgeted military unable to defeat a few thousand angry tribesmen armed with AKs and RPGs?

Why, indeed?  Reed attributes the problem to character, noting that the military reenforces all the wrong characteristics, namely submissiveness, conformity, instant and unthinking, unquestioning acceptance of whatever an authority says as truth.  Is this really helpful in our numerous overseas adventures?

This hoopla is not of use in combat. The Taliban seem to be doing rather well. Do you suppose their commanders check their beds to be sure that a quarter will bounce from their blankets?

Reed says no.  Read the rest of the article here to decide for yourself.