WASHINGTON WATCH: IS CLINTON REALLY SET TO GO TO HAITI?

WASHINGTON -- Now that the Cessna wreckage has been hauled from the south lawn of the White House, the hottest issue in our nation's capital (outside of convicted cocaine abuser Marion Barry's recapture of the Democratic nomination for mayor) is the threatened invasion of Haiti. Criticism over the matter abounds for the president -- and not only from Republicans. A general incredulity hangs in the air as America tries to understand why President Clinton has brought the United States to the brink of war over this tiny, Caribbean nation.

The president will try to answer that question tonight by focusing on human rights abuses in Haiti, as well as an American obligation to keep order in its own backyard.

Not helping the president in his goal of assuring the American people, however, is the amateurish aura that continues to surround the White House. Contradictory statements by administration spokespersons earlier this week compound the perception that President Clinton just can't get his act together.

Meanwhile, some Republicans have picked up the charge that the whole Haitian invasion thing is a cynical ploy by Clinton to prop his sagging popularity before November 8, when the president threatens to play the role of cement block to Democratic incumbents. Attuned to this charge, the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Washington Times all did recent analyses on the political impact of military action, the general lesson being that there is a certain "rally-round-the-flag" popularity boost at the beginning of an operation. But how long that lasts depends on a number of factors."Note well, Mr. Clinton," all the papers seemed to say, "if there is heavy criticism immediately before and after military action, the popularity bump is short-lived, and in the long run almost always hurts a president's standing." To deflect some of this criticism is one of President Clinton's goals tonight.

With all the polls showing the American people -- and much of Congress -- solidly in opposition to a military invasion, there are different theories why the president continues on his questionable course.

The most benign theory -- that Bill Clinton, Vietnam War protester, really believes an invasion of Haiti is in the vital interest of the United States -- is the one least held by those in Washington. Even Clinton's national security adviser Anthony Lake belied that theme when on Monday he listed the number one reason for using U.S. power in Haiti as "essential reliability ... We must make it clear that we mean what we say." Lake makes an important point, but not one that reflects well on his boss. It is President Clinton's bungling, afterall, that has jeopardized American credibility in the first place.

The second theory, harkened to by White House chief of staff Leon Panetta, is the "rally-round-the-flag" (and thus boost Clinton's popularity) agenda. "The American people always come together" on military operations, said Panetta, a former Congressman who voted against the Gulf War. Key to the success of this agenda is what is being called "the afternoon invasion," where vastly superior American troops take over the Haitian government in a matter of hours. Such quick victory is hoped will bedazzle the American public, who, it is also hoped, won't pay attention to what happens in Haiti after President Clinton declares victory and quickly leaves.

The latest theory, reported in the New York Times, is that Clinton has already worked a deal with the Haitian military leadership to step down, opening the way for the return of Aristide; in exchange, the generals will receive large bundles of money. There are several advantages to such a course of action. First, the president's policy of endless threats seems vindicated: "Haiti is liberated without firing a shot." Second, instead of spending half a billion dollars on an invasion, the U.S. government forks out only a fraction of that. Third, all this conveniently happens a month before elections take place, giving the president an expected boost. And, finally, the president gets to appear tough without actually having to do anything.

The fact that such a deal turns U.S. foreign policy into one big deception on the American people is the only downside to the plan. But then, we could think of it as a sort of foreign policy equivalent to the crime bill.

Tonight, the president will make his case to the American people for invading Haiti. If his speech is as much tough bluster as it is a justification for action, expect theory three to come true in the next few weeks.

Jon K. Rust is a former editorial page editor of the Southeast Missourian. He lives in the Washington, D.C., area.