Whenever Haiti descends deeper into crisis, a familiar proposal resurfaces: send Haitian-American veterans to fight the gangs. These veterans speak the language, know the culture, and have military experience. In moments of chaos, the idea can sound efficient, even patriotic.
Although this logic seems straightforward, it is illegal and impractical.
Once a person completes their full military service obligation and is discharged, they become a civilian. Under U.S. law, veteran status does not confer any continuing authority or allow the government to recall individuals into combat. Veterans cannot be redeployed. They are not a reserve force. They are private citizens.
No statute allows the U.S. government to send civilians into combat abroad. Veterans of Haitian descent are not an exception. No matter how well-intentioned, any suggestion that the government could “authorize” or “endorse” such missions collapses under legal scrutiny. U.S. law clearly prohibits private citizens from planning, financing, or engaging in armed operations against foreign groups. These laws were created to prevent unofficial wars and to protect national accountability.
Even if the government refrained from directly ordering such action, any role in organizing or facilitating it could carry criminal liability. Calling it a volunteer mission or a patriotic service would not change the legal risks.
International law is even less forgiving. Anyone who engages in armed conflict without being part of a state’s official military or an internationally recognized force is considered an unlawful combatant or a mercenary. These individuals are not protected under the Geneva Conventions. They can be arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned without the rights granted to lawful soldiers. A government that respects international law does not send civilians into combat and expects them to be protected.
There is also a constitutional issue. The notion that Haitian ancestry could justify or enable deployment is deeply problematic. The U.S. government cannot assign duties or risks based on ethnicity or national origin. Doing so would violate equal protection and due process guarantees. Cultural familiarity might offer insights, but it cannot serve as a legal basis for combat authorization.
This idea persists not because it is viable, but because it reflects desperation. The Haitian diaspora, including veterans, want to help. Their sense of duty is admirable and their military training is real. However, their civilian status is a legal fact, not a technicality.
The United States has lawful options to assist Haiti. It can deploy active-duty personnel through presidential authority and congressional oversight. It can participate in peacekeeping or stabilization missions sanctioned by the United Nations and accepted by Haiti’s government. It can provide support through training, intelligence sharing, logistics, and humanitarian aid. None of these avenues involves sending former service members into combat as civilians.
Bypassing the law in a crisis does not create solutions or immunity. It creates deeper instability. History shows that legal shortcuts during emergencies lead to long-term damage. Once a government sets the precedent that the law can be suspended in moments of urgency, it becomes harder to reestablish accountability as order built on illegality does not last.
The need for international assistance is clear, but the response must follow the law as only lawful strategies ensure durable solutions and protect those involved from unintended consequences.
Haitian-American veterans can play a valuable role as advisors, translators, trainers, or advocates for U.S. and international engagement. But they cannot lawfully serve as combatants in Haiti unless they rejoin the armed forces through the official channels available to all citizens. The government cannot create a separate legal category for them, nor should it try.
The bottom line up front it that the United States cannot legally authorize veterans, regardless of ancestry, to fight armed gangs in Haiti. Any such action will violate U.S. law, international law, and the Constitution.
The desire to help Haiti is noble. But noble intentions must follow lawful paths. Solutions must come through institutions, not improvisation. Otherwise, we risk making an already fragile situation worse.
Bobb Rousseau, PhD MAJ (Retired, US Army