What do you think?
Rate this book
Hideous Dream: A Soldier's Memoir of the US Invasion of Haiti
After a distinguished career in the military -- most of it in elite Ranger, Special Forces, and counter-terrorist units -- Stan Goff refused to turn away from the implications of his own experience. In Haiti, unable to any longer support the contradictions between what the foreign policy establishment said and what the US military did, he took sides with Haitian democratic forces. This book is a look inside US foreign policy, inside the world of "Special Operations, " and inside the racist history of American imperial domination of Haiti. It is also a deeply personal account of a man trapped between his emerging political consciousness and the cynical mandates of his final days as a soldier. Anyone who has ever made suppositions about the military or about Haiti -- for or against -- needs to read this account. It's a real account, of real people, for real people. It makes the Haitians and the soldiers recognizable. This book withers the myths about both.
- GenresHistoryNonfiction
499 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 2000
1 person is currently reading
89 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
March 5, 2010
This is an autobiography of soldier who became a radical through his experience in Vietnam. For some reason he stayed another 20 year in the service. He hit all the main conflicts during that time. Yet, it wasn't until 1994 and the Haitian conflict that he takes a stand. His account is a lighthearted, sarcastic, and quite self-centered depiction. But a good insight into military tactical planning. Interestingly, it neatly parallels "Generation Kill" from another time.
July 28, 2011
“Everything can be explained in context” is one of the common axioms of Attachment Theory; A new scientific/philosophical/psychological/theological/anthropological explanation of how we are innately tied together in a form of universal collectivity (or what I simply refer to as the “universal”). We depend upon each other down to what many call the soul or spirit level more than we ever knew, and it is being proven in the various fields mentioned above.
I point this out, because it can be so easy to discredit others if they don't conform to our ideals, and thus discard any attempt at empathy, and by doing so, to de-humanize. This can be seen just as much with tyrants as with pacifists. In the sometimes insular world of academia, I have seen it as well, even with people who claim to be all-inclusive. One need look no further than a pacifist’s view of those in the military, and the common assumptions that are derived from the outside view.
I credit Eastern Mennonite University, a school widely known to hold a pacifistic stance, with attempting to bring military viewpoints to campus over this past year. I remember one coffeehouse panel in particular that opened my eyes to my own strong biases, and how much I tended to lump the entire military together; almost as if it had one collective opinion; a de-humanization that seemed to assume the most unrealistic possible definition of “collective consciousness”. In many ways, I had failed in looking at the military as comprised of individual humans. Those individual humans represented on this particular panel described their individual lives and brought an entirely new perspective to their own humanity, which I have often subconsciously and consciously stereotyped as perpetrators of injustice.
Stan Goff, a retired U.S. Army Master Sergeant, has further opened my eyes to the reality of the individual in the military. An individual that is often tired, that can see no further than the foreign climate or daily task (often mundane) in front of him/her; that is faced with a thousand tedious mind-numbing daily orders and that is simply looking to go home most of the time; home to the familiar. His description of the U.S. invasion of Haiti in 1994 was spectacular in detail, and proved to be a significant element in his own intellectual evolution, which, in his case, meant that the Haiti mission was to be his last.
Goff described the military as a “system”; very much a microcosm of the macro society in which we all live. The petty political games, the individual moves for power, the struggle to be one-up over the next person, and the frustration with mindless actions and decisions by others in an imperfect world are humorously described at times:
“Master Sergeant Goff, the Sergeant Major says you need to move your tent over one space”. “Just who in the fuck engineered this goat fuck anyhow? Maybe the fuckin’ sergeant major would like to set the motherfuckin’ tent up his motherfuckin’ self. Maybe we’ll just sleep under the motherfuckin’ stars. It don’t look like fuckin’ rain, now, does it? What the fuck has been going on here for the last two days? Sunbathin’? Shell collectin’? Sippin’ cocktails on the fuckin’ veranda and watching the fuckin’ sky change?”
When we are faced with reality, as illustrated so eloquently above, most of simply want to get through the fuckin’ day. We find ourselves enmeshed in a system not of our own making. Get up, go to work, pay for things: food, clothes, water, a place to live and the right to legally stay there, taxes so we don’t go to jail, and even to pay for the fact that we were born, breath and occupy space. Yes, it’s absurd, but we’re caught up in it, and if anyone gets in our way, or doesn’t see things like we do, we very quickly forget that they also have their own absurdities in their own lives that they’re trying to deal with, and we fail to take those into account through our limited vision.
Now, none of this is to excuse the inexcusable. Goff, though it took many years, and the courage to go against his deeply ingrained military training, eventually began to ask the tough questions, and to bring himself to an awareness; the kind of awareness that truly can connect with the universal. When he wrote his book Hideous Dreams (in 2000), about the 1994 U.S. invasion of Haiti, Goff’s evolution wasn’t yet advanced to the pacifist stage (where he now is), but he was heading closer in that direction, making a stop at Socialism, in somewhat of a parallel to how my own worldview has developed; although I never was a member of the military.
Goff finally began to put all the pieces together from his years of service beginning in Vietnam, and realized that what he had been seeing in U.S. military action, despite all the pretenses passed down through the chain of command, were naked power grabs for money and resources. None of this is a surprise to many, but for a man who came out of the very system he was beginning to recognize, it was a major step, and made me question: Why is it that some have the ability to step back and realize what is going on, while others either refuse to see or are incapable? I believe the answer has nothing to do with intelligence, as there are many people much smarter than any of us who continue to be caught up in the absurd. I think Attachment Theory is right in that it can only be explained through context. Societal context is a construction of countless tiny actions, decisions, conceptions, perceptions, conditioning, etc... Depending on how these happen to be ordered in any individual's life, and the timing with which they encounter them, combined with the uniqueness of their own humanity, can make all the difference in the questions which are brought to the surface.
Goff claims as much in that the system’s very construction is the answer. We live in a world (at least in the developed world), where everyone is looking out for their own individuality, and of those around them; resembling the new appreciation I have for buddies who only look out for each other on the battlefield, with not much concern for the bigger picture. Again, we can see Attachment Theory at play. The question is, how do we use Attachment Theory for good in this world rather than, as some do, exploitation of others?
The upper echelons of power, as well as the “average citizen”, look to their own interests, but, and this is the key point, those interests are all tied to each other. So, even in the context of power, we see that we cannot survive without the other. Wouldn’t then, it make more sense to work with the other, in a spirit of community, rather than competition; in a recognition that we are all the same? This is the conclusion I believe that Goff came to, and why he ultimately became disillusioned with the American way; a way that on this Fourth of July is well-articulated in many of our country’s documents, but, in practice, has missed the point of what equality means. No, we should not look at equality as having an equal chance to succeed just as much as the next person, but that each human life is valuable in and of itself. With that adjusted outlook, only then can we start to break down this Western system of individualistic absurdity and greed that we all live under, and only then can we change those individual daily relationships that, as a whole, construct both the society and culture that we live in. For what is success by the American definition? We can choose to take our “equal” opportunity at success to succeed materially and ultimately exploit others as would need to be done in modern American society, or we can look at success as bringing us closer together and form a more cohesive advancement towards the universal. A mindset change, a paradigm change is required of all involved if the system is going to change; a system that manifests itself through the minutiae of countless everyday actions and decisions based, ultimately, on particular societal protocols.
I am inspired by people like Goff, who after a 20 year military career was still willing to question, and continue to question, ultimately becoming a pacifist at what is now a late stage in his life. As he said, what does loving your country mean? His answer was solidarity expressed to those left out of the system in an effort to be inclusive, but ultimately changing the injustices by changing the system itself. My answer is similar in that loving your country is no different than loving those in it, and for that reason, I believe we should discard the nationalistic question, because nationalism is no longer relevant when love is brought in. Love fully expressed IS revolutionary, and is not easy. Love is also more inclusive than we can ever imagine and is not limited by anything human, such as the arbitrary borders (of all kinds) that separate people. For after all, how does one put limits on love, which is the true "higher power", no matter what the context?
I point this out, because it can be so easy to discredit others if they don't conform to our ideals, and thus discard any attempt at empathy, and by doing so, to de-humanize. This can be seen just as much with tyrants as with pacifists. In the sometimes insular world of academia, I have seen it as well, even with people who claim to be all-inclusive. One need look no further than a pacifist’s view of those in the military, and the common assumptions that are derived from the outside view.
I credit Eastern Mennonite University, a school widely known to hold a pacifistic stance, with attempting to bring military viewpoints to campus over this past year. I remember one coffeehouse panel in particular that opened my eyes to my own strong biases, and how much I tended to lump the entire military together; almost as if it had one collective opinion; a de-humanization that seemed to assume the most unrealistic possible definition of “collective consciousness”. In many ways, I had failed in looking at the military as comprised of individual humans. Those individual humans represented on this particular panel described their individual lives and brought an entirely new perspective to their own humanity, which I have often subconsciously and consciously stereotyped as perpetrators of injustice.
Stan Goff, a retired U.S. Army Master Sergeant, has further opened my eyes to the reality of the individual in the military. An individual that is often tired, that can see no further than the foreign climate or daily task (often mundane) in front of him/her; that is faced with a thousand tedious mind-numbing daily orders and that is simply looking to go home most of the time; home to the familiar. His description of the U.S. invasion of Haiti in 1994 was spectacular in detail, and proved to be a significant element in his own intellectual evolution, which, in his case, meant that the Haiti mission was to be his last.
Goff described the military as a “system”; very much a microcosm of the macro society in which we all live. The petty political games, the individual moves for power, the struggle to be one-up over the next person, and the frustration with mindless actions and decisions by others in an imperfect world are humorously described at times:
“Master Sergeant Goff, the Sergeant Major says you need to move your tent over one space”. “Just who in the fuck engineered this goat fuck anyhow? Maybe the fuckin’ sergeant major would like to set the motherfuckin’ tent up his motherfuckin’ self. Maybe we’ll just sleep under the motherfuckin’ stars. It don’t look like fuckin’ rain, now, does it? What the fuck has been going on here for the last two days? Sunbathin’? Shell collectin’? Sippin’ cocktails on the fuckin’ veranda and watching the fuckin’ sky change?”
When we are faced with reality, as illustrated so eloquently above, most of simply want to get through the fuckin’ day. We find ourselves enmeshed in a system not of our own making. Get up, go to work, pay for things: food, clothes, water, a place to live and the right to legally stay there, taxes so we don’t go to jail, and even to pay for the fact that we were born, breath and occupy space. Yes, it’s absurd, but we’re caught up in it, and if anyone gets in our way, or doesn’t see things like we do, we very quickly forget that they also have their own absurdities in their own lives that they’re trying to deal with, and we fail to take those into account through our limited vision.
Now, none of this is to excuse the inexcusable. Goff, though it took many years, and the courage to go against his deeply ingrained military training, eventually began to ask the tough questions, and to bring himself to an awareness; the kind of awareness that truly can connect with the universal. When he wrote his book Hideous Dreams (in 2000), about the 1994 U.S. invasion of Haiti, Goff’s evolution wasn’t yet advanced to the pacifist stage (where he now is), but he was heading closer in that direction, making a stop at Socialism, in somewhat of a parallel to how my own worldview has developed; although I never was a member of the military.
Goff finally began to put all the pieces together from his years of service beginning in Vietnam, and realized that what he had been seeing in U.S. military action, despite all the pretenses passed down through the chain of command, were naked power grabs for money and resources. None of this is a surprise to many, but for a man who came out of the very system he was beginning to recognize, it was a major step, and made me question: Why is it that some have the ability to step back and realize what is going on, while others either refuse to see or are incapable? I believe the answer has nothing to do with intelligence, as there are many people much smarter than any of us who continue to be caught up in the absurd. I think Attachment Theory is right in that it can only be explained through context. Societal context is a construction of countless tiny actions, decisions, conceptions, perceptions, conditioning, etc... Depending on how these happen to be ordered in any individual's life, and the timing with which they encounter them, combined with the uniqueness of their own humanity, can make all the difference in the questions which are brought to the surface.
Goff claims as much in that the system’s very construction is the answer. We live in a world (at least in the developed world), where everyone is looking out for their own individuality, and of those around them; resembling the new appreciation I have for buddies who only look out for each other on the battlefield, with not much concern for the bigger picture. Again, we can see Attachment Theory at play. The question is, how do we use Attachment Theory for good in this world rather than, as some do, exploitation of others?
The upper echelons of power, as well as the “average citizen”, look to their own interests, but, and this is the key point, those interests are all tied to each other. So, even in the context of power, we see that we cannot survive without the other. Wouldn’t then, it make more sense to work with the other, in a spirit of community, rather than competition; in a recognition that we are all the same? This is the conclusion I believe that Goff came to, and why he ultimately became disillusioned with the American way; a way that on this Fourth of July is well-articulated in many of our country’s documents, but, in practice, has missed the point of what equality means. No, we should not look at equality as having an equal chance to succeed just as much as the next person, but that each human life is valuable in and of itself. With that adjusted outlook, only then can we start to break down this Western system of individualistic absurdity and greed that we all live under, and only then can we change those individual daily relationships that, as a whole, construct both the society and culture that we live in. For what is success by the American definition? We can choose to take our “equal” opportunity at success to succeed materially and ultimately exploit others as would need to be done in modern American society, or we can look at success as bringing us closer together and form a more cohesive advancement towards the universal. A mindset change, a paradigm change is required of all involved if the system is going to change; a system that manifests itself through the minutiae of countless everyday actions and decisions based, ultimately, on particular societal protocols.
I am inspired by people like Goff, who after a 20 year military career was still willing to question, and continue to question, ultimately becoming a pacifist at what is now a late stage in his life. As he said, what does loving your country mean? His answer was solidarity expressed to those left out of the system in an effort to be inclusive, but ultimately changing the injustices by changing the system itself. My answer is similar in that loving your country is no different than loving those in it, and for that reason, I believe we should discard the nationalistic question, because nationalism is no longer relevant when love is brought in. Love fully expressed IS revolutionary, and is not easy. Love is also more inclusive than we can ever imagine and is not limited by anything human, such as the arbitrary borders (of all kinds) that separate people. For after all, how does one put limits on love, which is the true "higher power", no matter what the context?
April 24, 2017
A real behind-the-scenes tour of an actual artifice: The whole military revealed as a prop (what certain folks, in other-but-overlapping contexts, call "the architecture") like a scaffolding built to preserve interests, and face, and social order best suited to U.S. (corporate) interests. How this trickles down through career jockeying, simple ineptitude, understandable herd-following, and mislaid loyalty and bravery is the picture Goff sketches out for you here, learned through hard experience and risks taken for questionable purpose.
What are we doing in Haiti? It seems like a simple question, but unfortunately, whatever-the-hell-Haiti-is is what's been occupied — a sort of shorthand for the actual place, as treated by the "assistance" — never looking much beyond the ramparts erected (conceptual, as much as base camps) to the people beyond. It's frustrating, and one feels Goff's frustration with him. It revolves, for that matter, around the age-old question of Why ignore intel gathered from the population? given the same, standard response: They're only indij (indigent people). It's like a Potemkin Village, but propped up for the opposite reason: If they can't learn to live behind them, tough.
But then again, Goff wonders how long this situation could last, once the Haitians wise up to the fact they have nothing left to lose in the face of continued usurpation of their nationhood. And as all Arcade Fire fans know: "Guns can't kill what soldiers can't see . . . "
What are we doing in Haiti? It seems like a simple question, but unfortunately, whatever-the-hell-Haiti-is is what's been occupied — a sort of shorthand for the actual place, as treated by the "assistance" — never looking much beyond the ramparts erected (conceptual, as much as base camps) to the people beyond. It's frustrating, and one feels Goff's frustration with him. It revolves, for that matter, around the age-old question of Why ignore intel gathered from the population? given the same, standard response: They're only indij (indigent people). It's like a Potemkin Village, but propped up for the opposite reason: If they can't learn to live behind them, tough.
But then again, Goff wonders how long this situation could last, once the Haitians wise up to the fact they have nothing left to lose in the face of continued usurpation of their nationhood. And as all Arcade Fire fans know: "Guns can't kill what soldiers can't see . . . "
July 28, 2025
Not worth the time and effort it took to read the book. Having served in Special Forces, and his unit, in Haiti; there were issues in Haiti, in 3rd Group, and with the conventional forces, but that is the case with all operations. His characterizations of almost ALL of his fellow SF soldiers and officers as stupid, careerist , and racist is just plan not true. Like the rest of our society, there are issues with racism, careerism, and people who do not do their due diligence. He strikes me as the type of person who assumes he is the smartest, most knowledgeable, and caring person in every room he walks into. His descriptions of Haiti, the people, towns/villages, and geography are good. But, the whole martyr complex is a bit much.
September 28, 2007
Notes:
Racism is the dirty little secret of Special Forces. Special Forces members often see themselves as the last bastion of white male supremacy. Stan Goff’s own experience leads him to believe that two-thirds of the organization’s members harbor clearly white supremacist beliefs. Despite the ideological and politically stated goals and beliefs of the Vietnam war, on the ground it played out as a race war during his time there. We have to dehumanize “them”. It was the “gooks” in Korea and Vietnam. It is “ragheads” in Iraq. It was “the skinnies” in Somalia.
Rwanda- The anti-African sentiment of white America would not permit it. There is no petroleum to liberate from states run by former clients. There is no significant American business interests to protect from wild-eyed, revolutionary, and anti-colonial peasants.
One of the most exalted statesmen for the Special Operations community and its derivative BlackWater was senator Jesse Helms. Helms, who referred to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill as the “University of Niggers and Communists.”
Ayn Rand- Her so called philosophy gives the white socially retarded, working class intellectual neophyte just enough acumen to make him or her cocksure and brutally narrow-minded.
Cowardice comes easier with the carrot of self-interest.
FRAPH was a creature of the Central Intelligence Agency
While Ali and other team members were quick to out to this [their sleeping with non-white women] as evidence for their contention that they were not racist, I found it, in fact, to be an indispensable ingredient of their bigotry. It is the perfect marriage of their contempt for women and blacks. It is a male thing. Relations with women that do not exist on an axis of domination and obsequiousness are out of the box. Simple mutual respect, or genuine friendship, - as true equals- are some kind of betrayal.
Racism is the dirty little secret of Special Forces. Special Forces members often see themselves as the last bastion of white male supremacy. Stan Goff’s own experience leads him to believe that two-thirds of the organization’s members harbor clearly white supremacist beliefs. Despite the ideological and politically stated goals and beliefs of the Vietnam war, on the ground it played out as a race war during his time there. We have to dehumanize “them”. It was the “gooks” in Korea and Vietnam. It is “ragheads” in Iraq. It was “the skinnies” in Somalia.
Rwanda- The anti-African sentiment of white America would not permit it. There is no petroleum to liberate from states run by former clients. There is no significant American business interests to protect from wild-eyed, revolutionary, and anti-colonial peasants.
One of the most exalted statesmen for the Special Operations community and its derivative BlackWater was senator Jesse Helms. Helms, who referred to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill as the “University of Niggers and Communists.”
Ayn Rand- Her so called philosophy gives the white socially retarded, working class intellectual neophyte just enough acumen to make him or her cocksure and brutally narrow-minded.
Cowardice comes easier with the carrot of self-interest.
FRAPH was a creature of the Central Intelligence Agency
While Ali and other team members were quick to out to this [their sleeping with non-white women] as evidence for their contention that they were not racist, I found it, in fact, to be an indispensable ingredient of their bigotry. It is the perfect marriage of their contempt for women and blacks. It is a male thing. Relations with women that do not exist on an axis of domination and obsequiousness are out of the box. Simple mutual respect, or genuine friendship, - as true equals- are some kind of betrayal.
August 16, 2007
This story about Stan Goff "going native" in Haiti is sad, moving, and enlightening all at once. Highlighting the problems with our nation's military system by giving an account of the (mis)direction Goff received as a Special Forces operative, it's a clear picture of why some problems just never get seem to get solved.
More narrative than Full Spectrum Disorder, this book is something that you lefties out there might give to your moderate parents to sneak some radical ideas into their repertoire...
More narrative than Full Spectrum Disorder, this book is something that you lefties out there might give to your moderate parents to sneak some radical ideas into their repertoire...
October 29, 2009
A great perspective of the US intervention in Haiti in the early 1990s. Stan Goff is not your typical retired soldier writing books for profit - he is highly critical of US foreign policy and it's particularly racist and imperialistic characteristics. The tight knit world of US Army Special Forces has probably disowned him for his critical viewpoints - which is a good indicator that this book is worth reading. Soldiers, too, will appreciate it simply for the very "soldierness" of the writing and description of events - some of which may be lost on those with no military experience.
Want to read
March 29, 2011reading to prepare for my trip to Haiti this summer...
June 15, 2012
I think I am getting old.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews