peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (11/09/83)
A few comments on Grenada: Scott Pector's suggested rationales for the invasion are sound, esp. the fear in Reagan's mind of an Iran-like hostage-taking incident. But they make the assumption, as Reagan obviously did, that the diplomatic route was not open to the US to protect its interests on the island. From all reports I've heard, the Americans on the island (a) were not in danger until the Marines and Rangers landed and (b) could have left any time before the invasion, so it would appear that the diplomatic route wasn't properly explored. Why? My guess is that the Reagan administration either wants to, or wants to be seen to, do battle with Communism. It seems to be an issue they can run with. They *don't* particularly want to be seen talking to Communists, even if it might be in their own interest. Detente still seems to be a dirty word. It also appears to be a basic question of attitude. Nixon and Kissinger, for all their (domestic AND foreign) policy mistakes/crimes, did understand that diplomacy could get things done. Reagan honestly seems to *prefer* the military option-- hence his "war-monger" reputation. I haven't been following the diplomatic efforts in Lebanon, or in Central America, closely, but from a distance, they come across as window-dressing. How can one be serious about such things when highly un-diplomatic rhetoric is being thrown around? As for those people berating the British, many people, acting with or without knowledge of their government, will forgoe loyalty to allies to make a buck (or pound). Why, haven't I heard of some *US* companies selling hi-tech to the Soviets? Another point about the British. They have a conservative leader, who was in trouble over domestic economic policy and found herself a little war she could win. Up shoots her popularity, amidst great nationalist drum- beating (reminiscent of recent CBS Evening News editions), and she goes on to win the next election handily. R.R. may be borrowing a page, or half a page (i.e. some, but not all, reason for the invasion), from M.T.'s book. As for Mr. Pector's conclusion that the invasion was right, I think that at best it can be called expedient. The Grenadans are happy now, that's undeniable. As is the fact that they were happy under Bishop. But, in all honesty, it doesn't seem that the welfare of any people is of *prime* interest to the US government, as Chile showed. Instead, short term gain is emphasized. If the US committed itself to fair, honest, and generous dealings with the rest of the world, it could find itself with fast friends years from now, esp. if its agricultural surplusses were used to help struggling countries (yes, this happens now, tho' it doesn't get a lot of press-- it should get more). Governments come and go, though they can be propped up for years at a time, but the people stay, even if you kill a large number of them off, and their collective opinions of a foreign country matter. One would hope that the US is in the game for the long term (speaking of which, the war it should really be pouring money into is the economic one with Japan and other competitors!). peter r., U. of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
notes@ucbcad.UUCP (11/13/83)
#R:utcsrgv:-267000:ucbesvax:7500052:000:729 ucbesvax!turner Nov 12 17:52:00 1983 Re: peter r's comments on Scott Pector's comments on Grenada The ostensible reason for not taking the diplomatic route was that there was no government to negotiate with. Reagnan's characterization of Grenada following the coup was that it was "a floating crap game down there." Cuban intelligence on the Bishop/Austin split was apparently rather poor--and the Cubans were certainly insiders, by comparison to U.S. intelligence operatives on the island. So perhaps there is something to "crap game" line of reasoning. If the Cubans were taken by surprise, then either the U.S. was even *more* surprised, or (this is still far- fetched) is hiding some complicity in the take-over. --- Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)
wall@ucbvax.UUCP (12/02/83)
I may have come in at the tail end of this one, so excuse me if I'm off base, but I think it is important to remember that the Grenadian Revolution was four years old (it started in '79), and over the last four years the Bishop government tried several times to normalize relations with the US (much like the Nicaraguans have done over the last four years), but the Reagan Administration is/was not interested in negotiations -- they'd rather use military force to get their way. Of course you can't blame Reagan for avoiding *diplomatic* talks since he doesn't have the intellect to conduct them. (come on folks, the guy *is* a fool) Steve Wall wall@ucbvax ucbvax!wall