pector@ihuxw.UUCP (11/08/83)
I'll probably get flamed for this but .... At the time the decision was made to invade Grenada, I think Reagan realized he was in a "no win" situation. A revolution had just occurred, leaving many or all of the previous government dead. (Some of you have suggested that the CIA may have instigated the overthrow in some manner. Admittedly Reagan has said he is in favor of the CIA being able to perform covert operations; however, I don't think any of us can show that they did in this case, at least for the time being.) It wasn't clear what might happen on that island. If anything happened to the Americans over there, and 1000 Americans on that island were quite a lot, he would get crucified for it in the press. Furthermore, 1984 is an election year and such an incident would wreck his chances for re-election. Also, Carter got a lot of bad publicity for the Iranian hostage incident. Among other things, he was criticized for not getting Americans out earlier before the trouble began. I think Reagan talked to his advisers about the possibility of action in Grenada long before the invasion occurred, as many of you have suggested. This would allow him and the military to have some degree of preparation in the event such an action would be deemed necessary. Further, this allowed him and his advisers to see, along with what information they had about the island, the Cubans, the Grenadians, the recent revolution, etc., that an invasion would be relatively easy to pull off and that relatively few lives, American, Grenadian, and Cuban, would be lost. To Reagan, of all the actions or nonactions he could take, this invasion would lead to the surest result. Of course there were additional benefits, such as setting up a new pro-U.S. government, and political pluses in that Americans would be proud of such a success. Also, if the Grenadian people would be happy with the results, Reagan would get an additional feather in his cap. But, I really think that he did it to cover his tail and because he really believed that this would lead to the smallest loss of lives. Looking at the results so far, it appears that the Grenadians are reasonably happy (press reports from the island now are no longer screened and I don't see any protests from the people). If they were really unhappy, they would be putting up a fight (snipers, rock throwing, etc.) as people do in many occupied regions (the West Bank by Jerusalem, etc.). The real verification will be if they can set up a government that the people will be happy with when the U.S. leaves. Also, there relatively few lives lost considering the size of the operation (there is some question as to whether or not the Grenadian Army used the mental hospital as a base, at least among people in this newsgroup; maybe I should say, whether the mental hospital was used at all by the Grenadian Army at any time during the fighting as an outpost of any kind). Regardless, unless the Grenadian start screaming bloody murder and all sorts of turmoil sets in the future, I think this invasion will be a tremendous plus politically for Reagan. I don't deny that he probably violated international law by invading the island, but I don't think the results were that bad considering. Many have pointed out how this weakens our position in Europe for deploying the cruise missiles, but I think Reagan considered that to be secondary to the aforementioned considerations. Well, that's my analysis of events. How do I feel about it? With the evidence we have so far, I feel that he made the right decision. However, I may change my view when we find out more. Let's hope that we don't have to wait 50 years if there is more than meets the eye. Scott Pector