mjk@tty3b.UUCP (11/08/83)
The New Yorker has been quite political lately, especially in its "Talk of the Town" section. Here's an excerpt from the November 7 issue. "World events have recently taken on a miasmic quality. Issues, policies, and even geographical regions that should be kept separate and distinct in our minds have been blurring together. Analogy is rampant. Lebanon, it is said, is "another Vietnam." Grenada is "another Lebanon." Or perhaps it is "another Nicaragua." Or perhaps things are the other way around, and Nicaragua is, or is about to be, "another Grenada" -- that is, if it turns out that the American invasion of Grenada is a dress rehersal for an invasion of Nicaragua. Iran was brought in, too. The United States was invading Grenada, it was said, so that it would not become "another Iran" -- that is, so that we could head off the seizure of any American hostages. In no quarter was the geographical blur more confounding than in the White House, where some officials told a New York Times reporter that Grenada was not so much another Vietnam or another Iran or another Lebanon or another Nicaragua as it was "another Suriname" -- presumably sending many Americans (most of them unaware that there was a Suriname, much less another one) to their encyclopedias to locate that country. (The Times article helpfully explained that Suriname is 'the former Dutch colony in northern South America that was taken over by leftists last year in a coup.' How the United States omitted to invade it the article does not explain.) ..." In another item, the magazine describes the United Nations reaction. "... America can truthfully level one charge at critics of its foreign policy, and that is hypocrisy. When they point to Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, and now Grenada, we can point to Afghanistan and Chad and Poland. How sad that we must call them hypocrites; how much better it would be for everyone if we call them liars." Mike Kelly ..!ihnp4!tty3b!mjk