rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (11/01/83)
Isn't it amazing how some people will only believe what they want to believe. Why, you'd think that no one could balance the evidence and make a viable decision. Who am I talking about? I'm talking about those loud-mouthed liberals who seem to think that Russians have territorial rights, but not Americans; who think Russians have the right to waltz into foreign countries but not Americans. AND those loud-mouthed conservatives who shout about how Americans should waltz into foreign countries but Russians shouldn't because they're imperialistic; how Americans are always on the side of right but Russians aren't because they're imperialistic. And evil. And the Antichrist. And Anticapitalist (some people equate the three). A point to ponder: with all this "let's invade to protect ourselves in case" mentality going around, it would seem that the Cubans were abolsutely justified in having stockpiles of ammunition and weapons on Grenada. After all, we did invade the island, didn't we? Could it be that that was the purpose for having the weapons there? Wouldn't you then call their presence justified? On the other hand, with a radical new government in power, were the American citizens there in danger of a rerun of Teheran? Or was that just the right excuse? Face it. Our paranoid intelligence network is probably equally as bad as their (USSR's) paranoid intelligence network. When they invade Afghanistan or shoot down an airliner with espionage equipment on board, are they acting any differently than the US does when we invade Grenada or overthrow a dangerous government in Chile. A plane with espionage equipment? A dangerous regime? According to whom? With this sort of mentality running rampant, it's within the realm of probability that this atmosphere of fear and paranoia (not present at the elective level until Reagan came along, but probably omnipresent in the "intelligence" community--even Nixon toned down his rhetoric while in office) will result in a real live war by...what year will it be next year? [NOTE: THIS CLEVER (?) POINT ABOUT THE COMING YEAR CAN BE MADE BY ALMOST ANYONE TO PROMOTE THEIR CASE ON ANY ISSUE. I'VE SEEN COMMENTS ON THE AT&T DIVESTITURE SAYING "GUESS WHEN IT GOES INTO EFFECT---1984!! (insert Twilight Zone music here)" ] Anyway, the fact that both liberal and conservative alike fail to see through their self-obscuring clouds of opinion and emotion does not shed a positive light on the experiment we call the democratic process.
notes@ucbcad.UUCP (11/01/83)
#R:pyuxn:-33100:ucbesvax:7500042:000:3289
ucbesvax!turner Oct 31 21:50:00 1983
Well with loudmouths on both sides, somebody always ends up in the
middle. I've already shot my mouth off on one side of the issue, so I'll
head for the middle.
One pivotal question, answered in opposing ways depending on the side
of the respondant: what were all those arms doing on the island?
Conservatives: that just PROO-OO-OVES that the Cuban staged the coup,
were planning to invade, wanna control the Caribbean,
blah, blah, etc....
Liberals: that just PROO-OO-OVES that the Grenadans felt like they
were going to need them, and they DID need them, look
there was a real invasion, just like they said....
How about an anecdote? This is word of mouth, and possibly distorted,
but not unrealistic:
An African dictator is toppled by a seemingly-popular leader who
doesn't appear to be communist or anything, though he makes non-aligned
sounds. The CIA tell their operatives: the situation is unstable, but
this guy might be alright. Go out and ask if anyone's planning a
countercoup.
The operatives operate. They report back. "Nobody in sight," they say.
Home office thinks this is too good to be true. "Are you *positive*?"
they ask. "Go out and look again." So they do it. And they happen to
ask the nephew of a slightly disgruntled former colonial mucky-muck. And
the nephew, while turning them away, goes to his uncle and says, "Hey,
Americans want to know if anybody is trying to take out Colonel Mumble."
The uncle gets an idea. He calls around to family, and hears what he
likes to hear. "The Americans," he tells them, "want to see somebody
different, maybe somebody like us." And they get excited. Too excited.
Two weeks later, there's a countercoup.
The point here is that, when it comes to secrets (secret air-bases,
secret arms-shipments, secret invasion plans, whatever) there is almost
no such thing as a one-way flow of information, or disinformation.
Mutual suspicion of a possible event can precipitate that event, given
a sufficiently unstable situation.
Now let's say that the U.S. had been above-board. Reagan meets
with Bishop, makes certain demands. The coup leaders, seeing that
Bishop might be building some bridges that could bring across some
nastiness to them, can either move faster or call it off. Well, we
know what cowards do, when the chips are down. They back off.
Sometimes honesty is the best policy. If, at some point, Reagan
had said: "Look, no Cubans, OK? And let us finish the airport for you,"
things might have turned out the same, but it might also have increased
the chance of things turning out better for all concerned.
So the main question in my mind is why Reagan didn't follow this
course. P.R.? Possibly--he had some thunder stolen on the Tehran
situation, by a mere 24 hours. Now he's won it back. Real strategic
concerns? Again, possibly. As someone pointed out, even with the
60-day limit, this is enough time to seal off the Caribbean against
Soviet arms-shipments while Honduras invades Nicaragua. Grenada is
the final link of a chain, in this view.
Or was it simply ideological? I hear a German-accented voice
in the background, saying, "Probably, it vas a little of all three."
Thanks, Dr. K.
---
Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)