Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!ittvax!swatt
From: swatt@ittvax.UUCP (Alan S. Watt)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame
Subject: Re: Grenada: The Rolling Lies
Message-ID: <1084@ittvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 2-Nov-83 16:27:19 EST
Article-I.D.: ittvax.1084
Posted: Wed Nov  2 16:27:19 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 6-Nov-83 06:37:02 EST
References: rabbit.2158
Lines: 54

I must confess that I am generally disgusted with the quality of
newspaper reporting in this country, and completely disgusted with the
quality of TV reporting and hence don't bother with them much any more,
so perhaps I'm not as  "well informed" as some of you out there, but it
seems to me that there is a lot of flaming on this net about Granada
over very little hard information.

The flaming seems about evenly divided between those who believe that
whatever the U.S. does with military forces anywhere in the world *must*
be wrong on some absolute moral principle or another, and those that
seem to feel that we should go kick hell out of some small country
every once in a while just to prove we're not wimps.

Personally, I feel the only thing worse than running a military operation
by a committee in Congress is running a military operation by a mob
of yammer-headed news people agitating popular opinion (If you think
that means I'm in favor of wars, check out all the wars in history
that have been started by news campaigns orchestrated by people with
an axe to grind).

I think Reagan owes us a full accounting of why this invasion was
ordered.  I think any time political leaders put members of the armed
forces at risk of their lives, not to mention the risk to the lives and
property of Granadans, such an accounting is owed.  If you don't accept
this accounting, then use the political process to get him voted out in
the next election.  In the meantime, without some more facts than I
have at present, I can't decide whether the invasion was justified or
not.

Perhaps it's pointless, but I can't help wanting to remind some people
on this net that:

  1)	Ronald Reagan is *not* an idiot.

  2)	The Joint Chiefs of Staff are *not* idiots; they are probably
	smarter and better educated than most of the people on this
	net.  It has gotten fashionable in recent years in liberal
	circles to portray military officers as stupid, or always
	spoiling for a fight.  You cannot understand the worst blunders
	of military history if you take this view.

  3)	Sometimes you have to pick from a set of only bad choices.
	Life is not like a multiple-choice test where there is always
	just one correct answer.

In spite of these reminders, it may very well be that the invasion was
unjustified, unnecessary, and counter-productive.  Even smart people
with good intentions make blunders.  Replacing Reagan with someone who
thinks the "right" way won't necessarily change this.  Liberals revere
FDR, but he made some serious mistakes during the war that we're still
paying for today.  At the time, the only thing that mattered was that
he made fewer and less costly mistakes than Hitler did.

	- Alan S. Watt