Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsrgv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!anon
From: anon@utcsrgv.UUCP (anon)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Grenada
Message-ID: <2599@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 31-Oct-83 10:11:05 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.2599
Posted: Mon Oct 31 10:11:05 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 31-Oct-83 13:37:47 EST
Sender: anon@utcsrgv.UUCP
Organization: CSRG, University of Toronto
Lines: 65

I am glad to see the strongly negative reaction to the Grenadan invasion on
the net.  The invasion itself was very disturbing in global terms (at the
least, and putting it very politely, "it sets a precedent for invasion by
nations whose motives might not be so noble", as the acting Cdn sec'y for
external affairs put it) but the ABC News polls that have come out showing
60-80% US domestic support for it are even more disturbing.  As far as I
know, *NO* other NATO country supports the move, Mexico doesn't, and I
haven't heard of any S./C. American country that does.  Unless the polls
are way off, the American public is disturbingly out of tune with the
rest of the world on this.  At least net response (so far) doesn't agree
with the polls.
  As for the reasons, it is indeed clear that only an excuse was needed to
launch the invasion, and Bishop's death was a convenient one.  It wouldn't
be too surprising to find a lot of intrigue (even CIA intrigue) behind
the coup (sounds like a plot from Mission Impossible), but I will grant
that there are reports that Bishop's independent line made the Cubans
impatient.  Further, the spectre of the Iranian hostages (and what they did
to the Carter presidency) must have loomed over Reagan.  But it's a
prime example of shoot-from-the-hip foreign policy that he did not send in
high-powered negotiators to ensure the safe evacuation (or continued
presence on the island) of the students, perhaps with forces offshore.
(The Canadian student that came out Thursday said there'd been no trouble at
all before the invasion-- the shooting only started once the US arrived.)
No, in with the guns, maim, wound, *kill*.  A "war we can win"... The
U.S. vs. Grenada.  Hmm; pretty even contest, eh?  As for protecting one's
national interests, that is a fine motive, but one is supposed to act (a)
rationally and (b) legally to further one's aims.  Violating a nation's
sovereignty is not legal (and why Reagan thinks that the request of 6
area nations makes it legitimate is beyond me) and the int'l political fallout
probably makes it irrational.  As to the precedent, would you have the USSR
go into W. Germany to dismantle the Pershing and cruise missiles, in their
national interest?  The US was worried about Grenadan stationing of Russian
bombers... does that compare to Pershings 6 minutes away from Moscow?
(I'm *not* making a point about the INF; just about the Grenadan precedent)
  Sadly, if the US admin. had not been so *Irrational* about socialist
governments when Bishop approached them for aid, they would have said "this
place is somewhat strategic and it would pay to help them out, particularly
since the government has popular support, has an independent line, and
seems willing to work with us"  "With US support, they can build up their
economy and proceed to elections soon".  It probably would have cost less
in dollars than the current military operation, and it *would* have cost
less in lives.  It is interesting to note that much the same thing happened
in Vietnam; after WW2, relations with Ho-Chi Minh were good and could have
been improved, but short-sightedness had the US re-install France as a
colonial power, leading to years of French and US deaths (let's not call them
"casualties"-- it is too mild a term).  I hope the new administration is
neither too late nor lacking the political will to stop the same paranoid 
policy with respect to Nicaragua.
  As for "creating democracy at the point of a bayonet" (as Sen. Moynihan
put it), have there been *any* examples of US "operations", covert or overt,
resulting in anything but an unpopular, repressive, dictatorship?

Finally, the Reagan-is-warlike-and-is-going-to-kill-our-sons component of
the gender gap must be a mile wide by now.  Unless his appeal to patriotism
outweighs more humane instincts, he will surely be defeated.

(I have posted this from a relatively anonymous account, as since this
 data is transmitted over the US border, it is subject to Nat'l Security
 Agency scrutiny, and as I might want to work in/visit the US in the future,
 I don't wish to be put on a list of "undesirables".  Citizens have redress
 against such things, but aliens don't.  Sadly, this makes replying by mail
 difficult; please reply to the net.  Perhaps this is too paranoid, perhaps
 not.  US courts have explicitly allowed this trans-border monitoring (and
 most net.xxx groups cross many borders) so this material is fair game for
 the NSA, even if originated by a US citizen).