Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ucbcad.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!tektronix!ucbcad!notes From: notes@ucbcad.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Grenada & Korea - (nf) Message-ID: <625@ucbcad.UUCP> Date: Tue, 1-Nov-83 10:37:48 EST Article-I.D.: ucbcad.625 Posted: Tue Nov 1 10:37:48 1983 Date-Received: Fri, 4-Nov-83 08:40:31 EST Sender: notes@ucbcad.UUCP Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group Lines: 70 #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)