Of Motes and Beans and Grenada

On October 25, U.S. military troops landed in Grenada. On October 26 — and still continuing — that action was subjected to almost instant criticism by a host of commentators. The range of criticism was wide — much wider than it was deep. Not surprisingly, the media had a word hemorrhage because they were excluded from the surprise invasion for the first couple of days. (That exclusion and their reaction is a topic worthy of separate and careful consideration.) But more than the media were upset. A number of congressmen deplored the action in very strong terms, Tip O’Neill doing so in his admirably flamboyant style. And foreign commentators of different stripes spoke as if the action made clear that an elephantine United States could only clumsily participate in the political minuet at which their own countries are supposedly adept.

Enough confusion and misinformation did attend the invasion that even those who support the action could be critical of some aspects. And those who did not support it could legitimately raise questions about international law, about this action as a precedent for other similar actions, about the reactions of our Latin American neighbors, and so forth. But in much of the critical reaction there was an animus that went far beyond what the facts or even legitimate supposition warranted. Of the many examples that would demonstrate this, I will select one that became depressingly familiar even in the initial response to the intervention. I refer to the linking of the U.S. action in Grenada with that of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. A more gross comparison it would be difficult to find.

The U.S. action in Grenada was highly limited in time, in intensity, in the number of casualties. It was directed to the removal of the first military government in the English-speaking Caribbean and to the establishment of democratic rule. It was requested by the leaders of neighboring Caribbean islands and welcomed by the Grenadians themselves. It was based on evidence that Grenada was being transformed into a base for Cuban military intelligence and material, such transformation posing a serious threat to our allies in the area. Miss Eugenia Charles, Prime Minister of Dominica and Chairman of the Organization of Eastern Carribean States and Sir Paul Scoon, Governor-General of Grenada, have publicly stated their approval of the U.S. intervention.

The Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Since then they have been engaged in continual warfare of the most brutal kind against poorly equipped but determined Afghan resistance. They have installed a client government in Kabul and show no signs of withdrawing their forces or their control. The Soviets initially claimed that Soviet troops were sent into Afghanistan to repel American, British, Chinese and “Zionist” invaders. No such invaders — not a single invader — has been trotted out in evidence. The Soviets claim to have been invited into Afghanistan by the then-president Hafizullah Amin. But since one of the first actions of the Soviet forces “invited” into that country was to murder Amin, his corroborating evidence is unfortunately unavailable.

The single point of comparison between the Grenada intervention and the Soviet invasion is that both involve the use of military force to achieve their ends. Even granting the best of intentions to those who would invoke international law, the comparison is misguided. It is much like comparing the actions of two people, one of whom runs a red light in order to knock an old woman down and steal her purse and the other of whom runs a red light to help an old woman to her feet and to restore her possessions — and soberly concluding that they are both lawbreakers for running the red light.

It is disturbing enough that people who claim friendship with and sympathy for the United States should make such odious comparisons. It is even more disturbing that U.S. citizens should do so. Of course the United States has committed many social and political sins, but it should not be necessary to run down that litany before saying that, in spite of its faults, the social and political system of the United States is superior to the tyranny we know as the Soviet Union. That crude discrimination should be self-evidently clear. The U.S. and the Soviet Union are not mirror-images, and those who speak and write as if they ate do a disservice to the truth. And that is what is done by those who speak as if the U.S. intervention in Grenada is in any essential way comparable to the soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Author

  • James Finn

    James Finn is author of Protest: Pacifism and Politics, a study of the Vietnam peace movement, and, when Crisis was originally published in 1982, he was editor of Freedom at Issue, the bimonthly journal of Freedom House.

tagged as:

Join the Conversation

in our Telegram Chat

Or find us on
Item added to cart.
0 items - $0.00

Orthodox. Faithful. Free.

Signup to receive new Crisis articles daily

Email subscribe stack
Share to...