Talk:Invasion of Grenada
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
 |
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. This article has been tagged since January 2007. |
 |
Invasion of Grenada is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. |
An event mentioned in this article is a October 25 selected anniversary
Article inconsistant: Both of these are said in the article:
bloodless
The combination of a bloody seizure of power by a hardline Marxist group within the U.S. "sphere of influence"
It may be more consistant to find facts on how many casualties were incurred in the coup preceding the war and to make it clear that, to the Soviets and their new client state, the coup was bloodless and to the Reagan administration, it was bloody.
The article mentions various dates in October without making clear the year. Normaly one would assume the last year mentioned, but in this case that's 1979 and I'm not clear if the year in question is 1979 or 1983.
The bloody part refers to the 1983 "palace coup" in which Coard seized power from Bishop not the initial coup when Bishop overthrew Gairy.Xerex 18:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the "bloodless" coming to power was that of Bishop. The coup of 1983 was against Bishop, and violence was used then, including the assassination of Bishop himself. IM 38.117.182.130 21:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
An event mentioned in this article is an October 25 selected anniversary.
How many US wounded?
Why no reference to the "Grenada 17"?
What was the US military causualties?
- The government states that there were 19 killed and 116 wounded, but there were also special ops. soldiers who were killed that are not listed in the official report.
"Nearly eight thousand soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines had participated in URGENT FURY along with 353 Caribbean allies of the CPF. US forces had sustained 19 killed and 116 wounded; Cuban forces lost 25 killed, 59 wounded and 638 personnel captured. Grenadian forces casualties were 45 killed and 358 wounded; at least 24 civilians were killed."
- -Fadookie 04:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
What position did the affair leave the Queen in? I notice that all the countries taking part in the invasion (except the USA and Dominica) and Grenada itself are among the Queen's realms.
Will someone please present some evidence for Regan being right about Grenada aiding Castro and presenting a threat? In the meantime I am going to need out of correctness to remove rightly and justly from the article. - Watsonladd 18:19, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that Grenada presented a threat.
- As Margaret Thatcher wrote: "What precisely happened in Washington I still do not know, but I find it hard to believe that outrage at the Beirut bombing had nothing to do with it."--ClemMcGann 10:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I disagree, Greneda was being used as a transit point for arming communist movements in Central and South America. Castro too was jubilant that the US would have to face THREE socialist nations on it's backdoor: Cuba, Nicaragua, and Grenada. See Reagan's War by Peter Schweizer. The communist nations represented on the island at the time of the invasion is a dead giveaway. TuckerResearch 22:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Inconsistency on Appeals
This article does not mention at all the claim that the Governor-General of Grenada had requested the U.S. step in,while the History of Grenada article reports that claim as factual.I think both should mention the claim and that some are skeptical about it.This article says "Grenada" appealed to London's FCO to oppose the invasion,obviously this would have been the Coard regime (unconstitutional coupsters) doing so;the G-G nominally answers to the Queen but in no way whatsoever to the Prime Minister of the UK.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 04:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- Some web-sites do claim that Sir Paul Scoon, the Governor-General of Grenada, had requested the U.S. step in. I have yet to see evidence for this. They may be confused. Some days after the invasion, on advice from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, he welcomed them. This was necessary to legitimise the situation and to allow him to appoint a new government. In any event, he did not have any authority to invite. Incidentally, when "Grenada" appealed to London's FCO, they did so via a fax sent to an old number. The organisation which received the fax did forward it to the new number, but also passed it on to newspapers. Sir Paul Scoon has written his memoirs, Survival for Service - My Life and Times as Governor General of Grenada. If someone has access to this, they could clarify whether he invited the U.S. prior to the invasion, or not.--ClemMcGann 10:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
i was in the 75th ranger rgt there were at least 5 dead and times 5 wounded in my company alone...
-
- The US military claimed confusingly that Scoon was both being held incommunicado and had invited them.I don't know how he characterized the situation in his memoirs.Whether or not he had "authority to invite" is a matter of constitutional interpretation;the G-G is vested by the constitution with executive authority delegated in a specified framework to a legally constituted government,but since 1979 there had been no constitutional government.The invasion led to the restoration of the constitutional regime.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 18:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I know this isn't a "reliable source", but I clearly remember news reports at the time, just after the invasion, that Paul Scoon claimed that he had requested assistance. I clearly remember the news reports in which he took credit. Whether this was true or not, I don't know - I remember at the time most people dismissed it as an after-the-fact attempt at legitimisation. The overthrow of Gairy and subsequent invasion was a big deal in Trinidad - although the TT government opposed the invasion, many (most?) Trinidadians seem to have supported it. We could get Radio Free Grenada, we listened to them throughout the time to get their perspective. As for authority - news reports at the time said that he did, because the Queen remained legally head of state, and Scoon remained her representative (he was under house arrest, but never removed from office), so yes, he did have the authority. Guettarda 22:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Goldwater-Nichols Act
The Goldwater-Nichols Act article states that one of the primary drivers for it was the break-down in inter-service co-operation during the invasion of Greneda. Therefore, can this article please be expanded with objectivity in this respect ? Thanks JRL 12:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- I doubt that this is the appropriate place to discuss the rivalry and lack of communication within the American armed forces. This invasion was only one such example. It is evident that this invasion was decided on at short notice. Margaret Thatcher wrote that it was because of the American retreat from Lebanon. They needed a victory news item to divert public attention. That was only in the previous few days. I would assume that in such a rush there would be problems of co-ordination. Reagan was telling lies to his allies. No wonder there were communication problems. On the ground, some U.S. troops had to use their personal mobile phones and contact their bases, back in the States, to get battlefield assistance. This was (and perhaps still is) a general problem with the American armed forces, and probably with most other large organizations. I doubt that this is the appropriate place to discuss this issue. Regards, --ClemMcGann 13:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- "Personal mobile phones" in 1983? Back then, mobile phones were installed in a car. I think you are confusing Three Kings with Heartbreak Ridge. Tafinucane 20:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Most versions of the story have the officer in question using a payphone with one of those payment-card things (type in a ten digit number, then who you want to phone, &c &c) - it was his own, not a military one, however, which was the point of the story. Since Three Kings came out it seems to have been conflated a bit, but it does seem to stem from a true (or at least contemporary) story. Shimgray | talk | 22:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] US Army Forces involved
I'm going to add a new section on the US Army forces, like the XVIII Airborne Corps, the Night Stalkers, Delta Force, and others. I'm also planning on mentioning the Russian "advisors" that were captured when I can find a source. Fadamsxii 00:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Cuban military presence
The infobox says:
- Casualties
- Grenadian military: 49 dead and 358 wounded;
- Cuban military: 29 dead and 100+ wounded;
- Civilians: 45 dead
On the other hand:
- They encountered soldiers and advisors from various countries, which consisted of: 1200 Grenadans, 784 Cubans (including 636 construction workers and 43 military personnel—both official Cuban figures), 49 Soviets, 24 North Koreans, 16 East Germans, 14 Bulgarians, 3 or 4 Libyans.
These numbers definitely do not match: if there were 43 Cuban soldiers, how can there be over 100 of them wounded ? And why should the construction workers be counted with the military ? Were they at least armed ? Taw 04:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- The Cuban Construction workers on the island were militarily trained and armed. Captain Thomas A Brooks, Commander in Chief Atlantic Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, stated in the Naval History link provided in the external link section "There were also about 600 Cuban construction workers. Contrary to what people might have read, we knew the construction workers were all militarily trained, that they were armed and that they practiced with their weapons. We anticipated that if the PRA elected to oppose the intervention of American and Caribbean peacekeeping forces, the Cubans might fight against us, too." Brooks goes on to state that the Cuban Construction mostly threw down their weapons and surrendered after meeting US Forces with minimal resistance. --Nightowl1335
-
-
- It's worth noting that all Cuban adult males have military training due to two years of mandatory military service, so Brooks' statement about military training is misleading. Is there any supporting evidence that the construction workers were armed? --tomh009
-
-
-
-
- Brooks clearly states so. "..They were armed and practied with their weapons..." That sounds like military training to me, also shows that they did possess weapons and (in isolated instances) provided resistance to US Forces. --Nightowl1335
-
-
195.7.34.195 12:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)On the Cuban issue, I think, but am not sure, that most of them were civilian types doing basic construction work, while the military component was engaged in installing the airports radio & radar equipment. Not 100% on that though. Fidel Castro was a personal friend of Maurice Bishop, and was reportedly livid when PM Bishop was deposed by Coard. The Cubans were in fact about to withdraw when the invasion took place, which is probably one of the reasons they were so low-key in their resistance. Some one should included this if they can find a reference. Read it in a book, but cant remember the name 195.7.34.195 12:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC) K.B.
There were at least two SEAL teams present, with 75th airborne Ranger rgt. SEAL team 6 was there, and six guys drowned on an early strike that hit bad weather. Denis Clalker, a SEAL team six member, tells how a platoon of Rangers was sent to take and hold a Prison, also stating that they took some hits. SEAL team six was ordered to rescue and protect a Goverment figure at his residence. While protecting the Goverment figure the team was approched by a armored vechical, although it did not engage SEAL team six. Source: One Perfect OP, by Denis Chalker. -Herper89
The incident with the SEAL team & armoured vec. metioned above is slighty inaccuarate. This incident didn't take place at the Gov. Generals residence, but at a NJM radio station. The SEALs, not sure from which team but probably SEAL Team 6, which is spanish-speaking, went in to capture a small radio transmitter near the sea, indending that it could transmit pro-US material during and in the aftermath of the invasion. After capturing the radio station, the SEALs were approched by an ad-hoc unit of about 30-50 Grenadan(??) troops, moving in a military truck, a commandered civilan minibus, and unfortunaley for the SEALs, a Russian BTR-70 APC. Although the BTR-70 is about as lightly armored as an APC can be, the SEAL team lacked any kind of anti-armour equipment and had no way of destroying the BTR. The BTR opened fire with its 14.7mm(thats over 50. cal) MG, which had no trouble penetrating the brick wall of the radio station. Flumoxed, the SEALs retreated to the sea after 5 members of the unit were wounded. About 5-10 PRA soldier were killed in the engagment. The BTR was piloted by a PRA officer named Cecil, not sure if that was his first or last name but he was the CO of the PRA ad-hoc force. Have the US after-action report some where and will write it up either as its own page or as a segment of this one.195.7.34.195 12:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC) K.B.
As far as armed construction workers go, could they have been simular to our SeaBee's? who are trained with small arms? (CB - construction Battalion) user:mkarg
[edit] Original research?
Several years ago, I took part in creating a documentary about Operation Urgent Fury, entitled The Grenada Project. For the documentary, we interviewed retired Naval Commander Maynard Robinson (who helped plan and execute the invasion) and military historian Stephen Harding (who has written books on the subject including Air War Grenada).
Both of them confirm the involvement of the Navy SEALs and Delta Force, among other things. If memory serves, Maynard Robinson also talks about how the reported figures do not include the involvement of classified special ops troops. However, we never really published our documentary; it was made for a school project. I don't think there will be much chance for distribution other than possibly showing it on public access cable or publishing it via the internet. The documentary was previously available on my web server, but I had to take it down due to bandwidth concerns.
Would it be possible to cite these interviews or the documentary itself somehow? I would be willing to prepare partial transcripts of the interviews and publish those on my website if it would be of any help. Alternatively, I could make the documentary or the raw footage of the interviews available if someone was willing to host it, although I'm not sure either of these options constitute "publishing" in the formal sense. (I might also be able to publish via the Internet Archive if either the documentary or the footage is released under a Creative Commons license, but I'd have to check with my co-authors first.) -Fadookie Talk | contrib 08:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No Mention of airfield
I don't see mention anything about the airfield the Cubans where building to facilitate Soviet Bombers. I think that was the greatest threat to the US. I know, I was there.
There or not, i doubt this. I know Regan mentioned it as one of the reasons for the invasion, but Cuba already had many airfields that could of facilitated USSR bombers, and is about 1/2 - 3/4 of hour flight time closer to the US, and (from Russian POV) alot more secure (p.s. I do not dispute the fact that there were 2 airports, one med/large and one small, being built at the time of the invasion. I take it the one you refer to is commonly know as "Pearls"??195.7.34.195 12:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC) K.B.
- "A major concern for the Reagan administration was an airport under construction on the southern tip of the island at Port Salines, near the capital of St. George's. President Reagan repeatedly charged that it was to be a Soviet/Cuban air base. However, it has since been acknowledged that its sole purpose was for civilian airliners. Like other Caribbean islands, the tourist industry is an important source of income. The existing airport at that time was too small for jet aircraft and did not have facilities for instrument landings, resulting in the occasional stranding of tourists for days at a time during bad weather. Nighttime landings were also impossible. To make matters worse, the airport was on the opposite side of the island over a range of mountains from the capital and most tourist facilities." Source: GlobalPoicy.com Noles1984 18:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- As if further skepticism were needed, there are multiple Caribbean airports longer than the Grenadan airport that belong to islands with no air force (Barbados comes to mind). I'm not sure what the take-off run is for the older Russian bombers, but the landing run for modern fighter-bombers without brake parachutes is longer than Saline's current length, and darn near the longer length originally planned. In addition, this was the same airport the US had been asked to help build, but refused to do so (until after the invasion, when we helped complete the "threat" to our security). As stated, there were no underground fuel tanks, no hardened hangars, and no reinforced control tower. It would also be bizarre, to say the least, to have a military airport further from both the United States and Central America than the Cubans' own airspace, as it would increase flight times, costs, and likelihood of interception. While the airport construction was used as a justification of the Grenada invasion, the actual threat level was minimal at best. The Dark 21:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Only 16 US students?
The article says:
- The U.S. government described the invasion as a "noncombatant evacuation operation" for 16 American medical students on the island.
But I've seen other sources mention "nearly 1,000" US medical students at 3 locations. And multiple sources mention 800 American medical students enrolled at St. George's School of Medicine alone.
Anyone know why this article uses the number "16"?
-
- "Particular concern was expressed over the fate of 800 American students at the U.S.-run St. George’s University School of Medicine. The safe arrival in the United States of the initial group of happy and relieved students evacuated from Grenada resulted in excellent photo opportunities for the administration. It appears, however, that the students’ lives were never actually in any danger prior to the invasion itself."
Source: GlobalPolicy.com Noles1984 18:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I served in a paratroop company and was on the airfield the afternoon they brought a group of the medical students down to the airstrip to send them back to the states. There was damn sure more than 16 in the group I saw. Danger or not, don't know, but they seemed very pleased to see us. I don't believe they were in any danger at the time. But one has to consider that in the face off that would have ensude had an invasion not pre-empted it, there is a good chance they would have become hostages? After Iran, I don't think the Reagan administration wanted to risk it.
[edit] Monroe Doctrine/Falklands
So why is the Monroe doctrine mentioned in regards to the Falkland Islands? The Monroe Doctrine only applies to sovereign nations (and because the US regards the Falklands as being British and not Argentinian the Monroe doctrine does not apply). The inclusion of this argument muddies the factual content of the article and detracts from Britain's legitimate concerns. Does anyone else think this should be removed?
- Any American who thought that way probably opposed the UK retaking the Falklands in the first place. So it should be removed. --Henrygb 01:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Since there is no futher comment, I will remove it ClemMcGann 11:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I also was in the Invasion of Grenada on the USS Manitowoc (LST 1180.) There is no mention in this article that the Airfield that was so worrisome to Reagan at the time had no underground fuel capacity (and that Grenada had tried to fund it with Western monies to no avail and had to deal with the Eastern Block to get it done. Their stated intent was a tourist airstrip that could land current passenger aircraft of a reasonable size. If I remember correctly it was supposed to be built out at 13K feet. Further, I remember Fidel asking his construction workers to fight to the death. Of interest? We took a right turn at Bermuda almost two days before the coup. At the time we were on the way to relieve in Beirut (the Manitowoc was first in and last out of that operation. ) When we were done at Grenada and headed toward Beirut- someone mentioned that 13 percent of the injuries to our forces were friendly fire. I have no idea if this was ever verified. It was also my understanding at the time that the 40 plus hours we circled the island on arrival were “due to the Joint Chiefs all wanting to have their fingers in the pot.” Lastly, we did collect various folks in civs (long hair, sneakers, Uzi's/AK's) on arrival at the island. They were put on Helos and went elsewhere. I imagine that these are the Delta Force/Seal Team Six members mentioned above.
- Rick, thanks for adding that. Interesting that you were on your way to Beirut. As Margaret Thatcher said: "I find it hard to believe that outrage at the Beirut bombing had nothing to do with it." ClemMcGann 00:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Medals?
Its definitely worth mentioning with this article reference: "Overdecorated" - Time, Apr 9 1984
"For last year's invasion of Grenada, by any measure a quick and efficient operation, the U.S. Army last week disclosed it had awarded 8,612 medals"--Bmathew 07:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- If no one objects, I'll be adding the medal-references since its relevant to the event.Bmathew 02:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Addition of Canada
The Canadian Forces contributed a number of C1 Leopard tanks and crews to the American battlegroup from the Lord Strathcona's Horse Regiment, and while they were under US command throughout the operation, they wore Canadian BDUs, and displayed Canadian insignia. G3a3 10:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of Canada
Canada removed after consulting regimental historian for the Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadian). Canadian Forces contributed no equipment or crews.
- Unless anyone is able to provide a source for that information I will remove it. MartinDK 10:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- After thorough research, I have now removed all reference to Canadian forces --I guess someone was having a joke. As for those "49 Soviets, 24 North Koreans, 16 East Germans, 14 Bulgarians, and 3 or 4 Libyans", I think they also warrant further investigation... Grant65 | Talk 03:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. It sounds very suspect. I am filling a RfC. However, I seriously doubt the part about the North Koreans, East Germans, Bulgarians and Libyans. As for the Soviets they may or may not have been present, however I doubt it since that would have been a serious escalation of the Cold War. MartinDK 07:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Turns out that was false as well, although those countries did have diplomats on Grenada. Official US sources say Cubans were the only foreign communist troops involved. Grant65 | Talk 07:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Wow that was quick! But thank you for that. I will remove the request for comments then. Cheers, MartinDK 07:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Turns out that was false as well, although those countries did have diplomats on Grenada. Official US sources say Cubans were the only foreign communist troops involved. Grant65 | Talk 07:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. It sounds very suspect. I am filling a RfC. However, I seriously doubt the part about the North Koreans, East Germans, Bulgarians and Libyans. As for the Soviets they may or may not have been present, however I doubt it since that would have been a serious escalation of the Cold War. MartinDK 07:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- After thorough research, I have now removed all reference to Canadian forces --I guess someone was having a joke. As for those "49 Soviets, 24 North Koreans, 16 East Germans, 14 Bulgarians, and 3 or 4 Libyans", I think they also warrant further investigation... Grant65 | Talk 03:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Assasination/ Marxist Leninism/ Airport
12/9/06
Dear writer,
This is my first go re contributing some comments to wikipedia, so I hope this is the right way. First, this is a very good account of the events, lucid and germane. A couple of thoughts.
'Assasination' ? 'Coard's forces subsequently executed Bishop in spite of mass protests in Bishop's favor'?
The question of whether Bishop was indeed assasinated, or whether what actually hapened was a shambolic, localised military response to a demonstration that went wrong and got very out of hand, is an interesting one: precisely because Coard and the others (Grenada 17) imprisoned after the events, continue to deny that they ordered any assasination. <'Grenada 17', http://www.grenada17.cwc.net/> Ewart Lane a youngster in his twenties who commanded the whole revolutionary army and ordered the retaking of their headquarters building that Bishop and others had occupied, claims in retospect it all just went completely wrong. Certainly Bishop wasn't that popular with the people to all accounts, as the promises he had made about a better Grenada hadn't really materialised and the Army weren't necessarily a well organised group either. So assasination is at best a loaded term. Though it is certainly true that both Castro and Reagan read it as such, they both had their own agendas after all, and were responding very quickly to events from their own perspectives.
e.g. this is what Castro said via the NYT (the Cubans still frequently commemorate the day of the invasion in a kind of mini Pearl Harbour sort of way):
'President Fidel Castro, denouncing the United States invasion of Grenada, said today that it came only after the men who had overthrown and killed Prime Minister Maurice Bishop sank the revolution and opened the doors to imperialist aggression. Speaking for 90 minutes before an enthusiastic flag-waving crowd of more than one million in Revolution Square, Mr. Castro drew repeatedly on images of Adolf Hitler and German Fascism to describe President Reagan and the United States' invasion of the tiny Caribbean island on Oct. 25. But he took pains to explain that the revolution in Grenada had ended before United States troops landed at the airport that Cubans were helping to build at Point Salines. He said that the revolution could not have survived the internal struggle led by Deputy Prime Minister Bernard Coard and that the symbol of progress and independence that Grenada had become had been destroyed already.' RICHARD J. MEISLIN, THE NEW YORK TIMES, November 15, 1983.
'Marxist-Lenininism' ?
While it is true Bishop's and Coard's speeches and comments at the time they do show some interest in some kind of Marxism, they are just as influenced by US Black Power and the general 70s anti-imperialist struggles. So again it is more accurate to read them as having leanings towards a collectivist socialist agenda that then developed as the situation viz a viz the US continued to deteriorate and the New Jewel movement subseqently turned to the Cubans and the Russians for financial support, as the US refused to help them. Subsequent American actions convinced them the American's were enemies and rather played into a Cuban/Soviet agenda. For example, when Bishop originally came to power he seemed to assume that he could make common ground with the Americans: asking for help protect his govmt against the previous prime minister he had deposed ( who as also a 'socialist' incidentally, from a Trades Union background), looking for financial aid from the US to help build the the new airport for tourists, etc. - the NJM were also encouraging foreign investment, appealing to the middle classes etc. So at best 'Marxist leanings' developing in a context of worsening relations with the US and which Castro blew into what he saw as a big propaganda coup for Cuba and which then fed into even more US cold war paranoia. While many believe the whole war was manufactured on a convenient pretext by the US, it is as just as reasonable to see it as Grenada and the US making a mess of things diplomatically, during the height of the Cold War when the American administration tended to overeact. Bishop may have been friends with Castro (or so it is said), but then as someone educated at the London School of Economics in the UK, he probably just admired the notoriously charismatic Cuban :-) and it certainly gave Grenada much attention and in turn, flattered Castro. Coard does seem to have been more of a believer in collectivisation that Bishop, but power struggles aren't necessarily about politics and the Grenadan NJP do sound horribly naive when you read their accounts. Perhaps they'd read too many heroic accounts of the revolution and became increasingly under the sway of Cuban glamour and Castro's famed charisma- all those big cigars, long speeches and beautiful women:-)
Britain/ The Airport.
PM Margaret Thatcher's view as discussed in the talk section is accurate and representative. She thought that any US invasion would just lead to European's regarding it as an example of America bullying some small godforsaken island and therefore not in the West's public relations' interests and that it would put the UK as America's ally in a difficult position ( and thus of course her Conservative govmt which was so strongly allied to the US). And indeed it did cause her a great deal of grief in the British press, let alone in Europe and it certainly did worsen relations for a time.So in that sense the US invasion was not a political success in Europe. On the other hand once it happened, people soon forgot about it.
What was surprising to Britain and the Caribbean at the time as I recall was how effective an opposition Grenada managed to put up, even with the help of the Cubans. Most people in Europe have always been baffled by the seriousness with which the US has regarded Cuba and Castro as a real threat, and assume they can't be serious, but it seems to me that the Reagan administration really did believe Grenada was going to become some kind of Marxist guerilla base, as perhaps hoped the Cubans - though the Grenadan's really do seem to have been most interested in how it was going to revolutionise the 5 star tourist trade which they were missing out on compared to the other Islands. Hence the importance of the airport issue which was one of the central arguments for the invasion and pointed out in one of Reagan's TV broadcasts leading up to the invasion. Incidentally, a British company was in charge of designing the airport and managing the project (the Cubans were just paying for it and had their engineers doing most of the actual labour), the Libyans chipped in towards the end to annoy Reagan I'd guess.
' Contractor in Britain Denies Airport in Grenada Is Military
A British company heading the construction of Grenada's new airport today dismissed the contention that it was being developed for military purposes.
The contractor, Plessey Airports, whose $9.9 million contract is underwritten by the British Government, said the construction at Point Salines airport involved no installations usually associated with a military base, such as antiaircraft defenses and underground weapon and fuel storage.
A company spokesman, Tony Devereux, said the airport conformed to international civil aviation standards and was designed to facilitate tourism.
There's not the least doubt that, if the British Government had been unhappy about the nature of the contract, it would not have allowed the Export Credits Guarantee Department to underwrite it, he said.' NYT, Sep 12, 1983
The whole airport issue had been going on for a long time in Grendan politics and was a central chance for the NJP to try to show they really were doing something for Grenada faced with falling popularity. It's the one you now fly into when you go to holiday there, so at least it did get completed (the rest was paid for by the US in the end ). The only major building project in the world largely co-funded by the Cubans and the US govmt rather ironically, with contributions from Britain and Libya !
best, Steve Barfield
...
[edit] NJM
I've removed the "communist" and "sect" qualificatives to Bishop's political group and replaced them with more relevant attributes (along with Wikipedia links). Hugo Dufort 03:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Introduction
The U.S. Invasion of Grenada, codenamed Operation Urgent Fury, was an invasion of the island nation of Grenada by the military forces of the United States of America and several other nations.
I would suspect that any invasion is conducted using military forces. MartinDK 09:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Some inaccuricies: Two SEAL teams were involved with the invasion, which actually began on the night of the 23/24 october when 4 members of the SEAL drowned in a 30/30 jump (jumping from a helicopter doing 30 knots 30 feet off of the surface). The remaining members where swamped in a boat and retrived at sea. There mission was to recon the air field for the rangers. The second part of the invasion was on 24/25 october when SEAL tema members captured the radio tower. A BTR-60< a platoon of twenty PRM soldiers and an 82mm mortor were used in retaliation and injured 4 SEALs who destroyed the transmitter and retreated to the sea to return to the USS Caron The third mission of the SEAL teams was to take the governors mansion. They used fast rope insertions from UH-60 helicopters and met no resistance from the guards or police at the mansion. However two cobra helicopters were shot down, one while flying cover for the medivac copter covering the first cobra to be shot down. There were two AA guns near the mansion (anti aircraft) which were taken out by AC-130's which covered the SEALS inside of the mansion until they were relieved by the marines after 24 hours. This is to the best of my recollection as i was one of the wounded members of the SEAL team located at the radio tower Jmsseal 03:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, i have no idea how i did that Jmsseal 03:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Fixed 200.108.27.197 21:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV removal
I removed this paragraph (and integrated the information about number of Americans elsewhere):
Sivapalan's comments are supported by the fact that fewer than 600 of the 1,000 non-Grenadian civilians on the island were from the U.S.[4] For example, the United Kingdom and Canada, both of which had citizens on the island, publicly opposed the invasion (see below).
The fact that the UK and Canada opposed Urgent Fury, despite having citizens in Grenada, does not corroborate the claim that the US requested that OESC give a formal appeal. This fact also does not directly support the claim that rescuing citizens abroad is not legitimate and was only a PR front: these countries can oppose the invasion even if the reason is legit.
(Personally it wouldn't surprise me if the claims were true, but there are obvious logical fallacies within the deleted paragraph.) Kelvinc 11:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- How could it happen that more Cubans were taken prisoner than there were at all??? 213.120.120.161 18:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Referemces
Maurice Waters (1986). "The Invasion of Grenada, 1983 and the Collapse of Legal Norms". Journal of Peace Research: 229-246.. give some clues about the legal issues of the invasion.--Stone 15:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Christopher C. Joyner (1984). "Reflections on the Lawfulness of Invasion". The American Journal of International Law: 131-144.. might be even better.-Stone 15:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
