Talk:United States invasion of Grenada/Archive 1

Grenada - public opinion and internal reaction

This article discusses US reaction and international (diplomatic) reaction. I would be interested to hear how the invasion/intervention was received and has been remembered by the population of Grenada. Are there any useful sources on that? 129.78.32.22 (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

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)

---

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.

Its hardly new, Scotland invaded England after James I/VI became king of both, but before Scotland went bankrupt and joined the Union —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.20 (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

See "The 'McNeil Mission' and the Decision to Invade Grenada," by Robert J. Beck. Naval War College Review, Spring 1991, 93-112. Sir Paul did make a request for assistance, c. 0200 Sunday Oct. 23d, but a clandestine, circuitous one thru several intermediaries, because he feared for his life. Ambassador Frank McNeil was informed (in Barbados), but Scoon's request came hours after Pres. Reagan had made the decision to invade & well after the written, formal request from the Organization of Eastern Carribean States (OECS). (All this just prior to the Beirut Marine Barracks bombing, which momentarily put the Grenada plan in jeopardy.) 138.162.128.53 (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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) The russians captured were not of Russian descent, they were latin liaisons to the USSR.

Just going to mention an inconsistency I noticed. The Special Forces (United States Army) page has a link to operation Urgent Fury, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of the Green Berets in the article. Is Delta Force considered part of the Army SF at that time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.18.130 (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes they were part of Army Special Forces (Green Berets), since there was no JSOC or CAG until yeqars later. I added the AKA under ODA-D. Save your time on Delta since they are no longer called "Delta" and the new name is classified....sorta

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

This is definitely knit-picking. All cuban males are militarily trained since Cuba is a country which conscripts its males for military service. The PRA was not part of the process regarding intervention as it seems you are implying. OAS were the ones that started the request for intervention, not anyone on the island. --tharskjold — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tharskjold (talk • contribs) 02:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

It is very controversial as to whether the construction workers were anything other than that. The sources claiming that they were "special forces" (the Black Wasps were not formed until the late 80s)are US & highly biased. Politically it suits the USA to claim this as well as the embarrassment factor involved. I recall seeing pictures of these men being stretchered off in Cub and they were flabby & over 40 - much like ordinary builders. The BBC report of Castro's visit refers to the "construction workers" not as military. I suggest the reference given is not definitive & can we find one that is?Streona (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

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) i personaly think that would be ok considering its just not you but a team and its an actually movie

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)

In my opinion the United States' motivation for invading Grenada was that the US military had just gotten their arses kicked by a couple of unidentified truck bombers in Beirut, Lebanon. It was sort of like when some poor bloke gets fired and he goes home and kicks his dog. Dick Kimball (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The Cubans were not building an airfield. The Governor General supported the construction of a new airport to facilitate tourism. One of the main contractors was Plessey, a UK company(during the Thatcher era no less). Excavation work was done by Layne Dredging Company of Miami. The venture was partly funded by The World Bank and Grenadian public "bonds". Cuba provided labour. Most of the Cuban construction workers would have had military experience as most Cubans would have been conscripted to their armed forces at some point. Venezuela provided fuel and oil based materials( "US invasion of Venezuela" no doubt to follow...).It is also strange that the Bishop government was tolerated even though it was undemocratic (if popular) `81.105.37.251 02:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked up the source for the so called diary that was discovered by U.S. marines and the link directs to an unrelated series of articles on Elian Gonzalez. Can anyone find some sources for this claim from credible news sources? If not, I think this claim should be removed because it affects the credibility of the justification for invasion by the U.S. Does anyone else agree? The Underground (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you. As for the real reason, Margaret Thatcher in her autobiography "the Downing Street Years" wrote that "I cannot believe that the events in Beruit had nothing to do with it" (the bombing of the marines) ClemMcGann (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition to what was said here, and below by Distwalker, I found evidence that the diary report itself is dubious, and the source neither cites nor expands on the couple of sentences that were in the article. It has been removed. See 'Diary?'. below Anarchangel (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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.

There were more than 16 students, I believe a couple hundred. It should be mentioned in the criticism of the invasion that while the safety of the students was one of the primary listed reasons for invading, the students never felt that they were in any danger (until the invasion) and were annoyed that their semester was being interrupted. The troops left at the school were vestigial because the campus was not threatened. The students were still indeed happy to see the troops arrive because the invasion was frightening. It's mentioned in the book Overthrow by Kinzer. Remy Green (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Like most students, they kept to themselves and were remote from the town. There had been a violent overthrow of the government. The "next" step, once the regime felt threatened, was to put the students under "protective custody" of the regime. Then what? Iran hostage crisis revisited. That was the reason for the army ensuring their safety. Student7 (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Every single military member who took part was awarded the Expeditionary Force Medal. If those are included in your total, that number is unremarkable. --Distwalker (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

The Koreans etc were on Grenada according to this us report http://www.ndu.edu/library/epubs/98-43Grenada.pdf92.236.129.62 (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

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

...

With regard to Bishop's execution. After the trial, most of the details are known from members of the Grenada 17 themselves.

Colville McBarnette long ago confessed to the details of the central committee meeting where it was decided to execute Bishop.

Ewart Layne was made by the leadership under duress to sign a document stating that he was the sole person responsible for ordering the execution.

Callistus Bernard has admitted to having organized the firing squad and to have personally shot Bishop.

There is little doubt about what happened and no doubt about the guilt of the Grenada 17. Those seventeen people represent the chain of command from the head of the government to the soldier who executed Bishop. The story we are supposed to believe is that one private soldier (Callistus Bernard) organized the murder of eight people on his own without the knowledge of any of the officers around him at Fort Rupert, without the knowledge of the high command and without the knowledge of the government. While it is possible that some of them may not be guilty, it is IMPOSSIBLE for all of them including the man who pulled the trigger and the officers at Fort Rupert that day to be innocent.

The problem with your argument is that the execution happened and someone has to be responsible. If it was a "shambolic, localised military response to a demonstration" then the officers and men among the 17 who led that response must be guilty. And if they are to be excused on the grounds of following orders, then the central committee must be guilty. Half the Seventeen wish to be freed because they followed orders and the other half which to be freed because they claim no orders ever were given. Both groups cannot be right.

As to your claim that Bishop was not popular with the people, that is factually false. The large demonstrations that broke out after he was illegally deposed prove that he was very popular. The only places he seems to have been unpopular was within certain segments of the NJM and their army. In my opinion the reason the crisis developed was that the entire NJM/PRG regime had no legitamacy or structure as a government. They took power at gunpoint and kept it without even going through the motions of creating a political system or holding an election. Once there was a split within the central committee, it was impossible to keep the system going. Bishop owed his position to the barrel of a gun and Coard thought he could take that position from him in the same way.

In the end, Marxism, the airport and everything else ended up being irrelivant to what happened. The US was able to launch the invasion because the NJM government had no legitmacy and had degenerated into chaos. That was the only situation in which US intervention was acceptable and they took the opportunity when it was presented. 66.226.193.82 20:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the United States' motivation for invading Grenada was that the US military had just gotten their arses kicked by a couple of unidentified truck bombers in Beirut, Lebanon. It was sort of like when some poor bloke gets fired and he goes home and kicks his dog. Dick Kimball (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

In Bishop's definitive "Line of March" speech he identified that New Jewel Movement as a "Marxist/Leninist" movement. I think we should take him at his word. The entire sppech is about the NJM being Marxist Leninist movement. --Distwalker (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Well, yeah, but the point is that it was the military forces of the USA and SEVERAL OTHER NATIONS. 129.78.32.22 (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2011 (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)

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)

References

Maurice Waters (1986). "The Invasion of Grenada, 1983 and the Collapse of Legal Norms". Journal of Peace Research: 229-246. {{cite journal}}: Text "issue 3" ignored (help); Text "volume 23" ignored (help) 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. {{cite journal}}: Text "issue 1" ignored (help); Text "volume 78" ignored (help) might be even better.-Stone 15:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture section

I have removed the "In popular culture" section to this article. Such sections are not recommended on even the more benign topics, so to have one on this very serious topic grossly diminishes this article. It was unsourced anyway and so needlessly ephemeral it was cringeworthy. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 05:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of poorly sourced and unsourced material

First I wish to correct the misperception that the proper way to deal with poorly sourced or unsourced material is by adding {{fact}} tags to it. See WP:RS and WP:ATT for more information. Some of this material was a compendium of stuff and nonsense from the Worker's World, which hardly meets WP:RS. (The rest was not sourced: more about that below.) It is, for example, quite unremarkable that a demonstration in the world's largest city would attract 10,000 people, however much the Worker's World wishes it were otherwise. Moreover, it asserts criticism "around the world" in its topic sentence, but only mentions demonstrations in Bolivia and countries in the Carribean basin. Its discussion of a "demonstration" in Cuba is quite naive. The "facts" previously cited to this publication need to be <ahem> verified by a reliable source like the New York Times or similar publication. Preferably, the local papers in the cities where the demonstrations took place would be preferred, but this is probably not possible.

The unsourced material asserts that there is a widespread belief that the invasion was to distract from the bombing of the US Marine barracks in Lebanon a short time before. This indeed may be a widespread belief (Tip O'Neil says as much in his memoirs, which unfortunately I do not currently have access to), but it is controversial information about living persons (Reagan's foreign and political advisers are still alive) and so needs to be removed until it can be sourced. I actually plan on trying to do this (as soon as I can get access to my O'Neil book. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Follow up: I managed to source the bit about opposition from the Congressional Black Caucus and added some more information from an article in Time magazine. Note that I have commented out some of the citations to Time for readability. If anyone wants to add information to these paragraphs please uncomment as appropriate. Thanks, ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

An opinion about public opinion from TIME is not reliable either. The Congressional Black caucus is more credible than TIME, but it is still a small sample. You are right that 300 union leaders in New York is not significant. But 10,000 students protesting at the US Embassy in Mexico city is significant either. There is no defamation of a particluar individual in Tip O'Neil's opiunion, so his allegations can be included as well. Grant | Talk 03:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this unsourced material that you readded. You've had over a month now to find a source. I could not find any to support this material when I looked. Incidentally, I'm not sure the language you added about O'Neill is accurate in that although he changed his opinion from opposition to support, I'm not sure he ever changed his mind about Reagan's motives being somewhat mixed. This is why sources are so important. In any event, the point you were trying to make (that such a belief was widespread) was not supported by your assertion that one man held it.

Speaking of which, you seem to be a little confused on what a reliable source is. Time most certainly is one, as a published, mainstream newsmagazine. The Congressional Black Caucus is not itself a source, but we report its views because of its significance in US politics.

As to your statement about the significance of the size of the Mexico City protest, see the article on proof by assertion. You are aware of the size of Mexico City, right? Protests of 100,000 people (or 10 times the size of the protest you want to include in this article) are fairly common there. See this article to take one of many examples. Larger protests (like the ones following the last presidential election) can reach the millions. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

One could, in fact, argue that the size of the Mexico City protest was quite anemic. We should not put that in the article, though, as that would be original research. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Diary?

The only source for the diary is Jay Nordlinger.

Jay Nordlinger, in his book, In Castro's Corner — African Americans alleged affinity for Cuba claims that during the U.S. Marine invasion of the island, the diary of the former Grenadian defense minister was found, and that one entry (date not specified) in it read: "The Revo has been able to crush counter-revolution internationally. Airport will be used for Cuban and Soviet military."National Review

This is all that Nordlinger says. He doesn't expand on that. I couldn't find a reference to it anywhere else that didn't reference his book or the book review for the National Review, that he is senior editor for, which makes it akin to self publishing to cite it in any case. The book is, from my brief look at it, pretty much what you'd expect from the title, a series of guilt by association 'allegations' against African Americans. Whatever. That isn't as important as, he gives no verification for it at all. He just says it. So I removed it to here, for discussion.

Ultimately it is a good thing. Because he was smearing Dellums I got to find out about Dellums trip, and put that in the article. Anarchangel (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the quote didn't exist. The committee Dellums headed seems to have acknowledged that the quote existed, but Dellums did not think it of any importance. So Dellums seemed to believe that the quote was accurate. See cf [1]. I'm sure there are dozens, if not hundreds of other references. Kind of have to go along with the committee. If they said it was false, that would be another matter IMO. Student7 (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Marxist?!

THERE WAS NO COMMUNIST REGIME IN GRENADA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.250.225 (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"Being a Communist, comrades means becoming a different kind of person. Our society is deeply petty bourgeois and this means the majority of our people are deeply individualistic, ill-disciplined, disorganised, unproletarian, hostile to criticism and so on. Many in the middle strata and intelligentsia often find it difficult to relate as equals with the working people while at the same time many working people lack confidence in dealing with certain types of people. It takes time for a new proletarian person to be built." - Maurice Bishop, Line of March

The Bishop regime in Grenada was communist in everything but name. They did not call themselves by the term communist because the NJM saw the country and the party as being unready. They considered it necessary to transform the country's economy and the creation of what they considered a true "proletarian" as necessary steps toward the inevitable creation of a communist regime in the country. Socialist word-games aside, the Bishop/NJM regime was communist in every respect.

After the revolution, Maurice Bishop explained in some detail the nature of the NJM and its goals for Grenada. He defined the NJM as a Marxist-Leninist Vanguard Party. He also at the same time set the following goals for the party and the country.

- Ensure the leading role of the working class through its Marxist/Leninist Party backed by some form of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

- Ensure over a period, public ownership of the means of production.

- Work towards the gradual transformation of agriculture along socialist lines.

- Plan the development of the economy in order to lay the basis for the building of socialism.

- Begin the implementation of the cultural revolution.

- Build the defence capacity of the country so as to protect it and to protect the revolution from internal and external enemies.

- Develop proletarian internationalism.

- Build rapidly our links with the Socialist World, especially the Soviet Union.

The combination of self-identification as a Marxist-Leninist vanguard party and the goals set after the revolution seem completely consistant with that of a communist regime. Bishop's comment with regard to building communists (reproduced at the beginning) leaves no doubt about what the NJM/PRG were. 75.22.153.187 02:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Map?

Done! Added a PD map from the West Point atlas. Kelvinc (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

government at the time of the invasion

The article needs to be clear about the government at the time of the invasion. The "marxist" NJM regime ceased to exist around the time of the murder of Bishop. What was in power on the day of the invasion was a military government under Hudson Austin. The NJM's People's Revolutionary Government toppled itself before the US even arrived. 66.226.193.82 21:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Photo description is incorrect

I am not inclined to remove the photo but it is not what it claims to be. The paratroopers in the photo are clearly descending on a US training drop zone and not Point Salines, Grenada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Distwalker (talk • contribs) 17:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to verify the photo by checking the link on its page, but for some reason it's not working for me. Anyone able to check it out? Nautical Mongoose (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No wonder...the source link is incorrect. Instead of http://n5xu.ae.utexas.edu/history/1980s.shtml, the link should read http://n5xu.ece.utexas.edu/history/1980s.shtml. I've tried to change this myself, but the photo page no longer exists on Wikipedia (it currently resides in the Wikimedia Commons).

The proper link appears to be a page in the site of the University of Texas Amateur Radio Club, so if there's any error it's probably because of that page (the description on the article is plucked straight from it). Nautical Mongoose (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see the original (.ae.utexas) page in the Wayback Machine, so that page did exist at one time. I can't retrieve the archived pages though, it keeps failing, I'll try later.

The .ece.utexas version is a different size, and if you follow the link, shows part of the plane on the right side, so it's not necessarily correct to change the link.

But why do you think it's a training drop? Franamax (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Correction, it's not part of the plane, it's the way it was scanned. Other comments stand.

Franamax (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I was a paratrooper in the Grenada Invasion. That photo is absolutely, positively not of Point Salines. It is a training drop zone. The Rangers dropped on a narrow peninsula. That is clearly a sandy drop zone. Based on its orientation, I am inclined to believe it is Ste Mere Eglise Drop Zone at Fort Bragg. I can say with 100% certainty it is not Rangers jumping in Grenada. It should be removed. I have photos of Point Salines - without paratroopers - that I took from a helicopter shortly after the invasion. I will post them after somebody else removes the training jump photo. Here is a photo of Pt. Salines. [[2]]

--Distwalker (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

U.S.S. Comte De Grasse

I removed the ===Others=== section which contained only a mention of U.S.S. Comte De Grasse. This line was added on Nov 12, 2007 by anon editor at 67.185.92.69.

According to a source at http://www.united-states-navy.com/dd/dd974hist.htm , there is no mention of involvement at Grenada and it shows that the ship entered Drydock/Routine OverHaul(ROH) at Ingalls Shipyard, Pascagoula, MS on 28 OCT 1983, a few days after the invasion.

If anyone can find a reference indicating that the U.S.S. Comte De Grasse had a significant involvement in Grenada, please add the ship into the U.S. naval forces section (or let me know on my talk page). Thanks Dspark76 (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

List of sources

FYI, a list of sources on this subject can be found here: [3]. Cla68 (talk) 03:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What was the date of the OAS resolution supporting the invasion of GD?

Does anyone know the exact date of the resolution by the OAS supporting the invasion? True Grenada subscribes to membership in the Commonwealth of Nations but it also was a member of the OAS (which it joined in 1975), and the OAS supported the invasion. I think it is worthy to mention that two prominent global fora that Grenada was a member of came up with two different positions on the invasion. The Commonwealth members may have voted against but in contrast the OAS members voted for. CaribDigita (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Deaths

I appreciate not much may be known but the locations and situations leading up to the deaths is not clear. Were they killed in airstrikes? Ground fighting? This is significant because the Cubans were ordered to evacuate if the US invanded and not interfere. Nil Einne (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

With all due resect for ALL the fallen, is this really an appropriate place for a US war memorial?gnomeselby (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

US Veto?

Under “International opposition and criticism” “A similar resolution was discussed in the United Nations Security Council and although receiving widespread support it was ultimately vetoed by the United States.[15][16]”

I question this statement. I looked at the two citations and this statement was repeated in those references but was not further referenced to an authoritative source. On Wikipedia, one has to be careful to not only source, but choose authoritative sources.

In reading the Charter of the United Nations, this statement seemed inaccurate. The reference I am using is http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter5.shtml specifically Article 27 which is copied here in its entirety.

1. Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.

2. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.

3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.

Please take note of the last part of section 3. “A party to a dispute shall abstain from voting”. This would indicate that if a resolution concerning the United States were to come to the UNSC, that the United States, despite being one of the five “veto powers” would not have been allowed to vote but would have abstained.

I have no doubt that the United States wanted to block any UNSC resolution against it, but I don’t think the statement “A similar resolution was discussed in the United Nations Security Council and although receiving widespread support it was ultimately vetoed by the United States” could be accurate given the Charter references given.

I would like the community to consider deleting this statement if a more authoritative citation can not be found. I do not consider the references under footnote numbers 15 and 16 to be authoritative in this aspect.

Has anyone had better luck than I in trying to find an authoritative source to either support or refute this statement? Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Nicuaragua brought it up. See this article. Vetoed by the US. And no, the US would definitely not have joined the UN in the first place without the use of the veto in its own interests. It does not "recuse" itself! Student7 (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Question, Not answered in article

The article states the US kept forces there after the war, when did they leave? WatcherZero (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Begging the question

A probably WP:POV statement says that this was the "sole" success in rolling back an communist takeover into a capitalist democracy before the revolution. What were the cases of a capitalist democracies going over to the communists? The statement seems rather pov. Student7 (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

UN General Assembly Vote

In the first paragraph of the section "International opposition and criticism," it states that the vote in the UN General Assembly was 122-to-9, but in the second paragraph, it states the vote was 108-to-9. Which is it? Andy120290 (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Its 108. 174.46.28.58 (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the actual result:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia Finland, France, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somelia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, El Salvador, Israel, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, United States.

Abstaining: Belgium, Belize, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gambia, Germany - Federal Republic of, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Ivory Coast, Japan, Luxembourg, Malawi, New Zealand, Paraguay, Philippines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Sudan, Togo, Turkey, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, Zaire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.46.28.58 (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Students? What students?

The current article states, in the Aftermath section:

For example, it was not known that the students were actually at two different campuses and there was a thirty-hour delay in reaching students at the second campus.

Huh? This is the first mention of students in the article. 150.203.35.193 (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Maurice Bishop and Sir Eric Gairy of Grenada 1983.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Maurice Bishop and Sir Eric Gairy of Grenada 1983.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Maurice Bishop and Sir Eric Gairy of Grenada 1983.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

At no time American citizens were in danger nor was there an eminent threat of Soviet deployment on Grenada during 1983

• Robin Andersen: A Century of Media, A Century of War, Peter Lang Publishing, 2006 Nemissimo (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

‎International reaction

In a revision saved 2012-05-09 03:22, Tharskjold (→‎International Reaction) changed the word 'siting' to 'siteing' without explanation. I reverted that change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.208.20.253 (talk)

The introductory paragraph gets POV when it includes the presence of Soviets and Cubans among the reasons the editor is, as implied by "despite", shocked and/or appalled by the negative international reaction. We might as well start the Korean War page, International media portrayed the North Korean invasion of South Korea in a negative light, despite the presence of American forces in South Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.170.7 (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with the above, and further think that the entire article needs to be re-jigged in terms of tone and context. I studied Latin American and Caribbean politics extensively, and I was shocked that coming away from this article, one would overwhelmingly conclude that the invasion was warranted, productive and just, with the massively negative reaction from the UN a bizarre blip.

None of the actual arguments against invasion are presented, aside from mentioning sovereignty issues.

None of the political and economic context of Grenada in the years leading up to the invasion is presented (e.g. the fact that the country was progressing quite well under a socialist government), and much is made of the final coup and intimidating four-day curfew.

None of the political and economic context of the aftermath of the invasion is presented, besides a very dry section on the succession of political power, followed quickly by a much more pointed interest in the learnings of the US military.

I'm going to look into extensively retooling this article, as it's not fit for purpose. It is misleading by omission and suggestion, and it doesn't provide the information that readers would come to this page to see - i.e. what place did this war occupy in the broader narrative of the Cold War? How justified was it? What was Grenada like before and after the war?

At the moment, it looks like it was written by a well-patriotic American with a keen interest in military history and a decent (but insufficient) respect for the context of the event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wulfsten 1 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.68.192.252 (talk)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Picture for more neutrality - File:CH46SeaKnight Grenada 1983.JPG.--Слишком похожий (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

@Слишком похожий - I don't see any reason not to include that image somewhere in the article. NickCT (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

@NickCT One of the reason is WP:NPOV.--Слишком похожий (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

@Слишком похожий - I'm sorry. Perhaps I wasn't very clear. I'm saying, Yes, include the photo. You want to include the photo right? I'm saying it's OK. That's what I meant by "I don't see any reason not to include". NickCT (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Where exactly do you propose adding the photo? I do not quite see how it promotes a better understanding of the subject, particularly since there is not much context to the photo or its description either on Commons or the original source online. Simply repeatedly citing WP:NPOV does not do much to explain your thinking here. VQuakr (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• People on this cite intentionally and in other cases unintentionally, misuse NPOV tagging, as has been documented repeatedly on those commenting re: Wiki bias. In this case, the above user must think that adding a photo of a busted up US copter will add balance. I don't know what to say other than that defies logic. If you, the above user, thinks this article is NPOV one way or the other, add appropriate written content and see how the wiki community responds. Otherwise, this photo really adds nothing but a point of controversy on which to endlessly debate, to no real conclusion. 10stone5 (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Was USA invasion of Grenada due to UFO meeting in United Nations ? -umm has anyone ever bothered to Look at all the odd official stamps used by Grenada for Mail ?Blondeignore (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

No. Blackguard 08:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Can't see an article which begins with "Media outside the U.S. covered the invasion with a negative outlook despite Soviet and Cuban presence on the island and the presence of American medical students at the True Blue Medical Facility." not having serious POV problems- the articles on Soviet invasions in the Eastern bloc do not (I should double-check...) begin in such a friendly... understanding fashion! Schissel | Sound the Note! 12:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Late Barbados PMs interview of events

• Article With Barbados PMs interview. [4] CaribDigita (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

bug?

the link to St._George's_University at the end of the first paragraph- is that a red link for everyone? question #2. why? the article exists. I can't figure it out. skakEL 15:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The Photo of the Paratroopers

That is absolutely, positively not a photo of paratroopers over Pt. Salines. You can verify that by looking at the other actual photo of Pt. Salines. I am almost certain it is a photo of Sicily Drop Zone on Fort Bragg, NC. I was a paratrooper from the 82nd Airborne who took part in the Grenada Invasion and spent more than a month bivouacked on Pt. Salines. I have also made several jumps on Sicily Drop Zone. I can't say for certain that the photo is of Sicily Drop Zone. I can, however, with absolute certainty say that it IS NOT a photo of paratroopers over Grenada. It should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distwalker (talk • contribs) 13:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Units involved in operation urgent Fury

You have omitted the 525 M.I. Brigade as one of the units there.The 519th M.I.Bn. in particular.I know this because I was there.We were on Prickly Point and occupied 2 hotels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:9501:44A6:A128:F233:99DF:C278 (talk) 08:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Journalistic Style

First sentence; "a 1983 led ... invasion" ... it's not incorrect (I know I am using a double negative) but the use of journalistic style is irritating. It was an invasion ... in 1983 would be stylistically better. The entire article is written in a slightly inarticulate and incoherent style and IMO needs to be rewritten by an author with a better sense of style and fluency. Adjectives are typically something that is frequently associated with an object, eg. a yellow banana, a fast car. When thinking about invasions, people don't typically think, oh, there were those invasions that happened in 1983 and those that didn't happen in 1983, so describing it as a 1983 invasion is a bit daft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.228.27.158 (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Invasion of Grenada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050404045815/http://www.specialoperations.com/Operations/grenada.html to http://www.specialoperations.com/Operations/grenada.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

famous Reagan nutmeg comment

Whether or not you consider it amusing, it received wide coverage in Oct 1984 (and rumors of an early version of it received coverage at least as early as Jan 1984), and so should probably be included on this article (see [5], [6] etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 05:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Invasion of Grenada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080629064517/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/COLDgrenada.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/COLDgrenada.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Invasion of Grenada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130713000758/http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/International_security_affairs/grenada/154.pdf to http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/International_security_affairs/grenada/154.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130713000755/http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/International_security_affairs/grenada/153.pdf to http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/International_security_affairs/grenada/153.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130713000815/http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/International_security_affairs/grenada/181.pdf to http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/International_security_affairs/grenada/181.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 1 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page as proposed at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

---

US invasion of Grenada → United States invasion of Grenada – For conformity with numerous other examples (eg. United States invasion of Panama). This move has been made using cut'n'paste several times and been reverted on that basis. I don't expect opposition to the move itself, but I'm going through the motions of a formal proposal to avoid making an even bigger mess. Lithopsian (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support Per WP:CONSISTENCY._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support move for consistency. ONR (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support Flix11 (talk) 06:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Consider simple Invasion of Grenada, the long-standing name of the article until it was moved without explanation a few months ago. Not sure "United States" is really needed, the French invasion is much less famous and addressed in a hatnote anyway. SnowFire (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom for consistency. And, if we were to abbreviate it, we'd typically use "U.S." and not "US". Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I want to fix this un-grammatical mega-"sentence"... but what is the intended meaning?

Please advise the intended meaning of this mega-sentence:

The U.S. Army's Rapid Deployment Force (1st, 2nd Ranger Battalions and 82nd Airborne Division Paratroopers), U.S. Marines, U.S. Army Delta Force, and U.S. Navy SEALs and other combined forces constituted the 7,600 troops from the United States, Jamaica, and members of the Regional Security System (RSS)[7] defeated Grenadian resistance after a low-altitude airborne assault by the 75th Rangers on Point Salines Airport on the southern end of the island, and a Marine helicopter and amphibious landing occurred on the northern end at Pearl's Airfield shortly afterwards.

As written, the structure is:

Force A (comprising A1, A2 and A3), force B, force C and other forces made up [comprised] the troops from the US, Jamaica, and members of the RSS defeated force G after acton by part of force A at a specified location, and another action by part of force B occurred at another location afterwards.

That's a mess, and doesn't make a sentence as far as I can see. I can't decipher the intention. Stripping the details away further, I get:

Four parts comprised [made up] the troops from the US, Jamaica and RSS defeated one enemy by one fragment at one place, and something else happened somewhere else later.

Even guessing that "comprised" should be "comprising" doesn't solve this completely. That gives:

the US contribution, Jamaica and RSS defeated one enemy at one place, and something else happened somewhere else.

It's at least grammatical now, but it doesn't help the reader understand whether the "something else" contributed to the "defeated" status, or was completely distinct. Perhaps somebody who knows the original intention can re-write this. I'd suggest breaking this accretion into 3 parts.

˜˜˜˜

US Ground Forces - Army - Order of Battle

35th Anniversary of the Operation this week. Noticed for some time the inclusion of Company E (Scout) 60th Infantry Regiment,9th Infantry Division. As far as I can determine, they had no part in the operation. Any comments or proof otherwise? This needs to be corrected. Thanks in advance for additional information. AbnredlegFF (talk) 01:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)