That was the code name for the US invasion of Grenada, which happened 30 years ago this past Friday, an anniversary I was reminded of by engagé political scientist Stephen Zunes, who has a retrospective on the event. The episode was so pathetic, less on account of the invasion itself—though rightly criticized as a violation of international law by even America’s closest allies (including Margaret Thatcher’s UK), it could have perhaps been defended as a low cost R2P-type operation against a bunch of thugs who had just seized power in a bloody coup (and the Grenadian people did seem grateful for the US action)—than the reaction of the American public. I remember well the upsurge of patriotic chest-thumping and flag-waving—of America kicking butt in a tiny speck of a country that practically no one had heard of—, commentaries by pundits on how the “Vietnam syndrome” had been vanquished, etc, etc. The best reaction to all this came from Clark Clifford, who sniffed that the invasion was akin to the Washington Redskins playing Little Sisters of the Holy Cross, beating them 451-0, and then chanting after the game “We’re Number One! We’re Number One!” Clifford, who had been Defense Secretary at the height of the Vietnam War, was not impressed. The pride Americans take in the US military kicking butt in small countries requires explanation, but which I don’t have. Cf. France, which has militarily intervened in small countries on numerous occasions (Central African Republic, Chad, Ivory Coast, Mali, etc) but that has never aroused any kind of patriotic or nationalist sentiment among the French public. So why are Americans different on this score? Ideas, anyone?
The cover of the comic book is rather striking. The top shows burning buildings and summary executions labeled “March 13, 1979,” the day of the revolution in which Maurice Bishop and the New Jewel Movement seized power. In reality, it was a nearly bloodless uprising, the only exception being a half hour firefight at a barracks of soldiers loyal to the Gairy dictatorship in which three were killed in the exchange.
One would think that Grenadians–even those who welcomed the 1983 US intervention after Bishop and others were massacred in the coup the previous week–would remember what actually happened just four years earlier and it would therefore weaken U.S. credibility for re-writing history like that.
As an aside, Grenada does not feature high in Hollywood movie memorabilia. The only one that comes to mind would be Heartbreak Ridge. Seems a sure sign that this “episode” is not considered as something to particularly brag about.
Heartbreak Ridge: fine movie. I really liked it. Grenada quickly faded from the collective American memory, as it was so brief and finally insignificant. There wasn’t much to say about it. It was a week-long distraction.
Arun, ever spent much time around schoolyard bullies, particularly the less intelligent ones? Think of how they act, then I think your question will be answered.
I remember the day I read that the US had invaded Grenada. I had learnt we were to become parents and were very happy about it. But, learning about the US intervention, I had a nightmare the next night – I was sheltering from bombs in a cellar with my future baby, now a teenager, and we were fighting viciously each other to grab the only gas mask available. Glorifying war is fine for nations who never experienced it in their territory.
To answer your last question: _pace_ DHM Carver, I don’t take the notion of “national character” seriously and don’t think the notion of Usonians as peculiarly horrid people has either explanatory power nor predictive power.
One reason is the perennial political faultlines in the USA, which (very roughly) correspond to the two political parties. You see the USA as a failed European state; it’s really two Latin American countries with interlaced and fluid territories. The “Reagan Revolution” amounted to a conquest of the old Yankee Redoubt (the GOP) by the ex-Confederate Section. For generations, the radical right had been excluded from power by coalitions within the parties, and after convoluted maneuvering, it sudden won both control over the GOP, and also control over US politics.
Needless to say, the triumphalism by Reagan’s partisans was hard to miss–the despondency and disarray of his opponents, less so.
The invasion came a few days after the bombing of USMC barracks in Beirut, killing 241 marines and 58 French paras. Likewise, at the time, there was a general recognition that the Republican handling of the economy up to that time had been a disaster. In France, policy failures by a ruling party lead to a sweeping loss of popularity because voters have choices; in the USA, the parties are practically national identities in themselves, and not genuinely competitive.
There are all sorts of historical/economic reasons for this polarization, but that’s a short summary of the reason.
To clarify, “Yankee” refers to the traditional northern/western base of support for the GOP, prior to the 1940s. After 1964 the Southeast switched from Democratic to Republican affiliation, but remained relatively uninfluential in the Party until 1980.