The Liberation of Grenada

     Note:  The following was originally written in the Freshman Composition class taught by Mr. Robert Olsen at the University of Wisconsin-Platteville in Spring, 1984 as an in-class Final Exam.

     In November of 1983, the U.S. Marines, Army Rangers, and troops of various Caribbean democracies  stormed ashore the  isle of Grenada.  Their mission was to free the American students living there from terror, to safeguard our interests, and to, above all, reestablish democracy in Grenada.

     This action was instantly criticized by certain liberal elements, and the criticisms ended only when it turned out that the students believed that they were endangered and the Grenadians were happy that they we had liberated them.  There still has been criticism of the invasion, but it has been weak and indecisive.

   My own view of the invasion is that it was moral and just due to previously unmentioned factors.  First, the communist government had come to power in early 1979 in a coup d'etat that overthrew the democratically elected government of Sir Eric Gairy.  The victors, lead by Maurice Bishop, refused to hold elections,; and  just prior to the invasion, Bishop was overthrown by his fellow Marxists and executed.

     Secondly, thee new government, consisting of the anti-Bishop faction, instigated a reign of terror that caused great suffering to the Grenadian masses.  The above should be enough to prove that the communist government of Grenada was unfit to rule in the best interests of the people.

     The above facts have not been enough for certain groups as evidenced by this recent Wisconsin Federation of Teachers resolution:

          Resolved, that the Wisconsin Federation of Teachers deplores the U.S. invasion of Grenada
     and calls on the President of the U.S. immediately to withdraw armed forces from the island
     of Grenada, and be it finally

          Resolved, that the W.F.T. communicate to the President of the U.S., the Secretary of State and        the Wisconsin Delegation to Congress that it supports the fundamental principle embodied in the
     U.S. Declaration of Independence that sovereign nations have the right to governments of their            own choosing without intervention from other nations."

     My viewpoint on the W.F.T. resolution has several basic points each of which will be gone through here.

     The first basic point I wish to make about the W.F.T. resolution involves this question:  how could the Declaration of Independence be against foreign intervention?  France, Spain and Holland intervened on our behalf so we could gain our independence.

     The second basic point is that one of the reasons the Declaration of Independence was originally written was to gain foreign intervention in support of the American Revolution.

     The third basic point is that the Declaration of Independence does not embody the W.F.T. 's principle.  Dr. William G. Rector, of the University of Wisconsin-Platteville history department, states,  "The W.F.T. seems to believe that sovereignty lies in the nation, whereas the Declaration of
Independence holds that sovereignty lies in the people."

     In summary, we as both a nation and as a people need to fight tyranny.  When debates, such as this  one, are held at home over foreign intervention, this fact about the Declaration of Independence should be raised .