From: colin@ni.net (Colin Campbell)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan,alt.war,soc.history
Subject: Re: US sneak attacks on Cuba and Grenada
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 05:42:35 GMT

jaskew@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) wrote:

>Don't be daft. The Cubans were building an airfield and providing
>some limited training for the Grenadan policeforce. It was not a
>puppet state. Not of anyone. For that matter Cuba was not a puppet
>state either. You seem to think Communists suffer from some rare
>form of brain disease that stops them making rational decisions.
>No one is going to hand over control of their country to someone
>else. The only time the USSR got to create puppet governments was
>when the Red Army was in possession of the relevant country. As
>Grenada was not even a Communist country it was hardly going to
>hand over power to the Cubans. Nor did it.

I think that you need to do some research here.  The New Jewel Party
was a communist government that had developed close ties to the Cuban
and N. Korean government.  In October 1983 the leader of the
Grenadian government (Bishop?) began a policy of distancing his
country from the Cubans and was going to send the Cuban soldiers home.

In response to this the Cubans sponsored a coup and provided military
backing (what the news media called "construction workers" were
actually a combat engineer brigade).  This coup proved to be unpopular
with the people and started a march toward the prison to free the
former prime minister.  This march was stopped by a BTR-60
machinegunning the crowd with a 14.5mm machinegun.  In addition the
prime minister and all the former members of the cabinet were shot.

Things rapidly went downhill from there.  A crowd of people burned the
police headquarters in St. George's and in response the new
'government' declared martial law, shooting anybody found outside of
their homes.

This was the situation when the decision was made to invade.

>>And had not the US invaded, the Isle of Grenada would have been run from 
>>Havana.   

>Which is simply bullshit. The Cubans did not get to change the
>policy of a single country they helped. They were only there to
>provide some limited form of aid. There was no evidence of the
>island becoming a Communist dictatorship let alone falling under
>Cuban control. This is just a fantasy. 

I think that you need to talk to an eyewitness.........like me.
Yes, I was on of the soldiers sent on the invasion.  I got to see
firsthand what was going on.  I got to talk to the survivors of the
massacre.  I got to pick up the pieces of the people killed in the
massacre (several days old by now).  I was shot at by those Cuban
troops (please explain to me what "peacefull construction workers"
were doing with armored fighting vehicles, 82mm mortars, and 23mm
antiaircraft guns).

  
>A John Birch wet dream.
>Had the US not invaded Reagan might have had to suffer some not
>so nice questions about Lebanon. As he invaded some tiny and 
>totally insignificant country which allowed him to wave the flatg
>and bang the drum he escaped public censure for the Marine deaths.
>Nothing else.

FYI, I am proud of what I did there.  I am proud of what we
acclomplished there.  Beceause we went and stopped what was happening
innocent people are alive who otherwise would be dead.  Beceause of
what I helped do, the people of a small country are free to choose the
govrenment they feel is right for them.  They do not have to huddle in
fear in their homes, nor do they have to risk their lives to get water
for their children to drink.

I _saw_ what the members of the coup were doing to their own
countrymen in the name of ideology.  And I am proud that I helped put
a stop to it.

>>A sitiuation that wouldn't have made Grenada too free or 
>>independent any more then Eastern Europe was at the time.

>Or Yugoslavia or China. Both Communst countries that accepted
>Soviet aid but weren't stupid enough to become puppet states.
>Or Ethiopia. Or Angola. Or Mozambique. Or South Yemen. Or any
>number of "socialist" countries that wanted military or other
>aid but nothing else. And that is what they got.

Like Hungary and Checkslovakia?  Did they ask to become puppet states?
Or was the decision forced on them from the barrel of a gun?  Like
these two countries, the people of Grenada were being given a choice:
Slavery or death.  The reason they did not have to make that choice
were a bunch of people with the words "US Army" (and navy, and marines
and airforce) printed on their shirts.

From: colin@ni.net (Colin Campbell)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan,alt.war,soc.history
Subject: Re: US sneak attacks on Cuba and Grenada
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 05:53:28 GMT

jaskew@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) wrote:

>That's nice for you I'm sure. You remember the Russian 
>proverb about being as wrong as an eye witness? Just for
>the record as an MP did you see any fighting at all?

Yes.  

>Do you happen to speak fluent Spanish by any chance? How do you 
>know that these men were all regulars on active military duty?
>So they were wearing uniforms. A lot of Cubans do. They are a 
>poor country after all with a lot of spare uniforms. Putting a 
>uniform on a man does not make him a regular on active military
>duty.

So what your are saying is that an armed reservist wearing a military
uniform is not a soldier?

>>And I guess that all 'civilian' construction
>>companies issue AKM rifles to all their employees too.  

>I wouldn't have thought so myself. But on the other hand if 
>the Grenadans were handing out such weapons and the Cuban
>government ordered all the Cubans on the island to resist I
>am pretty sure that a few of them would have gone to the Cuban
>construction workers. Who were construction workers after all.

>>And by the way
>>can you explain to me what role 23mm antiaircraft guns and 82mm
>>mortars have in airport construction?

>Not a lot I would think. Care to explain the total absence of
>any significant military hardware? The Cubans gave a few 23mm
>guns to the Grenadan "army". Big deal. Where were the tnaks?
>The IFV? The Migs?

I think that you are getting a little desperate.  The reason there
were no tanks, BMPs, or MIGs is beceause what was there was a combat
engineer unit.  Tanks are found with tank units; BMPs with infantry
units; and MIGs are found with air-force units.

The mortars, machineguns, antiaircraft guns, rifles, etc. are the
types of weapons that you would expect to find with a combat engineer
unit.

Please note that this is true of a general-purpose type engineer unit.
A specalist type unit will also have related to their mission.  For
instance an assualt bridge unit will have bridges and boats.

>>>You might try Edward Luttwak. He seems to think so. No one is
>>>lying here. Those men were construction workers.

>>They were called 'construction workers' in order to disguise the fact
>>that they were a military unit.  

>So you speak often to Fidel do you or did you just make that up?

Neither.  Think about just how much you have to stretch credibility in
order to explain away my observations.

Think about what I saw.  I saw Cubans, wearing Cuban uniforms, who
were fighting as a cohesive unit.  These people had Cuban military
identification documents and used military ranks.  Now, based on the
above I feel that it is reasonable to believe that they were in fact
military personnel.

>Which is nonsense. It may well be true that there is a blurred
>distinction in Cuba between a military unit and a "civilian"
>contractor. I am happy to accept that. I have no doubt that 
>these men would have fought as a unit had Cuba ever gone to war.
>But a regular military unit on active combat duty they were not.
>Reservists at best.

When a reservist puts on a uniform and engages in military operations
he ceases to be a reservist and becomes a soldier.  

>>Luttwak, seems to have read the same newspapers that I did when I came
>>back.

>Really? Have you checked?

No I do not personally know Luttwak.  But when I came back from
Grenada I read the back issues of the newspapers and newsmagizines.  I
quickly noticed a disconnect between what I saw and what the papers
reported.  I was amazed at the fact that most of the reporting about
the Grenada invasion was the reporters passing rumor, speculation and
pet political opinions as 'fact.'



>>>Not at all. Exactly how can you tell one dead regular from one
>>>dead reservist? Where did you fight, with whom and when. Then
>>>perhaps we can tell.

My unit concentrated in the Chantilly Estate area (and slightly
southwest of it) and around the town of Grand Roy.  We also did some
stuff inland of the town between Grand Roy and Gouavey (sp?) but I
cannot remember the name.


>No it does not. For a start even the US military does not claim
>they were *all* armed or even that they *all* fought so I would
>like to know your source for this. The ones you captured? Perhaps
>you could provide us with details. Sources. That sort of thing.
>And just for the record, as a Military Policeman you fought where
>exactly? As far as I can recall MPs do a lot of things but shoot
>at Cubans, civilian contractors or otherwise, is not one of them.

Actually, one of the primary missions for US military police units is
called RECO (Rear Area Combat Operations).  Basically this is going
after enemy snipers, stragglers, die-hards, LRRPs' etc.

For political reasons the US wanted the ranger and infantry units
pulled out as quickly as possible.  The MPs took over their missions
until somewhere around Jan 10 1994, when the mission became an
occupation and 'nation building' operation.

>Probably because Fidel phoned them up and said that they had
>to resist Yankee Imperialism or something like that. I assume
>that they took the weapons the mlitary cadre had been training
>the police with and used them. After all they would have more
>experience with such weopons than the Grenadans and be a lot more
>reliable than the locals. A formed mlitary unit? Says who? It 
>would be sensible to assume that in Cuba there is no clear cut
>distinction between civilians and mlitary units. Especially in a
>construction team. I assume that all these men would have formed
>one reserve unit in peace time. That would be normal for a Soviet
>style country. Doesn't mean they were on active duty. The Chinese
>built the Karakorum Highway into Pakistan. So for a while there
>the PLA had military units in Pakistan building roads. Doesn't
>make Pakistan a Chinese puppet state.

Do you have any idea how many weapons we captured?  The PRA had 5000
soldiers (ranging from street gang types to moderately trained light
infantry) all of whom had been issued weapons.  One point here is
while the PRA had AK-47's the Cubans all had AKMs.  If the Cubans had
been armed with a hodgepodge of weapons then I might be willing to
accept your arguements, but being the only ones on the island armed
with this rifle is compelling evidence that these were organic TOE
weapons.

>By the way isn't someone going to claim they were building a
>Backfire base for bombing the US or something?

Actually the aircraft revetments (incomplete) that I saw appeared to
be too small for backfires, my guess is that they were about MIG
sized.  But you'd have to ask an airforce type to find out for sure.

From: colin@ni.net (Colin Campbell)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan,alt.war,soc.history
Subject: Re: US sneak attacks on Cuba and Grenada
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 15:34:15 GMT

jaskew@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) wrote:

>colin@ni.net (Colin Campbell) writes:

>>>Do you happen to speak fluent Spanish by any chance? How do you 
>>>know that these men were all regulars on active military duty?

>What - no reply?

No, I do not speak Spanish.  And I am basing my opinions on personal
observation.  As for the difference between 'regulars' and
'reservists'; I say that _if_ they were reservists, they were
mobilized before being sent to the island.

I fail to understand your distinction between a 'reservist on active
duty' and a 'regular.'  I am currently a 'reservist' and when I am on
active duty (whether for training or for operations) I count simply as
a soldier.

I think that you are looking at training and experience levels.  To be
quite blunt, most of the people I fought (with notable exceptions)
were poorly trained.  However it was obvious that the Cubans had a
cadre with combat experience.  In contrast the American forces had
been extensively trained but had no experience (as I discovered, we
had been well trained, but not always in the right things).


>What I said is remarkably clear, concise and clear. It is 
>written just above you in fact. Putting a uniform on a man
>does not make him a *regular*on*active*military*duty*. As
>was originally claimed. When you call up Reservists they 
>become soldiers. But when they are not called up they are
>not regulars on active military duty. This is fairly simple
>stuff I would think.

When 'called up' a reservist becomes a regular.  Put a reservist in
uniform and give him a weapon, and you have a soldier.  I make no
distinction between reservists recalled to active duty and 'regulars.'


>No I am not. You are the one claiming it was all a plot to
>turn Grenada into a Cuban colony. When the Rangers landed
>at one airfield they found just two 12.7 mm machine guns.
>Care to explain this?

No, I have not been claiming a plot to turn Grenada into a Cuban
colony.  What I am disputing is your instance that the majority of the
Cubans were civilian personnel.

As for the two .50 cal (12.7mm) machineguns; it appears that you are
refering to the Pearls (?) airport on the western side of the island.
The Salinas airport was on the southeastern side of the island.  About
85% of the fighting occured in the Salinas airport area.

>A "civilian" construction team and a training cadre. There were
>all of three BTR-60s after all. This is not a lot to turn the
>whole of Grenada into a Cuban backed puppet state. You continue
>to claim that these workers were a combat unit yet they had just
>about nothing in the way of military hardware and didn't even put
>up much of a fight. Interesting to say the least. After all only
>24 Cubans died in the fighting.

>>The mortars, machineguns, antiaircraft guns, rifles, etc. are the
>>types of weapons that you would expect to find with a combat engineer
>>unit.

>Yet the hardware that the US military encountered was virtually
>all somewhere else. NOT with the construction workers. So they 
>had a few light mortars somewhere on the island. Big deal. The
>presence of such weapons somewhere on Grenada does not make these
>workers a combat unit.

I'll make this as clear as possible:  The mortars, machineguns and
antiaircraft guns were in the _possession_ of the Cuban 'construction
workers' (who were also wearing uniforms).  In addition, the Cubans
were armed with the more modern AKM rifle when the PRA had the older
AK-47.

>>>>They were called 'construction workers' in order to disguise the fact
>>>>that they were a military unit.  

>>>So you speak often to Fidel do you or did you just make that up?

No, I do not speak with Fidel (do you?) last I heard he still regards
me as a 'terrorist' with a death penalty for 'war crimes.'  I got to
admit he was really inventive in the 'atrocities' he made up.   


>I don't have to stretch it far at all. It is perfectly natural
>and obvious. These men were not a crack team of engineers poised
>to take over the island and set up a Communist dictatorship. They
>were there doing what they claimed - building an airfield for the
>tourists.

I never said that they were a 'crack unit'.  I agree that they were
there to build an airfield.  I am also of the opinion that they did
not take part in the coup (other than the 'advisors').

However, they were formed as a military unit, wearing uniforms, and
equipped with both heavy and light weapons.  Based on this I find it
completely unreasonable to claim 'civilian' status for them.  IMO they
were a military engineer unit building a dual-use (military/civilian)
airfield.

>>Think about what I saw.  I saw Cubans, wearing Cuban uniforms, who
>>were fighting as a cohesive unit.  

>There were all of 43 soldiers on the island.

In _your_ opinion.  I obviously disagree.  Of course I was also the
guy they were shooting at.  

>>These people had Cuban military
>>identification documents and used military ranks.  Now, based on the
>>above I feel that it is reasonable to believe that they were in fact
>>military personnel.

>All these people or just the few you saw? There is little doubt
>that the Cubans would have mobilised their military along civilian
>lines. So in the event of war a construction team would serve in
>the same military unit. In peacetime they might even go on using
>military titles but I doubt it. There is no evidence here of a
>threat to anyone. They were building an airport. Nothing more.

So these people are wearing military uniforms, carrying weapons and
using military titles.  FYI, this makes them soldiers.

They were simply soldiers assigned to build an airport.

No, I did not see them all.  If I had then the numbers of Cuban dead
would have been much higher.

Please note that all of the explanations you have offered puts them in
the catigory as military.


>>When a reservist puts on a uniform and engages in military operations
>>he ceases to be a reservist and becomes a soldier.  

>No he doesn't, he becomes a reservist on duty. Still a reservist.
>Still a soldier. But not a regular. As was claimed. Nor were they
>on active military duty. They were building a runway.

Please explain to me your distinction between a reservist on active
duty and a regular.  As far as I am concerned they are both soldiers.
The only difference (allthough this is frequently not the case) is in
the levels of training.


>>No I do not personally know Luttwak.  But when I came back from
>>Grenada I read the back issues of the newspapers and newsmagizines.  I
>>quickly noticed a disconnect between what I saw and what the papers
>>reported.  I was amazed at the fact that most of the reporting about
>>the Grenada invasion was the reporters passing rumor, speculation and
>>pet political opinions as 'fact.'

>Sounds like the usual run of the mill newspaper story. Although
>the US press tends to be very pro-US and pro-interventions as a 
>general rule. However Luttwak was quoting from the Proceedings 
>of the US Naval Institute. An article written by a serving Marine
>officer. I don't think you are going to be able to work Liberal
>Press bias into this story.

I am not claiming 'liberal bias'.  What I am accusing is irresponsible
reporting that trivialized the fighting that occured, and gave the
Americian people a totally unrealistic impression of what was
happening.


>>My unit concentrated in the Chantilly Estate area (and slightly
>>southwest of it) and around the town of Grand Roy.  We also did some
>>stuff inland of the town between Grand Roy abd Gouavey (sp?) but I
>>cannot remember the name.

>My Grenadan geography is a little hazy I must admit, but isn't
>this at the other end of the island to the airfield the Cubans
>were building?

Not quite.  More towards the south-central areas initially, then later
towards the northern end.  The first couple of days were in the
Salinas area.



>>The PRA had 5000
>>soldiers (ranging from street gang types to moderately trained light
>>infantry) all of whom had been issued weapons.  

>The total number of dead on the island seems to be just 24 Cubans
>(out of 679) and 43 Grenadans. Those 5000 didn't put up much of a
>fight did they?

No, they didn't.  I attribute this towards very effective psychological
operations more than anything else.

Something else to consder is the number of wounded.  Due to very
effective medical care the US ratio of dead to wounded was about 1 in
6.  Discounting the marines (who didn't do much fighting) there were
about 1200 US troops actually on the island.  Of these 1200 there were
approx 20 dead and 120 wounded.  This makes a casualty rate of about
10% (I don't think the marines took any casualties).  This is the
telling number about just how hard the fight was. 


>>Actually the aircraft revetments (incomplete) that I saw appeared to
>>be too small for backfires, my guess is that they were about MIG
>>sized.  But you'd have to ask an airforce type to find out for sure.

>Or maybe they were not even aircraft revetments.

>The real reason for the Grenadan invasion is more likely to do
>with Lebanon. Rather than have to explain to the American public
>why the US screwed up so badly the Reagan administration invaded
>some small harmless island making up some story about Cuban and
>Soviet penetration threatening the security of the West and waved
>the flag for all it was worth. 

I've heard that theory too.  I personally discount it.  We would have
had to do something anyway and the coup took place almost at the same
time as the Lebanon attack.  IMO, this is just another example of
people trying to discount what was happening in Grenada.


>Lebanon was taken off the front 
>pages. Grenada went on. America could walk tall and proud. The
>US government and military escaped any real criticism for their
>decisions leading up to the October 23 bombing.

Really?!?  I have seen a lot of criticism about the bombing.  Of
course it is from people who have little military experience or
knowledge (notice that the military types refer to the 'mistakes' made
in Beriut as things they would have probably done themselves?)

War sucks.  Sometimes the enemy finds and is able to take advantage of
a weakness on our defenses.  This is called: 'the cost of doing
business.'

From: colin@ni.net (Colin Campbell)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan,alt.war,soc.history
Subject: Re: US sneak attacks on Cuba and Grenada
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 03:38:47 GMT

jaskew@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) wrote:

>>Put a reservist in
>>uniform and give him a weapon, and you have a soldier.  I make no
>>distinction between reservists recalled to active duty and 'regulars.'

>Which is handy distinction for you to make. You need a little
>more than a weapon and a gun to be a soldier but let's not 
>get into that. These construction workers do not seem to have
>been issued with uniforms. Exactly how were they on active duty?

You are convinced that they were a bunch of elderly construction
workers, and appear to be unwilling to consider that I, as an
eyewitness have anything pertient to say.  Fine, you stick with youe
'experts' (and their agendas) and I'll stick with what I saw.

This debate is going nowhere.  Its time to quit.

PS.  I have been both a regular and a reservist, that is why I can
feel qualified to judge the status of a reservist.

PPS.  Just to make the distinction more complicated, I currently have
an application in to become 'full-time national guard'.


>>No, I do not speak with Fidel (do you?) last I heard he still regards
>>me as a 'terrorist' with a death penalty for 'war crimes.'  I got to
>>admit he was really inventive in the 'atrocities' he made up.   

>No doubt. Although in legal terms he probably has you on the
>war crimes charge. If you had done it in the Serbian Army you
>might well have ended up at the Hague. The Un Convention is
>pretty clear on this issue. Even if all the US wanted to do 
>was change the government that is still illegal. A good thing
>international law is mostly theoretical huh?

Actually, the rule regarding the formal declaration of war or
ultimatium is honored more in the breach.  Besides I have never heard
of it being applied to the common soldier.

The 'war crimes' I am accused of are for 1) a massacre which occured
before the invasion, 2) the murder of Bishop, as well as various
rapes, pillaging and murders.  The list is highly inventive, but my
unit was specifically identified as being 'responsible'.


>>No, I did not see them all.  If I had then the numbers of Cuban dead
>>would have been much higher.

>Kill them afer they all surrendered perhaps? I don't quite
>understand the nature of this threat myself.

As you are not a soldier, I feel I need to provide a more detailed
explanation here.  In combat, you rarely actually see the person you
are shooting at.  Generally, when I shot, I shot at dust signatures or
places where I _thought_ the enemy was.

As a machinegunner (and an expert shot) anyone I could see would be
hit, and probably killed.


>I thought the figure for the number of US soldiers on the island 
>was closer to 6000. And you have to remember that there were a 
>lot of friendly fire incidents. A few helicopters shot down. This
>is not hard fighting at all.

That figure included the sailors on the ships offshore, the marines
(who IMO left me to clean up after the job they didn't bother to do
right) the aircrews of the airforce transports, as well as the
logistics base that was set up on a nearby Caribiean island (which one
I don't rememver).  The actual number of troops who were actually on
the ground and fighting was about 1200.

From: colin@ni.net (Colin Campbell)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan,alt.war,soc.history
Subject: Re: US sneak attacks on Cuba and Grenada
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 17:16:21 GMT

jaskew@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) wrote:

>Well you seem to have been at the wrong end of the island for
>these construction workers to have been shooting at you. What
>is more *all* the pictures I have seen of Cuban construction
>workers show them in civies. I point you toward _Urgent Fury_
>by a bloke called Adkins. A serving (Marine I think) officer.
>He not only repeatedly describes these elderly fat men as both
>construction workers and civilians by provides photos of them
>being led into captivity dressed in civilian clothes. Perhaps
>you failed to distinguish Cuban civilians from Grenadan soldiers.
>You can speak both Spanish and French Creole right?

As I have stated my first several days were spent in the Salinas area.

And _who_ over there spoke French Creole?  Everyone in Grenada speaks
English.  This BTW was another excellent way of telling the Cubans
from the locals.

Also, since you have been quoting a lot of Marines for your sources, I
thought that I would tell you about where the various US forces were
deployed and what they were doing.

US army:  Seize the Salinas airfield, and all areas South of Saint
Greorge (the capital city).  In addition decisively engage all Cuban
and PRA forces.

USMC:  Secure areas north of Saint George (including Pearls airport)
and prevent the mobilization/formation of orginized forces.  In
addition the marines were not to become decisively engaged.

Once the marines got back aboard their ships the army forces spread
out to cover the areas formerly covered by the Marines.   Please note
that I have some heartburn with the way the marines did their job.
From what I saw the marines were more intersted in getting their
pictures in the paper that with securing Grenadian military hardware
before it could be dispersed and hidden.  My heaviest firefights were
in areas that had been 'secured' by the marines.

>Not many of them as most of those 600 were at Point Salinas
>and captured within hours of the invasion beginning.

And very easy to tell apart from the locals.  The Cubans were
hispanic, and the Grenadians were black.  Intresting how your marine
didn't notice this.  A marine BTW, who had no business in the Salinas
area.  _If_ he was actually there, what hell was he doing - looking
for for a reporter so he could have his picture taken?

From: colin@ni.net (Colin Campbell)
Newsgroups: alt.war,soc.history
Subject: Re: US sneak attacks on Cuba and Grenada
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 04:08:22 GMT

jaskew@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) wrote:

>Putting uniforms on construction workers does not make them regulars.
>Complete equipment packs? You mean the total absence of tanks or any
>significant numbers of heavy weaponry? These men were there to build
>an airfield. Nothing more.

Excuse me, but can you name any country that has tanks as part of the
TOE for an engineer unit?  Tanks are found with tank units or married
to mechanised infantry units.

From: colin@ni.net (Colin Campbell)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan,alt.war,soc.history
Subject: Re: US sneak attacks on Cuba and Grenada
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 05:26:35 GMT

jaskew@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) wrote:

>Which leads me to the bit I like - the number of medals
>awarded. I have the figure kicking around somewhere but 
>I believe it was well over 6000. That and the fact that
>the US government had to remove some AK-47's that members
>of a ViceAdmiral's staff had "acquired" somewhere.

Remember this 5000 number,  Everybody who participated in the campaign
was awarded the "Armed Forces Expiditionary Medal" (basically a
campaign ribbon indicating participation).   In addition every soldier
in my unit (who didn't get caught in a screwup) got an "Army
Achievement Medal" (literally the _lowest_ ranking award for
achievement).

The highest ranking award awarded for service during the invasion was
the "Silver Star" (only one awarded).  Rumor had it, that in an effort
to discourage "risk taking" there were not to be any high ranking
medals awarded.

P.S.  IMO many people got gypped on medals as freguently they deserved
medals much higher ranking than what they actually recieved.

From: colin@ni.net (Colin Campbell)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan,alt.war,soc.history
Subject: Re: US sneak attacks on Cuba and Grenada
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 05:38:24 GMT

jaskew@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) wrote:

>It looks like I got this wrong. I was probably fooled by his
>uniform in the photo he took of himself in a US Navy helicopter.
>At least I think that was what it was. Now I"m worried.

I suspect that there is simply no 'unbiased' account of the invasion.
I certainly admit to a bias towards people who IMO were shooting at
me.

FYI, I was an eyewitness to a newspaper reporters fabricating a story.
The reporter was supposed to accompany us on a patrol (to set up an
amubsh) but didn't show up untill after we had cleared the area and
returned to our base (we left a 11:00 PM and returned at 10:00 AM).
So he simply posed some of us in a field, took a picture and wrote the
story claiming that he had actually accompanied us.

Just be suspicious of the caliber of the people who wrote the source
material.