The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. Again tonight the invasion of Grenada is the dominant story. U.S. and Caribbean forces have crushed Cuban resistance but are still fighting Grenadians. The first Americans have been evacuated. From friendly capitals, and in two international forums the Grenada invasion is condemned. Six Americans are dead in the fighting and 33 wounded. At the same time the death toll in Lebanon continues to rise from Sunday's explosion in Beirut. Jim? Grenada Debate

JIM LEHRER: We'll have the known details of the action in and about Grenada, the freshest official update having come in a late afternoon news conference from Defense Secretary Weinberger. We'll also have a version of the congressional debate now growing over the wisdom of the U.S. action, as well as the one between foreign policy experts over the world signal it sends. On the Beirut explosion, the death list grew to 219; Vice President Bush visited the scene of Sunday's disaster, and we have a report on the delay in notifying the families of the dead and wounded Marines.

MacNEIL: U.S. invading forces meeting heavier resistance than expected today overcame Cuban resistance on the island of Grenada, but the combined U.S. and Caribbean force was reported still engaged with Grenadian forces using small arms, machine guns, mortars and anti-aircraft weapons. Late this afternoon, Defense Secretary Weinberger and General John Vessey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, held a press conference at the Pentagon and gave the first comprehensive picture of the situation today.

CASPAR WEINBERGER, Secretary of Defense: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I wanted to take your questions this afternoon about the various activities in Grenada. Before doing that, I would just say that the operations are progressing extremely well, and the Army and the Marine Corp units are moving against the remaining few objectives against diminishing Cuban resistance. We have not secured all of the objectives, but we believe that we will before very much longer. We have rescued and are transferring back to the United States a number of Americans. The first flight will have about 70, and they will go to Charleston; as a matter of fact, I think they're just about ready to land at Charleston. And we have control now, as you know, of both airfields and one campus of the medical college, and we were very pleased to be able to release the Governor-General and his wife and his family: they are safe and were out on the Guam a few hours ago. And, of course, we've captured about 600 Cubans, many of them combatants, almost all of whom with rifles who were shooting at us, and a large number of weapons, including a number of Soviet AK-47s. We've also overrun and taken what appears to be major Cuban installation near a little place called Frecuente down here, and at that place a Cuban colonel was taken prisoner, and a large amount of command and control equipment -- radios, secret documents and things of that kind were all found there. The principal areas of resistance still are at Richmond Hill, which was the prison here, and at this beach area near the second campus of the medical school. Almost all of the American citizens who were evacuated, that 70 group that I mentioned and the others, have been students. There are approximately 3.000 U.S. and other nation forces on the ground in the area; casualties thus far have been killed, six; missing, eight; wounded, 33. The -- we have been in touch with the -- through our intersection in Havana, trying to arrange the safe evacuation of the very large number of Cuban prisoners, and have not been able toget in touch -- get that completed yet. I believe those are the only points that I would want to make. General Vessey, do you have anything you wanted to add on the operational side?

Gen. JOHN VESSEY, chairman, joint Chiefs of Staff: I was just handed a note, Mr. Secretary, saying that the rescue of the students at the Grand Anse campus of the medical college is underway, and six helicopter loads of students is sending back --

Sec. WEINBERGER: That's the one we were most concerned with, and of course if that had been a group of empty buildings it would have been taken last night, but we wanted to be as careful as possible and I'm delighted that that particular point has -- that would leave the primary area of resistance then at the Richmond Hill prison. This is a very good one --

Gen. VESSEY: This is the Grand Anse campus, the second campus of the medical college, has been evacuated completely with no casualties.

Sec. WEINBERGER: Now, that's, from my point of view, the best news of all, because that means that all of the students are now out and safe, and that is a very great relief, and that's, again, one of the things that I think was extremely skillfully done.

MacNEIL: This morning at the White House the media asked spokesman Larry Speakes to appeal to the President to let journalists go to Grenada and cover the story. The matter also came up at Secretary Weinberger's news conference after reporters first pressed the Secretary on why American intelligence failed to foresee lively resistance by the Cubans.

LEHRER: The first American civilians were evacuated from Grenada this afternoon. A plane with 70 U.S. citizens aboard landed at the Charleston, South Carolina Air Force base; White House spokesman Larry Speakes said the group consisted of Americans who lived in or were visiting the Caribbean island nation. The State Department said roughly half of the 1,000 Americans there -- mostly students at a Grenadian medical school -- have asked to leave. A department spokesman said all would be flown out today, if possible, but presidential spokesman Speakes said every precaution is being taken to make sure the necessary aircraft can safely land and take off.

There was a special meeting of Organization of American States here in Washington today.The OAS session was mostly that of condemnation as representatives from Latin American nations criticized yesterday's invasion. The most impassioned criticism came from the U.N. ambassador who represents Grenada's former government.

IAN JACOBS, alternative representative of Granada to the OAS: Reports coming out from Grenada indicate massive casualties that are on the hands of the United States. Blood will drip from their fingers when the truth comes out of that has taken place in Grenada. It is an international outrage that none of us can tolerate or accept, Mr. President. A small poor country of 110.000 people has been invaded by a country of 220 million people. Is there any justification that can be found? We cannot allow this to happen in our hemisphere. We cannot allow it to happen in our hemisphere more so because we have articles as part of our charter, articles that clearly state that this is an outrageous act and in violation of the charter of the Organization of American States, to which we are all signators.

RAFAEL DE LA COLINA, Mexican Ambassador to the OAS [through interpreter]: My government does not believe that armed intervention is a solution in conformity with the norms of international law. Instead, we believe that it leaves deep and persistent wounds.

CHARLES FLEMMING, counselor, St. Lucia Mission to the U.N.: The United States is still guilty, guilty of responding positively to a formal request for assistance from some of the Eastern Caribbean states, who wished only to maintain their security and to protect their people from the totalitarian grip which seeks to place a stranglehold on the Caribbean.

JUAN URANGA, Argentine Ambassador to the OAS [through interpreter]: Argentina would repeat that Article 8 establishes, and I quote, "no state or group of states has a right to intervene directly or indirectly for any reason whatever in the internal or external affairs of any other state."

MacNEIL: The United Nations Security Council resumed debate late today on a call by Grenada to condemn the invasion. Secretary-General Perez de Cuellar issued a statement calling on all concerned to refrain from any actions not in conformity with the U.N. Charter.

In Europe, a number of strong U.S. allies voiced opposition to the invasion, while there was universal condemnation from throughout the Communist world. China said the invasion was a bullying act of power politics. Francs condemned the invasion; the West German government said it would have advised against it had it been consulted by Washington. In Britain, which was consulted and did advise against the news has produced a political storm around the head of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. In an emergency debate in Parliament today, the opposition Labour Party said the U.S. action showed the impotence of the Thatcher government.

DENIS HEALEY, Shadow Foreign Secretary [voice-over]: She has shown a lack of grip, a flaccid indolence in dealing with a threat to the stability -- she has failed in her duties to the House; she has failed in her duty to the British people; she has failed in her duty to the Commonwealth; and she has failed in her duty to the [unintelligible].

Sir GEOFFREY HOWE, Foreign Secretary: What I've just said to the House is that this is an occasion, and it's quite clear from what I've said, that the United States, in company with a number of Commonwealth Caribbean countries took one view, and the United Kingdom, in company with a number of other Commonwealth Caribbean countries, took another view. In those -- no, no. In those circumstances -- in those circumstances, it is no more for me to condemn the United States than it is for them to condemn us.

M.P. HEALEY: The Foreign Secretary has a duty to the House to make it clear, as he will have to do in the Security Council, whether he believes that the United States and the other Caribbean states were justified -- and I use that term, justified -- under Article 8 of the charter in invading Grenada. Surely the answer is they were not justified, and he ought to say so from that --

MacNEIL: Grenada is a part of the British Commonwealth headed by Queen Elizabeth II. Her representative and the technical head of state in Grenada has been Paul Scoon, the Governor-General the Queen appointed in 1978. He's been under house arrest since the Bishop regime took over in 1979. As you heard, Secretary Weinberger says that Scoon is now safe and is expected to take on the task of arranging a new government for the island. Sir Eric Gairy, the Grenadian prime minister ousted by Bishop in the 1979 coup, told us today that he was the only person entitled to form a new government since he was the last elected leader. Gairy, who is in the United States, told us by phone he is ready to go back, that 90 to 95 percent of the Grenadian peoplesupport him and want him back. Jim?

LEHRER: And the U.S. Congress continued its ad-hoc debate over the Grenada action. With no legislation pending concerning it, senators and House members could only speak rather than vote their minds, and from the House floor in particular they did just that.

Rep. GERALDINE FERRARO, (D) New York: The overriding question now is, do we have any foreign policy guiding us or are we just lurching from disaster to disaster, from military intervention to military intervention.

Rep. DAVID DREIER, (R) California: I suppose that if the President's going to be criticized, it might just as well be for doing his job -- protecting American lives, promoting democracy, and showing the world that we're in firm control of our foreign policy and not reacting to world events after they happen.

Rep. MAJOR R. OWENS, (D) New York: It is imperative that the Congress exercise its constitutional powers to restore sanity to our foreign policy. We must reject this new policy, which implies that the U.S. is responsible for maintaining democratic institutions in all of the countries of the Western Hemisphere.

Rep. BOB LIVINGSTON, (R) Louisiana: Mr. President, I congratulate you. You did the right thing, and you did it well.

Rep. JIM LEACH (R) Iowa: As Maurice Bishop, whose rule we so recently deplored, but whose martyrdom we now use as justification for intervention, warned in a speech two years ago, it may be easy for troops to land in Grenada, but it could prove very diffcult for them to leave.

Rep. C.W. BILL YOUNG, (R) Florida: We talk about sending messages here in the House all the time. Well, we sent a message to the terrorists of the world. We sent a message to Fidel Castro and those who would communize the entire Western Hemisphere. We sent them a message yesterday. It ain't gonna happen.

Rep. JAMES SHANNON, (D) Massachusetts: If Gershwin were alive today, perhaps he'd consider this rewrite: "You like potato, I like potato/You say Grenada, I say Grenada./Potato, potato, Grenada, Grenada/Let's call the whole thing off."

LEHRER: We continue the congressional debate now with two key members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who see the Grenada situation very differently. First, a critic of what Mr. Reagan has done, Senator Paul Tsongas, Democrat of Massachusetts. Senator, do you accept the administration's reasons for what they did in Grenada?

Sen. PAUL TSONGAS: Well, I think the reasons are very obscure. As you know, the major reason given was the safety of the Americans, and as more and more information comes out, that is in question, particularly the chancellor of the medical school arguing just the opposite from what the President said. And, secondly, the whole question of legalities.I mean, the fact is there is the OAS charter; there are articles in that charter that prohibit this kind of activity. You have the U.N. charter, and the question is whether we throw all that out the window. And the third point is the concern about whether the United States -- the argument is we were asked to do this, and therefore we had to go in. What happens if El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala say the same thing about Nicaragua? We're going to go in there? Are we going to say, "Well, Nicaragua's too big; it's going to fight back, therefore we pull back. "The concern about military interventionism being our foreign policy, and that, I think, should be troubling.

LEHRER: And how badly does it trouble you, Senator?

Sen. TSONGAS: It troubles me because it's not just Grenada. You can argue the Grenada case either way. I happen to be opposed to it. But you add Grenada to Lebanon, to our activities in Honduras, in El Salvador; where does it stop? Are we going to be involved with Marines all over the world, losing our young men? In pursuit of what purpose? And I think that's what concerns people.

LEHRER: Well, on the Grenada situation, specifically, what should the administration have done? The alternative was to have done nothing. Would that have been -- to you would that have been the right thing to do?

Sen. TSONGAS: Well, there's an interesting article in the paper today which goes through the history of our relationship with Grenada going back to the Bishop regime. Now, Bishop made all kinds of overtures to the United States which we turned back. We would not deal with him, very much like we will not deal now with the Nicaraguans. So in essence you push them further and further into the Soviet-Cuban embrace. When that happens then you have a justification for going in. If we had dealt with Bishop from the beginning, worked a relationship out with him, we would not have this situation. It was interesting that it was a Republican congressman, Jim Leach, that you had on earlier who argued the very same point.

LEHRER: But all of the past history aside, the situation that existed on the ground in Grenada, the death of Bishop, all of the things that the President has said, what should the United States have done about that? Nothing? Is that what you're saying? Just let it work itself out?

Sen. TSONGAS: There were clear indications that you could negotiate. The curfew was going to be lifted. They were negotiating with the medical school, as you know, to continue their being there. The private sector was not being molested. You could certainly have at least tried out negotiations. We didn't do that. We began in the very beginning and had a military solution, and we've lost some of our people in that process.

LEHRER: You heard the string of tapes we just ran -- the OAS, the British Parliament, etc. Do you see the international reaction as being negative in any severe way or will that too pass?

Sen. TSONGAS: Well, international reaction comes and goes. I think the problem is that once having done this, then how do you argue the case in Afghanistan? I mean, you can do that, but if we're -- I spent a year of my life in the West Indies and know most of those islands pretty well. To argue that Grenada is a threat to the United States is ludicrous. I mean, you're talking about a very poor island mainly dealing with tourism. No real threat to this country. Anyone who has been down there would recognize that. And to say somehow this tiny little municipality is a threat to the existence of the United States really does stretch one's imagination.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: For a different senatorial opinion we have Republican Richard Lugar of Indiana. Senator Lugar is also a member of the Foreign Relations Committee and its Western Hemisphere Affairs Subcommittee. Senator Lugar, in general what is your feeling about the Grenadian invasion?

Sen. RICHARD LUGAR: I think it's important to say, first of all, that, as Secretary Shultz has argued, that there was no effective government on Grenada. There were 16 members of a revolutionary and military council. The only governmental action, apparently, was to have a 24-hour curfew on and on. They were going to go about the process of forming a government, they said, in due course, but I make this point because the international law implications are important. It's a close call. Our position was there was no government, and that was the position of the Caribbean nations who asked us to assist them at a time that they were threatened by this anarchy.

MacNEIL: You think that it's legally a close call, do you?

Sen. LUGAR: Yes, I think so, but I think on balance there is a case to be made under international law for what we did, given the absence of government. In fact, the status of anarchy. Now, secondly, it is easy after the fact to point out how Americans were perfectly safe. They were safe so long as they stayed in the barracks for 24 hours. There was no government to protect them, and it is ridiculous to assume that a government could assert that they were safe because they clearly were not. They'd have been the last to know. You know, after the problems we've had elsewhere it seems to me the President once again, maybe in a close call, but he acted in terms of safety of the Americans. I think he acted appropriately.

MacNEIL: What about Senator Tsongas' concern that what this reveals is that the United States has a foreign policy of military interventionism?

Sen. TSONGAS: Well, that's clearly not the case. This type of activity is extraordinary, to say the least. And it seems to me important to point that out and to say that we were scrupulous in making the case, as the Secretary of State has, under international law for what we were about. Having said that, it seems to me that the outcome of this -- namely, the restoration of democratic institutions to Grenada -- is significant for the benefit of that country. And, finally, I would point out that I agree with my colleague, Paul Tsongas, Grenada itself is not a threat to our country. But clearly the 10,000-foot airstrip in process of getting finished, the potential for Soviet basing, the threats to the lifelines of commerce in the Caribbean -- those were threats. I think they've been observed, in fact, by the President on national TV as he showed photographs of that airfield.

MacNEIL: Will it make any difference to whether the Congress goes along with this how long it takes to mop up the remaining resistance on the island?

Sen. LUGAR: Well, of course that's an important fact, and we're all prayerful that that will occur in the next few hours. We're advised tht there is just one stronghold left, the jail situation there where the political prisoners are being held. But it's instructive to note who has been doing the fighting -- not Grenadans. Apparently 600 Cubans, heavily armed and in military formation, with anti-aircraft fire. Now, that's interesting. If people sympathizing with Grenada ought to consider what those poor people have been through with the occupation by Cuba in the last few months and years.

MacNEIL: Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Is that an important factor to you, Senator Tsongas?

Sen. TSONGAS: You mean what has happened in the past?

LEHRER: That's right. What has happened to the Grenadian people up 'til now?

Sen. TSONGAS: Well, your report indicates that the Grenadians are fighting. You weren't here in the beginning of that, but the reports are you have Grenadians fighting as well.

LEHRER: Right. Secretary Weinberger said that there were still some Grenadians fighting, Senator, but it was all kind of -- he didn't specify. But he also said that the Cubans were still fighting as well.

Sen. TSONGAS: The other point to be made is that all the arguments against Grenada, and there are arguments that you can use against it, you can use about Nicaragua. Airfields, got the same thing going on there; Cuban --

LEHRER: You just don't buy that argument at all, the threat argument?

Sen. TSONGAS: There's no question you can negotiate your way out of Nicaragua. Here you have the foreign minister comes to Washington and gives us proposals; we reject them out of hand. The alternative to that is Grenada revisited, except you're going to fight -- you're going to have a country that's going to fight back. Are we prepared to send U.S. Marines in to die in Nicaragua? My guess is, and my hope is, we won't be able to do that. Why Grenada? Because it's small? It's 110,000 people? It can't fight back?

LEHRER: Is that the crucial difference here, Senator, that Grenada was small and that it was an easy -- in other words, it was an easy mark?

Sen. LUGAR: Well, I just think that it's the wrong argument at the wrong time.I appreciate, you know, the logic and the line of questioning, but we're talking about Grenada this evening, not about Nicaragua, and to try to explain away the argument that I've tried to make on Grenada by saying it might also apply, and if so, it'd be the wrong one, would not, I think, hold water. We'll have to look at Nicaraguan situation. I would not favor an invasion of Nicaragua, nor do I know any responsible person in our government who does.

Sen. TSONGAS: Well, what's the difference then between the two examples? They're both Marxist. They both have airfields. They both have Cuban-Soviet presences. Where's the difference except size?

Sen. LUGAR: Nicaragua has a government, and it's clearly being governed presently, not by a government friendly to us, but it's clearly there, and, secondly, I don't think that the application of requests by neighbors is quite the same as it was with the Caribbean nations threatened in that particular area.

LEHRER: Senator Tsongas, what about the other point that Senator Lugar makes that Americans have been in jeopardy -- you can go back to the hostages in Iran -- time after time after time. We just had 200 Marines killed in Lebanon, and here's a President of the United States, who finally did something to protect the lives of American citizens. What's your response to that?

Sen. TSONGAS: There's no way of proving that. I mean, obviously the President can get up and say, "Were it not for what I did, we would have lost lives." There's no way you can prove that negative. But that means, in essence, any time you have a change of government anywhere the argument applies. And now we're going to say that no matter where you have a change and you have revolution, you have chaos -- you had a recent case a couple years ago in Ghana, Liberia, where you had violence as well. Then you can never --

LEHRER: Where American citizens were in jeopardy?

Sen. TSONGAS: That's a never-ending argument that can be used anywhere around the world.

LEHRER: Senator Lugar?

Sen. LUGAR: I think the distinction is that we claimed, correctly, in Grenada there was no government there to protect our citizens. At least even in a question of change of government, where there is clearly somebody in control that you can hold responsible, then you have a different predicament. That was not the case in Grenada with the 16-member revolutionary council, and that was it. There wasn't any government. They didn't claim to be a government.

LEHRER: Do you agree that there was no government?

Sen. TSONGAS: They were negotiating with --

LEHRER: A state of anarchy, to use the Senator's term earlier?

Sen. TSONGAS: Well, it wasn't an established regime. obviously. They just took office. But they were negotiating with the medical school; they had lifted the curfew; they were discussing things with other governments as well. I just don't think -- you're talking a very small island with a very few number of people. You know, it's not a huge nation in the normal sense of the term. And to simply react in this way, I just don't think that those lives we lost, the Marines we lost, the Rangers we lost were worth it.

LEHRER: You think they were, Senator Lugar?

Sen. LUGAR: I think that it was an action that we had to take, and every American regrets loss of life or anyone wounded on either side. I think it was a necessary action.

LEHRER: Gentlemen, thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: From congressional views we move to two experts on foreign policy; first, Richard Barnet, senior fellow and co-founder of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington. An action the U.S. had to take? Mr. Barnet?

RICHARD BARNET: I think it was completely unjustified on both legal and policy grounds. The legal argument, I think, is clear. The OAS charter directly contravened; the United Nations charter directly contravened. But I think --

MacNEIL: What about the legal grounds you heard Senator Lugar give, that there was no established government, it was a state of anarchy?

Prof. BARNET: If I may say so, I think that that is an argument that can lead us in a very dangerous direction, because I think there is a rather cynical use to be made of that argument. Here we are in a number of cases, certainly Nicaragua, bringing enormous pressure actually to subvert a government, a covert war, quite, I think, clearly designed to bring that government to a major change and to create and foster anarchy in that country, as I'm afraid we have done in other places where governments -- we desire to change a government. And then to say because of that anarchy we should move in and risk the lives of our own young men, risk the condemnation of law-abiding nations makes no sense at all. I think the policy implications of this were simply not considered by the administration.

MacNEIL: Let's look at what effect this may have. First of all, what's the effect going to be on the U.S. position in the Caribbean-Central American region?

Prof. BARNET: Well, I think there will, of course, be increased apprehension that we will try something of the same sort in Nicaragua, where the war that the United States has tried so much to foment now with Honduras moving to a regional-wide war is increasing, and that, I think, is going to have precisely the effect that we don't want. It is likely to suck in more Cubans and More Russians.

MacNEIL: It won't have the contrary effect of making it very clear to the Cubans and Russians that the United States will not stand for their expanding their influence -- military influence, particularly -- in this region? It won't send that message?

Prof. BARNET: I think it will send a message that they should exercise caution, but I believe that the commitment of the Cubans to Nicaragua is such that this is not going to scare them off, and I think that the Soviet involvement is, if anything, likely to increase. There was no Soviet threat in Grenada. I think the problem that the United States has is to create the kind of incentive and the kind of opportunity in which the Soviets, making a misstep, get themselves involved and then can't get themselves out. That's the great danger, I think, when the superpowers come together in a confrontation over one of these revolutionary national situations.And I think our allies understand the dangers of this. I'm very much concerned that our major allies have been very angry at us for lack of consultation and, in the case of Mrs. Thatcher, outspoken about the fact that we've simply ignored their advice in a matter that concerns their own Commonwealth.

MacNEIL: Professor Barnet, thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: A different view of it from Ray Cline, former head of intelligence at the State Department and deputy director of the CIA, now a professor of international relations at Georgetown University and a senior associate at its Center for Strategic and International Studies. Mr. Cline, do you agree that this could lead to an increase in Soviet influence in that area of the country -- or that area of the world?

RAY CLINE: Not if we are firm in carrying out the objectives that we have announced, of clearing the deck for creation of a legal and responsible government in Grenada. And then removing ourselves from the situation. I think we are -- we have taken a very difficult step, but one that is politically moral and legally justified and strategically very sound.

LEHRER: Why is it strategically sound?

Prof. CLINE: Well, I think it's especially sound because I disagree with many of the comments that have already been made that Grenada is not important. Of course no single piece of real estate, if you look at a little island, is comparable to the Soviet Union and the United States, but what we're seeing in the Caribbean is a pattern of political coups and the establishment of military dictatorships. When one, like the one in Grenada, becomes so brutal that it murders even its colleagues, the last semblance of a politically responsible leadership, then there is a state of anarchy. I think Senator Lugar is absolutely right. And for the United States, the only power capable of intervening, to stand aside and let the Grenadian people be subjected to the kind of brutality that we saw in Grenada, I think is strategically wrong because it was being encourged and supported by Cuban troops, Cuban political and financial support and indirectly by the Soviet Union.

LEHRER: What signal do you think our going in there has now sent to the Soviet Union and Cubans?

Prof. CLINE: I think it has suggested that as the United States looks around the world at what are really quite similar patterns of guerrilla warfares, terrorism, political coups, supported by the Soviet Union and various surrogates, like Syria and Cuba, that they will be a little more cautious in pushing the local situations to the breaking point, to the crisis, where the neighboring states, like those in the East Caribbean in this case, are themselves so horrified and so frightened that they turn to ask for help. And they will, for the first time in many years, feel the United States has a President who courageously, though regretfully, will use force when it is necessary in a good cause.

LEHRER: Are you one of those who would also argue on the Nicaragua situation that if Nicaragua has the fear that the same thing might happen to them, that's not necessarily a bad thing?

Prof. CLINE: I think that a little more prudence on the part of the Sandinista might conceivably push them to the kind of compromise and negotiation that many people want. I do not, so far, see any sign that their wish to negotiate is anything except to ease the pressure on them. If they are to be brought to a conference table, it will be through fear of consequences such as the events in Grenada, rather than good will that brings them there, in my opinion.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Mr. Barnet, wouldn't that be a good effect if the signal to the Soviets and the Cubans was not to push these things to the breaking point, as Mr. Cline suggests?

Prof. BARNET: No, I think we're giving the Soviets quite a different signal. I think we're giving them a signal that we believe in the Brezhnev Doctrine. We believe in the theory of the backyard, that we intend to exercise absolutely brutal power in what we have historically considered to be our backyard. And the Soviets, of course, behave in the same way with respect to Afghanistan and Poland. It's not in the American interest establish that principal of legitimacy for the behavior of these two superpowers. I think we ought to be giving them quite a different message. I also think that --

MacNEIL: You mean that there is emerging a Reagan Doctrine which is borrowing the Brezhnev Doctrine?

Prof. BARNET: Exactly. And it is extremely dangerous because Grenada is militarily a pushover. But you begin to establish that kind of doctrine in a situation like Nicaragua, which is quite a different story, and in one country after another -- I just don't understand the principle that says wherever there is brutality, wherever there is a breakdown of government, there the United States must send in its forces. If that were really the case, we would have to go into country after country -- Biafra, Chana -- so many countries, and we simply don't have the military power to do that or the money.

MacNEIL: Mr. Cline, how about that, that Mr. Reagan has adopted the Brezhnev Doctrine of --

Prof. CLINE: I think that's an outrageous statement by Dick Barnet. There are totally different circumstances. The Brezhnev Doctrine was laid down to justify the massive military invasion of Czechoslovakia when its own people were trying to get a little freedom in their government. We are going into a situation of very limited scale on a temporary basis to give the people of that country a chance to choose its own government, which was taen away from them by military force. The Reagan doctrine is in favor of representative government and political pluralism and democracy, and to equate American behavior on behalf of those principles with the Brezhnev Doctrine is the kind of self-guilt complex that I find so deplorable in Americans who are reluctant to use military force of any kind in any cause, however good.

MacNEIL: Senator Tsongas, what's your observation on this argument that's just been made?

Sen. TSONGAS: Well, it's somewhat irritating. I happen to be the Senate sponsor of the amendment that would urge aid to the Afghan rebels, so there are some of us who do believe in that kind of activity. But to say that we've learned nothing in the past couple of decades in terms of armed intervention -- it's interesting, the argument that we're going to, in essence, cower the Grenadians and the Nicaraguans. They used the same argument in Vietnam. And what happened? It just made them all the more resolute. And it seems to me that -- I hope we don't have to go through every 20 years of learning the same lesson, that Third World peoples have backbone; they have principles, they're willing to fight, and the fact is a superpower willing to take them on never historically has any impact whether we do it or the Soviets do it, and I would hope we would learn that lesson.

MacNEIL: Senator Lugar, you're a supporter of the Reagan administration. How do you understand the Reagan doctrine?

Sen. LUGAR: I'm not certain there is a Reagan doctrine. I think once again we're in a very narrow case of a response in Grenada. The President has not claimed a doctrine; he made a careful case for what he decided to do, and I would simply make the case that I don't know how the people of Grenada will vote, but I think it's probably to their best interest they have a chance. I've not noticed in Afghanistan or Poland or elsewhere where the Brezhnev Doctrine is operative, that people have been voting regularly or have had any self-determination whatsoever.

MacNEIL: Professor Barnet? It's just an isolated case, not a doctrine.

Prof. BARNET: I think it's absolutely critical for a great nation, the United States, that expects to exercise leadership in the world to be very, very clear about its use of power. When it commits its power to a cause that is absolutely unworthy of it, that is, when it sees threats that are not there, or when it mistakes a situation and commits our young men and forces into a situation and then is unable either to define the mission, as in Lebanon, or to protect them adequately or to get a consensus of the American people behind it, then I think we falter at leadership. The question is not, no, we should never use military power. The question is, let us be absolutely sure before we commit ourselves that we know what we're doing and that we are true both to our own traditions and to the international legal obligations that we've undertaken.

MacNEIL: Do you have a comment, Mr. Cline?

Prof. CLINE: Yes, I agree only with the last sentence that Dick Barnet said. I disagree with all the rest of it. I think the parallel is not Vietnam, which is so often mentioned. The parallel is the situation we confronted earlier than that, in Western Europe, when France and Italy and Germany were threatened by heavy military pressures, when there was a coup setting up a Communist government in Czechoslovakia, when Berlin was blockaded, when there were labor strikes by communist unions keeping out Marshall Plan goods from Italy and we took steps -- measured steps, political, military and economic, to right that situation. We did stabilize it and there was peace in Europe. There has been peace in Europe ever since. The Caribbean is in a state of near-anarchy, which Grenada happened to be the small place that it became total first. If it goes on, the Caribbean will be the kind of a disaster area which we will have to intervene in much more strongly in our own interest as well as for the welfare of those peoples.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you, Richard Barnet, Ray Cline, Senator Tsongas and Senator Lugar. Jim?

LEHRER: As we mentined at the start of the program, journalists appealed to the President today to let them go to Grenada and cover the story. And the matter came up at Secretary Weinberger's news conference after reporters first pressed the Secretary on why American intelligence failed to foresee lively resistance by the Cubans.

Sec. WEINBERGER: No, the estimates that I saw said that while they were probably mostly construction workers, that they were undoubtedly -- many of them were armed, and undoubtedly all of them had had some form of at least reserve training. One of the -- one of the functions of lack of total intelligence is the fact that you do the operation on very short notice.

REPORTER: General, how would you characterize the remaining opposition? Is it isolated, scattered sniper-type activity or is there organized --

Gen. VESSEY: There is organized resistance both at Richmond Hill, and then there is organized resistance at the second campus, the beach campus of the medical college. And there may well be other pockets of organized resistance.

REPORTER: Mr. Secretary, what is the status of the Russians there?

Sec. WEINBERGER: The Russians? We have not any -- there were about 30, I think, 20 to 30 embassy people, spies, KGB people and others who normally go with this sort of operation, and we don't have any indication of any activity from them. We have not encountered any. If we do, we will of course do exactly as we said, and that is, we notify the Soviet government. We would prepare and plan for and arrange their safe evacuation.

REPORTER: Where are [unintelligible] now, Mr. Secretary?

Sec. WEINBERGER: I have not -- we have not encountered any. I suppose they are somewhere in and around the embassy.

Gen. VESSEY: We believe they're in the embassy.

Sec. WEINBERGER: In their own embassy in St. George.

REPORTER: Mr. Secretary, in past armed conflicts reporters have always been allowed to go along with American troops. Why weren't any reporters allowed along this time, and when will reporters get into Grenada?

Sec. WEINBERGER: The reason was, of course, the commanders' decision -- and I certainly don't ever -- wouldn't ever dream of overriding commanders' decisions in charge of an operation like this. Their conclusion was that they're not able to guarantee any kind of safety of anyone, including, of course, anybody participating, and that you have to maintain some kind of -- you have to have, I should say, some kind of awareness of the problems going into areas where we don't know what kind of conditions totally will be encountered. Where the airport was obviously heavily overloaded with all kinds of activity, and we just didn't have the conditions under which we thought it would be -- we would be able to detach enough people to protect all the newsmen, cameramen, gripmen and all of that. As soon as the commanders notify us that it is appropriate, and I hope it can be as soon as tomorrow, newsmen can go in.

REPORTER: But, Mr. Secretary, there has always been a risk for reporters, and you had the two airfields secured since the very earliest hours.

Sec. WEINBERGER: Well, we didn't have anything much beyond the airfields secured, and also there's a lack of knowledge, and, as we encounter various unexpected pockets of resistance or pockets of resistance that are stronger, why then you do have that worry. And while it may not seem credible to some of you, it was indeed the concern that we had for the safety of newsmen and media -- television as well as radio and print media.

REPORTER: It wasn't your concern, Mr. Secretary, how the public might perceive the confliet if it were on television, was it?

Gen. VESSEY: I think one of the most important reasons that we didn't is the need for surprise in this operation. We were going in there very quickly and we needed to have surprise in order to have it be successful.

REPORTER: Mr. Secretary, what's the next step? We've talked about restoring democracy to the island.

Sec. WEINBERGER: The next step would be to have the representatives of the governments at whose request we went in to set about forming -- and we will certainly try to help them -- a provisional government and to make plans as soon as possible to restore the provisions of the constitution, or by constitutional means to make what changes they feel are desirable, and to hold elections, which have not been held, of course, for many, many years, despite earlier promises. And meanwhile, we want to withdraw as many of our troops as we possibly can, and we want to get them completely out just as soon as possible. And while I know that everybody wants a rpecise date and hour when that will happen, why, we're obviously going to have to wait until it is -- these various conditions are established. But I think that, personally, it will be possible for some of the troops to start coming out very soon, and if we can get this organization of the new government underway with the countries that asked us in, then it can go even faster.

REPORTER: General Vessey, are the Cuban prisoners regarded as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention, and even if they are not, are they being treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention, and also, are the Cuban wounded being treated by American medical personnel on the Guam or elsewhere?

Gen. VESSEY: The Cubans are being treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention, certainly. We don't -- we are not at war with Cuba and we didn't want to fight with any Cubans. We got shot at by these people as we came in there.

REPORTER: But they are being --

Gen. VESSEY: The wounded are being treated. There are some Cuban doctors there who are treating some of the prisoners, and I think some are on the Guam.

MacNEIL: The first 61 American civilians were evacuated from Grenada this afternoon aboard a plane which landed at the Charleston, South Carolina Air Force base this afternoon. We now have videotape showing the arrival of the first group, all medical students, from St. George's University Medical School. As the young men disembark from an Air Force C-141, they showed their pleasure at being back safe and sound on American soil. They'd been instructed to bring along only 50 pounds of luggage, but some carried their guitars or tennis rackets. One young man showed his exuberance by getting down on his hands and knees and kissing the ground again and again. The State Department said earlier in the day that roughly half of the 1,000 Americans had asked to leave, and the intention was to fly them all out today if possible. After going through customs, some of the students told reporters how they felt about the events in Grenada and on coming home.

1st STUDENT: I don't exactly know what you want me to say. I don't think there's any more beautiful sight than being back in the U.S. or perhaps seeing the Rangers as they arrived at True Blue campus to save us. It has instilled my faith in the United States, and I'm glad to be home. Real glad.

REPORTER: Were you ever in danger, did you feel?

1st STUDENT: Yes, I felt like I was in danger.

2nd STUDENT: We did feel we were in danger, yes.

REPORTER: From who?

2nd STUDENT: There are so many forces within the nation that could have been -- the government itself. It could have been anti-government forces trying to take back the government. We didn't really know. It was such a chaotic situation there that we didn't know where to expect it from.

1st STUDENT: The only thing we were sure of was who was helping us.

2nd STUDENT: Well, you see just a little bit but not very much because it's an embankment up to the airport. After awhile we could see the Rangers coming by. I'll tell you, I've been a dove all my life, and I just can't believe how well those Rangers came down and saved us.

3rd STUDENT: Those Rangers deserve an awful lot of credit for this.

2nd STUDENT: I don't want anyone to say anything bad about the American military.

REPORTER: Someone said that no one's lives were in danger until the actual invasion. Do you believe that?

3rd STUDENT: That's questionable.

4th STUDENT: That's very questionable, questionable.

3rd STUDENT: No one can say for sure, but so much was up in the air at the time that we don't know.

MacNEIL: We now have one of the students in a studio at public television station in Charleston, South Carolina. He is Steven Piccard, who comes from Michigan. Mr. Piccard, do you feel you've been saved from a dangerous situation?

STEVEN PICCARD: Most definitely. The situation was getting worse day by day, starting with when Bishop was murdered so far by the coup that was set up and eight of his followers and military men and a lot of innocent civilians were also murdered at the same time.

MacNEIL: What kind of danger did you and your fellow students feel yourselves in?

Mr. PICCARD: Well, the government seemed to be getting very unstable and there were imposing curfews that -- like 24 hours where they actually said there was a shoot-on-sight, and therefore people got a little bit uptight and were wondering, you know, how could things be so calm if these things were being imposed? So we started asking questions and having meetings and the vice chancellor of the school, Bjorn [?], said, "Oh, yeah, I've talked to Colonel Austin and things are fine," and so forth. However, he couldn't really give us any guarantees, and you saw troops patrolling around and the situation just seemed really, really, you know, unstable.

MacNEIL: Were you scared yourself?

Mr. PICCARD: I was terribly scared. I was decided to leave before any of this stuff started happening with troops coming in or anything --

MacNEIL: And they wouldn't let you out?

Mr. PICCARD: They wouldn't let us out. They said that you are able to take a charter plane out, but there were no charter planes available.

MacNEIL: There's some controversy here, as you may have picked up, in fact, the chancellor of your medical school, Dr. Modica, was on this program last night, and he told us that you weren't in any danger and that the invasion was not justified to rescue you people. What do you feel about that?

Mr. PICCARD: I think the invasion was a plea from the countries around there that realized that there was trouble, and from that information that did leak out from the student body and the Americans there that there definitely was a need for some type of assistance. And there was danger. You could see it and you could feel it. It was just getting more unstable day by day. The people there, the Grenadian people there were frightened; they did not like their government; they were very split about it. They were very upset about the Bishop being massacred, and no one really knew what to do. So over half the student body decided they wanted to get out, and then we sat there and waited, and the next thing we knew, at 5:30 in the morning, the Rangers came in. At the time we didn't even know they were the Rangers. Just all kinds of shooting broke loose and it was incredible.

MacNEIL: What did you do when that happened?

Mr. PICCARD: I went underneath my bed and took suitcases and surrounded myself and stayed there and cried --

MacNEIL: Had you had any combat experience yourself?

Mr. PICCARD: No, I've never seen anything like this before. This was -- this was the real McCoy. This was serious. I mean, there was some heavy firepower going on.

MacNEIL: How close did the shooting come to you students?

Mr. PICCARD: Well, there was a bullet in a friend of mine's pillow, and one went through the room right next to me, and the Cubans had put anti-aircraft machinery within 50 yards of the complex surrounding the whole complex, and that's why everything was so noisy and so far when all this stuff started happening it sounded like they were right in front of our front doors firing. We didn't know who was firing what or what was happening, so we just stayed calm and stayed in there and then we found out that what they were doing was that they were trying to find out where these Cubans were. They were flying low so that they could trace the bullets that were coming up, and once they did trace them they used these aircraft that -- what do they call them, Falcons, or whatever, and they spray bullets and annihilate a whole, like a football field --

MacNEIL: Are those the Cobra gunships, the helicopter gunships, perhaps?

Mr. PICCARD: No, they were actual airplanes that are like a mile up in the air that have computer lock-ins that they can shoot every square inch in a football field. They fire, what is it? 3,000 rounds per second.

MacNEIL: Jim Lehrer in Washington has a question. Jim?

Mr. PICCARD: Yes, sure.

LEHRER: Mr. Piccard, what has been the reaction among the Grenadian people to this action?

Mr. PICCARD: I think they were quite bewildered by the power which was shown by the U.S. government. I mean, they did request -- many Grenadian friends of mine had requested, if I did get out, before any of this happened, to tell them that they needed assistance, that they thought something bad was going to erupt; what, they didn't really know. They just didn't feel stable at all with the new government. But when this did happen, there was a few Grenadians that were there on the campus that we, you know, took care of, and they just looked -- they were -- they obviously were completely frightened because they'd never seen any kind of demonstration --

LEHRER: Sure. Did they seem to welcome the U.S. action?

Mr. PICCARD: Generally, I'd have to say in a way they did -- in a way they did, but just the power that was shown, just, I think freaked them out and therefore they just didn't say very much.

LEHRER: Sure.

Mr. PICCARD: They were very struck by the power that was -- it was an awesome display of firepower that happened.

LEHRER: Well, Mr. Piccard, thank you very much for being with us, and welcome home.

Mr. PICCARD: Okay, thank you. Beirut News

LEHRER: And, on Lebanon, the Marines death toll in Beirut was raised again today to 219 as bodies continued to be uncovered from the rubble at Beirut airport. An unknown number of dead Marines and other servicemen remain still buried in that rubble, presumed to be dead. The number of known wounded is 84. The Marine unit there received a surprise visitor this morning, too, Vice President George Bush. The Marines were still searching for bodies in the crushed concrete pile that had been a four-story building. Nearby, the Vice President met General Franco Angione, the commander of the Italian troops in the international peacekeeping force, and chatted with him brietly. He also talked with the French commander and the president of Lebanon. But the high point of the trip was his visit to the Marines. Bush spoke to several of them shortly after an early-morning attack on their positions, with small arms, mortars and bazookas. When he turned to the reporters, the Vice President was indignant about what he had seen of the wreckage of the former Marine post command.

GEORGE BUSH, Vice President: I think the thing that does come through loud and clear is the -- just the insidious nature of terror, international terror, cowardly nature of international terror. And I guess another thing, when you see the resolve of these Marines, the corporals and the privates right on up to the commanding general of the Corps is that foreign policy is not going to be dictated or changed by terror. We're not going to let down friends because of terror. We're not going to let a bunch of insidious terrorist cowards shape the foreign policy of the United States. And it damn sure hasn't shaken the courage of these men, and that comes through loud and clear, and I wish every American from California to Texas to Minnesota to Maine to Washington, D.C. could see this, and they would have reinforced the convictions, about the courage of our own men and about the multinational nature of this, and about the absolute essentiality that our foreign policy not be shaped or changed by international terror.

MacNEIL: In New York and Washington today there were memorial services for U.S. servicemen killed in Lebanon. In Washington the service was in St. Matthew's Catholic Cathedral. It was attended by leaders of the administration, the Congress, members of the diplomatic community and many Marines.

PRIEST [after soloist's hymn]: Caught in the conflict not of their making, these men clearly were not masters of their own fate. Seeking peace, they found a violent death. They died as servants of peace, servants in life. And now in death they belong to the Lord. [Battle Hymn of the Republic]

MacNEIL: Again tonight we conclude our program with the names, released today, of more U.S. Marines and Navy men killed in the Beirut explosion last Sunday. MARINES

Lance Cpl. J. Ceasar, El Campo, Texas

Lance Cpl. J. Copeland, Burlington, N.C.

Sgt. Major F.B. Douglass, Cataumet, Mass.

Lance Cpl. J. Ellison, Soldier's Grove, Wisc.

Lance Cpl. W. Gibbs, Portsmouth, Va.

Lance Cpl. D.M. Green, Baltimore, Md.

Lance Cpl. T. Hairston, Philadelphia, Pa.

Lance Cpl. D. Held, Jacksonville, N.C.

Gunnery Sgt. D.W. Hildreth, Sneads Ferry, N.C.

Warrant Officer P. Innocenzi, Trenton, N.J.

Lance Cpl. F.H. Kreischer, II, Indialantic, Fla.

Lance Cpl. J. McCall, Rochester, N.Y.

Pfc. T. McMahon, Austin, Tex.

Lance Cpl. R. Meurer, Jacksonville, N.C.

Lance Cpl. R. Morrow, Clairton, Pa.

Pfc. A. Munoz, Bloomfield, N.M.

Lance Cpl. J. Silvia, Portsmouth, R.I.

Pfc. C. Stockton, Rochester, N.Y.

Lance Cpl. D. Wigglesworth, Naugatuck, Conn.

Cpt. W. Wint, Jr., Wilkes-Barre, Penn.

MacNEIL: Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.