April 11, 2003
IF ONLY THERE WERE OIL IN THE BAY OF PIGS...:
Meanwhile, in Cuba, the tyranny goes on (Jeff Jacoby, 4/11/03, Jewish World Review)I met Hector Palacios when I went see the tiny lending library maintained by his wife in their cramped third-floor walkup. (In Cuba, lending books is also a crime.) Ninety percent of Cubans no longer believe anything Castro says, Palacios estimated, and if they were free to leave, 5 million of them would do so. Formerly an official in the Communist Party, he had soured on the government in 1980, when he saw people beaten in the streets for wanting to emigrate.If he could send a message to the American people, Palacios was asked, what would it be? "I would tell them that there are two embargoes affecting Cuba," he said. "There is the US economic embargo against Cuba. And there is Castro's embargo against the Cuban people."
For engaging in peaceful dissent, Palacios was sent to prison twice in the 1990s, each time for 1-1/2 years. The latest wave of repression has just swept him behind bars again -- this time for 25 years.
Champions of "constructive engagement" have long insisted that the surest way to bring freedom and democracy to Cuba was to flood the island with tourists and foreign trade. They have loudly blasted the US embargo, which restricts Americans' freedom to travel to Cuba or do business there. Their minds have not been changed by the fact that hundreds of thousands of tourists and hundreds of millions of dollars already surge into Cuba annually, all without appreciably increasing the liberty of ordinary Cubans. Most of the influx is Canadian and European, but a significant chunk is American: 80,000 US citizens travel to Cuba each year via a third country.
Every few years Castro unleashes a brutal crackdown, sweeping scores of innocent victims -- dissidents and democrats guilty of nothing more than thinking for themselves -- into his dungeons. It isn't something he does because he has been insufficiently exposed to commerce and tourism, or because he resents the US embargo, or because Jimmy Carter and other credulous liberals haven't lavished him with his usual quota of flattery.
He does it because he is a ruthless tyrant who craves power above all else. For 44 years, he has let nothing weaken his stranglehold on Cuba, and neither concessions nor sanctions nor international condemnation will change his behavior now. The only one way to reform a totalitarian despot like Castro is to topple his regime. Peacefully if possible, by force if necessary.
Imagine how much suffering would have been averted if JFK had just effected regime change during the Missile Crisis?
Posted by Orrin Judd at April 11, 2003 12:37 PM
The arguement that the embargo is hurting the Cuban people but not Castro may have some merit in that it is the same critique used against the Iraq sanctions.
It would make life easier if Castro and his regime could be removed similar to Saddam.
That said I don't know how the US would justify it after watching all the opposition to taking down Saddam. It is ironic the US took out a (somewhat) militarily strong dictator 1/2 across the world but won't go after a weak dictator 90 miles away.
You have to be pretty certain it would not have led to a world nuclear war.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 11, 2003 2:54 PMHarry's right, regarding '62. Today of course, nobody will lob an ICBM if we went into Havana.
Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at April 11, 2003 3:23 PMWhy? We'd have won the nuclear exchange and saved many lives and trillions of dollars.
Posted by: oj at April 11, 2003 3:35 PMIs it possible to actually "win" a nuclear exchange?
Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at April 11, 2003 4:17 PMTime keeps strengthening our position. Look at Gulf War I vs Gulf War II: in 2003 we destroyed the whole regime and conquered the whole country while losing only half the lives it cost us to take a sliver of desert in 1991.
As technology and our economy advances, while our enemies wallow in stasis, we get relatively stronger. It's prudent for us to put off conflicts. The only reason to go sooner than necessary is out of generosity to the oppressed people we'll liberate.
Another consideration: Castro is nearing the end of his life. Let him die of old age and the regime may democratize voluntarily, a la Gorbachev.
Ali:
As the Soviet archives have been opened and those who ran it freed to speak they've acknowledged they could not have struck the United States at that time.
We did the best we could with the knowledge we had back then, along with the huge uncertainties in the knowledge. IIRC, the CIA had seriously overestimated the Soviet economy and military strength....but we didn't know it at the time
.
They could have struck western Europe. Same diffference.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 11, 2003 10:26 PMBruce:
That's not really true. Ike understood it very well, though he kept U-2s flying to verify it. It was one of the reasons he pooh-poohed the space program, because he knew the Russian's, contrary to the hysteria, was primitive.
Harry:
Not to us it wouldn't have been. But the idea they'd nuke Europe, so that we'd then nuke them, all just because we deposed Castro seems fairly far-fetched.
So, on Aug. 22, 1939, did the idea of a USSR-
German alliance. In military planning -- that's
what you are talking about, even if you think
you are doing politics -- you do not operate
on the basis of what you think your opponent
will do but what he can do.
Ignoring that rule tends to create catastrophes.
pj: Personally I wouldn't be surprised if Castro was around to see George P. Bush be inaugrated as Prez.
Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at April 12, 2003 4:23 AMharry:
Yes, but they couldn't do.
O, I think the obliteration of western Europe
might have had some negative effects. Today,
not so much, because we have Japan to trade
with. In 1962, I recall, we were jittery when
Europe stopped buying our chickens.
Harry;
Even someone who has such high regard for Soviet military prowess as you, must realize they could hardly have obliterated Europe.