Time To Overturn Castro And Rescue Cuba?

[NATO AIR]

if anything, from the drug lords who are likely to take over after castro dies... an interesting argument from the always provocative conservatives at diplomad

http://www.diplomadic.blogspot.com/

Dealing With Castro, Part II

In part 1 of our essay on Cuba, we call for the Bush administration to remove Castro and his regime within the next four years. Some might argue that the bulk of Castro's seriously hostile acts against the US are years old, that he no longer presents a danger to the US, and that we should forget about him (Note: This argument, in fact, was made to us by an Italian and an Argentine diplomat.) They might also argue that time will take care of Castro, and might ask, what's the point of working to have him removed and his regime dismantled?

We have a one-word answer to this line of questioning: Justice, or perhaps, Payback. Whichever word, it comes down to not letting the old killer die peacefully in bed with his delusions intact. He should feel the fear and degradation he inflicted on hundreds-of-thousands of people; he should live long enough to see his life's work dismantled. Just as the world community rightly pursued old and out-of-power Nazi criminals for decades after WWII, it should likewise pursue this mass murderer, punish him, and ensure that the regime he created does not survive.

U.S. policy towards Cuba since JFK has proven pathetic and totally unworthy of a superpower committed to expanding freedom around the world. As we know, JFK missed two golden opportunities to kill the beast in its infancy, to wit, his betrayal of the freedom fighters at the Bay of Pigs and his unnecessary concession to the USSR to allow Castro to survive in exchange for the Soviets withdrawing their missiles. While Americans fought and died against tyranny around the globe, for most of the past 46 years we resigned ourselves to allowing a nation 90 miles offshore, and with long historic ties to the US, to become a prison camp for our friends and a base camp for our enemies. Our policy has consisted of lethargy punctuated by oratory and an occasional symbolic gesture undertaken for domestic electoral purposes rather than as part of a strategy to free Cuba and end the menace.

The one potentially meaningful long-term action we have undertaken, the economic embargo, proved (to state it kindly) less than effective; we were unable to get the rest of the world, including our closest "allies" to join us. The damage to Cuba's economy came much less from the US embargo than from the economic policies of the Castro regime. Castro's economy limped along long thanks to our "allies"; to some $10-12 million/day (a conservative estimate) poured into Cuba by the Soviets; and to the toughness and resourcefulness of ordinary Cubans who hated the regime but worked hard to survive.

Cuba is now at a point that the US embargo is essentially irrelevant: If we "lift" it Castro immediately would re-impose it. Cuba doesn't have the money to buy much of anything from anybody [Note: If recent offshore oil explorations by a European firm prove successful that might change.] We recommend leaving the embargo in place and, in fact, strengthening it with a much tougher version of "The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act," more commonly known as the Helms-Burton Act. The HBA allows Americans to file suit against foreign firms that take advantage of illegally expropriated property in Cuba. It has a fatal flaw, however, in its Title III provision that allows the President to waive sanctions against such firms for six months at a time. The HBA, therefore, has never taken hold. We would propose a bill that formally declares that the United States would not recognize as legitimate any foreign investment in Cuba undertaken since Castro's coming to power, and the intention of the United States to use its legal, political, and "other" resources after the fall of Castro to contest such investment. No waivers. No excuses.

The US also should announce that it will hold as criminally liable in US Court any member of the Cuban government, Communist Party, or armed forces that as of a certain date commits any act of murder, torture, or "other acts of support for the regime." Leave that vague. Place a bounty on Castro and his brother and charge them in US courts with crimes against humanity or any other applicable crimes. The sweaty-palm syndrome will set in as nervous bureaucrats see a failing Castro and weigh obeying him against the possibility of being tried in a post-Castro Cuba.

In addition, we would end all remittances to Cuba from the USA, prevent payments to the Cuban telephone company from US phone companies (a big source of income for the regime), and clamp down hard on travel to Cuba by Americans or US-residents. These steps, ironically, could anger many in the USA's Cuban community. That would have to be handled with sensitivity and compassion, preparing the ground carefully, and by telling the truth, i.e., these actions form part of a concerted, well-thought-out drive to end the Castro regime forever. People everywhere should understand that we will no longer engage in the symbolic politics of little pinpricks.

Finally, the most controversial part. We call it "provoke, provoke, provoke." The overwhelming military power of the US in the Caribbean could be used to great effect, much as we did with Libya under Reagan. Challenge his air force to come up and try to repeat their act of murdering "Brothers to the Rescue" pilots -- for which Clinton did nothing. Play havoc with Cuba's airspace; make sudden and random announcements that it is closed to civilian traffic for a period of days due to impending US military maneuvers in the region. Drive away the tourists with loose talk and leaks about invasions and attacks. Have USN ships violate Cuba's territorial waters; have them randomly check Cuban-bound ships for "dangerous cargoes." Drive Castro's creaky armed forces crazy; force them to overextend themselves, make them look foolish and inept in the eyes of Cubans and the world.

And, if necessary, at a time of our choosing use our military assets in a direct intervention in Cuba. We've charged half-way round the world to remove the menace and tyranny of Saddam, and yet we have an even greater menace just 90 miles offshore.

This policy will require nerves of steel. The MSM and the UN and the Europeans will Mau-Mau us incessantly. CNN will show brave Cubans on air-raid alert; it will feature brave talk about filling American body bags, etc. You know the drill. But ridding us of Castro and his regime would be a major blow for freedom and a historic legacy by President Bush to future generations.

 

[Merlin1047]

Wow. Somebody get this guy some prozac, then lock him the hell in the basement.

I continue to be perplexed at the hypocritical attitude some Americans take toward Cuba and Castro. We started by supporting Batista, a brutal dictator who ran Cuba for his own profit and allowed organized crime syndicates to run rampant so long as they paid him a percentage.

When Castro's forces overthrew Batista in a popularly supported uprising, the Kennedy administration attempted to repay the debt they owed to the Mafia who had supported Kennedy's candidacy in his bid for the presidency. The result was the abortive Bay of Pigs debacle which nearly caused World War III. This was followed by a number of covert attempts to assasinate the Cuban dictator.

We continue to occupy a portion of the country with our base at Guantanamo. However, Castro doesn't complain too much because he needs the income generated by the base.

So as I see it, the ball is in our court, not the Cuban's. We should be the one to initiate a normalization of relationships and we should do so with the acknowledgement that while there may have been wrongdoing on both sides, the lion's share of misdeeds belongs to us.

 

[NATO AIR]

Wow. Somebody get this guy some prozac, then lock him the hell in the basement.

I continue to be perplexed at the hypocritical attitude some Americans take toward Cuba and Castro. We started by supporting Batista, a brutal dictator who ran Cuba for his own profit and allowed organized crime syndicates to run rampant so long as they paid him a percentage.

When Castro's forces overthrew Batista in a popularly supported uprising, the Kennedy administration attempted to repay the debt they owed to the Mafia who had supported Kennedy's candidacy in his bid for the presidency. The result was the abortive Bay of Pigs debacle which nearly caused World War III. This was followed by a number of covert attempts to assasinate the Cuban dictator.

We continue to occupy a portion of the country with our base at Guantanamo. However, Castro doesn't complain too much because he needs the income generated by the base.

So as I see it, the ball is in our court, not the Cuban's. We should be the one to initiate a normalization of relationships and we should do so with the acknowledgement that while there may have been wrongdoing on both sides, the lion's share of misdeeds belongs to us.

i thought the eisenhower administration planned the bay of pigs, it was just the kennedys who botched it

also, i think sanctions do not work at all with cuba, and that we have failed the cuban people by abandoning them to this sanctions rhetoric that doesn't hurt castro one bit, only giving him an excuse for his own many shortcomings as a "leader"

 

[Merlin1047]

i thought the eisenhower administration planned the bay of pigs, it was just the kennedys who botched it

also, i think sanctions do not work at all with cuba, and that we have failed the cuban people by abandoning them to this sanctions rhetoric that doesn't hurt castro one bit, only giving him an excuse for his own many shortcomings as a "leader"

I'm not sure if Ike planned the operation, but I know it was Kennedy who pulled the trigger and that's what counts.

I agree that since the end of the cold war sanctions against Cuba are counter-productive. They only serve to hurt the Cuban people while having no effect on Castro. Plus we get Cuban refugees and the fact that they can come here and get automatic legal status becomes somewhat problematic when out of the other side of our face we make noises about all those Mexicans.

Edit: you are correct. The planning and training for the invasion were almost complete when Kennedy took office in 1961.

 

[dumphauler]

Viva la Revolution!

 

[Isaac Brock]

I just don't see what the big deal is. US tolerates China, but hates Cuba. Both are communist and I'd even go so far to say that China has the less pristine human rights record. It is of course more due to Realpolitik than on moral grounds, as some detractors might suggest. Indeed, as Merlin very correctly stated, its mostly a result of a historical grudge. A grudge that I don't think is Cuba's fault alone.

Interestingly enough for the vast majority of Cubans, the standard of living has jumped in leeps and bounds since the days of Batista, especially amongst the Black and Black-mixed former slave population. It would be far greater if the US allowed food exports to Cuba, or at least repealed the Helms-Burton legislation so that other countries, such as Canada and the EU, could.

One interesting thought. Cuba is over 60% Black or Black-mixed, however Cuban refugees to the US are predominantly Hispanic. During the days of Batista, Hispanics were the ruling party. A historical coincidence? I doubt it.

 

[Comrade]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/10/21/castro.fall/

 

[NATO AIR]

I just don't see what the big deal is. US tolerates China, but hates Cuba. Both are communist and I'd even go so far to say that China has the less pristine human rights record. It is of course more due to Realpolitik than on moral grounds, as some detractors might suggest. Indeed, as Merlin very correctly stated, its mostly a result of a historical grudge. A grudge that I don't think is Cuba's fault alone.

Interestingly enough for the vast majority of Cubans, the standard of living has jumped in leeps and bounds since the days of Batista, especially amongst the Black and Black-mixed former slave population. It would be far greater if the US allowed food exports to Cuba, or at least repealed the Helms-Burton legislation so that other countries, such as Canada and the EU, could.

One interesting thought. Cuba is over 60% Black or Black-mixed, however Cuban refugees to the US are predominantly Hispanic. During the days of Batista, Hispanics were the ruling party. A historical coincidence? I doubt it.

we shouldn't tolerate china... but one fix... china is no longer communist, it is now a dictatorship of the right (i.e. a facist one) not a dictatorship of the left

 

[Comrade]

Interestingly enough for the vast majority of Cubans, the standard of living has jumped in leeps and bounds since the days of Batista, especially amongst the Black and Black-mixed former slave population.

According to what statistics? I'd be astounded if you could actually provide a linkable source that proves Cubas' economy has outpaced the Western economies in any one decade over the last 50 years.

Can you???

It would be far greater if the US allowed food exports to Cuba, or at least repealed the Helms-Burton legislation so that other countries, such as Canada and the EU, could.

Suddendly you feel that US favored trade nation status should be granted to a dictatorial state for reasons that appeal to your leftist slant?

One interesting thought. Cuba is over 60% Black or Black-mixed, however Cuban refugees to the US are predominantly Hispanic. During the days of Batista, Hispanics were the ruling party. A historical coincidence? I doubt it.

Err, what the heck are you getting at? Maybe this is a matter for our lurking White supremicists after all?

 

[Isaac Brock]

According to what statistics? I'd be astounded if you could actually provide a linkable source that proves Cubas' economy has outpaced the Western economies in any one decade over the last 50 years.

Can you???

Careful, you're misrepresenting what I say. I said that Cuba's standard of living has improved since the days of Batista. I never did say it improved at a greater pace than Western Countries, which of course it did not. Surely, you can agree with that?

Suddendly you feel that US favored trade nation status should be granted to a dictatorial state for reasons that appeal to your leftist slant?

You do it for China. That was the point.

Err, what the heck are you getting at? Maybe this is a matter for our lurking White supremicists after all?

It has nothing to do with racial superiority. Surely you can agree that at times in history some groups have been elevated at the expense of others. Cuba was a former Spanish slave colony where the Spanish reigned dominion over the African slaves. Indeed under Castro's Cuba, the rights of Black Cubans has risen considerably. Of that there is little doubt.

 

[Isaac Brock]

we shouldn't tolerate china... but one fix... china is no longer communist, it is now a dictatorship of the right (i.e. a facist one) not a dictatorship of the left

For all China's dabbling in Capitalism, for the vast, vast majority of the population it is staunchly Communist. I would disagree that is has become a dictatorship of the right. It's Maoist political and social slants have changed very little desipite new Economic Zones and economic liberites.

Cuba is indeed very similar. It has a very large free-market Tourism industry catering to Europe and Canadians. The tourist industries are not state run and are, like China, given special economic status in order to provide Cuba hard currency to purchase much needed food and medicine blocked by the embargo.

While i think it's easy to say cut off all ties with Communist countries as a solution. It ignores economic opportunities and the associated positive social and political pressures that go with the increase of wealth.

 

[Doc Holiday]

I just don't see what the big deal is. US tolerates China, but hates Cuba. Both are communist and I'd even go so far to say that China has the less pristine human rights record. It is of course more due to Realpolitik than on moral grounds, as some detractors might suggest. Indeed, as Merlin very correctly stated, its mostly a result of a historical grudge. A grudge that I don't think is Cuba's fault alone.

Interestingly enough for the vast majority of Cubans, the standard of living has jumped in leeps and bounds since the days of Batista, especially amongst the Black and Black-mixed former slave population. It would be far greater if the US allowed food exports to Cuba, or at least repealed the Helms-Burton legislation so that other countries, such as Canada and the EU, could.

One interesting thought. Cuba is over 60% Black or Black-mixed, however Cuban refugees to the US are predominantly Hispanic. During the days of Batista, Hispanics were the ruling party. A historical coincidence? I doubt it.

Damn, give us some time, we're working on it.