The Batista dictatorship was overthrown in January 1959 by Castro's guerrilla forces. In
March, the National Security Council (NSC) considered means to institute regime change. In
May, the CIA began to arm guerrillas inside Cuba. "During the Winter of 1959-1960, there was a significant
increase in CIA-supervised bombing and incendiary raids piloted
by exiled Cubans" based in the US. We need not tarry on what the US or its clients would do under such circumstances. Cuba, however, did not respond with violent actions
within the United States for revenge or deterrence. Rather, it followed the procedure required by international law. In July 1960,
Cuba called on the UN for help, providing the Security
Council with records of some twenty bombings, including names of pilots, plane registration numbers, unexploded bombs, and
other specific details, alleging considerable damage and casualties and calling for resolution of the conflict through diplomatic
channels. US Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge responded by giving his "assurance [that] the United States has no aggressive purpose against Cuba." Four months before, in March 1960, his government
had made a formal decision in secret to overthrow the Castro government, and preparations for the Bay of Pigs invasion were well advanced.
Washington was concerned that Cubans might try to defend themselves. CIA chief Allen Dulles therefore urged Britain not to provide arms to Cuba. His "main reason," the British ambassador reported
to London, "was that this might lead the Cubans to ask for
Soviet or Soviet bloc arms," a move that "would have a tremendous effect," Dulles pointed out, allowing Washington to portray Cuba as a security threat to the hemisphere, following the script that
had worked so well in Guatemala. Dulles was referring to Washington's successful demolition of Guatemala's first democratic experiment, a
ten-year interlude of hope and progress, greatly feared in Washington because of the enormous popular support reported by
US intelligence and the "demonstration effect" of social and economic measures to benefit the large majority. The Soviet threat
was routinely invoked, abetted by Guatemala's appeal to the Soviet bloc for arms after the US had threatened attack and cut off other sources
of supply. The result was a half-century of horror, even worse than the US-backed tyranny that came before.
For Cuba, the schemes devised by the doves were similar to those of CIA director Dulles. Warning President Kennedy about the "inevitable political and diplomatic fall-out" from
the planned invasion of Cuba by a proxy army, Arthur Schlesinger suggested efforts to trap Castro in some action that could
be used as a pretext for invasion: "One can conceive a black operation in, say, Haiti which might in time lure Castro into
sending a few boatloads of men on to a Haitian beach in what could be portrayed as an effort to overthrow the Haitian regime,
. . . then the moral issue would be clouded, and the anti-US campaign would be hobbled from the start." Reference is to the
regime of the murderous dictator "Papa Doc" Duvalier, which was backed by the US (with some reservations), so that an effort to
help Haitians overthrow it would be a crime.
Eisenhower's March 1960 plan called for the overthrow of Castro in favor of a regime "more devoted to the true interests
of the Cuban people and more acceptable to the U.S.," including support for "military operation on the island" and "development of an adequate
paramilitary force outside of Cuba." Intelligence reported that popular support for Castro was high, but the US would determine the "true interests of the Cuban
people." The regime change was to be carried out "in such a manner as to avoid any appearance of U.S. intervention," because of the anticipated reaction
in Latin America and the problems of doctrinal management at home.
The Bay of Pigs invasion came a year later, in April 1961, after
Kennedy had taken office. It was authorized in an atmosphere of "hysteria" over Cuba in the White House, Robert McNamara later testified
before the Senate's Church Committee. At the first cabinet meeting after the failed invasion, the atmosphere was "almost savage,"
Chester Bowles noted privately: "there was an almost frantic reaction for an action program." At an NSC meeting two days later, Bowles found the atmosphere "almost as emotional"
and was struck by "the great lack of moral integrity" that prevailed. The mood was reflected in Kennedy's public pronouncements:
"The complacent, the self-indulgent, the soft societies are about to be swept away with the debris of history. Only the strong
. . . can possibly survive," he told the country, sounding a theme that would be used to good effect by the Reaganites during
their own terrorist wars. Kennedy was aware that allies "think that we're slightly demented" on the subject of Cuba, a perception that persists to the present.
Kennedy implemented a crushing embargo that could scarcely be endured by a small country that had become a "virtual colony"
of the US in the sixty years following its "liberation" from
Spain. He also ordered an intensification of the terrorist
campaign: "He asked his brother, Attorney-General Robert Kennedy, to lead the top-level interagency group that oversaw Operation
Mongoose, a program of paramilitary operations, economic warfare, and sabotage he launched in late 1961 to visit the 'terrors
of the earth' on Fidel Castro and, more prosaically, to topple him."
The terrorist campaign was "no laughing matter," Jorge Dominguez writes in a review of recently declassified materials
on operations under Kennedy, materials that are "heavily sanitized" and "only the tip of the iceberg," Piero Gleijeses adds.
Operation Mongoose was "the centerpiece of American policy toward Cuba from late 1961 until the onset of the 1962 missile crisis," Mark
White reports, the program on which the Kennedy brothers "came to pin their hopes." Robert Kennedy informed the CIA that the Cuban problem carries "the top priority in the United States
Government -- all else is secondary -- no time, no effort, or manpower is to be spared" in the effort to overthrow the Castro
regime. The chief of Mongoose operations, Edward Lansdale, provided a timetable leading to "open revolt and overthrow of the
Communist regime" in October 1962. The "final definition" of the program recognized that "final success will require decisive
U.S. military intervention," after terrorism and subversion
had laid the basis. The implication is that US military intervention would take place in October 1962 -- when the missile crisis erupted.
In February 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff approved a plan more extreme than Schlesinger's: to use "covert means . .
. to lure or provoke Castro, or an uncontrollable subordinate, into an overt hostile reaction against the United States; a
reaction which would in turn create the justification for the US to not only retaliate but destroy Castro with speed, force
and determination." In March, at the request of the DOD Cuba Project, the Joint Chiefs of Staff submitted a memorandum to
Defense Secretary Robert McNamara outlining "pretexts which they would consider would provide justification for US military intervention in Cuba." The plan would be undertaken if "a credible internal
revolt is impossible of attainment during the next 9-10 months," but before Cuba could establish relations with Russia that might "directly involve the Soviet Union."
A prudent resort to terror should avoid risk to the perpetrator.
The March plan was to construct "seemingly unrelated events to camouflage the ultimate objective and create the necessary
impression of Cuban rashness and responsibility on a large scale, directed at other countries as well as the United States,"
placing the US "in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances [and developing] an international image of Cuban
threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere." Proposed measures included blowing up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay to create "a
'Remember the Maine' incident," publishing casualty lists in US newspapers to "cause a helpful wave of national indignation,"
portraying Cuban investigations as "fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack," developing a "Communist
Cuban terror campaign [in Florida] and even in Washington," using Soviet bloc incendiaries for cane-burning raids in neighboring
countries, shooting down a drone aircraft with a pretense that it was a charter flight carrying college students on a holiday,
and other similarly ingenious schemes -- not implemented, but another sign of the "frantic" and "savage" atmosphere that prevailed.
On August 23 the president issued National Security Memorandum No. 181, "a directive to engineer an internal revolt that
would be followed by U.S. military intervention," involving "significant U.S. military plans, maneuvers, and movement of forces
and equipment" that were surely known to Cuba and Russia. Also in August, terrorist attacks were intensified, including speedboat
strafing attacks on a Cuban seaside hotel "where Soviet military technicians were known to congregate, killing a score of
Russians and Cubans"; attacks on British and Cuban cargo ships; the contamination of sugar shipments; and other atrocities
and sabotage, mostly carried out by Cuban exile organizations permitted to operate freely in Florida. A few weeks later came
"the most dangerous moment in human history."
"A bad press in some friendly countries"
Terrorist operations continued through the tensest moments of the missile crisis. They were formally canceled on October
30, several days after the Kennedy and Khrushchev agreement, but went on nonetheless. On
November 8, "a Cuban covert action sabotage team dispatched from the United States successfully
blew up a Cuban industrial facility," killing 400 workers, according to the Cuban government. Raymond Garthoff writes that "the Soviets could only see [the attack]
as an effort to backpedal on what was, for them, the key question remaining: American assurances not to attack Cuba." These and other actions reveal again, he concludes,
"that the risk and danger to both sides could have been extreme, and catastrophe not excluded."
After the crisis ended, Kennedy renewed the terrorist campaign. Ten days before his assassination he approved a CIA plan for "destruction operations" by US proxy forces "against a large
oil refinery and storage facilities, a large electric plant, sugar refineries, railroad bridges, harbor facilities, and underwater
demolition of docks and ships." A plot to kill Castro was initiated on the day of the Kennedy assassination. The campaign was called off in 1965, but "one of Nixon's first acts in office in 1969 was to direct the CIA to intensify
covert operations against Cuba."
Of particular interest are the perceptions of the planners. In his review of recently released documents on Kennedy-era
terror, Dominguez observes that "only once in these nearly thousand pages of documentation did a U.S. official raise something
that resembled a faint moral objection to U.S.-government sponsored terrorism": a member of the NSC staff suggested that it might lead to some Russian reaction, and
raids that are "haphazard and kill innocents . . . might mean a bad press in some friendly countries." The same attitudes
prevail throughout the internal discussions, as when Robert Kennedy warned that a full-scale invasion of Cuba would "kill an awful lot of people, and we're going
to take an awful lot of heat on it."
Terrorist activities continued under Nixon, peaking in the mid- 1970s, with attacks on fishing boats, embassies, and
Cuban offices overseas, and the bombing of a Cubana airliner, killing all seventy-three
passengers. These and subsequent terrorist operations were carried out from US territory, though by then they were regarded as
criminal acts by the FBI.
So matters proceeded, while Castro was condemned by editors for maintaining an "armed camp, despite the security from
attack promised by Washington
in 1962." The promise should have sufficed, despite what followed; not to speak of the promises that preceded, by then well
documented, along with information about how well they could be trusted: e.g., the "Lodge moment" of July 1960.
On the thirtieth anniversary of the missile crisis, Cuba protested
a machine-gun attack against a Spanish-Cuban tourist hotel; responsibility was claimed by a group in Miami. Bombings in Cuba in 1997, which killed an Italian tourist, were
traced back to Miami. The perpetrators were Salvadoran criminals operating
under the direction of Luis Posada Carriles and financed in Miami. One of the most notorious international terrorists, Posada had escaped from a Venezuelan prison, where he
had been held for the Cubana airliner bombing, with the aid of Jorge Mas Canosa, a Miami businessman who was the head of the tax-exempt Cuban-American National Foundation
(CANF). Posada went from Venezuela to El Salvador, where he was put to work at the Ilopango military air base to help organize US terrorist attacks against Nicaragua under Oliver North's direction.
Posada has described in detail his terrorist activities and the funding for them from exiles and CANF in Miami, but felt secure that he would not be investigated by the FBI. He
was a Bay of Pigs veteran, and his subsequent operations in the 1960s
were directed by the CIA. When he later joined Venezuelan intelligence with
CIA help, he was able to arrange for Orlando Bosch,
an associate from his CIA days who had been convicted in the US for a bomb attack on a Cuba-bound freighter, to
join him in Venezuela to organize further attacks against Cuba. An ex-CIA
official familiar with the Cubana bombing identifies Posada and Bosch as the only suspects in the bombing, which Bosch defended
as "a legitimate act of war." Generally considered the "mastermind" of the airline bombing, Bosch was responsible for thirty
other acts of terrorism, according to the FBI. He was granted a presidential pardon in 1989 by the incoming Bush I administration
after intense lobbying by Jeb Bush and South Florida Cuban-American leaders, overruling the Justice Department, which had
found the conclusion "inescapable that it would be prejudicial to the public interest for the United States to provide a safe
haven for Bosch [because] the security of this nation is affected by its ability to urge credibly other nations to refuse
aid and shelter to terrorists."
Cuban offers to cooperate in intelligence-sharing to prevent terrorist attacks have been rejected by Washington, though some did lead to US actions. "Senior members of the FBI visited
Cuba in 1998 to meet their Cuban counterparts, who gave
[the FBI] dossiers about what they suggested was a Miami-based terrorist network: information which had been compiled in part
by Cubans who had infiltrated exile groups." Three months later the FBI arrested Cubans
who had infiltrated the US-based terrorist groups. Five were sentenced to long terms in prison.
The national security pretext lost whatever shreds of credibility it might have had after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, though it was not until 1998 that US intelligence officially informed the country that
Cuba no longer posed a threat to US national security. The Clinton administration, however, insisted that the military threat posed
by Cuba be reduced to "negligible," but not completely
removed. Even with this qualification, the intelligence assessment eliminated a danger that had been identified by the Mexican
ambassador in 1961, when he rejected JFK's attempt to organize collective action against Cuba on the grounds that "if we publicly
declare that Cuba is a threat to our security, forty million Mexicans will die laughing."
In fairness, however, it should be recognized that missiles in Cuba did pose a threat. In private discussions the Kennedy brothers expressed
their fears that the presence of Russian missiles in Cuba might deter a US invasion of Venezuela. So "the Bay of Pigs was really right," JFK concluded.
The Bush I administration reacted to the elimination of the security pretext by making the embargo much harsher, under
pressure from Clinton, who outflanked Bush from the right during the 1992 election campaign. Economic warfare was made still
more stringent in 1996, causing a furor even among the closest US allies. The embargo came under considerable domestic criticism as
well, on the grounds that it harms US exporters and investors -- the embargo's only victims, according to the standard picture
in the US; Cubans are unaffected. Investigations by US specialists
tell a different story. Thus, a detailed study by the American Association for World Health concluded that the embargo had
severe health effects, and only Cuba's remarkable health care system had prevented a "humanitarian catastrophe"; this has received virtually no
mention in the US.
The embargo has effectively barred even food and medicine. In 1999 the Clinton administration eased such sanctions for all countries on the official list
of "terrorist states," apart from Cuba, singled out for unique punishment. Nevertheless, Cuba is not entirely alone in this regard. After a hurricane
devastated West Indian islands in August 1980, President Carter refused to allow
any aid unless Grenada was excluded, as punishment for some unspecified initiatives of the reformist Maurice Bishop government. When the stricken
countries refused to agree to Grenada's exclusion, having failed to perceive the threat to survival posed by the nutmeg capital of the world, Carter
withheld all aid. Similarly, when Nicaragua was struck by a hurricane in October 1988, bringing starvation and causing severe
ecological damage, the current incumbents in Washington recognized that their terrorist war could benefit from the disaster,
and therefore refused aid, even to the Atlantic Coast area with close links to the US and deep resentment against the Sandinistas.
They followed suit when a tidal wave wiped out Nicaraguan fishing villages, leaving hundreds dead and missing in September
1992. In this case, there was a show of aid, but hidden in the small print was the fact that apart from an impressive donation
of $25,000, the aid was deducted from assistance already scheduled. Congress was assured, however, that the pittance of aid
would not affect the administration's suspension of over $100 million of aid because the US-backed Nicaraguan government had
failed to demonstrate a sufficient degree of subservience.
US economic warfare against Cuba has been strongly condemned in virtually every relevant international
forum, even declared illegal by the Judicial Commission of the normally compliant Organization of American States. The European
Union called on the World Trade Organization to condemn the embargo. The response of the Clinton administration was that "Europe is challenging 'three decades of American Cuba policy that goes back to the Kennedy Administration,'
and is aimed entirely at forcing a change of government in Havana." The administration also declared that the WTO has no competence to rule on US national security
or to compel the US to change its laws. Washington
then withdrew from the proceedings, rendering the matter moot.
The reasons for the international terrorist attacks against Cuba and the illegal economic embargo are spelled out in the internal
record. And no one should be surprised to discover that they fit a familiar pattern -- that of Guatemala a few years earlier, for example.
From the timing alone, it is clear that concern over a Russian threat could not have been a major factor. The plans for
forceful regime change were drawn up and implemented before there was any significant Russian connection, and punishment was
intensified after the Russians disappeared from the scene. True, a Russian threat did develop, but that was more a consequence
than a cause of US terrorism and economic warfare.
In July 1961 the CIA warned that "the extensive influence of 'Castroism'
is not a function of Cuban power. . . . Castro's shadow looms large because social and economic conditions throughout Latin
America invite opposition to ruling authority and encourage agitation for radical change," for which Castro's Cuba provided
a model. Earlier, Arthur Schlesinger had transmitted to the incoming President Kennedy his Latin American Mission report,
which warned of the susceptibility of Latin Americans to "the Castro idea of taking matters into one's own hands." The report
did identify a Kremlin connection: the Soviet Union "hovers
in the wings, flourishing large development loans and presenting itself as the model for achieving modernization in a single
generation." The dangers of the "Castro idea" are particularly grave, Schlesinger later elaborated, when "the distribution
of land and other forms of national wealth greatly favors the propertied classes" and "the poor and underprivileged, stimulated
by the example of the Cuban revolution, are now demanding opportunities for a decent living." Kennedy feared that Russian
aid might make Cuba a "showcase" for development, giving the Soviets the upper hand throughout Latin America.
In early 1964, the State Department Policy Planning Council expanded on these concerns: "The primary danger we face in
Castro is . . . in the impact the very existence of his regime has upon the leftist movement in many Latin American countries.
. . . The simple fact is that Castro represents a successful defiance of the US, a negation of our whole hemispheric policy of almost a century and
a half." To put it simply, Thomas Paterson writes, "Cuba, as symbol and reality, challenged U.S. hegemony in Latin America." International terrorism and economic warfare to bring about regime change are justified
not by what Cuba does, but by its "very existence," its "successful defiance" of the proper master of the hemisphere. Defiance may justify even more violent actions, as in Serbia, as quietly conceded after the fact; or Iraq, as also recognized when pretexts had collapsed.
Outrage over defiance goes far back in American history. Two hundred years ago, Thomas Jefferson bitterly condemned France for its "attitude of defiance" in holding New Orleans, which he coveted. Jefferson warned that France's "character [is] placed in a point of eternal friction with our character, which though
loving peace and the pursuit of wealth, is high-minded." France's "defiance [requires us to] marry ourselves to the British fleet and nation,"
Jefferson advised, reversing his earlier attitudes, which
reflected France's crucial contribution to the liberation of the colonies from British rule. Thanks to Haiti's liberation struggle, unaided and almost universally
opposed, France's defiance soon ended, but the guiding principles remain in force, determining friend and foe.