Castro and the Colossus

The resignation of Fidel Castro is more promising for the burnishing of his legacy than the mostly septuagenarian Cuban hard-liners in Miami and their fawning allies in the Bush administration would like to believe. After all, Mao Tse-tung is still honored in communist China, the fastest-growing capitalist power in the world, and former KGB agent Vladimir Putin is, at least for now, a very popular elected Russian leader.

Those hoping for a "freedom flotilla" of Cuban exiles returning to remake Havana in the image of 1959, threatening the very future of Las Vegas with legalized prostitution as well as gambling, are likely to be disappointed. Odds are that Castro's successors, beginning with his rhetoric-weary brother, are likely to finally get serious, after decades of fitful starts and reversals, about ending the grip of a moribund statist economy. Reform leading significantly down the path of the Chinese model, or more appropriately that of Venezuela, which has thrown a lifeline to the ailing Cuban economy, is more likely than sudden upheaval.

But those changes will come too late to justify the suffering of the Cuban people for half a century at the hands of a revolutionary, as arrogant as he is idealistic, who witnessed his vision flounder on the rocks of an incredibly cynical U.S. policy. Prime responsibility for that suffering does go to the Colossus of the North, which in the pursuit of economic exploitation and Cold War paranoia consistently preferred Latin American dictatorships to serious experiments in popular rule and strangled the Cuban economy with an embargo in place for the almost five decades since Castro dared move against the U.S. corporations that claimed to own much of the island.

If Castro had attempted to listen to the better angels of his fervid imagination and pursued the path of democratic socialism rather than communist dictatorship, his effort most likely would have been subverted by the CIA, as was the case throughout the world, but it would have been an effort worth making. That was the promise of Castro's famous Moncada speech, offered when he was a jailed young revolutionary dreaming of genuine populist power, and even he must have doubts as to whether, as he predicted back then, "history will absolve me" for the price paid in individual freedom for the revolution's survival in power.

Not that the United States was likely to easily accommodate any populist challenge, as has been shown by the hysterical reaction to Venezuela's finally sharing some of the oil loot with the poor. The failure of Fidel Castro's Cuban revolution to provide a democratic socialist alternative was sealed by the decision of John F. Kennedy, that inexplicable hero of American liberalism, to invade an island that posed no threat to the United States. The U.S. had backed the brutal dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista, and the Kennedy administration even enlisted U.S. Mafia thugs, who had the run of Havana under Batista, in a failed attempt to assassinate Castro.

Only months into his presidency, Kennedy ramped up the Cold War--which Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower had done his best to tamp down--by committing the United States to military confrontation on opposite ends of the world. In a subversion of Eisenhower's decision not to send U.S. troops to Vietnam, Kennedy lied to the American public about the purpose of his decision to send "flood control" advisers to Saigon as well as the U.S. complicity in the death of Ngo Dinh Diem, the U.S. puppet once proclaimed the George Washington of Vietnam and then summarily murdered in a hit job overseen by Kennedy's CIA operatives. And after Eisenhower resisted calls to overthrow Castro in reprisal for his nationalizing American-owned power grids, nickel mines and sugar plantations in Cuba, Kennedy, in the first months of his administration, ordered the Bay of Pigs invasion.

Yes, the dumbest moves of the Cold War were authorized by a lionized Democratic president and accelerated by his successor, another grand Democrat, Lyndon Baines Johnson. Both, as the record of memoirs, academic research and, in Johnson's case, White House tapes has proved, were motivated by a fear of appearing weaker on national security than their Republican rivals. It provides a cautionary tale in considering the current presidential sweepstakes.

How easy it is to claim to champion universal human rights when you exempt your own country from judgment. When did the U.S. ever care about human rights in Cuba, or anywhere else in Latin America before Castro, if those rights conflicted with the rape of the region's resources? And what a mockery we have made of the cause of democratic rule when our president, twice elected by the people, has created one of the world's most fearsome symbols of torture on the U.S. "liberated" territory of Guantanamo, Cuba.

Comments

[rixhex56]

Scheer makes one undeniable point: the underlying cause of problems with Cuba was/is fear, and greed of corporations, and their need to pillage resources in other countries. There are a few serious misrepresentations in this article regarding other matters, though.

Kennedy did not order the CIA assassination attempts on Castro. In fact, Kennedy planned on dismantling the CIA because of their covert meddling in other countries.

The Bay of Pigs was actually planned by V.P. Nixon, and Okayed by Eisenhower before Kennedy took office. Kennedy did okay the invasion after he took office. Scheer"s presentation suggests, without stating directly, that had Kennedy not been elected, the invasion would not have occurred, which is demonstrably untrue.

Kennedy had turned against the Vietnam War by June of 1963, and had ordered troops withdrawn by 1965. Interestingly, the event that changed this order was a coup initiated by the CIA, against the South Vietnam leader. Facts surrounding this issue are controversial at best.

-----In 1963, Kennedy's special counsellor, Arthur M. Schlesinger said "Kennedy was still playing out his public hand while secretly wondering how to get out." President Kennedy supported a full military withdrawal from Vietnam, but he said "if he announced a withdrawal of American military personnel from Vietnam before the 1964 election, there would be a wild conservative outcry against returning him to the Presidency for a second term. [¦] In 1963, the American author and historian, John Newman, said "Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, was determined to execute the President's intent: A genuine withdrawal from Vietnam." He also mentions that McNamara gave instructions to General Harkins to come up with a plan to "wrap things up and come home."--- http://home.c2i.net/chrhansen/jfk/kennedy.html

Scheer launches an attack against Kennedy that is deceptive at best, and digresses into issues that almost seem unrelated to the topic at hand. This article would be far better if it concentrated on the Cuban/Castro issue, and did not misrepresent the contributions of the various parties involved in that issue.

[LeoMarvin]

Letterman had the best take on Fidel's retirement. He said Castro would either be succeeded by his brother, Raoul, or by his idiot son, Fidel W. Castro.

[rixhex56]

I doubt that Fidel could produce a son as idiotic as G.W.B.

[Berettasskeeter]

Mr. Sheer's sheer gall in the whitewash of Castro's regime is nothing new. Nowhere does he mention that the U.S. supported Castro because he claimed to be only trying to free Cuba from a dictatorship. Nowhere does he then mention that once Castro had our assistance, in money and arms, and had won, he turned immediately to Kruschev's Soviet Union. Nowhere does Mr. Sheer mention that, prior to the revolution, Cuba enjoyed net immigration, full literacy, the highest standard of living in the western hemisphere (per capita), and relatively little overt oppression by Bautista (a black man). There are no blacks in the Cuban government, though all of Bautista's was black. Blacks are discriminated against by the whites, overtly.
Nowhere does Mr. Sheer speak of the 10,000 murdered men, women, and children (yes, down to babes) by your here Che and Castro's fledgling secret police, as taught by the Okhrana (sp?). Nowhere does Mr. Sheer speak of the shoot-down of innocents looking for sinking refugees, fleeing Cuba, even though this effort was well publicized. Nowhere does Mr. Sheer mention that information is strictly controlled, that there is a two-tier medical system (locals on the bottom), that there continues to exist an extensive political prison system. Nowhere does Mr. Sheer mention that there have never been free and fair elections.
Nothing has changed. Castro is merely the little guy, and a Leftist, which attracts so many of you.
Semper fi

[repearwo]

Great post. Fidel for most of his rule brought to Cuba a standard of living that exceeded any south of the US, and did without stealing from the rest of the world and with an embargo.

Histiry will and has absolved Castro.

[Jaundiced]

Pardon me for pointing out the obvious but the reference to Chavez"s Venezuela smells funny. Something about trying to have himself declared "omnipotent ruler for life" or some such thing as that just didn't set well with my digestion. Gave me gas.

Another thing that gave me gas was the little incident that involved the nukes in Cuba. I remember it. Remember being afraid and thinking that these buffoons were going to be the end of us all. Hope we never see that again! (Which also points out a fallacy in the above discussion " yes, the CIA did interfere. And so did the KGB. Cuba was, in fact, merely a stage for a much larger and potentially more serious conflict.)

Sorry to rain on the parade but the plain truth is - there weren't any saints on either side of the Cuban problem nor are there any on either side of the Venezuela problem. Senior Castro just wanted power and he got it on the "I'm saving Cuba from [fill in the blank]" bandwagon along with lots of help from the old Soviet Union. Same goes for Chavez except we plug Venezuela and China into the equation. Where ever there is a great need, there will always be a power hungry fascist waiting to "save them from [fill in the blank] and those [insert the latest pejorative here], the Americans...

Been around a long time and have seen lots of these dramas unfold - always the same end state, too - lots of guilt-ridden Americans who somehow manage to blame everyone and everything except the actual causes - human nature, poverty and illiteracy - the self-sustaining triad of suffering. Can"t change human nature. Can"t make everyone wealthy. Be we can sure as hell do something about illiteracy.
Want to help? Then stop complaining about those [pejorative goes here] American Pols, the [choose either Democrats or Republicans], get a job in education and get to work. Lots of people to save from themselves " both here and abroad.
I wonder if Obama would agree?

[Proud2BIndy]

Much wisdom here. Thank you.

The main point you made is that there are no saints on any side of history. There never are.

One extremely relevant detail you left out though is the fact that in any resource rich country, so long as families like the Bush's, the Cheneys, the Rumsfelds et al are allowed to roam freely, your choice will always be nationalization of all major resources enforced by naked militarism, or complete, total and utter corporate rape and plunder of ALL national resources.

So far, human history has yet to offer a viable third choice.

[LeoMarvin]

"Something about [Hugo Chavez]trying to have himself declared "omnipotent ruler for life" or some such thing as that just didn't set well with my digestion."

Fine, so long as by "declared" you mean "elected." I'm no fan of Chavez, but give the guy credit due. He put his grandiose aspirations into a democratic referendum, and when it failed, he accepted the results. Not exactly what you'd expect from your classic, tin-pot dictator, and certainly not like anything we ever saw from Fidel.

[Oriana]

Our president twice elected by the people? - I don't thinks so. Oh, your must mean the people sitting on the Supreme Court, right?

[Camarosc35]

Excellent post, I learned much from it, much that is disturbing as well.

[wishiknew]

If we are truly going to change things in this country, we HAVE to start exploring the truth about our history and actually learn from it. Even if a few images have to be tarnished in the process. Sure, I hate to hear negative things about JFK, but to speak honestly about his presidency can do far more for the future of our country than to hide behind historical perspectives that do no more than suit our current partisan purposes. We Americans need to start owning our history, and our contribution to the world both good and bad. Thank you, Mr. Scheer, for challenging your readers to rise above partisanship and look at our history through a more objective lens. I believe our future depends on it.

[Proud2BIndy]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaameeeeeeeeeeeeeeen.

[desertdweller]

I would rather be an oppressed Cuban than a free Haitian any day of the week. Sometimes, things that we take for granted, like freedom of the press for example, don't mean very much when you haven't eaten in three days. Despite Castro's excesses, the Cuban people at least have a subsistence diet, access to health care, the lowest infant mortality rate and the highest literacy rate in Latin America.

[sedum]

Mr. Scheer

How horrible it must be to live in a country with next to no morals. Even the most revered of your "heros" were and are, overwhelmed and recklessly driven by greed, powerlust and duplicity.

How has ANY American ever slept at night knowing that it all started with a slave owner as the first president (revered) and continues to this day (Bush) to enslave large portions of the planet economically and literally.

Even as it seems that most of the world holds America in the very lowest regard, America still wanks on about "democracy" and "greatest country". Even Obama and Hillary incredibly, use those tiresome words.

One could appreciate that many of you would wish it otherwise but you've had hundreds of years to at least rise from the sinkhole of indulgence and utterly wasteful economic practices. Why, you even import garbage from Canada because your dumps need to make more profit. That's incredibly disgusting but par for the course.

One could take hope that the end of American Imperialism will be no more painful than the Brish Empire or Rome or Greece or Russia but I have serious doubts since you have a solid core of 100 million bots that would never ever give an inch but just buy more guns and ammo.

I fear that if kharma means anything, a whole lot of smoke is going to rise and I live too dangerously close.

[Berettasskeeter]

Sedum, It must be swell to live in a country that has no greed, powerlust, or duplicity. It must be great to have 18th Century leaders who were pure as the driven snow, even by today's standards. I'm sure the leaders of your country (oh, you failed to mention where you are) have never owned slaves. What country is that, anyway.
Could you please point out just where the U.S. is "literally" enslave the people? Can you point out just where the U.S. is "economically" enslaving the people?
I'm sure your chest must swell with pride that your country produces no garbage or other excreta of civilization. But, you fail to say just why ambition, and a desire to financially better onself and onself's family, is bad.
Semper fi

[RedWhiteandBlueState]

Hear Hear. What this country does in the name of "freedom" and "morality" is truly appalling. Honestly, this is the appeal of Obama, to not just change the war, but the "mindset that got us into war". I think he is sincere. Oh, what a goal to have. It's amazing how "relative" republican morality can be.

[pizzmoe]

One of the few level headed articles that will be written about Castro. Thank you, Mr. Scheer

[Kundera]

All the JFK apologists are showing up here.
smulkin says, "First of all, he didn't "order" the bay of pigs invasion. It was planned under the Eisenhauer administration and slipped on his desk just after he took office. "

Slipped under his desk? Give me a break. Whether Eisenhower planned it or not, the Commander in Chief has to be ready on Day 1, to quote a phrase. If JFK were a Republican you would not have everyone making excuses for JFK. The fact is that many of our more inexperienced Presidents are tested early in their term. 911 was early in Bush's term.

[Aramingo]

I was kind of hoping the more literate amongst the HuffPo crowd would understand that the use of quotes aroound the word "just" along with the phrase "that still doesn't justify" was meant not to excuse the action, only to clear up a minor point of fact. Note the use of the word minor.

However, that bit about learning our lesson was indeed a swipe at the current crew in charge.

[Aramingo]

A minor quibble here: The Bay of Pigs was conceptualized and planned under Eisenhower. Kennedy "just" approved the action and didn't follow it up with air support. That still doesn't justify launching an uprovoked attack upon a sovereign nation - thank God we learned our lesson there, huh? - but you can't lay the whole thing at JFK's feet.

[apduncan1]

Did we learn the lesson?

What do you think we did invading Iraq? A sovereign nation as well?

[Miamiman]

Eisenhower or Kennedy..Fact is, it does not mater to the poor Brigade 2506 that waited for the "PROMISED" air support from Kennedy that never came.

It is nice to see that someone is speaking the truth about JFK. He is admired and heroic in most places but the fact is he SOLD OUT human beings after not executing the military plan that was laid out

JFK and LBJ started us in this downward spiral of immoral leadership we have had for over 40 year here..

[smulkin]

Mr Sceer

While I understand your cautionary point about hawkish democrats, I think you've exagerrated in your portrayal of Kennedy.

First of all, he didn't "order" the bay of pigs invasion. It was planned under the Eisenhauer administration and slipped on his desk just after he took office. He gave the go-ahead because he was mislead about the expected level of U.S. military commitment. Once he found out that air support was part of the deal, he pulled the plug.

Secondly, President Diem's assassination was pulled off by South Vietnamese officers who were disturbed by his zealous pursuit of a Catholic Vietnam. While the U.S. government probably knew about the assassination attempt, and did nothing to prevent it, they didn't execute it.

Finally, you make reference to "Kennedy's C.I.A. operatives," people who belong to the same agency that Kennedy threaghtened to "tear into a thousand pieces and scatter to the winds."