It all goes back to the Bay of Pigs

Part of the problem with Swede coming in here as he does with his link-farts is that various topics of discussion are not explored in a rational manner. Worse yet is that his demonization of all that is non-American causes an equal and opposite reaction. Such is the case with our neighbor to the south, Cuba.

Swede has the American propaganda model firmly in place, that of evil terrorists (Oops! Wrong century) communists and their firing squads as noble Americans try to rescue them. In the face of such blather one must face the reality of Cuba, good and bad on all sides. But in Swede’s mind, any evil on the part of Castro makes his argument a slam-dunk winner.

Back during the time of McKinley and JP Morgan’s stooge Teddy Roosevelt, a Cuban revolution to oust Spain was hijacked by the Americans. A courageous revolution of liberation was diverted to the benefit of a new oppressor.

Revolutions come in many forms, and results are unpredictable*. Some are bottom-up, others top-down. Venezuela experienced a peaceful bottom-up revolution with the ascent of Hugo Chavez, and then 2002 a failed top-down one with the US-backed attempt to re-empower the oligarchy.**

But that is typical of the history of colonial Latin America. As bad as it is with overlords from up north or across the seas, God only knows what will take their place. In the case of Cuba, the island had witnessed dysfunction for the first half of the twentieth century (that’s as far back as I know about), so that it was ripe for a successful bottom-up revolution, 1956-1959. But there was no ideology at play – that is, Castro was no more a communist than Allen Dulles a capitalist. These men merely played the narrative of the time to their advantage. There did exist on the island dedicated communists, but they stood in opposition to Castro, who only used the Cold War as a means of playing the big guns against one another to assure his own survival.

What would have happened had the Cuban revolution played out normally? After expelling of the overlords as they did, the island would enjoy a period of jubilation followed by shortage of capital and time to develop its own. New unrest would be fueled by shortages, agents provocateur, acts of terrorism … indeed, all of this went on in Cuba, and is currently underway in Venezuela.

There would then be a military coup, the old oligarchy having made sure they controlled enough of the leadership to make it happen. After restoring the dictatorship, a US-style election would be staged, with the oligarchs controlling the choices. The new executive would be a pawn who knows his or her bounds, and then back to business as usual.

Cuba played out differently, and the results linger to this day. The big blunder was the Bay of Pigs, April, 1961. Ill advised, ill-carried out, it appears now to have been more aimed to force JFK to invade and bomb the island than to succeed on its own. He did not play along. Fallout included empowerment of Castro, exposing US mechanizations to the whole world. That loaded one of the rifles that gunned down JFK, who had fired CIA Director Allen Dulles, who then supervised the “investigation” of the murder. One can draw a direct line from the Bay of Pigs to the gelded American executive as we now know it.

Castro was a different breed of revolutionary, a true bad-ass. He was tactically gifted, even if nuts, so that he could survive the death squads and be as ruthless with the oligarchs as they with him. He was every bit as cunning and cruel as his American counterparts. That’s why he’s still with us. Only the good die young.

Under the umbrella of his guile, good things happened – health care and nutrition, education came to the island. This does not make Castro a saint or hero. His ruthlessness created space for development underneath him. Because he stayed in power and fought fire with fire, these things could go on in spite of CIA terrorism.

But the island has been deprived of investment for these many decades, embargoed, punished for insolence. It is not the “US” that is doing this, but rather the former owners of the island, their mafia counterparts, their Miami brigades of merchants and thugs. That is the source of US policy towards Cuba. There’s a whole lotta bad to go around.

What is the answer? Simple – to ease up, lift the embargo, resume normal relations, allow Cuba to develop as it will with the ability to regulate foreign investment so that never again do foreign oligarchs own the island and its government. Succeeding American presidents might have allowed this, but the death of JFK ended any true governance from that quarter.

But Cuba is now long past the day when it can be subdued as it was in the years up to 1959. Its people are deeply indoctrinated, as are most Americans, but are also able to read and write and cipher, so that once they enter the mainstream of world affairs, the island will thrive. All that need happen is for the boot of US oligarch to be lifted from the neck of the island paradise.

Castro is indeed a mercurial maniac, but is the only reason the island is to this day free of domination by foreign overlords. He is every bit as evil as his US counterparts. That is what has made the Cuban Revolution different from others in Latin America. He had enough evil in him to counterbalance that which was coming from abroad.
_____________
*Our own most recent feeble attempt, “Occupy Wall Street,” was geared to win for us the right to live in tents in public parks, which may indeed be important to us if we have another crash.
**The Venezuelan revolution has perhaps ended with the death of Chavez. That was most likely a murder, as the US possesses weaponized cancer strains. We’ll never know, but because it was so convenient for the US to have him die of aggressive cancer at such a young age, I’ll go with murder.