One thing that WAS done to conceal identities was to use unmarked or deceptively marked American aircraft. Much easier to manage than a whole carrier (specially if you stick to the older planes).
'cause that wasn’t in the action/contingency plans. 1950s procedure for these sorts of situations was to manufacture an internal or natives-in-exile rebellion (v. Mossadegh in Iran) and maybe also a “threat” against neighboring states so they’d lend their territory for access (v. Guatemala 1954 – some of the BoP aircraft flew from Guatemala with Guatemalan markings). In Spring of 1961 Castro was not yet an imminent threat to anyone outside Cuba and had barely been in power 2 years so there was no real reason for either Eisenhower or Kennedy to believe there was a need for anything beyond the tried and tested method of getting rid of uncooperative leaders South of the border.
Direct US interventions in the hemisphere post-WW2 usually required (a) the cover of an OAS resolution (v. Dominican Republic, mid-60s); (b) the pretext of an imminent threat against America or American citizens’ lives (v. Grenada; Panama 1989); and maybe in the case of Bay of Pigs the expectation was that a “rebel government” get a chance to be recognized as “legitimate” and only then “invite” us in.
You didn’t need a lot of specialized knowledge. Was it 1961? Was it a boat? Did it have planes on top of it? If the answer to these questions were yes, then it was an American aircraft carrier.
Under what pretext? There had been no attack on US soil, and there had certainly been other violent regime changes in the Caribbean, some of which were sponsored by the CIA. Ordering shelling or bombings of Cuba would have resulted in large numbers of civilian deaths and rightly brought condemnation by the world community. Kruschev may not have retaliated at that point in history, but nobody could predict what he would do; the man was a hardliner and a veteran of the Siege of Stalingrad. Killing a few million Americans would have meant little to a person of his strong ideology and dubious mental state.
Why conduct the invasion if we were not going to allow it anychance of success?
That is why Kennedy failed-he KNEW the Cubans had no chance without an air strike.
If he would not offer an airstrike, he should have called the whole thing off.
If I were a survivor of this disaster, I would have had ample reason to want to kill him.
I don’t think you understand the idea of proxy warfare. The sponsoring country doesn’t get directly involved, just provides assistance such as intelligence and arms. To do otherwise invites direct retalliation from the opposing sponsor, in this case, the USSR. Also, you’re ascribing motive and thoughts to Kennedy that you have no cites for, other than a vague reference to a book that your wife read.
I’m disappointed that Hersh’s book doesn’t get a better hearing in this thread. The man is the Pulitzer Prize-winning exposer of My Lai and Abu Ghraib. He may have turned crackpottish in old age (though I won’t accept that just because Dick Cheney does), but the Kennedy book was written 15 years ago.
There was plenty of American support along the lines of equipment, planes and arms. Unfortunately, the pilots were Cuban ex-pats who didn’t fare so well, and a ragtag bunch of would-be guerillas does not make for an effective amphib landing force. The CIA just plain got this one wrong, one in a string of many past and future failures to back the right horse.
Still, I agree that anyone actually thinking about it would reach a similar conclusion, as did paperbackwriter.
This though does not negate the possibility that the CIA and the Navy might try. As was noted by Chefguy, at the time it was important for the sponsoring countries (the US and the USSR) to maintain some fiction of their lack of direct involvement.
Yeah, these were pretty much the same people who couldn’t hold onto the country when they were ruling it, but lost to a ragtag guerrilla army led by Castro.
And this thread (and the book) are blaming this on Kennedy, when this was all planned and organized under Eisenhower – Kennedy had been president for what – 80 days? He hadn’t yet learned to believe only about half of what the CIA told him.
If we want to blame a president for this, try … George H.W. Bush!
CIA operative, running an oil company in Central America at the time – and the CIA code name for the Bay of Pigs (Operation Zapata) given the same code name as his oil company.
It didn’t help that one of the CIA people in charge was E Howard Hunt. He later proved so inept that he couldn’t even organize a "two-bit burglary’ at the Watergate.
Eisenhower was President for 2922 days and had an almost perfect record of geopolitical prudence. (Someone will point to Iran and the Revolution 25 years later and claim Ike lacked precognition. But would the U.S. and the World have been a better place with Iran Communist or Islamist during those 25 years? :dubious: )
Kennedy was President for … what? about a thousand days. We got Bay of Pigs, Missile Crisis, a foolish adventure in Vietnam, the cynical assassination of Diem. The only reason that JFK is not regarded as an utter incompetent on these matters is that those most opposed to the Vietnam War liked the guy with the pretty wife and Harvard accent.
I think you’re making my point for me. The guy was so inexperienced he didn’t even know to distrust some of the gung-ho CIA types and yet was too arrogant to listen to experienced Washington hands who would have provided more balanced advice.
Are you somehow implying that the missile crisis wasn’t handled properly? He basically faced down one of the most belligerant and warlike leaders in history. As for the BOP and Vietnam, like all presidents before and after him, he inherited much of the woe he had to deal with. The re-taking of Cuba was hatched during Ike’s administration, and the start of Vietnam can be traced to 1955. Combat units were not deployed until 1965, so unless JFK was dictating from the grave, your sense of history is either distorted or being deliberately twisted for our benefit. LBJ escalated the war, ably assisted by Robert Macnamara.
Kruschev had US missiles pointing at him from 2 miles away. The US had missiles pointed at them from 90 miles away. Kennedy almost got us an atomic war because he wasn’t going to let Kruschev do to him what he was doing to Kruschev.
So, once Kennedy got us into the jam, just to show he was tough, because he felt he hadn’t been tough enough at the Vienna Conference with Kruschev, he used a master stroke of brilliance: he said “OK, you remove yours and we’ll remove ours.”
Doesn’t seem terribly brilliant, but, who knows?
And, Kennedy had been an officer in the Navy for a few years: he knew that HE was the boss, and he also knew he was committing an illegal act/war crime in the BOP.
As handsomeharry implies, the missile crisis began when JFK refused to remove missiles from Turkey as a quid pro quo, and ended when JFK agreed to their removal. In between, there was a major crisis for which credible critics give two causes:
Kruschev thought the Bay of Pigs fiasco meant JFK was incompetent.
JFK thought he had something to prove.
If the Cuban missile crisis was a JFK geopolitical “success” I’d hate to look at one of his failures!
We’re not going to rehash the whole Vietnam war in this thread. I mentioned the coup against (and assassination of) Diem specifically, about which Wikipedia writes:
