War-mongering Imperialists (OR, "Let Slip the Running Dogs")

My kid pointed this out to me, and I was sure he got it wrong.

Now, I am rather lefty. Being a sane man, I am sensitive to the suspicion that news which starkly confirms my own opinions might well be propaganda. One never knows where the line is, that seperates grassy knoll X-filia from history.

And now this story, link provided below.

There is something here to debate. Oh, very yes.

But, borrowing a page from a poster who needs no further description, I post this link as a provocation, as well as an invitation.

Precis for the terminally lazy: Joint Cheifs try to cook up phony war with peace-loving peasants…


Embarrassing is a bit of an understatement, no? Why doesn’t anyone just throw this stuff out? I picture the scene like this:

Joint Chief 1 “Gosh, I hope nobody ever finds these plans we just drew up to attack our own citizens and then blame Cuba. That would be awful!!!”

Joint Chief 2 “Why don’t we just destroy these files? No one will ever know we’ve lost it.”

Joint Chief 1 “We can’t do that!!! Don’t you know destroying government records is a crime??!!”

Joint Chief 2 “But, a minute ago you wanted to attack Detroit and kill……”

Joint Chief 1 [Dr Evil Voice] “You just don’t get it, do you? You don’t.” [/Dr. Evil Voice]

That is a pretty sick article, I guess the only good thing you can say about it is that the civies wouldn’t go for it and it never happened. :rolleyes:

Why am I NOT surprised?


Er, this is kinda “old news”, doncha think, E? :confused: I mean, I understand that your kid just found out about it and all, but us Old Hands have known all about Operations Northwoods and Mongoose for a while now. It was old news even back in April 2001.

And BTW, your ABC link is from May of 2001–look at the date in the URL, “01-05-01”.

So, what you fishin’ for, anyway, Bubba? :wink: Your bait’s kinda old… :smiley:

That’s truly frightening. And for what it’s worth, DDG, I’d never heard about it before. Why didn’t it get more media play?

Help me out here.

There is surely a distinction between 1) advocating that the US attack Cuba on the basis of an objectionable pretext,


  1. sketching out possible but still hypothetical pretexts for a US attack on Cuba.

The National Security Archive link seems to indicate that #2 occurred (pdf file).

My question: If the Joint Chiefs sketch out pretexts (as opposed to the CIA or the National Security Council doing the study) does that in practice imply advocacy (i.e. #1)?

Or can these reports be dismissed simply as contingency planning? Laying out all the options, as it were.