The Perfect FailureEssay Preview: The Perfect FailureReport this essayThe Perfect FailureKennedy, Eisenhouwer and the CIA at the Bay of Pigsby Trumbull HigginsI have always wondered about the history and surrounding factors of the Bay of Pigsinvasion in Cuba. I lived in Miami for seven years and have always wondered why Cubans had an air of entitlement, that United States owes them something. The explanation that I was given, when I felt comfortable asking about this, was that the United States failed them. That for the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba the United States led the Cuban exiles into a battle they could not win. They felt great resentment that the United States refused to assist them once in Cuba and were therefore left at President Fidel Castros mercy. Now, after I have read The Perfect Failure- Kennedy, Eisenhower and the CIA at the Bay of Pigs by Trumbull Higgins I can understand the basis for this type of thinking and resentment.
Trumbull Higgins book is very interesting and complex. Higgins account of the process that resulted into the Bay of Pigs invasion is very thorough and engaging. His interviews and direct quotations from the individuals involved make it so that the reader feels like he or she is getting first account of the information. There are times when it almost feels like the reader is in the room listening in on these discussions with all these interesting and powerful figures. Higgins writing is engaging as it describes the Cuban invasion from the details of its inception to the implementation of the operation and ultimately the results of said operation.
Higgins books begins with a brief review of the way the United States presidents dealt with Latin America in that era. It starts from President Franklin D, Roosevelt leasing Guantanamo Bay to President Dwight D. Eisenhower invading Guatemala Operations Fortune and Success which becomes the model for President John F. Kennedys Bay of Pigs operation. It gives more in depth information of how Eisenhowers tactics and plans set up the invasion of Cuba which was later altered, modified and approved by President John F. Kennedy.
The book addresses how the United States intervened around the world against communism. The United States focused closer to home, particularly in Latin America. This points to the imperialistic mentality of the United States during that era which I believe it continues today. Not in the sense of colonizing but in the sense of having Latin America allied and controlled by the United States mentality and agenda. It describes the tactics used by the United States to keep these countries policies and politics aligned with the United States own policies.
The role of the United States in the political life of Latin American countries is very well depicted in this book. Higgins reviews the invasion in Guatemala by Eisenhowers administration. The United States produced a revolt to remove Guatemalan leftist President Jacobo Arbenz GuzmĆĀ±n. This was due to Arbenzs administration threatening of the dominance of American Companies in Guatemala, particularly the United Fruit Company. Higgins main focus, of course, is depicting in detail the United States involvement in the attempted invasion of Cuba and its attempts to assassinate Cuban President Fidel Castro. Several other countries experienced such manipulations and covert invasions by the United States to rid the continent of Communism. Another example of this manipulation was the overthrow of Chilean Socialist President Salvador Allende in 1973.
Higgins book also depicts the strong force of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) commands in every administration. It shows the CIA as the central agency to which the incoming presidents are allowed limited access. The CIA guards its information from the presidency and also claims to protect the sitting president from the information. The current administration would not want to acknowledge the presidents access to the shady operations that the CIA plans. The public could be disappointed with the president if it became known that he is involved or has knowledge of such operations.
Higgins depicts the difficulties of keeping checks and balances on the CIA by the different administrations. The Special Group of National Security Council (NSC) has been supervising the CIA since 1955, however, most of the operations were never approved or seen by anyone outside of the CIA. The CIA is largely unsupervised and does as sees fit. Especially in the case of President Kennedy, where the CIA manipulated Kennedy by giving him incomplete and biased information regarding the impending invasion of Cuba. The CIA advised him improperly and as a result it was impossible for Kennedy to make a sound decision. The CIAs goal of invading Cuba could not be blundered by this new inexperienced president.
Linda S. Baker, the Secretary of State, stated:
The CIA’s involvement in Haiti is now clear, for the two-year period following the invasion. In particular, it has directed the U.S. Secretary of State’s Office to assist the U.S., French, Italian, and Cuban governments to conduct joint political and military activities in that country. The joint military activities included coordination of efforts by the U.S., French, Italian, and Cuban governments to restore a democratically elected government and to ensure that U.S. interests did not suffer under a totalitarian system. In addition, the U.S. government supported Cuban defense as part of the Cuban nuclear deal. The decision by the Obama administration not to intervene in the coup was a consequence of the government’s strong opposition to the U.S.-U.S. agreement to end a 35-year embargo on U.S. trade with Cuba, a result of which the United States imposed a ban on purchases of U.S.-U.S. goods from Cuba and imposed a three-year embargo on goods from Libya. That embargo was implemented after President Barack Obama initiated negotiations with Cuba to end a nine-year embargo.
U.S. foreign policy and U.S.āinternational relations
The American Civil Liberties Union, which fought the embargo in 1976, also supported the coup attempt.
In April, the White House released an open letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee asserting that the Obama Administration was complicit in the attempt at overthrow of the United Nations Security Council with the use of “human rights” provisions, and specifically under consideration of what the U.S. government could accomplish with respect to Cuba.
“What is particularly concerning is just how little the Obama Administration has done to oppose the efforts by [The Council of Europe] to reach an agreement about how to resolve the crisis that has been simmering for more than 40 years. A bipartisan committee of over 60 senators and ranking members of Congress and the U.S. delegation on the UN and European Commission have publicly expressed interest in the resolution as a solution to many international problemsāranging from an end to the embargo and the return of U.S. military power to Cuba. While this is clearly a bad deal, it could be a very bad deal,” wrote the UN Special Representative on Human Rights in Havana, Robert Sarvis.
The committee did not hold a closed-door hearing (even though a similar U.S. vote this month on an open-ended resolution led by former U.S. Ambassador to Cuba, Tom Shannon) and asked the committee to reconsider the Obama Administration’s intervention in Haiti.
The ACLU also joined the chorus of Americans who voiced their opposition in the House of Representatives to the President’s foreign policy.