From the CATO Institute’s Senior fellow Doug Bandow:
How the revolutionary regime would have responded had Washington accepted its victory is impossible to predict. Castro & co. were no friends of liberty, but they might have chosen to accommodate the colossus next door.
Ground control to CATO: A.) In fact, the U.S. did much more than “acccept” their victory. We made it possible in the first place:
“Without U.S. help Castro would never have gotten into power,”
flatly testified former U.S. Ambassador to Cuba, Earl T. Smith during Congressional testimony in 1960.
“Me and my staff were all Fidelistas,”
(Robert Reynolds, the CIA’s “Caribbean Desk’s specialist on the Cuban Revolution” from 1957-1960.)
January 7, 1959, marks a milestone in U.S. diplomatic history. Never before had the U.S. extended diplomatic recognition to a Latin American government as quickly as we bestowed this benediction on Fidel Castro’s that day.
Alert Cubans started plotting against Castro almost from day one, but — alert to who helped him into power — they kept well clear of U.S. officials, turning instead to Rafael Trujillo in the Dominican Republic for some logistical assistance. Nonetheless, in August 1959, U.S> ambassador Phil Bonsal got wind of this plot and promptly alerted Castro to a conspiracy against his regime manned solely by Cubans.
Then: B.) During Castro’s first 16 months in power, the U.S. State Dept. made over 10 back channel diplomatic attempts to ascertain the cause of Castro’s tantrums and further “engage” him. Argentine President Arturo Frondizi was the conduit for many of these and recounts their utter futility in his memoirs.
And from today’s article by CATO senior fellow Doug Bandow calling for an end to the “embargo”:
“In 1998, the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that “Cuba does not pose a significant military threat to the U.S. or to other countries in the region. Cuba has little motivation to engage in military activity beyond defense of its territory and political system.”
That was “expertise” from Ana Belen Montes, convicted of the same crimes against the U.S. as Ethel and Julius Rosenberg and today behind bars. “The Cato Institute is the foremost upholder of the idea of liberty in the nation that is the foremost upholder of the idea of liberty.” says George F. Will.
Then why are they so ignorant of recent U.S. history? More troubling still: why do they recommend the policy recommendations of a convicted Stalinist spy?