|
|
May 19, 2013
|
|
|
|
 James Blight on the Cuban Missile CrisisPosted on Aug 21, 2008
By James Blight (Page 2) In 1986 the Harvard political scientist Eliot Cohen spoke for many younger scholars when he announced that he was fed up with endless rehashing of the great escape of October 1962. In a widely read article published in the January 1986 issue of The National Interest, entitled “Why We Should Stop Studying the Cuban Missile Crisis,” Cohen argued that the study of the missile crisis had become trite, repetitive, boring, misleading and irrelevant. Cohen called for an end to “the ceaseless pondering of the events of October 1962.” According to Cohen, the conditions no longer existed for the occurrence of anything remotely like another missile crisis, in which the superpowers play high-stakes poker as the world holds its breath. The crisis, he felt, was basically irrelevant to the contemporary world, however much some might enjoy delving into its arcane history. Not recognizing its irrelevance was itself a source of concern, according to Cohen. Threats to U.S. national security lay elsewhere, in 1986, in the less direct and highly variegated competition all over the world between Moscow and Washington. In Cohen’s opinion, the continued obsession with the missile crisis as the paradigm of Cold War competition between East and West was only an obstacle to addressing these and related problems. Scholars like Cohen could not have cared less whether Bob Dylan was right or wrong about the crisis. In their view, it was time to consign the missile crisis to the Jurassic Park of distantly remembered historical events, shove it into the history departments, and move on. Ironically, Eliot Cohen’s call to abandon the study of the missile crisis was issued just as Gorbachev and his advisers became interested in joining Americans and Cubans in a joint historical inquiry into the crisis. The first discussions between U.S. and Russian scholars about a joint project on the crisis occurred in mid-1986. As a result of the research that followed, we in the West began to gain access to documents and oral testimony that had never before been available to us. Between 1987 and 1992, a series of international conferences were held in the U.S., the Soviet Union and Cuba, involving many officials from each of the three principal protagonist nations. A research method called critical oral history was developed to take advantage of the unprecedented simultaneous availability of these three elements: former officials from governments that during the events under scrutiny had been bitter enemies; declassified documentation from the governments in question; and top scholars from the U.S., the Soviet Union and Cuba whose familiarity with all three chronologies of decision-making helped ensure that oral testimony was bounded by the documentary record as far as it was known. “Stirring the soup” with these three elements in these critical oral history exercises proved surprising fruitful. By 1992, our historical understanding of the missile crisis bore little resemblance to the crisis of legend and myth that had accumulated and ossified in the quarter-century following October 1962. Thus, in a weirdly postmodern parable, those of us working on the Cuban missile crisis had, de facto, abandoned the very missile crisis that Eliot Cohen was urging us to abandon. But we had done so not by moving away from the crisis, ignoring it, as if it were some dinosaur of an event, never to be seen again. We had abandoned the missile crisis of legend by moving more deeply into what actually happened, thanks to the sudden availability of information and people, mainly from the Soviet Union and Cuba. In so doing, the October 1962 fairy tale, the crisis management paradigm, began to crumble. As it happened, the missile crisis began to appear, in light of the new information, much scarier, the peaceful outcome much less determined, than anything implied by the mythology of the crisis. To our surprise, in addition, the crisis began to seem oddly contemporary, a cautionary tale of an event that, in some form, might happen again. The picture of the crisis that had emerged by 1992 amounted to a revolution in the way the event is understood. The conventional wisdom was overturned in two principal ways. First, the crisis seemed far more dangerous, and its peaceful outcome far more miraculous, than ever before. Second, the principal sources of the heightened risk of nuclear war emanated from the circumstances on and around the island of Cuba—circumstances that were unanticipated and completely unknown or, at best, poorly understood, by officials in either Moscow or Washington. The deeper those of us working in the (then) fledgling field of Cold War history got into the details of the missile deployment on the island, the more dangerous the crisis seemed. We were repeatedly surprised by disconnects that emerged from both the documents and oral testimony regarding what leaders in Washington and Moscow believed they controlled or could control, versus what was driven on the ground, at sea and in the air by unforeseen events, unanticipated errors and local conditions in and around Cuba. These gaps in mutual understanding among Washington, Moscow and Havana revealed many points, previously unknown, at which war might have broken out and, if hostilities had begun, would almost certainly have involved the firing of nuclear weapons, which would have led to disastrous, possibly even catastrophic, results. For example, the (then, in the late 1980s) first of the newly declassified “Kennedy Tapes” made secretly by JFK during the crisis revealed that many of the president’s civilian and military advisers pressed him relentlessly toward an air attack and an invasion of the island, and that it was Kennedy himself who was the major bulwark against the drift toward war. In addition, as the details of the Soviet deployment began at last to become available, we learned that, contrary to what the CIA believed at the time, the nuclear warheads had arrived on the island. Moreover, we learned that battlefield nuclear weapons (both warheads and launchers) were present on the island by the climactic weekend of the crisis, Oct. 26-28, and that in the event of a U.S. invasion the local Soviet commanders on the island would in all likelihood have ordered their use, thereby destroying large components of the invasion force, either at sea or on the beaches of Cuba.
1
2
3
4
NEXT PAGE >>>
Advertisement TAGS:
|
The IRS and the Real Scandal
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By loans, December 11, 2011 at 8:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Different people in the world get the business loans from various creditors, just because it’s comfortable and fast.
Report thisBy omniadeo, August 28, 2008 at 6:01 pm Link to this comment
I want to get this book, but one thing that I have read elsewhere is that the crisis was averted by a back channel contact (Dobrynin) between the Kennedy’s and Kruschev. You can read Dobrynin’s fascinating notes here:
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Cuba/dobrynincable.shtml
It is very telling that the Kennedys had to back channel. They did not trust their own ambassador, or possibly believed that he was being spied on, and they were afraid that they were losing control of the US Military and Intelligence apparati.
On November 22nd they did. And so did we.
Report thisBy BobZ, August 26, 2008 at 10:12 am Link to this comment
Ralph-O-Matic,
I don’t disagree with your comments about AF generals. I was in SAC and we heard about “bombs away Lemay” all the time. Kennedy thought LeMay was nuts and he was the general satirized in the Dr. Strangelove movie. You may be a little hard on your dad. The military does a good job of programming to obey orders, although in Vietnam, the officer corp was so bad in come cases, the grunts rebelled against them to the point of “fragging” them.
With this in mind, I am amazed at the number of Americans who think McCain would make a better commander in chief than Obama. I don’t see a hot head like McCain being able to control the gung ho military leaders. Thank God, we had Kennedy in charge in 62. I look at Obama as being more Kennedy-like in his maturity and coolness. McCain has already tried to up the ante on the Russia Georgia situation, when we have very few chips to play with. That is not a good sign. And the “we are all Georgians” was way over the top. Most Americans still think Georgia is a state in the union.
Report thisBy Ralph -O-Matic, August 26, 2008 at 9:22 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Hey, BobZ: Think again.
It wasn’t THEY who were going to start a war; it was US. The Air Force generals in particular. In that sense, JFK was an actual hero.
BTW:
I was a 6th-grader in Jacksonville, Fla then. Navy aviator neighborhood and school. Our dads all disappeared overnight and were gone for days. Our moms wouldn’t answer our questions and they acted worried and it rubbed off on us. We kids began to look at the news and our worry snowballed. At school, we had a “fire drill” where they drove us 6o miles to the west to have lunch in a state park for most of the day. Gee, that had never happened before. Practice for the post-nuke evacuation, do doubt. Ha.
35 years later, my dad explained he and his squadron of A-1 Skyraiders had camped in Homestead, Fl. They were to have been the first to depart for Cuba, being slower props, and their job was to drop tac nukes on to the various Cuban antiaircraft sites. They were scheduled for 3 to 4 passes per site and really didn’t expect to return home. I asked him his thoughts today, with hindsight. He would have had no regrets; just doing his duty. I repeat, DUTY. As it turns out, his DUTY would have guaranteed the obliteration of the State of Florida, as the Ruskies already had nuke missles operational—unbeknownst to US intelligence. My Dad, without conscience, would have signed the death warrant of at least the state of Florida, his own family and god knows what else—just to do his DUTY for a threat that was negotiated away. Good christian dad. Honor. DUTY. Bunk.
Well, let me just tell you all. My dad is an idolator. He worships at the altar of the military myth in this country. Most of us do. He worships violence. He killed people for a living. He is a decorated hero. He will be held accountable.
Be prepared all of you. All self-proclaimed christians will be held accountable. Better actually read the Book before its too late.
Report thisBy BobZ, August 25, 2008 at 11:29 am Link to this comment
I had just gotten out of the Air Force in July 62, and still lived close to March AFB home of the 15th AF and B47 and B52 long range bombers. In October the bombers were redeployed to Homestead AFB in Florida, and as one politician observed at the time, Florida was lucky is didn’t sink under the weight of all the military resources in the state. A lot of my buddies at the time, got a six month extension of their enlistments, and I was worried I would be called back in, which I would have if a real war started. Even so, I can’t say that most people were overly worried at the time - we just didn’t believe a real shooting war would break out that close to home. We didn’t think Russia and Cuba would be that dumb to start a war in our backyard. I guess we were fortunate in our ignorance of just how close we really came. Great review.
Report thisBy Double U, August 22, 2008 at 10:07 pm Link to this comment
Nino Baldino es mucho loco.
Report thisBy Xntrk, August 22, 2008 at 8:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Blackspere said
>>Ah, just what we need another rehash of history. The historical question to be answered is why would the Soviets place nuclear armed missiles in Cuba knowing that the US would learn of them sooner or later and take umbrage to put it mildly. The answer is relatively simple——it was tit-for-tat. The US had placed missiles in Turkey and to counter that the Soviets used Cuba. The Soviets knew the US would not tolerate such action and a compromise was always the Soviets aim. Taking matters to the brink was a bargaining ploy on both sides——both sides knew what the other wanted and in the end thats what they got and in the process making each side look like the victor. Nothing beats a win-win situation. << and several others voiced similar opinions.
But, the books I’ve read and McNamara’s interview with Castro, all emphasize that Fidel was the hidden factor that neither the Russians nor Kennedy were considering.
Fidel told/asked the Russians to bring the missiles to Cuba, on the grounds that he had nothing to offer the USSR but a close-in base in their chess match with the US. In the take-outs from the book, the author makes it clear that Castro ordered the attempts to shoot down the spy planes.
In his interview, MacNamarra asked if Fidel had been aware of the position he was putting Cuba in. His reply was along the lines of ‘So? We were dead either way.’ He told other interviewers []Tad Tdulz in ‘Fidel’] that he believed he had to have a quid pro quo with the Russians or become nothing more then a vassal state.
In the Angolan war, Castro obligated the Russians to committing more arms and equipment then they ever planned - Same idea. The Angolan War was Castro’s baby, the USSR would never have committed troops to fight it.
I think the US has always underestimated Fidel Castro, assuming he was never more then a South American Dictator along the lines of Peron. Fifty years later, The Revolution is still going strong and we’ve gone thru 9 different Presidents; each one of them failing to bring about the long-promised restoration of the Mafia to Havana.
Have you been following the Cuban Boxers in the Olympics? Eight medals for 11 boxers who have never fought in the International Boxing matches - Talk about underestimating!
Report thisBy LarSim, August 22, 2008 at 3:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I remember the Cuban Missile Crisis well. I was a U.S. Marine deployed aboard an amphibious landing ship sailing around in circles off the coast of Cuba during October, 1962.
We had no idea what we were in for, or how dangerous the situation. The possible employment of tactical nukes scares me even now.
I tend to agree with the “tit-for-tat” crowd. I think the Soviets wanted to give the United States a taste of their own medicine. The deployment of US missiles in Turkey along the USSR border countered by the deployment of USSR missiles in Cuba.
Stalemate. Both batteries of missiles, Turkey and Cuba, removed. Although removal of the US missiles in Turkey didn’t quite make the splash in the U.S. news media that the removal of the USSR missiles from Cuba did.
So it goes.
Report thisBy oregoncharles, August 22, 2008 at 12:37 pm Link to this comment
I remember that period vividly - I was a high school senior. As soon as I and my cohort entered college, things started to pop. Is that a coincidence?
Not exactly. Whatever we THOUGHT about Kennedy’s actions, we FELT that a beloved leader was playing “Chicken” with our lives at stake. I think that fuelled a fundamental cynicism about our political leadership that then exploded in the later 60’s. Of course, the inspiration of the Civil Rights Movement, which Kennedy supported only reluctantly, was at least as important.
But the Missile Crisis was responsible for the undertone of despair and nihilism that ran through the youth rebellion - witness the Bob Dylan song.
Report thisBy basho, August 22, 2008 at 9:28 am Link to this comment
’ to think that if this happened today instead of Jack Kennedy, Bobby, Salinger, Sorenson, Stevenson being the names dealing with the crisis, that those names would be Bush, Cheney, Rice, Negroponte, Hadley.’
imo it is happening today.
Report thisthe gulf of hormuz full of the u.s. navy, reports of israel and u.s. soldiers killed in the georgian offensive, russia cutting all ties with nato, russia re-arming syria, russian navy welcomed by chavez and the list goes on. it’s one minute to midnite all over again. the u.s. mindset of total war is still in play and no one in ‘the land of the free’ knows it. it’s more than scary. it’s the last cry from a country whose economy is ravaged, where it’s people are in debt over their heads, whose mfg. base is non-existent, whose politics are those of war. it’s 30 seconds to midnite
By Blackspeare, August 22, 2008 at 8:47 am Link to this comment
Ah, just what we need another rehash of history. The historical question to be answered is why would the Soviets place nuclear armed missiles in Cuba knowing that the US would learn of them sooner or later and take umbrage to put it mildly. The answer is relatively simple——it was tit-for-tat. The US had placed missiles in Turkey and to counter that the Soviets used Cuba. The Soviets knew the US would not tolerate such action and a compromise was always the Soviet’s aim. Taking matters to the brink was a bargaining ploy on both sides——both sides knew what the other wanted and in the end that’s what they got and in the process making each side look like the victor. Nothing beats a win-win situation.
Today, the US has signed a document with Poland to place interceptor missiles near their border with Russia. Here we go again——another bargaining ploy. Of course the plan is only on paper so there’s a way to go yet and a new US administration may take a different view.
Report thisBy Fahrenheit 451, August 22, 2008 at 8:29 am Link to this comment
Ah, these were rational men in full control of reality; unlike the minions of today; controlled by the oligarchs of the present times. Make no mistake: Even full out nuclear war is acceptable as long as “they” survive to finish their vision of the future; a world of their making and control. A world devoid of humanity; a world we would not recognize and likely would not want to live in. Buyer beware!
Report thisBy Big B, August 22, 2008 at 7:40 am Link to this comment
I’ll have to order this book today as I have always found this to be one of the most provocative events of the 20th century. While the human race has been on the brink of nuclear war for decades, everyone possessing nukes (even the wackos in Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea) seems to have developed a more acute sense of responsibility, a little voice in their heads that says “if you use these weapons, you most likley will bring destruction to your own door”. This “balance of terror” (MAD, whatever) has maintained a least a nuclear peace since Nagasaki.
Report thisAfter doing extensive reading about the crisis for a termpaper in the early 80’s, I was always taken aback that the “nuke Russia now” crowd seem to out number the voices of reason. Gen. Lamay in particular seemed to welcome a confrontation with the Soviets. His behavior during the crisis still makes me wonder to this day, how many war hawks in the pentagon even today hold onto the wet dream that a nuclear war is winable?
Another more sobering thought always comes to mind when I look back on the Cuban Missle Crisis, and that is, how would a George Bush or Reagan, or even Clinton or Carter handled this? It is frighening beyond conprehension to think that if this happened today instead of Jack Kennedy, Bobby, Salinger, Sorenson, Stevenson being the names dealing with the crisis, that those names would be Bush, Cheney, Rice, Negroponte, Hadley…
Kinda scares the shit out of you, doesn’t it?
My grandmother always used the phrase “there but for the grace of God go I” Amen, grandma!
By Nino Baldino, August 22, 2008 at 3:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
..this was the perfect October surprise..ie: a whole lotter bunk. Lets see,we have a president who while serving as a PT commander was so derelict in his duty the fastest vessle afloat..it could do some 80knots an hour..was cut into by a destroyer,which could do some 35 an hour.MacArthur declared he should have been given a courts martial for that. Then he ,as president,removes air cover for the cuban freedom fighters at the bay of pigs thus insuring their defeat.but also encouraging anti-castro fighters to come out of hiding in cuba ,reveal themsleves and thus get shot or captured..many were..then this great leader arranges to pay Castro some 54 million dollars in money and tanks etc in exchange for these prisoners,whom he caused to get captured! He then sends some 35,000 troops down to Oxford Mississipi to help a kid get into a southern college..(which he did have the right to get into)muzzles the military causing Major General Walker to resign out of protest,he later was a target for Oswald..then came this crisis..brrrrr..just before election day too..did any one see wealthy folks leave the seacoast and head inland..when the so called silos were dismantled did anyone see what was inside those mysterious crates hauled aboard those ships..nooooo it was all theatre..and so by the time it was all over,Communism was firmly intrenched in our hemisphere..Sen.Goldwater ran for president and was smeared as a war monger by the peace candidate LBJ..and guess what,,within 6 months of winning LBJ sent 300,000 troops to Nam etc etc..all theatre…
Report this