Historically speaking: political blame – La Dépêche

[ad_1]

Dr James Finck

As we continue to watch events unfold in Afghanistan and see what many see as failure to exit properly, it is important to remember that, historically speaking, failure is common. Many of the men we think of as our greatest presidents have had setbacks. What sets some presidents apart from others is the way they handled the situation. Such a complete failure occurred in 1961.

In January 1959, Fidel Castro and his communist forces overthrew the government of Cuba. Once in power, he nationalized the sugar industry and kicked American companies out of the country. America, fearing communism, especially so close to our shores, put an embargo on Cuban sugar, trying to crush their economy.

At the same time, President Eisenhower began to implement a plan to remove the new dictator. Not wanting to get involved directly, the CIA trained ex-Cubans who fled the Cuban revolution to lead the assault. When President Kennedy took office in 1961, the plan was already in place. JFK was told that there would be little resistance and instead the Cuban people would rise up and support the invaders to topple Castro. Having only been in post for three months and believing what he was told, Kennedy did not deny an operation already scheduled; instead, he gave the project the green light.

What has come to be known as the Bay of Pigs invasion has been a complete disaster. Castro was ready for the invasion and most of the men were killed or captured on the first day. It turned out that the plan was far from secret and that the Cuban people were not ready to fight their new leader. All the invasion did was make Castro look like a hero for stopping the US imperialists. It also gave the Kennedy administration a black eye, not the way this young new American leader wanted to be presented to the world. So how did Kennedy handle the situation?

The day after the invasion, April 20, Kennedy spoke to the press. Although he is not completely truthful about the American involvement, he made three main points. First, it is clear that the forces of communism should not be underestimated. Second, it is clear that this nation, together with all the free nations of this hemisphere, must take a closer and more realistic look at the threat of Communist intervention and domination from outside Cuba. And finally, it is clearer than ever that we are facing a bitter struggle across the globe that goes far beyond the clash of armies or even nuclear weapons.

The most revealing confession came the next day at a press conference. The President began the conference by saying that he would no longer be making statements on Cuba. Yet a reporter, Sandy Vanocur, challenged Kennedy with Considering the fact that we are carrying out propaganda lashing out at the whole world, why isn’t it helpful, sir, for us to explore with you the real facts behind this, or our motivations? Kennedy answered the question by saying that unlike dictators, in free societies rulers must judge what information is useful and harmful to the nation. About Cuba, he said: There is an old adage that victory has 100 fathers and defeat is orphan. And I wouldn’t be surprised if you got information on all recent activity. He then explained that it was the same in the space race. He had read an article where someone said that all America does is put a man in space while the Soviets do. Dictators have no obligation to the people or the press, he said.

Kennedy ended his answer with: But I will tell you, Mr. Vanocur, that I have said all that I think can usefully be said by me with regard to the events of the last few days. Other statements, detailed discussions, must not hide responsibility because I am the responsible government officer – and this is quite obvious. Kennedy could easily have blamed Ike or the CIA. Maybe he should have. It was really their failed plan and intelligence, but not a word.

Now compare Kennedy’s press conference to President Bidens. He began by praising the extraordinary success of the mission, the same mission that most considered a failure. He recognized the flaws in the mission, starting with the Afghan government. The Afghan people have seen their own government collapse and their president flee amid corruption and malfeasance, handing the country over to their enemy, the Taliban, he said. The president then turned his attention to the man he replaced, my predecessor, the former president, signed an agreement with the Taliban to withdraw American troops before May 1, just a few months after my inauguration. It did not include any obligation for the Taliban to enter into a cooperation agreement with the Afghan government, but it authorized the release of 5,000 prisoners last year, including some of the Taliban’s top war commanders, among those coming from take control of Afghanistan. And by the time I came to power, the Taliban were in their strongest military position since 2001, controlling or contesting almost half the country. The agreement of previous administrations was that if we met the May 1 deadline they had committed to, the Taliban would not attack any American forces, but if we stayed, all bets were on.

I’m not saying President Biden is responsible for what appeared to be a sloppy exit. Trump may have handled it the same way. What I see is a difference between the way Kennedy and Biden handled a situation they inherited. Historically speaking, Kennedy’s approval ratings have continued to be high. We’ll have to see what happens with Biden to move forward.

Dr. James Finck is professor of history at the Oklahoma University of Science and the Arts and chair of the Oklahoma Civil War Symposium.

[ad_2]