Boycott the Olympics in China?

[HuffyCane]

Well, you are showing some signs of intermediate understanding of the rules of the game.

You say that the Iranians did not know the extent of Carter's support for the Shah. That is false. Declassified cables have documented first hand accounts of Carter Administration officials meeting directly and repeatedly with the groups that eventually took power after the Shah prior to and after their return to Iran.

I don't know as much as about Reagan's campaign strategies, but its pretty common knowledge amongst campaign operatives on both sides of the aisle that Chase Manhattan supported Reagan and had the Shah as a client. Naturally, they were not eager to return his funds on deposit to the Iranians. They worked closely with the Reagan team, especially William Casey, his campaign manager who later became director of the CIA. Casey had a long history of involvement with the intelligence community. It was documented during the HW Bush term that Casey flew to Madrid for reasons unknown while Iranian revolutionary interests based in Paris were also in Madrid. Casey later flew to Tel Aviv from Madrid. While it has never been proven that Casey met directly with the Iranians, he did authorize weapons sales by the Israelis to the Iranians on his first day in office.

During the negotiations you are speaking about, the Iranians knew they were going to get the money I mentioned above that they felt they deserved. Carter's team wasn't really interested in helping Reagan's bankers, so negotiating away money on deposit there to end the hostage situation was a win-win. And (arguably) the Iranians knew that if they dragged out the negotiations with Warren Christopher long enough to benefit Reagan's election, they would get the arms sales they needed for their war with Iraq and it would loosen up their oil exports. Plus they would get world prestige and domestic propaganda out of frustrating Carter to the end. Which they knew they could do because a Carter aide clumsily let it leak (or perhaps intentionally) that the United States lacked the military capability to strike against Iran with any meaningful impact. That's why a short term hostage gig turned into a years long embarrassment.

While its true Christopher firmed up the details that put the hostages on the plane, they were toyed with for months because the Iranians knew they would get a better deal from Reagan despite his tough domestic rhetoric. If they waited until after Reagan was in office to firm up the details, then it becomes too obvious that the Iranians may have indirectly influenced the election by refusing to negotiated until after the ballots were cast and that would raise questions about whether Reagan asked for that help. We will never know. Bill Casey is dead. But people in the know, including some of his friends, think the answer to that is yes.

Carter's people were weak and naive and it was their naivety that drove them into weak positions. They played right into the Iranians hands, who delayed it long enough to get the maximum impact, then covered their tracks after they got what they wanted. Meanwhile, the Carter people can dress up ridiculous failures as a success when the hostages came home safe. Its chess not checkers. Stop relying solely on Vox for your information.

 

[astonmartin708]

Well, you are showing some signs of intermediate understanding of the rules of the game.

You say that the Iranians did not know the extent of Carter's support for the Shah. That is false. Declassified cables have documented first hand accounts of Carter Administration officials meeting directly and repeatedly with the groups that eventually took power after the Shah prior to and after their return to Iran.

I don't know as much as about Reagan's campaign strategies, but its pretty common knowledge amongst campaign operatives on both sides of the aisle that Chase Manhattan supported Reagan and had the Shah as a client. Naturally, they were not eager to return his funds on deposit to the Iranians. They worked closely with the Reagan team, especially William Casey, his campaign manager who later became director of the CIA. Casey had a long history of involvement with the intelligence community. It was documented during the HW Bush term that Casey flew to Madrid for reasons unknown while Iranian revolutionary interests based in Paris were also in Madrid. Casey later flew to Tel Aviv from Madrid. While it has never been proven that Casey met directly with the Iranians, he did authorize weapons sales by the Israelis to the Iranians on his first day in office.

During the negotiations you are speaking about, the Iranians knew they were going to get the money I mentioned above that they felt they deserved. Carter's team wasn't really interested in helping Reagan's bankers, so negotiating away money on deposit there to end the hostage situation was a win-win. And (arguably) the Iranians knew that if they dragged out the negotiations with Warren Christopher long enough to benefit Reagan's election, they would get the arms sales they needed for their war with Iraq and it would loosen up their oil exports. Plus they would get world prestige and domestic propaganda out of frustrating Carter to the end. Which they knew they could do because a Carter aide clumsily let it leak (or perhaps intentionally) that the United States lacked the military capability to strike against Iran with any meaningful impact. That's why a short term hostage gig turned into a years long embarrassment.

While its true Christopher firmed up the details that put the hostages on the plane, they were toyed with for months because the Iranians knew they would get a better deal from Reagan despite his tough domestic rhetoric. If they waited until after Reagan was in office to firm up the details, then it becomes too obvious that the Iranians may have indirectly influenced the election by refusing to negotiated until after the ballots were cast and that would raise questions about whether Reagan asked for that help. We will never know. Bill Casey is dead. But people in the know, including some of his friends, think the answer to that is yes.

Carter's people were weak and naive and it was their naivety that drove them into weak positions. They played right into the Iranians hands, who delayed it long enough to get the maximum impact, then covered their tracks after they got what they wanted. Meanwhile, the Carter people can dress up ridiculous failures as a success when the hostages came home safe. Its chess not checkers. Stop relying solely on Vox for your information.

Honestly it doesn’t matter what confessions we gave up. The price that Carter paid to get the hostages home (mostly giving the Iranians back a small portion of their own money) was a much smaller one than Reagan paid (selling the Iranians weapons technology that they’re still using). In the end, it just meant that the Iranians had fewer chess pieces on the board that needed to be taken and it inflicted very little pain and suffering on the US in Carter’s case, though slightly more in Reagan’s case. So if Carter was playing checkers... what the hell were Reagan’s people playing? Tic tac toe? As far as benefits from both transaction’s Carter’s was probably lest costly for a similar outcome. Reagan’s support of the contra’s hasn’t turned out to be an obviously good decision either. The destabilization of the Central American region is contributing to the emigration crisis we’re dealing with right now. The implications of Reagans Iran Contra folly has lasted far beyond the implications of any concessions Carter gave to Iran after the Revolution.

 

[lawpoke87]

Not sure what game Carter was playing but it took him 444 days to complete

 

[HuffyCane]

Flaws in the Reagan Administration does not explain or excuse the gross incompetence of the Carter era.

 

[astonmartin708]

Flaws in the Reagan Administration does not explain or excuse the gross incompetence of the Carter era.

You’re right, but you and others have been accusing Carter (and more specifically those under him) of being weak and ineffectual largely due to his handling of the hostage crisis, while Reagan did the same thing, only with even worse outcomes in terms of what we had to give up, but he apparently gets a pass for it.

I totally get the gripes about Carter, but honestly the only things that Reagan did drastically different than Carter was raise the defense budget drastically to push the soviets, and at the same time cut taxes which drastically increased the national debt and eventually led to HW’s recession.

Reagan ‘solved’ the stagflation problem with the lending policies of the fed chair that Carter appointed, and while Carter had to deal with an oil shortage, Reagan got to be in office during a tech boom that he didn’t create (though he did help it along). All in all, I think Carter was tasked with a tougher period of time and he performed mediocre. Reagan was in office during a much easier period of time and he performed mediocre as well, but the nature of the time period makes us look at him more favorably. I would say the same for Clinton as Reagan. People accuse Carter of being weak, but I can’t imagine being brave enough to be an austerity president like he was. I think that would take a lot of guts that most presidents haven’t had.

 

[astonmartin708]

To reiterate, I’m not saying that I think many of his economic / austerity policies were necessarily good policies, just that voicing an attitude that the American people need to have a stiff upper lip during times of trouble isn’t an easy thing for a president to do, though at times it might be the right thing to do.

 

[TUMe]

To reiterate, I’m not saying that I think many of his economic / austerity policies were necessarily good policies, just that voicing an attitude that the American people need to have a stiff upper lip during times of trouble isn’t an easy thing for a president to do, though at times it might be the right thing to do.

You are just defending the Democrat.

 

[astonmartin708]

You are just defending the Democrat.

I think that in comparison to other presidents he isn’t quite as bad as others. I would honestly take him over LBJ. LBJ’s biggest accomplishments were related to civil rights, but I think Carter would have had similar outcomes in the social sphere. And by comparison, I would rather have had someone like Carter’s level head during Vietnam as compared to the bluster and brovado (and relative disregard for the lives of non-volunteer soldiers) of Johnson. I might be persuaded to choose him over Truman as well. My opinion of Truman has disintegrated recently (even though I’ve been told that I’m distantly related to him)

In my rankings since the start of WWII I would put Roosevelt and Ike at the top. We haven’t had the same quality since them. I would probably put Kennedy as above average and Obama, HW, Clinton, Reagan, and Carter (in no specific order) in the Vanilla Icecream center of the pack. Nixon + Ford (I view them as more or less a single administration), GWB, LBJ, Truman and Trump would be on my bottom tier.

 

[cmullinsTU]

You'd watch. I'll call it Nixon 24.

I’d watch. At least until you release “Huffy’s Not so Ancient Aliens”.

 

[TUMe]

You, along with many, are wrong about Truman and I am a Republican.

Let us talk about the Marshall Plan. Marshall was a great organizer and FDR realized that leaving him to oversee the military from the US. Truman put those skills to work rebuilding Europe. But the term Marshall Plan leaves you to believe Marshall made the plans and the decisions. No president would step back and leave such a task to even some one as good as Marshall.

Let's talk about firing MacArthur. Lots of people, my dad included, thought that was a huge sin. In fact, it was a step for keeping the military second to civil authority. MacArthur could be a genius but often was a hot dog. Incheon (most likely misspelled.) was fantastic. But there is little talk of the second verse of trying to move half the troops the other side of Korea to set. And finally wanting to go to war with China got him the ax.

Of course, now for the big one, the atomic bomb on Japan. FDR hadn't even told Truman about the atomic bomb. When FDR died he left HST about three weeks to decide what he was going to do. During that time his opinion evolved. Both sides had had huge casualties island hoping. If they fought that hard for islands near Japan, how hard would they fight for Japan itself. His decision was to use the A Bomb. The first one didn't convince them. He used the second and only one left in theatre. The rest, as they say, is history.

Truman and Carter...no comparison.

 

[HuffyCane]

Bullseye on MacArthur. He should have been tried for telling our allies in the middle of the Cold War that he was going to invade a country with a mutual defense pact with the Soviet Union despite specifically being told not to, mostly because he was pissed the President and the JCS wouldn’t trust him with nuclear weapons.

Truman had strengths but they were not greater than his weaknesses. He has this manufactured reputation as being honest. American political folklore is really interesting. The man owed his career to party machine politics and rampant open corruption. Nearly every major advisor he appointed to replace someone from the FDR team had a corruption problem. It was a real issue. Between that and relieving MacArthur, a second re-election was impossible. He was so weak by the end of his Presidency he not only declined to run for re-election because polling was so low, he had to beg Stevenson to run after the NH primary to prevent the embarrassment of having his chief critic in Congress win the nomination after the President lost the NH primary by 20 points. I don’t understand the fondness for Truman. It’s really revealing how the press forgets things and the public’s perception changes.

You could stop 100 people on the street in DC, ask them if they closely followed political contests, had an interest in Presidential history, and were familiar with Truman’s time in office. Even if you asked only those that said Yes, I bet one in 100 would know that Truman dropped out of a re-election attempt and essentially left office defeated and somewhat disgraced. Most people think he was this honest country politician who dropped the bomb, won the war, proved pollsters wrong through his folksy populism, and got things done in Washington. The reality is far far different.

On the bomb, I’m convinced he dropped it based solely on his personal experience in WWI fighting a conflict that was essentially over and he saw so many unnecessary deaths. When the Japanese leadership appeared to be hell bent to increase the death toll, he decided he was going to do something to prevent others experiencing what he went through. Im not sure anyone in the decision tree fully grasped the technology era or its impact until after it was dropped the first time. The second time was all about telling the rest of the world we are in charge now.

 

[aTUfan]

calling it rhe China Olympics make you racist.

 

[astonmartin708]

You, along with many, are wrong about Truman and I am a Republican.

Let us talk about the Marshall Plan. Marshall was a great organizer and FDR realized that leaving him to oversee the military from the US. Truman put those skills to work rebuilding Europe. But the term Marshall Plan leaves you to believe Marshall made the plans and the decisions. No president would step back and leave such a task to even some one as good as Marshall.

Let's talk about firing MacArthur. Lots of people, my dad included, thought that was a huge sin. In fact, it was a step for keeping the military second to civil authority. MacArthur could be a genius but often was a hot dog. Incheon (most likely misspelled.) was fantastic. But there is little talk of the second verse of trying to move half the troops the other side of Korea to set. And finally wanting to go to war with China got him the ax.

Of course, now for the big one, the atomic bomb on Japan. FDR hadn't even told Truman about the atomic bomb. When FDR died he left HST about three weeks to decide what he was going to do. During that time his opinion evolved. Both sides had had huge casualties island hoping. If they fought that hard for islands near Japan, how hard would they fight for Japan itself. His decision was to use the A Bomb. The first one didn't convince them. He used the second and only one left in theatre. The rest, as they say, is history.

Truman and Carter...no comparison.

I know all of the points regarding him but I don't agree with much of it. I think Truman was the worst Democratic president since Andrew Johnson simply for his poking the soviet bear repeatedly with his nuclear capabilities prior to the soviets developing theirs. I'm aware that they would have had them eventually anyway, but Truman's posturing after the war ended had a lot to do with the severity and the tone of the Cold War for the next 50 years. I also don't support destroying entire cities, especially when Japan was already on the verge of surrender anyway. I also don't agree with Truman's decision to further develop even more deadly atomic bombs in response to Russia's acquiring one. It put the entire world at risk, and rather than de-escalation Truman chose full on escalation to the point that we were on the brink of nuclear war several times.

The Truman Doctrine, whilst some might have felt it necessary to contain communism, led to us propping up dictators and creating ludicrous stockpiles of weapons. Hiroshima and Nagasaki opened a can of worms. Truman argued that he saved hundreds of thousands of lives, but in reality he might have given warrant to any nation (including America) that wants to completely obliterate millions of souls, because every nation will make the excuse that they were trying to save their own people.

I'm actually curious as to how Carter would have reacted having been thrust into a war that was already winding down, and an oncoming conflict with our former allies.

 

[TUMe]

I don't buy that the war was winding down. Your repeated attempts to elevate Carter as a president are bewildering. Only the Emperor could have stopped it. The final peace ended with Herohito in a minor roll. He could do anything after getting MacArthur's approval.

Truman had his faults, including being a "Judge" in Kansas City associated with the Pendergraf family which was a local mobster. "Judge" was used for commissioners or the like. I am not judging him by his whole life but as a president.

Let's talk about the bomb. England was working on one. Germany began working on one, but fortunately Hitler did not give it priority. He had ran off his best scientists, example Einstein. You can say there was not going to being many, many deaths in a invasion of Japan but everything up to that point certainly appeared to be headed that way with months more of war.

Firing MacArthur made it plain that the president called the shots and not M.

The Marshall Plan helped rebuild Europe and kept Russia at bay.

By the way, how did Truman get to be VP. He was a fly in FDR's oatmeal. His committee was poking around where FDR didn't want. He was selected by FDR as Vice President then ignored. Can you imagine being told the president had died and oh, by the way we have an Atomic Bomb and you have to decide whether or not to use it. You have X days to decide.

It could have been worse, it could have been Jimmie Carter.

 

[astonmartin708]

I don't buy that the war was winding down. Your repeated attempts to elevate Carter as a president are bewildering. Only the Emperor could have stopped it. The final peace ended with Herohito in a minor roll. He could do anything after getting MacArthur's approval.

Truman had his faults, including being a "Judge" in Kansas City associated with the Pendergraf family which was a local mobster. "Judge" was used for commissioners or the like. I am not judging him by his whole life but as a president.

Let's talk about the bomb. England was working on one. Germany began working on one, but fortunately Hitler did not give it priority. He had ran off his best scientists, example Einstein. You can say there was not going to being many, many deaths in a invasion of Japan but everything up to that point certainly appeared to be headed that way with months more of war.

Firing MacArthur made it plain that the president called the shots and not M.

The Marshall Plan helped rebuild Europe and kept Russia at bay.

By the way, how did Truman get to be VP. He was a fly in FDR's oatmeal. His committee was poking around where FDR didn't want. He was selected by FDR as Vice President then ignored. Can you imagine being told the president had died and oh, by the way we have an Atomic Bomb and you have to decide whether or not to use it. You have X days to decide.

It could have been worse, it could have been Jimmie Carter.

I never said there weren't going to be many, many deaths in an invasion of Japan. I said, by the time the US got to Okinawa, the war was more or less strategically over, and the same results as the atomic bomb could have been garnered by carpet (fire) bombing along the lines of what we did to Dresden.... What I said was, the number of lives saved by non invading Japan, pales in comparison to the number of lives lost over the years fighting to keep the dream of the Truman Doctrine alive, and it also pales in comparison to the number of lives that were put at risk by opening the atomic can of worms. Truman then pushed Russia into an arms race that would last another 40 years. His excuse that he was saving American lives was a massive, massive, massive gamble in terms of potential for American lives to be lost in the future. Luckily for Truman he turned out to have gambled correctly (at least for the time being) but there was no way he could have seen the, excuse the pun, fallout from what ushering in the Nuclear age would have been.

Can I imagine being in Truman's shoes? Sure I can. I'm honestly not sure that Carter wouldn't have made the same decision Truman did. As I said before, I don't really care about the Marshall Plan or MacArthur. They were relatively small potatoes compared to what the Truman Doctrine and firing the starting gun for a nuclear weapons build-up did (not only by using the bomb, but then whenever a conflict with Russia occurred, lording the bombs over their head so we won every argument, but caused them to increase their pace of nuclear research) Ultimately, I don't think Truman made America safer by his decisions for Japan. I think put America, (all of America) at risk.

 

[astonmartin708]

To contrast Truman, I put Kennedy as an above average president despite his short term in office and his extramarital dalliances, almost entirely because of his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, a problem which I trace back to Truman (who ironically hated Kennedy). Kennedy’s handling of that situation was nothing short of miraculous. Between the two, I respect the man who was advised to use full military force and chose instead to find (create) a 3rd available resolution to the situation more than the guy who was told, “hey we have these bombs that will immediately end the war and make you a national hero overnight”

The full extent of what Kennedy and his brother were dealing with from both the pentagon and the soviets and Cuba, and what they pulled off wasn’t known for many years after it happened. They weren’t celebrated enough in their time for it.

 

[TUMe]

The Cuban Missle Crisis was white knuckle time and Kennedy handled it well. It was before it reached the point of war. No shots had yet been fired. Although it wasn't discussed much at the time, we made some concessions in Europe.

You have gone from comparing Carter with Truman to comparing him with Kennedy. Will Carter be a better president than Washington or Lincoln? Carter was completely unready to be the President of the United States. Managing the world's largest economy was completely out of his league. Many of us on this board are good people but few are ready to even be an aide to a president.

 

[HuffyCane]

To contrast Truman, I put Kennedy as an above average president despite his short term in office and his extramarital dalliances, almost entirely because of his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, a problem which I trace back to Truman (who ironically hated Kennedy). Kennedy’s handling of that situation was nothing short of miraculous. Between the two, I respect the man who was advised to use full military force and chose instead to find (create) a 3rd available resolution to the situation more than the guy who was told, “hey we have these bombs that will immediately end the war and make you a national hero overnight”

The full extent of what Kennedy and his brother were dealing with from both the pentagon and the soviets and Cuba, and what they pulled off wasn’t known for many years after it happened. They weren’t celebrated enough in their time for it.

You’re welcome to your opinion but your reasoning isn’t supported by fact. It’s a pretty romantic look back at a martyr who in life manufactured a persona on Madison Ave that didn’t exist.

You say that you admire Kennedy for de-escalation and that Truman’s decisions on the nuclear arsenal resulted in expanding the Cold War. In fact, Kennedy was elected on the basis of expanding US nuclear stockpiles and knowingly deceived the American people for personal gain.

Go back and inform yourself on the term “missile gap.” The “missile gap” was a term first coined by Kennedy and presumably conjured up by his ad handlers when they weren’t pushing cigarettes on an unsuspecting public. The missle gap was this made up idea that the Soviets had achieved a superiority in the number and efficacy of long range nuclear missiles that demonstrated a failure in the Eisenhower strategy of nuclear parity on that class of weapons. Which in turn revealed a failure of the overall triangle strategy of nuclear deterrence.

There was absolutely no evidence whatsoever for this claim, it was purely made up by members of Congress for political purposes and to drive additional military expenditures in their districts, including Senator Kennedy’s.

Eisenhower and the Pentagon knew it was false but could not publicly respond due to the classified nature of the information and the potential impact of such a release of information disproving the assertion might have on the Soviets. Finally, accurate numbers would reveal to the Soviets that we had reliable assets in these areas inside the Soviet Union and that could jeopardize their safety.

So Eisenhower arranged for a classified briefing for Kennedy and a couple of other Congressional leaders who were jawboning this con because he wrongly felt that they must be saying these things publicly because they simply didn’t know the truth. Once he informed these patriot veterans, Ike thought, they would understand they needed to dial back the rhetoric. Kennedy left the briefing and within minutes was still pushing the missile gap BS. The polling showed that Americans responded to the argument out of fear and it moved the needle too high to just give up the argument because it was wrong.

Ike was so demoralized he included his warning about military contractors having so much influence over Congressional politics he spoke about the dangers of a “military-industrial” complex in his farewell speech, specifically with Kennedy in mind.

It was THE central issue in his Presidential campaign. People talk about how Kennedy won the 1960 debates on his looks. That’s a distraction. Go back and look at the polling. He won because the needle moved because people thought he was taking a position from a position of strength and responding to people’s fears. Nixon knew the truth and had the proof, but it was all classified and he had to grumpily stand there and take it while America was lied to. You want to talk about restraint? Nixon showed it in spades then and later when he was urged to contest the election and he refused because of what it would do to the country.

In short, Kennedy wanted to expand the Cold War for his own political gain and the financial benefit of his backers. In fact, a convincing argument can be made nobody expanded it more than him, because once in office, he had to fill the false “gap” and we immediately had to start building more.

This provocation was even more problematic in the context of the Cuban Missile Crisis which was horribly bungled and it was only dumb luck and the restraint of the Soviets that kept a theater wide nuclear war from occurring.

Eisenhower approved a coup in Cuba for a variety of reasons. That coup was contingent upon certain pre-set military objectives being reached in conjunction with some pre-set political hurdles being overcome. Once fully organized and trained up, the CIA notified the new President that the coup was ready to proceed. President Kennedy reviewed the plans and approved the project. The invasion plans required successful bombings in advance of five amphibious landings along a string of beaches known as the Bay of Pigs. Kennedy authorized the bombings. Although dissatisfied with the results, he approved the landings to go forward a few hours later. In the meantime, colleagues in the Congress and the intelligence community leaked the invasion to the press and European partners who immediately put pressure on Kennedy to stop the invasion. Kennedy refused to recall the invasion for fear of acknowledging the US trained Cuban invasion force would be viewed as being under US control. But Kennedy did order the air support for the invasion recalled because such capability was so obviously US or US backed. As stated above, the plan required US air support and Kennedy knew that. Because the leaks and pressure and the Presidents decision to pull the air support happened before the invaders could establish a firm beachhead which could be defended and allow a strategic initiative into the interior, Cuban forces were able to quickly pin the force down and kill or capture every one involved.

The disastrous decision to not follow through on the commitment caused irreparable damage to US prestige, destabilized the political axis of the entire planet, and even altered US political outcomes to this day, including the election of at least two US Presidents.

In response to the constant threat of invasion, now a tangible possibility as people waited on the island wondering whether the most powerful nation on earth was going to land half a million men on the island for the purpose of finding Castro and killing him (a plausible feeling in hindsight given Bishop, Noriega, and Saddam), Castro requested nuclear weapons to protect himself from invasion. This was a natural consequence that was completely foreseeable prior to approving the invasion. Not only did it drive Cuba closer to the Soviet Union, it was a beacon for every ten cent dictator worried about US/UK intervention and they all immediately phoned Moscow asking for weapons. This continued for the next thirty years from Angola to Nicaragua to Yemen. A to Z.

This set the stage for the Cuban Missile Crisis, something Kennedy created through his bungling, cold feet, and crappy advice from as domestic policy advisors meddling in foreign affairs like his brother and Ken O’Donnell.

You give him highmarks for his handling of that situation, and they do deserve a lot of credit for clear thinking under high stress, though that stress was mostly self created and failed to address key problems.

Most people think that the withdrawal was this key master stroke where the quarantine along the Cuban coast allowed both sides to claim victory by a mutual withdrawal of medium range missiles in exchange for a promise of no invasion.

What people do not realize is that the White House was so inexperienced and frantic and isolated from the Pentagon, that the agreement failed to cover short range theater wide nuclear weapons that were already in Cuba and remained in Cuba after the withdrawal of the quarantine. Delivery systems that could have reached Miami, New Orleans snd several other major population centers. The Soviets and the Cubans gave up the medium range weapons and still got what they wanted: nuclear insurance against invasion. Kennedy got played. The missiles left Turkey and the Soviets got the propaganda victory of standing up to the American invaders. The White House was completely ignorant of this. And kept the American people ignorant of this for decades with their romantic notions of steely eyed JFK preserving Camelot. The reality is that he nearly got us all killed for nothing except photo ops on TV throwing his weight around then dropping everything.

The good news is that some level headed Soviet strategic and tactical level commanders showed up on the island and quickly figured out that the Cubans were too radical and way too paranoid to trust 25 individual commanders of weapons systems (the Soviets didn’t yet have unity of command capability for their short range weapons) with stuff that could result in a retaliatory strike on Moscow, and so they quietly removed them back to Russia.

And Florida has been solidly Republican ever since. Despite demographics and political history that should make it hard blue, the Cuban vote has tilted the control of the power structure to the Republicans and other Hispanic groups have followed along. Contrary to predictions otherwise, it will be that way for a long time. And without Florida, no George W Bush and no Donald Trump.

Thanks Jack!

 

[astonmartin708]

You’re welcome to your opinion but your reasoning isn’t supported by fact. It’s a pretty romantic look back at a martyr who in life manufactured a persona on Madison Ave that didn’t exist.

You say that you admire Kennedy for de-escalation and that Truman’s decisions on the nuclear arsenal resulted in expanding the Cold War. In fact, Kennedy was elected on the basis of expanding US nuclear stockpiles and knowingly deceived the American people for personal gain.

Go back and inform yourself on the term “missile gap.” The “missile gap” was a term first coined by Kennedy and presumably conjured up by his ad handlers when they weren’t pushing cigarettes on an unsuspecting public. The missle gap was this made up idea that the Soviets had achieved a superiority in the number and efficacy of long range nuclear missiles that demonstrated a failure in the Eisenhower strategy of nuclear parity on that class of weapons. Which in turn revealed a failure of the overall triangle strategy of nuclear deterrence.

There was absolutely no evidence whatsoever for this claim, it was purely made up by members of Congress for political purposes and to drive additional military expenditures in their districts, including Senator Kennedy’s.

Eisenhower and the Pentagon knew it was false but could not publicly respond due to the classified nature of the information and the potential impact of such a release of information disproving the assertion might have on the Soviets. Finally, accurate numbers would reveal to the Soviets that we had reliable assets in these areas inside the Soviet Union and that could jeopardize their safety.

So Eisenhower arranged for a classified briefing for Kennedy and a couple of other Congressional leaders who were jawboning this con because he wrongly felt that they must be saying these things publicly because they simply didn’t know the truth. Once he informed these patriot veterans, Ike thought, they would understand they needed to dial back the rhetoric. Kennedy left the briefing and within minutes was still pushing the missile gap BS. The polling showed that Americans responded to the argument out of fear and it moved the needle too high to just give up the argument because it was wrong.

Ike was so demoralized he included his warning about military contractors having so much influence over Congressional politics he spoke about the dangers of a “military-industrial” complex in his farewell speech, specifically with Kennedy in mind.

It was THE central issue in his Presidential campaign. People talk about how Kennedy won the 1960 debates on his looks. That’s a distraction. Go back and look at the polling. He won because the needle moved because people thought he was taking a position from a position of strength and responding to people’s fears. Nixon knew the truth and had the proof, but it was all classified and he had to grumpily stand there and take it while America was lied to. You want to talk about restraint? Nixon showed it in spades then and later when he was urged to contest the election and he refused because of what it would do to the country.

In short, Kennedy wanted to expand the Cold War for his own political gain and the financial benefit of his backers. In fact, a convincing argument can be made nobody expanded it more than him, because once in office, he had to fill the false “gap” and we immediately had to start building more.

This provocation was even more problematic in the context of the Cuban Missile Crisis which was horribly bungled and it was only dumb luck and the restraint of the Soviets that kept a theater wide nuclear war from occurring.

Eisenhower approved a coup in Cuba for a variety of reasons. That coup was contingent upon certain pre-set military objectives being reached in conjunction with some pre-set political hurdles being overcome. Once fully organized and trained up, the CIA notified the new President that the coup was ready to proceed. President Kennedy reviewed the plans and approved the project. The invasion plans required successful bombings in advance of five amphibious landings along a string of beaches known as the Bay of Pigs. Kennedy authorized the bombings. Although dissatisfied with the results, he approved the landings to go forward a few hours later. In the meantime, colleagues in the Congress and the intelligence community leaked the invasion to the press and European partners who immediately put pressure on Kennedy to stop the invasion. Kennedy refused to recall the invasion for fear of acknowledging the US trained Cuban invasion force would be viewed as being under US control. But Kennedy did order the air support for the invasion recalled because such capability was so obviously US or US backed. As stated above, the plan required US air support and Kennedy knew that. Because the leaks and pressure and the Presidents decision to pull the air support happened before the invaders could establish a firm beachhead which could be defended and allow a strategic initiative into the interior, Cuban forces were able to quickly pin the force down and kill or capture every one involved.

The disastrous decision to not follow through on the commitment caused irreparable damage to US prestige, destabilized the political axis of the entire planet, and even altered US political outcomes to this day, including the election of at least two US Presidents.

In response to the constant threat of invasion, now a tangible possibility as people waited on the island wondering whether the most powerful nation on earth was going to land half a million men on the island for the purpose of finding Castro and killing him (a plausible feeling in hindsight given Bishop, Noriega, and Saddam), Castro requested nuclear weapons to protect himself from invasion. This was a natural consequence that was completely foreseeable prior to approving the invasion. Not only did it drive Cuba closer to the Soviet Union, it was a beacon for every ten cent dictator worried about US/UK intervention and they all immediately phoned Moscow asking for weapons. This continued for the next thirty years from Angola to Nicaragua to Yemen. A to Z.

This set the stage for the Cuban Missile Crisis, something Kennedy created through his bungling, cold feet, and crappy advice from as domestic policy advisors meddling in foreign affairs like his brother and Ken O’Donnell.

You give him highmarks for his handling of that situation, and they do deserve a lot of credit for clear thinking under high stress, though that stress was mostly self created and failed to address key problems.

Most people think that the withdrawal was this key master stroke where the quarantine along the Cuban coast allowed both sides to claim victory by a mutual withdrawal of medium range missiles in exchange for a promise of no invasion.

What people do not realize is that the White House was so inexperienced and frantic and isolated from the Pentagon, that the agreement failed to cover short range theater wide nuclear weapons that were already in Cuba and remained in Cuba after the withdrawal of the quarantine. Delivery systems that could have reached Miami, New Orleans snd several other major population centers. The Soviets and the Cubans gave up the medium range weapons and still got what they wanted: nuclear insurance against invasion. Kennedy got played. The missiles left Turkey and the Soviets got the propaganda victory of standing up to the American invaders. The White House was completely ignorant of this. And kept the American people ignorant of this for decades with their romantic notions of steely eyed JFK preserving Camelot. The reality is that he nearly got us all killed for nothing except photo ops on TV throwing his weight around then dropping everything.

The good news is that some level headed Soviet strategic and tactical level commanders showed up on the island and quickly figured out that the Cubans were too radical and way too paranoid to trust 25 individual commanders of weapons systems (the Soviets didn’t yet have unity of command capability for their short range weapons) with stuff that could result in a retaliatory strike on Moscow, and so they quietly removed them back to Russia.

And Florida has been solidly Republican ever since. Despite demographics and political history that should make it hard blue, the Cuban vote has tilted the control of the power structure to the Republicans and other Hispanic groups have followed along. Contrary to predictions otherwise, it will be that way for a long time. And without Florida, no George W Bush and no Donald Trump.

Thanks Jack!

Your opinion that Kennedy got played are infintile. The missiles in Turkey were outdated technology for the era already and they were causing us more problems than they were worth. The discussions among the XCOMM group shifted less from being worried about missiles in Cuba and more about the concern of the possibility of was with the Soviet Union. More importantly Kennedy was worried that the Soviets in response to bombing a few missile sites in Cuba would move to seize Berlin and that the US’s relations among its allies would suffer as it looked like we had inadequate provocation to attack Cuba, since the Soviets had lived under the threat of these intermediate range nuclear weapons for years. That’s almost verbatim what Kennedy argued in his meetings. Moreover Kennedy consulted Eisenhower in response to the decisions. Kennedy’s decisions in the Cuban Missile crisis were infinitely more strategic than anything Truman did in terms of foreign policy. Truman was more or less reactionary and made decisions based on his guts.

 

[astonmartin708]

I encourage you to actually read what they were saying in the meetings during the Cuban Missile Crisis and consider the bad advisement that Kennedy was getting from guys like Air Force Commander Curtis LeMay...

Meeting of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the Cuban Missile Crisis​

October 19, 1962

General Curtis LeMay:​

Now, as for the Berlin situation, I don’t share your view that if we knock off Cuba, they’re going to knock off Berlin. We’ve got the Berlin problem staring us in the face anyway. If we don’t do anything to Cuba, then they’re going to push on Berlin and push real hard because they’ve got us on the run. If we take military action against Cuba, then I think that the . . .

President Kennedy:​

What do you think their reprisal would be?

General Curtis LeMay:​

I don’t think they’re going to make any reprisal if we tell them that the Berlin situation is just like it’s always been. If they make a move we’re going to fight. Now I don’t think this changes the Berlin situation at all, except you’ve got to make one more statement on it.
So I see no other solution. This blockade and political action, I see leading into war. I don’t see any other solution for it. It will lead right into war. This is almost as bad as the appeasement at Munich.
[Pause.]
Because if this [unclear] blockade comes along, their MiGs are going to fly. The IL-28s are going to fly against us. And we’re just going to
gradually drift into a war under conditions that are at great disadvantage to us, with missiles staring us in the face, that can knock out our airfields in the southeastern portion [of the United States]. And if they use nuclear weapons, it’s the population down there. We just drift into a war under conditions that we don’t like. I just don’t see any other solution except direct military intervention . . . right now

If you would like to argue that Cuba was Kennedy’s own doing prior to the missile crisis, I would argue that in all honesty it was the adherence to the Truman Doctrine, and the lingering effects of McCarthyism that led to us feeling as though we need to push for a non communist Cuba.

 

[HuffyCane]

Your opinion that Kennedy got played are infintile. The missiles in Turkey were outdated technology for the era already and they were causing us more problems than they were worth. The discussions among the XCOMM group shifted less from being worried about missiles in Cuba and more about the concern of the possibility of was with the Soviet Union. More importantly Kennedy was worried that the Soviets in response to bombing a few missile sites in Cuba would move to seize Berlin and that the US’s relations among its allies would suffer as it looked like we had inadequate provocation to attack Cuba, since the Soviets had lived under the threat of these intermediate range nuclear weapons for years. That’s almost verbatim what Kennedy argued in his meetings. Moreover Kennedy consulted Eisenhower in response to the decisions. Kennedy’s decisions in the Cuban Missile crisis were infinitely more strategic than anything Truman did in terms of foreign policy. Truman was more or less reactionary and made decisions based on his guts.

It’s telling here that you didn’t refute the missile gap issue, because you can’t, nor do you address the main problem: he got us into the trouble in the first place. He should have considered the impact on NATO and the European theater when he sabotaged his own invasion. The concern for Berlin was there before the crisis. He was going to take on the Soviets there anyway in the next few months and had prepped war plans for the fallout. But hey, he’s a brilliant guy for having every American digging fallout shelters in their backyard and we haven’t come close to that type of war before or since.

Interesting in one message you say Truman should have followed LeMay’s advice to bomb Japan like he did Dresden but you think LeMay was wrong in Cuba and should have been ignored. You made a false assumption stating that but I let it go earlier because it was a secondary argument. We fired bombed the crap out of Japan for six months killing at least 500,000 and it didn’t dent their resolve or industrial production. One of the reasons they dropped the bomb was because conventional bombing was placing troops at risk and wasn’t netting returns — unlike your assertion that “ the same results as the atomic bomb could have been garnered by carpet (fire) bombing along the lines of what we did to Dresden....”

(We were also dangerously close to going broke and the Arabs wanted gold bullion for more oil — not pledges and bonds, but that’s a different story. We could have run out of money and therefore gas and might have been forced into giving up a partial surrender if the conflict went into 1946.)