guerrillaradio
13th February 2004, 21:00
So I was watching one of the Cold War programmes that were on BBC a couple of years ago. Some of the Brits maybe familiar with it, it had Kenneth Brannagh narrating and stuff. Anyway, this one was all about the Cuban Missile Crisis, and it had an interview with one of JFK's advisors saying that JFK was "incredibly reluctant" for the US hold a fullscale invasion of Cuba, since the parallel would be drawn between that and Pearl Harbor in 1941: a country bombing another's military bases in a "defensive" act. In fact, the reason the Bay of Pigs invasion was so half-arsed was cos JFK did not want it to appear to be a US invasion (for this reason), more led by Cuban exiles.
And it struck me how similar a position the US was in in 1962 and 2003: facing a country with a government hostile to theirs that was in possession of destructive weapons. In fact, many would say that Cuba posed a greater risk than Iraq did under Saddam, since we were sure that they were in possession of nuclear bombs whereas it was only claimed that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, and those claims have been far from proved. Yet Kennedy would not put his name on a Cuban invasion whereas 40 years later Bush has no problem invading Iraq (and indeed, Afghanistan, although it can be argued that that was a different situation).
I guess there are certain differences here. Kennedy was a Democrat, whereas Bush is a considerably right wing Republican. Also Pearl Habor's very much out of sight, and thus out of mind as far as public opinion is concerned. Still, it's an interesting point that US policy now seems to be more hawkish than during the most intense and hostile part of the Cold War.
And it struck me how similar a position the US was in in 1962 and 2003: facing a country with a government hostile to theirs that was in possession of destructive weapons. In fact, many would say that Cuba posed a greater risk than Iraq did under Saddam, since we were sure that they were in possession of nuclear bombs whereas it was only claimed that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, and those claims have been far from proved. Yet Kennedy would not put his name on a Cuban invasion whereas 40 years later Bush has no problem invading Iraq (and indeed, Afghanistan, although it can be argued that that was a different situation).
I guess there are certain differences here. Kennedy was a Democrat, whereas Bush is a considerably right wing Republican. Also Pearl Habor's very much out of sight, and thus out of mind as far as public opinion is concerned. Still, it's an interesting point that US policy now seems to be more hawkish than during the most intense and hostile part of the Cold War.