America and the Bay of Pigs Debacle

Introduction The American history is intertwined with a myriad of issues cutting across the plane. However, in most of these cases, leadership played a major role in either finding a solution to an existing problem or worsening the situation. Notably, America’s association with other countries has also been of significance throughout history.Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on America and the Bay of Pigs Debacle specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More This has helped it advance broadly through bilateral and multilateral relationships. These relationships are, however, based on its foreign policy, which principally gives guidelines on international relationships. One of the most fascinating and historic relationships was with Cuba with special reference to the Bay of Pigs Debacle (McCormick, 2010). This research paper gives a detailed coverage of the events that surrounded the unsuccessful attack, key causal factors, aftermath and the involvement of leaders. The Bay of Pigs Debacle The Bay of Pigs Debacle refers to the failed attack that was carried out by the CIA on southern Cuba. These forces were part of Cuban exiles, and they received massive support from the U.S. government to launch the attack. According to Jones 2008, the U.S. support was based on its intention to have the Fidel Castro, the former Cuban president overthrown (Jones, 2008). After several discussions and consultations, the attack was launched in April 1961. Coincidentally, the invasion came when John F. Kennedy had served as the U.S. President for less than three months. Nevertheless, the Cuban forces did not take any chances but fiercely fought back, defeating them in only three days. Notably, the main attack occurred at Playa Giron, at the mouth of the bay. The invasion was later named after the Bay of Pigs, Spanish translation of Bahà ­a de Cochinos (Sasser, 2006). Background Information Prior to the invasion, a series of events had taken place in the United States involving political leaders. The previous year on March 1960, President Dwight D. Eisenhower ratified a document which had been designed by the 5412 committee â€Å"Special Group† during a meeting held by the United States Security Council (Castro Hodge Nolan, 2007). The document was about a secret action that the U.S. government was going to take against Fidel Castro and his ruling regime. According to the document, the action was to bring to an end the reign of Castro, whom the U.S. believed needed replacement. In so doing, the United States was to ensure that whoever was to replace Castro must have the interests of Cubans at heart and possess overall U.S. acceptance. This was also to avoid any form of intervention by America in the affairs of the country if a more acceptable leader took over Cuba from the hands of Fidel (Castro Hodge Nolan, 2007). It is also important to note that the operation was to be accomplishe d with a financial cost. As a result, President Eisenhower agreed on an expenditure of $13 million on 18 August 1960. By October same year, the CIA had failed on several occasions to hit Cuba with guerrilla infiltrations and there was a need for the forces to launch a fierce attack that was to involve not less than 1,500 military men.Advertising Looking for research paper on history? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More After his appointment, President John F. Kennedy was briefed about the secret plan by two senior CIA officials, the director and his deputy (Beisner, 2003). With experience from the Guatemalan coup d’à ©tat of 1954, CIA director Allen Dulles was more than confident that the planned attack on Cuba was acceptable. With President Eisenhower having met several key players in the defense force, there was no single rejection towards the plan as both parties unanimously agreed to execute the underground operation a gainst Castro’s regime. Based on this acceptance, the president approved the plan and targeted to persuade and convince President John F. Kennedy, basing his approval on the perceived merit side of the attack. There was an outline that was presented on 8 December 1960 for the â€Å"Special Group† even though no written commitment records were involved (Beisner, 2003). Further developments were carried out in the plan with an agreement being reached on 4 January 1961 to execute a â€Å"lodgment† that was to involve seven hundred and fifty men with support from the air force. However, no disclosure was made on the exact Cuban point that the attack was to be launched. President Kennedy was briefed on 28 January 1961 by all the major departments, which were involved in the operation planning on the latest developments of an attack in which a thousand men were to be involved in a ship-born invasion (Smith, 2010). In response to the planned attack, President Kennedy g ave an authorization for the continuation of the process and ordered that progress of the events be reported back. CIA’s choice to launch their attack on Trinidad was based on a number of factors, including its location, availability of port services, and its proximity to the Escambray Mountains, which would offer an escape route. However, the proposed scheme was turned down by the State Department, forcing the CIA to draft a refined approach and that would appear workable in achieving the initial objective (Smith, 2010). Following CIAs revised version of the attack, the President approved the operation dabbed â€Å"the Bay Of Pigs† that was also referred to as Operation Zapata. This approval was based on the fact that the operation would not require handling of bomber operations since it had an airfield (Craughwell, Phelps, 2008). Another major reason that contributed to the approval of the plan was that it was not in the neighborhood of Cuban civilians as compared t o the initial Trinidad proposal. As such, U.S. officials believed that it would be used to support future denial of having involved itself directly in Cuba. The landing was also shifted to beaches, which mainly bordered the Bay of Pigs that was located one hundred and fifty kilometers, south-east Havana and to the eastern side of Zapata peninsula (Craughwell, Phelps, 2008).Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on America and the Bay of Pigs Debacle specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More In preparation for the post-invasion Cuba, Cuban Revolutionary Council (CRC) was created by Cubans, who were in exile in Miami, with the help of CIA and was chaired by Josà © Mirà ³ Cardona. He, therefore, became the leader-in-waiting as CIA made final arrangements, which were culminated in April 1961 (Wyden, 1979). Anti-Castro in Cuba The Cuban Revolution of 1959 was followed by widespread resistance from millions of Cubans, espec ially in the Escambray Mountains, an area that continuously experienced war until 1965. Prior to the April attack, it is believed that the U.S. funded and supported several rebel groups in the country, although they were never involved in the final invasion due to concerns over the possibility of leaking out security information (Sasser, 2006). Numerous bomb attacks were also witnessed, and brutal treatment by the government continued despite outcries. In March of 1961, Jesus Carreras and William Morgan faced trial and were executed. Other cases included a bomb attack in Bayamo that left four militia men dead. In addition, the Hershey Sugar factory was destroyed on 6 April 1961. On the fourteenth of the same months, guerrillas engaged government troops at Las Cruces, Montembo, leaving several army officers dead and others wounded. A Cuban airliner was flown to Jacksonville after being hijacked. This bred confusion that led to the detection of a planned B-26 defection (Jose, 1999). P rior Warning Through secret intelligence, Cuban security agencies could detect the invasion mainly from brigade members in Miami and through newspaper speculations. As a result, several sabotage actions were carried out like the Havana arson attack that left one person dead and the El Encanto fire (Hodge Nolan, 2007). Additionally, Cuba had received a warning threat from KGB senior agents who died as a result of circumstances emanating from the invasion. Although information about the invasion was with a number of Cuban senior officials, the people of Cuba were not sufficiently informed about a CIA assault on their country that was beckoning except Radio Swan, which was officially funded by the CIA and had direct links with senior personalities of the organ (Beisner, 2003). A substantial reason for this insufficiency of information within the public domain was the control of communication by the government as it owned the public communication sector. Reports in late April also indi cated that the Soviet Union was aware of the planned attack even though it had chosen not to inform President John F. Kennedy (Jose, 1999). The story was also carried by some media houses in Moscow asserting that CIA had planned an invasion on Cuba by use of paid criminals. This broadcast, aired on 13 April 1961 was a true prophesy as the assault was launched four days later (Craughwell Phelps, 2008). On its side, Britain noted that Cubans were behind their leader, Fidel Castro and the planned invasion was not likely to cause major defections. This was made clear by then British Ambassador to the United States, David Ormsby-Gore, who reiterated that the information was already with CIA senior officials.Advertising Looking for research paper on history? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Casualties The invasion resulted into several casualties, including the death of aircrews. For instance, six Cuban air force crewmen died, ten men who were considered to be Cuban exiles and four American crewmen. Other significant people who died during the operation included Herman Koch, Thomas W. Ray, Wade C. Gray, Riley W. Shamburger and Leo F. Baker (Jose, 1999). In the year 1979, the body of one of the American airmen killed; Thomas Ray was sent to his home country. Following his outstanding contribution, Ray was awarded the Intelligence Star Award in the year 1990. In addition, one hundred and four Cuban exiles died during the attack. These exiles were from Brigade 2506 (Jose, 1999). At the end of the operation, a total of one hundred and seventy six Cuban armed officers lost their lives. Another five thousand were reported to have been killed during the operation or gone missing mysteriously. Aftermath Reaction The unsuccessful invasion on Cuba by the U.S. was a major source of embarrassment on the Administration of President Kennedy. It further made the Cuban President to be more vigilant on possible future attack by the United States. On 21 April of 1961, President Kennedy admitted to being the government officer who was responsible for the failed plan (Jose, 1999). Later in August, Che Guevara sent a message to the President through the secretary of White House, expressing his satisfaction and impact of the Playa Girà ³n which had strengthened Castro’s regime. President Kennedy was highly angered by the failure of CIA and promised to split it into a thousand pieces to be blown away by the wind (Smith, 2010). He resolved that opinions and suggestions given by generals need not to be always honored by feelings. Evaluation From the results of the abortive operation carried out by the U.S. on Cuba, it can be argued that several responsible agencies in America including CIA, JSC, Department of State and the Office of the President failed in the pl anning of an effective invasion on Cuba (Sasser, 2006). Notably, efficacy in integration was principally sabotaged by among others, CIA miscommunication, excessive secrecy with CIA and the State Department and interagency compromises, which were merely based on a minor common denominator. Additionally, there were intertwined factors that contributed to the failure. These included but not limited to landing problems, caused by mechanical failures of machines, insufficient resources, coral reefs and poor ammunition. Moreover, operational failures were contributed by the abandonment of the initial Trinidad plan, which was rejected by the U.S. State Department, raising major concerns that had far-reaching implications. Poor advice from the president and alteration of air strikes also contributed to the abortion of the operation. With regard to the strategic concerns, Kennedy’s lack of experience, CIA underestimations, and ineffective command organization within CIA made a huge co ntribution to the failure of the plan (Sasser, 2006). Coupled with competition among agencies and urgent timeline, failure of the Bay of Pigs debacle was inevitable. Conclusion From the analysis of above, it is evident that the failure of the Bay of Pigs debacle was augmented by several reasons. Although CIA may have had convincing reasons to attack Cuba, agencies involved poorly executed their mandates, leading to an abortive operation that caused embarrassment to the nation. References Beisner, R. (2003). American foreign relations since 1600: a guide to the literature, Volume 1. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. Craughwell, T., Phelps, M. (2008). Failures of the Presidents: From the Whiskey Rebellion and War of 1812 to the Bay of Pigs and War in Iraq. Beverly, Massachusetts: Fair Winds. Hodge, C., Nolan, C. (2007). US presidents and foreign policy. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. Jones, H. (2008). The Bay of Pigs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jose, B. (1999). Behind the Debacle at the Bay of Pigs. Newsweek, 133(10), 55-58. McCormick, J.M. (2010). American foreign policy and process (5th Ed). New York, NY: Prentice Hall. Sasser, C. (2006). Cold War: Bay of Pigs Invasion. Weider History Group. Retrieved from https://www.historynet.com/cold-war-bay-of-pigs-invasion.htm Smith, T. (2010). Bay of Pigs Debacle: Failed Interaction of the Intelligence Community and the Executive. Project on National Security Reform. Retrieved from: http://www.pnsr.org/?p=388 Wyden, P. (1979). Bay of Pigs: the untold story. Michigan: Simon and Schuster. This research paper on America and the Bay of Pigs Debacle was written and submitted by user Shatterstar to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here. America and the Bay of Pigs Debacle Introduction The official goals of the US government foreign policy have been described by the US department of state as â€Å"to create a more secure, democratic and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community† (Evera, 2006, p. 1).Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on America and the Bay of Pigs Debacle specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More However, the approach towards foreign relations which the US government has adopted has become controversial both locally and at the international level. The enduring values and interest of the American foreign policy are identified as peace, prosperity, stability, democracy and defense (Evera, 2006). American foreign relations policy came into existence first with the Olive Branch Policy. This was as a result of the attempts by the newly reformed US to reconcile with the Great Britain. This was during the Era of America Revol ution. US strengthened its economic and political relations with other nations. This was the beginning of foreign relations of the US. There are various other defining moments that followed in the US diplomatic history. Today, only seven nations are known to have no foreign relations with the US. This has made US to be the largest diplomatic nation in the world (Evera, 2006). America and the Bay of Pigs Debacle On the 17th day of April, 1961, 1400 US trained and equipped Cuban exiles went to the beach head of the Bay of Pigs, Cuba. Their objective was to incite rebellion amongst the Cuban people against the communist Leader-Fidel Castro. The US government feared to face vengeance from the Soviets; they therefore took the measure to hide their participation in the organized invasion. However, the ill-planned CIA plan became more dangerous with their exiles facing defeat immediately after invasion. All the blame was shifted on the shoulders of President John Kennedy, who had just take n the US president seat. He accepted the responsibility of his action claiming â€Å"there is an old saying that victory has hundreds fathers and defeat is an orphan; I am responsible for Officer of government† (Kornbluh, 1998, p. 1). From the invasion, sixty eight Cuban exiles were left dead at the Bay of Pigs Debacle; 1209 are said to have been captured. The US government paid greatly for the Bay of Pigs whose effect is still felt up to date. The invasion destroyed US government’s relation with the Cuba government. The cold war still remained even after trying to resolve the matter.Advertising Looking for research paper on international relations? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More This even deteriorated the US relation with the Soviet Union. Even today, the cold war is still evident. The US government still refuses to acknowledge Cuba as state. The huge irony about the Cuban debacle is that the tailors of the pla n overlooked the many loop holes and intervened to establish the same relations as before (Kornbluh, 1998). The outcome of the Bay of Pigs was a big lesson. It is arguably the most humiliating event in the history of the US. It is said to be the most stupid or ridiculous and psychologically incomprehensible by the world. The long term consequences of the failed invasions were increased damage to the US security and relations with the other nations. This was evident by the relation between Cuba and Soviets become deeper thus putting US security at stake (White, 1999). The lessons the US government learnt was the importance of foreign relations; President Kennedy became a book to many presidents and their role. Their role is described by conducting of their policies with utmost faith and with accordance to the law and the constitution. A president should have a vision and ability to lead by example, and develop good relations with the local and foreign nations. He also established the need to engage diplomacy on foreign policy issues (Kornbluh, 1998). American Foreign Policy in the Current Era The core of the tradition of American policy during the 1917-1991 was seen to fade at high rate. The nuclear revolution is being adopted by many nations as opposed to the past when the information was dominated by few nations. Consequently, this has posed a threat to the US government security more than in the past. Other factors that have put the US and other nation’s security at risk include terrorism. This is especially due to the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) materials and technology and the massive increase of the terrorist groups that aim at mass killing and more particularly at the US. Other threats include global warming and public health concerns (Evera, 2006). These threats have brought about the call for the major power nations to organize themselves into concerts, for instance, the 1815 concert of Europe. This will enable them to be united to fight against the increase of WMD, terrorism and threats to global warming and health issues. US government is actively involved in efforts towards organizing and sustaining these new concerts. Secondly, the US government is re-orienting the national security policies and programs. This is to enable them to counter WMD proliferation and down grade any chances for war against other nations. Lastly, the US government is reorienting its programs towards the protection of the environment and global health concerns. They are being given the upper hand during the US foreign policy making (Evera, 2006).Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on America and the Bay of Pigs Debacle specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The three new threats to the US government include WMD proliferation, global commons and global public health. The collapse of the Soviet Union brought nuclear weapons and materials closer to the terrorists. The 1990s was conspicuous with counter proliferation successes for nuclear power: for example, South Africa abandoned their efforts to make bombs, Brazil and Argentina dropped their programs to make nuclear weapons. They were followed by the Ukrainian country. However, recent past describes reversion of the efforts. For example, Pakistan tested their nuclear weapons in 1998. Other nations such as the North Korea and Iran have developed nuclear weapons. This has brought about the new breed of WMD terrorist (Evera, 2006). The first emergence of the terrorist was the AumShnrikyo (1994/95) and Al-Qaeda. They used nuclear and other weapons to cause mass killing. This brought a total right turn to the major threats of America’s social security. Second threat is the emergence of the global commons. Global commons includes the global warming and public health. Global warming effects have already been experienced. This has brought a total wreck to the economy. Recently, there were inc idences of emergence of viral and anti-biotic resistant infectious disease. For example, the 1918 flu epidemic in America resulted to 675000 citizens dead. The danger with these infections is because they are consistent interactions between animal and human. These challenges indicate that unilateral action is not sufficient to counter them (Evera, 2006). To handle the situation, the current US policy is focusing on shaping the global opinion on terrorism concerns, efforts to lose and lock down all sources of nuclear weapons and materials such as Russia. The foreign policy of this era also targets at the prevention of the interstate war in the world. It has been noted that terrorist take advantage of warfare to flourish. A good example is the AL-Qaeda who has exploited the Israel Palestinian conflict to proliferate their movement. They are reported to use these conflicts as training for their terrorism acts. The US foreign policy is checking on the failed states to prevent them from failing further and to ameliorate them. This is a strategy to close down all possibilities and chances for terrorism proliferation. The most important policy of all is the strengthening of the homeland security. They have reformed the FBI unit, integrated more local police patrol, improved the fire departments and public health facilities.Advertising Looking for research paper on international relations? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More More so, the government has imposed tighter control over the US borders lastly, the government has elevated greater protection of the global environment. The global concerns have been given the higher priority in US foreign policy making (Evera, 2006). Conclusion In conclusion, American Government is devoted to seeking all the monsters and terrorist to destroy them, she supports freedom and independence for all nations. American government has been viewed as a supper power by many, whose prominence is very high. Though her devotion towards establishing safe foreign relation has been a controversial topic to many, she still upholds her enduring values and interest of her foreign policy are identified as peace, prosperity, stability, democracy and defense. The American foreign policy keeps on changing with time to accommodate the new developments. References Evera, S. (2006). American foreign policy for the new era: From how to make America safe: new policies for national security. Ne w York, NY: The Tobin project. Kornbluh, P. (1998). Bay of Pigs Declassified: the secret CIA Report on the invasion of Cuba. New York, NY: The new Press. White, M. (1999). The Kennedys and Cuba: the declassified Documentary History. New Jersey, NJ: Ivan R Dee. This research paper on America and the Bay of Pigs Debacle was written and submitted by user Lorelei D. to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.