Bay of Pigs Invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis

Bay of Pigs Invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis

Name

Course

Professor

University

Date

Introduction

The Bay of Pigs inversion of 1961 and the Cuban missile crisis which occurred a year later was one of the worst foreign policies in the history of America. The Bay of Pigs inversion involved the United States through the administration of President Kennedy administration sponsored an attempt by the Cuban exiles to assault Cuba and overthrow Fidel Castro together with the communist government he was leading. Organizational Model of foreign policy is one of the models provided in the foreign policy analysis. In this model, it is understood that nations and governments are not unitary actors but are stated as ‘vast conglomerate of partially allied organizations, each with a strong life of its own. The United States of America decided to chip in to assist in the inversion through a secret means in aiding the Cuban exiles in the fight against the Cuban government. Rational Actor Model is a way of learning policy actions taken by states, by placing the country as a rational unitary actor (Kellerman, Barbara 1983).  The exiles were well armed and trained by the CIA (Central America intelligence). On the other hand, the Cuban missile crisis came a year immediately after the Bay of Pigs inversion.  Therefore, Fidel Castro and the Soviet government joined hands to launch a nuclear-armed Cuban missile close to the United States boundary just some miles South of Florida.  In this essay, I will attempt to draw some concepts of the decisions the United States made following the Cuban Missile Crisis through the use of Allison’s three conceptual faces from the point of Decision, Which is perhaps an analysis of the crisis itself and the decision making in the resolution procedure (boys, James D Clinton’s grand strategy 2015).

The Bay of Pigs inversion

The inversion of 1961 was intended to provoke popularity for an uprising that was coming up strongly against President Castro rule in Cuba. There were different approaches to the invasion that was to take place in Cuba using the exiles from Cuba. President Kennedy’s administration through the federal power act opted to train the Cuban Invaders through the Central American intelligence. The Bay of Pigs inversion was not the idea of Kennedy, but the communist nature of Fidel Castro’s regime that become apparent and the urge to topple his government grew from all sides. Since the Cuban revolution of 1959, Castro had grown increasingly antagonistic toward the United States of America and perhaps their interest in their nation (Friedman, Rebecca R 2011). The Kennedy’s administration authorized the CIA to come up with various concepts and strategies to remove him from power. Therefore, the eruption of the exiles from Cuba becomes a support means for the United States to propel the initiative without notice from the united nation. Accordingly, among the initiate was for the CIA to train the Cuban exiles to be used as a counter military.

The CIA had its hands with support from Kennedy’s administration for keeping the exiles in line. The recruits were sent to Guatemala where they received various means of military training based on different skills and the use of weapons. The trained force of the exiles from Cuba was named Brigade 2506 after the enlistment number of the soldiers who were killed during the training process. In April 1962, the 2506 brigade was ready for the operation (Breuning, Marijke 2007).

Moreover, Kennedy’s administration through the CIA made plans that the operation should be done without any US signs or implication. The Cuban government was not supposed to get a glimpse of the United States involvement in the mission and operation to overthrow Fidel Castro. Therefore, the United States Airforce sent bombers to soften the Cuba’s defenses and then take the small Cuban air force.  The operation, especially from the United States air force, took place at night to prevent any of the troops to be concealed. The eight B-26 bombers left Nicaragua on the evening of April 14-15. The planes were carrying the operation silently were painted to appear like the Cuban air force planes (Mintz, Alex, and Karl DeRouen Jr 2010). This was made to ensure that they understand that the operation was done by Castro’s pilot who had rebelled against him in operation. The bombers managed to destroy some of the aircraft and destroyed some runways although some were hidden and thus was not destroyed during the secret operation of the United States air force with the painted planes. The Brigade 2506 coasted of 1400 armed soldiers landed in Cuba on 17th April 1962.

The United States formed a commission to find out the reason for the claim of responsibility and involvement in the Cuban fight operation. Castro’s soldiers defeated the Brigade 2506, and he placed the attack on the United States government. The CIA official involved in the operation was fired as the president took responsibility for the all process which damaged his credibility as a leader. The American government created a commission to check on the cause of the disaster. The report was done, and several information came as the causes. The CIA and the invading forces assumed that the ordinary Cubans who were fed up with Castro’s and his constant economic changes and the opposite happened as they rallied behind Castro (Mastro 2008).

The Bay of Pigs was a significant point in the event of cold war between the United States and Cuba. President Kennedy and his officials made the operation secret since they did not want the planes flying with the US marks and controlled airstrips. The operation was performed with diligence involving the specific operation of the CIA and not the internal and full army of the United States of America. The president refused to allow the nearby United States Naval forces to assist in the inversion process at Cuba even in the process when the exiles were being defeated. The US government through the federal power act on the decision of the president and the official wanted the operation to be done in a secret mode without the direct involvement of the American troops. Due to this, the action of the Bay of Pigs was over, and Fidel Castro won the operation putting so many soldiers involved in the activity under custody.  The aftermath of the operation was a worse situation to the people of America as the Cuban government wanted to plan a revenge mission to counter the operation (C Alden 2016).

The Cuban Missile Crisis

The crisis occurred barely a year and a half from the Bay of the Pigs inversion. Therefore, Fidel Castro and the Soviet government joined hands to launch a nuclear-armed Cuban missile close to the United States boundary just some miles South of Florida (Ismajlov, Rufat 2015).

Moreover, in the mid-October President Kennedy received some incontrovertible photographic evidence indicating that the Soviet constructing launching sites for the intermediate-range missiles, and he merely had to stop the operation from taking place. Most of the people both from the at the present times and since had discounted the strategic significance of the missile on the stand that it doesn’t matter whether the missile was being launched in Soviet or Cuba. On the other hand, some people claimed that the increased accuracy from the soviet for having the missiles in Cuba and whether there is a possibility of planning a strike for an unknown operation.

President Kennedy wondered on the issue of the missile at Cuba and the one that was being launched near the boundary of the United States just some 90 miles from the town of Florida.  During the crisis, the Kennedy administration constituting the government and the Soviet Union were in a tense and a fortnight political and military stand-off in October over the installation of the nuclear-armed Soviet missiles in Cuba which happened just some miles from United States of America’s shores. The first approach based on the federal power act occurred when Kennedy went through the media to notify the Americans about the presence of the missiles and the possible solutions that his government will enact to stop the soviet from continuing with the building of the missile plant in Cuba. The approach of notifying the public was an initiative of coming up before an opposition could criticize the government on the public issue. Therefore, the president went on TV release the information officially to stop any propaganda that might be spreading. The process allowed the public to understand the political appraisal within their nations.  The aftermath of the press announcement was a series of intense discussion usually held in the cabinet rooms which was typically held in the cabinet rooms with the center of discussion on how to respond to the situation at hand threatening the security concern of the American people and the entire neighborhoods (Mastro 2008).

The president’s primary responsibilities included a naval blockade commonly known as a defensive quarantine which came into play in October 1962. The Ram analysis is one of the foreign policy analysis document assists in understanding the course of some decision. The United States was ready to use any military force if necessary to neutralize the existence of the threat of the national security. The president advised the CIA and the naval officer to come up with various strategies for defending America against any attack. The army was to come up with a defensive mechanism to protect the nation against any missile attack from the Soviet or the Cuban government. The people were very much afraid of the eruption of world nuclear war that had the possibility of leading to massive loss of lives and properties (McCormick, James 2013). However, the federal government of the United States had the mandate of ensuring that nuclear exchange was avoided at all cost unless the situation intended so. There were a lot of consultations from both the president’s administration on the way forward in the case the negotiation to pull back the missiles would not work and perhaps an eruption of the war. The reasons for the security of the American people led to a lot of thoughts and decisive steps to be made for peace and maintenance of superpower title to stand.

Therefore, from the outset of the crisis, the EXCOM and President Kennedy were determined that the presence of the Soviet missiles in Cuba were unacceptable and not in order. The primary challenge facing them was to find out the ways of their removal at all cost from that land without initiating an extended conflict which could result in a possible nuclear war. One of the options of the discussion was to orchestrate a bombing attack on the missile sites and a full-scale invasion of Cuba with a stronger force to calm the menace (Prifti 2014). However, President Kennedy came up with a more scaled measured approach of employing the United States Navy to establish a blockade on the island which was the primary root for the Soviet to the point. The initiative was to prevent or block the Russian transport systems from delivering additional missiles and military machines to the site. The second option of President Kennedy and the administration was to provide an ultimatum for the removal of the existing missiles from the site, and the failure to respond would result to something unknown to the Soviet government and Cuba. President Kennedy then placed a precaution on the event that the Soviet launching an attack at any point that the Jupiter missile in Turkey and the one in Italy would not be fired without authorization from the president.

The shutdown at sea was a crucial but essential move of the United States Federal government on October 24th. The vital time with the unfolding crisis arrived in October when the soviet ships bound to reach Cuba neared the lines of the United States vessels charged with the responsibility of enforcing the blockade. The president ordered that the ship is known as Marucla to be the first ship to be stopped for inspections upon reaching the naval blockade. Therefore, at that time an attempt by the soviet to breach the quarantine would automatically result to a military confrontation that would have escalated to a nuclear exchange and fights using lethal tools and equipment (Schafer, Mark, and Scott Crichlow. 2002).  However, the soviet ships stopped as per the actions and motives of the blockade to pull back with the equipment. Although, the event by the Navy blockade offered some positivity but the missile that was already in Cuba seems to take the breadth of the federal government and the people. On October 27th, an American plane was shot over Cuba, and at the same time, the U.S invasion force was readied in Florida at the boundary for a waiting operation to Cuba upon proper orders. The tension between both parties grew as the Cold war continued to emerge for the sole reasons of the crisis of the missile.

The crisis impelled President Kennedy and his administration to take the initiative in seeking an end to the cold war.  At the American University, he gave a speech of the presidency marked by the terms like the spirit of détente. He further called for an examination of the American attitude towards the Soviet and stated that both sides have a cold war going on ‘’ a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms.’’ He said. He proposed a disarmament that was complete and to is achieved through stages. The first of which involved a burn on the atmospheric nuclear test as a demonstration of good faith and promised to refrain from doing so as long as other nations have avoided. Therefore, it was in the heart of President Kennedy and the administration not to engage in the war that is unnecessary for there was a lot more initiative to be taken other than launching an attack process over the soviet (Campbell Jr, Brian F 2017).

The end of the tension

Despite the constant and existing voltage, the soviet officials and the United States government found a solution to the impasse. Perhaps, during the crisis, the soviet and the government official had exchanged letters on October 26th. Khrushchev, the leader of the soviet, wrote a message to President Kennedy in which he offered and agreed to remove the Cuban missile in exchange for a promise of the United States official leader not to invade Cuba at any given point. The following days, the Soviet leader Khrushchev placed another request that he will dismantle the missile in Cuba in exchange for the United States removing their missile installation in Turkey. Therefore, based on the two application, Kennedy’s administration agreed to accept the terms of the first message from the Soviet leader and ignored the second letter. However, by a private means, the American officials decided to withdraw the nation’s missiles from Turkey. The United States attorney general Robert Kennedy delivered the message personally to the Soviet ambassador in Washington Dc as the crisis leads to a close (Gronbeck-Tedesco 2009).

Therefore, both the Soviet and the Americans were made sober by the Cuban missile crisis. A year later, a direct hotline link of communication was installed between Washington and Moscow to assist in diffusing an occurrence of a similar situation. The superpowers that are the Soviet and the Americans sighed treaties related to the nuclear weapons (Hudson 2013). However, despite Kennedy’s administration following the idea of sticking to the blockade idea, the Congress had criticized his role as the week and not to the point of assisting the United States over the issue of Soviet. The congress through the senator Richard Russell made an option of using a direct force over the Soviet-based on the Cuban missile crisis that was placed some miles from Florida. They wanted vigorous and aggressive actions over the soviet through the military force as opposed to the plans of Kennedy’s administration of using the blockade.

Conclusion

Therefore the three models of the foreign policy analysis assist us to understand the United States defensive decision on the Kennedy and his administration made. The decision that Kennedy made and the game that Khrushchev played during the crisis is well captured through the use of the analysis.

Bibliographies

boys, james D Clinton’s grand strategy. “US foreign policy in a post-Cold war world.” Bloomsbury Publishing , 2015.

Breuning, Marijke. ” Foreign policy analysis: .” a comparative introduction. Springer,, 2007.

C Alden, A Aran. ” Foreign policy analysis:.” new approaches, 2016.

Campbell Jr, Brian F. ” “Kennedy Wakes Up: .” A Rhetorical Analysis of John F. Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs Crisis Discourse.” PhD diss., Northern Arizona University., 2017.

Foyle, Douglas. “”Foreign policy analysis and globalization: .” public opinion, world opinion, and the individual.” International Studies Review 5, no. 2., 2003: 155-202.

Friedman, Rebecca R. “Crisis Management at the Dead Center:.” The 1960‐1961 Presidential Transition and the Bay of Pigs Fiasco.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 41, no. 2:, 2011: 307-333.

Gronbeck-Tedesco, JA. “Reading revolution: .” Politics in the US-Cuban cultural imagination, 2009.

Hudson, VM. “Foreign policy analysis: .” classic and contemporary theory, 2013.

Ismajlov, Rufat. “”First day of the Cuban Missile Crisis: Airstrike, Invasion or Blockade?: .” Analysis of the Inter-and Intragroup conflicts inpolitical decision making outcome by US government with regard to the situation in Cuba, during October the 16th 19, 2015.

Kellerman, Barbara. “”Allison Redux: .” Three More Decision-Making Models.” Polity 15, no. 3., 1983: 351-367.

Mastro, DA. “Cognitions of the community:.” The worldview of US intelligence. West Virginia University, 2008.

McCormick, James. “Cengage Advantage: .” American Foreign Policy and Process. Nelson Education, 2013.

Mintz, Alex, and Karl DeRouen Jr. ” Understanding foreign policy decision making. .” Cambridge University Press., 2010.

Mitchell, D. “Making foreign policy: .” Presidential management of the decision-making process. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.,, 2005.

Prifti, B. “Continuity in US Foreign Policy.” An Offensive Realist Perspective (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida)., 2014.

Schafer, Mark, and Scott Crichlow. . “”The Process‐Outcome Connection in Foreign Policy Decision Making: .” A Quantitative Study Building on Groupthink.” International Studies Quarterly 46, no. 1., 2002: 45-68.