The Obama Administration's Covert Actions in Cuba

My jaw is dropping after reading this story about a ridiculous covert operation carried out by the Obama Administration. Many of America's attempts to destroy the Communist government in Cuba have been laughably stupid, and this one is no exception:

It should come as no surprise that this ridiculous idea was a flop, running out of money after two years without generating any unrest.

I wonder how much Obama had to do with this program. It certainly fits into his technophilia and his fawning over social media. I think claims of social media's importance in the Arab Spring and the Green Revolution were ridiculously trumped up (In Egypt protest groups warned their followers against using social media to plan or discuss their activities, for obvious reasons) but even if you did buy into all that hype the notion that a Twitter knock-off is the sole ingredient necessary to create a Cuban revolution out of nothing is obviously idiotic.

Trumping up of social media aside, the Administration clearly did not think through the consequences of these actions. One particularly thorny problem is that the Twitter knock-off was set up by USAID, a humanitarian aid organization. Daniel Larison of The American Conservative points out: "The use of USAID for these purposes will confirm many foreign governments in their suspicions about the agency, and that will make it more difficult to carry out legitimate humanitarian and development work that the agency does." He also considers the moral implications of the scheme: "It didn’t seem to occur to anyone that the U.S. would be responsible for the consequences of any unrest that it did manage to stir up, or that it was trying to lure unwitting Cubans into political activities that could very easily have resulted in their imprisonment or death."

I also got a kick out of this quote from Yahoo News:

Oh, poor cuba, their government'ss control of information has been challenged.

What exactly is the issue with this? It's not para dropping arms to anybody that dislikes Castro jr,(I know it's his brother not his son), it's just trying to help the people communicate, what's so wrong with that?

edited 4th Apr '14 8:00:27 PM by joesolo

Using USAID was stupid as hell, especially as that organization has a history of being used as a political weapon, which makes it a lot harder for other apolitical ones to do their job.

As for the operation in general - well, it's certainly a far cry from the old techniques of finding some drink-and-medal spotted caudillo or ambitious gangster and bribing them to knock down the government. Also, in Cuba, there's not as much to separate the caudillo from the guys he's replacing. But one wonders if engagement with Cuba and the wider Caribbean might not work considerably better. People tend to underestimate America's soft power, which, given time, is a lot more capable of bringing about democratization in Cuba than it's hard power.

Cuba is on the wrong side of history anyway; it's part of The Remnant of the vast Marxist-Leninist empire of the 20th century. I'd just let it be.

Well if it's already got a history of being used that way, isn't that better than soiling the reputation of one that doesn't?

And I'm fairly sure this is a soft power thing. It's not military, it's trying to open up communication within the country

Even if the operation had succeeded in getting people to talk about things that are wrong with Cuba's government, what if it then came out that the whole thing was set up by the US? That would discredit everyone using the platform to criticise the government, even if they really were just normal people being honest. Some innocent people would've come out of it looking like American spies - and even if Cuba was rational about it and didn't punish them, it would create a sense of paranoia about any instance where someone complains about the government.

If this was really something like Twitter it wouldn't be a problem, but if it comes with a plan that the people behind it would start introducing political content, it becomes just propaganda.

The dumbest part was hiding behind an aid organisation that now has to deal with suspicions when it tries to start new operations in other countries.

Cuba would be democratic, or damn near close to it, today if we had shut off the embargo after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The embargo helps play into the siege mentality and allows the Castros to keep scoring easy political points, especially when shit like this happens that proves that, yes, we ARE out to get them in ways that are patently stupid.

The Cuban-American groups who keep the embargo such a political third rail have only themselves to blame for the suffering of their former countrymen.

USAID tends to make no attempts to hide that sort of thing. I remember going to a site visit with them during my internship time in DC, and they said something like "we're working all over Latin America, except in Cuba and Venezuela, where we're working in a little more combative ways." I just wish i remember exactly what that lady said, it was so cleverly phrased that made it so obvious that they were involved in covert ops in those countries.

edited 4th Apr '14 8:34:29 PM by Ogodei

"What exactly is the issue with this? It's not para dropping arms to anybody that dislikes Castro jr, (I know it's his brother not his son), it's just trying to help the people communicate, what's so wrong with that?"

Well the way I understand it the U.S. wasn't just helping people communicate but actually controlling the information themselves. Basically the site was a vehicle for anti-Castro propaganda. But attempting to force a regime change isn't something that should be done lightly. And that is what was being done here; it's roughly analogous to if we airdropped pamphlet on the Cubans urging them to rise up.

Also the Cubans were being misled here, because even if the anti-Castro stuff the U.S. was telling them was true (I don't know one way or the other) they were being deliberately tricked into believing the people posting were fellow Cubans. They were being misled with the intent of getting them to take to the streets, in an effort to overthrow their government, under the false belief that they were being egged on by their fellow Cubans.

And again, the notion that Twitter is the missing ingredient for creating a revolution in Cuba is just hopelessly naive; enough to make one question the intelligence and sanity of the people working in the Obama Administration. In a way that makes things better; I don't think there was ever any real risk that this would spark unrest. But why take all those risks with all this covert stuff if there's no chance of any payoff.

The only evil is introducing twitter to Cuba. The poor Cubans. :p

Also even if the operation did make sense, the fact that the Congressional oversight committees didn't know about it would still be a problem. Then again I guess we're all used to this sort of executive overreach by now.

I see. So, at worst it's e-leaflets without needing to send planes.

Yea, still don't see the issue.

And I really doubt cuba would have left communism if trade was opened. Look at China, Vietnam, and tomore dictoral but less communistic leanings, Venezuela, and every other tin pot dictator we trade with.

And they think Russia is paranoid for seeing the "colour revolutions" as a work of USA and seeing NG Os as a tools for subversion. Well, thank you very much. What they don't seem to realize is that scemes like these are preventing the possibility for actual civil society to form. The only thing such actions lead to is that those discontent with goverment are labelled traitors and Western puppets, and the worst thing is - those accusations are plausible. When USA is actually doing things like that, it becomes impossible to dismiss such accusations as government propaganda

Of course, if they're labeled as such anyway, does it hurt to try?

Because it makes difference? Because there are people who believe government propaganda and people who don't, but such actions make everyone believe it, even the people who are normally sceptical.

After doing something like that, how exactly one can persuade the people that NG Os are not introduced in order to destabilize the state, that discontents are not Western puppets?

It just makes things that much ore difficult for those who would like the situation in the country to change, because it completely ruins their credibility with the populace

So yes, it does hurt to try

And the damage is not limited to just one country. It undermines credibility of protests and discontent in other countries too.

edited 4th Apr '14 8:55:46 PM by Beholderess

You can't anyway. The Ukraine was all by themselves and people are still saying theyre puppets. Good pointon the other stuff though. Does undermine ngos a bit.

If there's political protest in a region, and it turns out the protestors got support and/or motivation from a foreign government, does that make their protest any less valid?

Yes, the are saying it anywsy. But is this a reason to prove their claims true?

Dammit, I am as liberal as they come, but after things like that I don't think I have any right to claim that "the West" is not out to ruin my country. So freaking thanks for justifying the paranoia.

Yes it does. Very much. It makes the whole thing an act of one country against the other, not internal discontent

edited 4th Apr '14 9:07:58 PM by Beholderess

I think people are kind of missing an important point here. Creating unrest in Cuba would- basically by definition- be a bad thing. The sliver of a chance that it might cause a regime change would not be worth the death and destruction that could be caused, and the U.S. would be directly responsible for any damage done.

...you're from cuba?

No, why?

edited 4th Apr '14 9:10:59 PM by Warron

No, beholdress

She's Russian. (I think.)

edited 4th Apr '14 9:11:30 PM by Warron

And dammit my edit buttons broken.

I'd unrest in a dictatorship bad? I'd think the opportunity for revolt would be positive

But the foreign country isn't actually making anyone do anything; it's just persuading them to do something. If you dismiss the concerns of protestors because they were persuaded to act by a foreign country, then you can also dismiss the concerns of everyone who doesn't protest because they were persuaded to by their own country.

edited 4th Apr '14 9:15:28 PM by RavenWilder

Well of course in some cases it is. I guess there's no cut and dry answer to that. But I'm really not comfortable with my government urging Cubans (under false pretenses) to take part in actions that could get them killed. And there's also the possibility that it could damage their country in a number of ways.

EDIT: And of course just because a dictator is bad does not mean that destroying them will leave the people better off. Take Libya, for example. From what I've read things have only deteriorated there since Gaddafi was kicked out.

edited 4th Apr '14 9:20:13 PM by Warron

Beholderess is from Russia. That's why her location marker reads "Moscow". Unless she's from Moscow, Scotland.

Destabilizing authoritarian regimes is not ipso facto a bad thing, but that doesn't mean it's always a good idea. I think one thing to bear in mind is that this is a far-cry from the bad old Cold War days of Pinochet or the Process. At the same time, interfering directly in Central or Latin America is something that the USA should really stop/refrain from doing, since it has almost never turned out positively.

edited 4th Apr '14 9:21:19 PM by Achaemenid