Posted on Feb 11, 2015
Can we say with confidence that “Only President Obama could go to Cuba”?
10.6K
75
51
6
6
0
There's a political proverb stating, “Only Nixon would go to China”, meaning “only a politician or leader with an impeccable reputation of upholding particular political values could do an action in seeming defiance of them without jeopardizing his support or credibility”. (Wikipedia)
President Nixon was a hardliner when it came to dealing with the communists. No one would suspect him of coddling them by visiting China and opening formal relations, but he did. Even those who did not suspect that Nixon's intent was to leverage the Chinese against the Soviets never questioned his motives. They trusted him to be tough with communism, regardless of appearances.
Yes, you know where I'm going with this, don't you? Do we trust President Obama's motives in opening formal relations with Cuba? Can we say with equal confidence that “Only Obama could go to Cuba?”
Did President Obama jeopardize his support or credibility by defying his political values? Of course, to answer that question, we must first identify what his political values are.
President Obama is, if nothing else, consistent. He has given great latitude to other despotic regimes during his tenure in the White House. The Arab states have been especial beneficiaries of his acts of appeasement and forbearance. Only Israel has felt the sting of the President's displeasure during these past six years.
Now Castro is vindicated. Despite the constant litany of human rights violations, he has won his battle with the United States. President Obama blinked.
Strangely, as I researched Cuba and Castro prior to writing my first novel, Rebels on the Mountain, I found Fidel to be a heroic character. (Anyone interested can see summaries of my research in a series of blog postings at http://www.jackdurish.com/4/category/cuba/1.html) It was only after he drove Batista from the island nation and rose to power that he morphed into a tyrant. Ultimately, I appended a final chapter, a postscript to my novel, wherein one of the principal characters returns to Cuba to witness the ravages of his rule. Otherwise, readers might be left with a false impression that I admired Castro.
In 1953, Fidel Castro was on trial for leading an attack on the Cuban Army barracks at Moncada. He made a four hour speech in his defense and concluded that while the court might convict him, “history will absolve me.” Is President Obama speaking for history, for all of us, or just himself?
President Nixon was a hardliner when it came to dealing with the communists. No one would suspect him of coddling them by visiting China and opening formal relations, but he did. Even those who did not suspect that Nixon's intent was to leverage the Chinese against the Soviets never questioned his motives. They trusted him to be tough with communism, regardless of appearances.
Yes, you know where I'm going with this, don't you? Do we trust President Obama's motives in opening formal relations with Cuba? Can we say with equal confidence that “Only Obama could go to Cuba?”
Did President Obama jeopardize his support or credibility by defying his political values? Of course, to answer that question, we must first identify what his political values are.
President Obama is, if nothing else, consistent. He has given great latitude to other despotic regimes during his tenure in the White House. The Arab states have been especial beneficiaries of his acts of appeasement and forbearance. Only Israel has felt the sting of the President's displeasure during these past six years.
Now Castro is vindicated. Despite the constant litany of human rights violations, he has won his battle with the United States. President Obama blinked.
Strangely, as I researched Cuba and Castro prior to writing my first novel, Rebels on the Mountain, I found Fidel to be a heroic character. (Anyone interested can see summaries of my research in a series of blog postings at http://www.jackdurish.com/4/category/cuba/1.html) It was only after he drove Batista from the island nation and rose to power that he morphed into a tyrant. Ultimately, I appended a final chapter, a postscript to my novel, wherein one of the principal characters returns to Cuba to witness the ravages of his rule. Otherwise, readers might be left with a false impression that I admired Castro.
In 1953, Fidel Castro was on trial for leading an attack on the Cuban Army barracks at Moncada. He made a four hour speech in his defense and concluded that while the court might convict him, “history will absolve me.” Is President Obama speaking for history, for all of us, or just himself?
Posted in these groups: 
Office of the President (POTUS)
Foreign Policy
Barack Obama
Cuba
Command Post
Office of the President (POTUS) Foreign Policy Barack Obama Cuba Command Post
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 15
9
9
0
When I attended SGM Academy I had to write a paper on, "Should the U.S. continue economic sanctions against Cuba?" I had to write the up side and down side, then I had to include my own opinion.
My opinion was, "Why do we have sanctions against Cuba when we have just granted China - Most Favored Trade Status" Both countries had abused human rights, both were commie yet we were bending over backwards to get on the good side of China. My conclusion was - money! Cuba had nothing to offer as far as funding our debt.
I received my 1059, so I guess I passed the course.
My opinion was, "Why do we have sanctions against Cuba when we have just granted China - Most Favored Trade Status" Both countries had abused human rights, both were commie yet we were bending over backwards to get on the good side of China. My conclusion was - money! Cuba had nothing to offer as far as funding our debt.
I received my 1059, so I guess I passed the course.
(9)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
Very astute observation. Interestingly, I think you may be correct insofar as the later Administrations are concerned. However, it's possible that the reason for the sanctions against Cuba have varied from Administration to Administration.
Eisenhower simply didn't approve of Castro. He wanted to select Batista's successor and Castro was his choice.
Kennedy was beholding to the crime interests that helped him win his election (barely). They wanted back their hotels and prostitution income from Havana.
Nixon hated the communists, but China could be leveraged against the Soviets. Thus, they got a pass. Castro didn't.
Carter was too distracted elsewhere to even think about Cuba.
So was Reagan. Also, Reagan had a constituency in the Cuban-American community to repay for their support in his election.
Bush Sr, and Jr both were, like Reagan, influenced by the Cuban-Americans.
Clinton was too distracted by "other things" and didn't want to reward the Cuban-Americans who didn't support him.
Obama, well, he's just looking for a legacy, any legacy...
Eisenhower simply didn't approve of Castro. He wanted to select Batista's successor and Castro was his choice.
Kennedy was beholding to the crime interests that helped him win his election (barely). They wanted back their hotels and prostitution income from Havana.
Nixon hated the communists, but China could be leveraged against the Soviets. Thus, they got a pass. Castro didn't.
Carter was too distracted elsewhere to even think about Cuba.
So was Reagan. Also, Reagan had a constituency in the Cuban-American community to repay for their support in his election.
Bush Sr, and Jr both were, like Reagan, influenced by the Cuban-Americans.
Clinton was too distracted by "other things" and didn't want to reward the Cuban-Americans who didn't support him.
Obama, well, he's just looking for a legacy, any legacy...
(1)
(0)
SGM Mikel Dawson
CPT Jack Durish,
You're probably right about the different administrations having different reasons to keep the sanctions. I guess I was just looking at it from a logical way (like a SGM). I firmly believe if sanctions were taken away, sooner or later the economy would take over. If you look under the surface, I think you will find the leaders of China are a little afraid things are getting out of hand and sooner or later I believe the people will arise, but it will take the military leaders to side with them. I think Hong Kong is going to be a thorn in their side and will lead to the fall of their total control. When, well it will remain to be seen.
You're probably right about the different administrations having different reasons to keep the sanctions. I guess I was just looking at it from a logical way (like a SGM). I firmly believe if sanctions were taken away, sooner or later the economy would take over. If you look under the surface, I think you will find the leaders of China are a little afraid things are getting out of hand and sooner or later I believe the people will arise, but it will take the military leaders to side with them. I think Hong Kong is going to be a thorn in their side and will lead to the fall of their total control. When, well it will remain to be seen.
(1)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
SGM Mikel Dawson I think you are onto something there. Ultimately, every people (including us or US) has precisely the government we deserve. Fortunately, our Founders left in place peaceful processes for us to change governments regularly. The fact that we seem to be stuck in a rut regardless of the political party in power, is our own fault. Thus, the Chinese and the Cubans (as well as every other people) can change their governments as well (albeit with greater difficulty). Ultimately, I think that sanctions have been imposed and lifted for the same purpose - to encourage a people to change a government that we don't like (and which may or may not be one that they don't like).
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
CPT Jack Durish
Sir, while I think we share many interests, opinions and beliefs, I think there have been many leaders who could have, and would have blinked, if given the chance. I think if we look at what happens to people under Communist rule, who see what the 'terrible' West has, it only hastens the collapse of their flawed system, and is probably why North Korea does not allow it people to know what the World really does looks like.
A friend of mine, married a Russian. There first time at a grocery store, she wanted to buy all the oranges on display. When they got home, she made herself sick eating oranges because she wanted to rush back and buy more oranges...because they would be gone. This was at least two decades ago...when was the last time we did not have oranges at the grocery store...or any other fruit.
I remember a similar story about a high ranking officer in the GRU going to a grocery store in New York and finding its shelves filled...but he realized it was close to the UN and it MUST be a decoy. A store that was always full so that foreign visitor thought Americans had access to all this food. Later, he was on a mission in PA and went into a grocery store there. He realized the Soviet Union could not win. That was in the 1950s. He looked around the store and decided to defect...a leader in there intelligence apparatus, and he was defeated by our grocery stores.
And directly to the question of Cuba, when are we...everyday citizens...going to start being able travel to Cuba! Get there early, before other Americans ruin it and it will drive down the prices in other tourist locations in the surrounding region.
Sir, while I think we share many interests, opinions and beliefs, I think there have been many leaders who could have, and would have blinked, if given the chance. I think if we look at what happens to people under Communist rule, who see what the 'terrible' West has, it only hastens the collapse of their flawed system, and is probably why North Korea does not allow it people to know what the World really does looks like.
A friend of mine, married a Russian. There first time at a grocery store, she wanted to buy all the oranges on display. When they got home, she made herself sick eating oranges because she wanted to rush back and buy more oranges...because they would be gone. This was at least two decades ago...when was the last time we did not have oranges at the grocery store...or any other fruit.
I remember a similar story about a high ranking officer in the GRU going to a grocery store in New York and finding its shelves filled...but he realized it was close to the UN and it MUST be a decoy. A store that was always full so that foreign visitor thought Americans had access to all this food. Later, he was on a mission in PA and went into a grocery store there. He realized the Soviet Union could not win. That was in the 1950s. He looked around the store and decided to defect...a leader in there intelligence apparatus, and he was defeated by our grocery stores.
And directly to the question of Cuba, when are we...everyday citizens...going to start being able travel to Cuba! Get there early, before other Americans ruin it and it will drive down the prices in other tourist locations in the surrounding region.
(7)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
North Korea Documentary: How Americans Live Today, Survive By Eating Birds And Snow: North Korea...
North Korea Documentary: How Americans Live Today, Survive By Eating Birds And Snow: North Korea TV North Korea Documentary - How Americans Live Today, Survi...
MSG Brad Sand I have long believed that satellite TV may have been as great an influence in the demise of the Soviet Union as anything else. I well remember the Soviet propaganda films portraying American life as being far worse than that of Soviet citizens. Image how they reacted if they saw an episode of, say, Dallas. The North Koreans today do much the same
Oh, and I too have heard the story of Soviet citizens who suffered cultural shock when exposed to American stores.
Interestingly, a friend of mine went to work in Moscow to help build business centers there after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He was about to leave with grand expectations of being a missionary for capitalism, but I warned him that the present generation of Russians would have to die off before any significant changes could take place. They were, after all, weaned on international socialism and considered all things capitalistic as fundamentally evil. To buy something at one price and sell it at another was tantamount to theft. Indeed, in the years that followed, we saw Russians pining for those wonderful days of yesteryear when they pretended to work and the state pretended to pay them and they had the strong hand of a dictator to make every decision for them. They didn't have much but at least they had someone to blame for everything that went wrong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJoQOQHQ8oA
Oh, and I too have heard the story of Soviet citizens who suffered cultural shock when exposed to American stores.
Interestingly, a friend of mine went to work in Moscow to help build business centers there after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He was about to leave with grand expectations of being a missionary for capitalism, but I warned him that the present generation of Russians would have to die off before any significant changes could take place. They were, after all, weaned on international socialism and considered all things capitalistic as fundamentally evil. To buy something at one price and sell it at another was tantamount to theft. Indeed, in the years that followed, we saw Russians pining for those wonderful days of yesteryear when they pretended to work and the state pretended to pay them and they had the strong hand of a dictator to make every decision for them. They didn't have much but at least they had someone to blame for everything that went wrong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJoQOQHQ8oA
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
Obama took 50 years of US position and flushed them. He is wiser than all of his predecessors on Cuba or so he thinks. He said our policy wasn't working. I would say it was. Cuba was stagnant, not developing as other countries in the region, they were isolated living next door to the largest economy in the world. I would say the isolation was working.
Obama's motives are only known by him. I think this is another example of him trying to create a legacy for himself. "Obama ends the Cuba Embargo". He will only help to prop up the Castro's and the next dictator. We gave and got really no commitments on freedom for the people of Cuba. Another profile in lack of courage.
Obama's motives are only known by him. I think this is another example of him trying to create a legacy for himself. "Obama ends the Cuba Embargo". He will only help to prop up the Castro's and the next dictator. We gave and got really no commitments on freedom for the people of Cuba. Another profile in lack of courage.
(7)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
I think you hit the nail on the head. President Obama has just two years remaining to create a "legacy". Thus far, everything connected to him is turning to ashes or threatening to do so. Sad...
(2)
(0)
PO2 John Zodun
You have a good opinion but I can’t say I go along with wholeheartedly but I do see some things you’re trying to make a point of
(0)
(0)
PO2 John Zodun
I think it also includes the US first and foremost because he was always doing anything to make him look good to the very nation he was destroying he knew he couldn’t run again and even thought he and Hillary were close and they started the phony collusion with Russia he still couldn’t be 100% positive that Hillary would win but either way he would because he had more Muslims in sanctuary cities than we had military in the US BUT WHAT HES DOING NOW IS PUTTING OUT little tid bits to cause a ruckus and sitting back and let what happens happen. He hates TPOTUS so much that he’s Isings his lies to keep everyone in the White House fighting each other so he wins again unless TOOTUS can fine a hole he’s left there’s always one you just have to find it and I believe Hillary is that hole because she is for one thing and that’s herself SGT Damaso V Santana
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google