The Kennedy-Castro Secret Dialogue that Hardly Began

I believe that the presidency of John F. Kennedy was a pivotal point in U.S. history. Our country was at a fork in the road – one prong leading to continuance of the Cold War, expansion of the Military-Industrial Complex, and repression of democracy in our country and the world; the other prong leading to the opposite of those things. In the latter part of his presidency, Kennedy tried hard to lead us towards the second prong, but his efforts were cut short by his untimely death on November 22, 1963.

Kennedy’s relationship with Castro is emblematic of his efforts for peace. It also teaches us just how difficult it is for a U.S. President to lead his country towards peace today.


BACKGROUND – THE INTENSE AND CONTINUING PRESSURE TO GO TO WAR AGAINST CUBA

Never in the history of our country has an American president been subjected to such intense pressure to go to war against another country as Kennedy was continuously pressured to go to war against Cuba. Kennedy resisted this at every turn:


Invasion at the Bay of Pigs – April 15-19, 1961

When Kennedy came to the presidency in January 1961 he inherited a CIA plan for an invasion of Cuba by about 1,500 Cuban exile troops, who were then being trained by the CIA. The plan predicted that the landing of the Cuban troops in Cuba would inspire a nation-wide uprising against Fidel Castro, which would quickly overthrow him. Kennedy was never enthusiastic about the plan, but he approved it anyhow, while making clear that under no circumstances would he introduce U.S. troops or air support, even if the refusal to do so meant the defeat of the Cuban exile troops.

The invasion began at dawn on April 15th, 1961, with air strikes by the Cuban Expeditionary Force, which were followed on April 17th by the landing of the Cuban exile troops at the Bay of Pigs. But there was no Cuban uprising, as the CIA had promised Kennedy. The Cuban exile troops were soon surrounded by Castro’s troops, they surrendered on April 19th, and 114 men were lost and more than a thousand were taken prisoner.

Prior to the surrender, Kennedy’s military advisors put tremendous pressure on him to intervene militarily. From Thomas Reeves’ book, “A Question of Character – A Life of John F. Kennedy”:


But Kennedy held firm. He had good reason to fear that further escalation at that point could lead to a nuclear exchange with the USSR. And that was a risk he wasn’t willing to take.


Operation Northwoods – March 16, 1962

Less than a year later, Kennedy’s Joint Chiefs of Staff presented a plan called“Operation Northwoods” to Kennedy’s Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. The plan involved a false flag operation that would draw the United States into a war against Cuba. James Bamford describes it in “Body of Secrets – Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency”:


The idea was shot down. Kennedy told Lemnitzer that “there was virtually no possibility that the U.S. would ever use overt military force in Cuba.”


The Cuban Missile Crisis – October 18-29, 1962

We now know that the Cuban Missile Crisis was incited by fear of a U.S. invasion of Cuba. As a result of that fear, Cuba and the Soviet Union conspired to plant Soviet nuclear warheads on Cuban soil. U.S. intelligence discovered the plan, and so began the Cuban Missile Crisis, which was the closest the world ever came to a nuclear war.

In his handling of the crisis, Kennedy repeatedly resisted advice from his military advisors to escalate the situation by invading Cuba. On October 19th, Air Force Chief of Staff, General Curtis LeMay contemptuously said of the President “This is almost as bad as the appeasement at Munich.... I just don't see any other solution except direct military intervention right now.”

But Kennedy instead decided upon a naval blockade, paired with intense back-channel diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis. On October 22, despite the urging of Senate leaders for air strikes, he addressed the American public to announce his resolve to implement the naval blockade only.

There are many historians who say that Kennedy’s peaceful resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis was the greatest achievement of his presidency.


The Alpha 66 attacks on Cuba – March 19, 1963

James Douglass, in his book “JFK and the Unspeakable – Why he Died and Why it Matters”, describes Kennedy’s intense efforts to stave off yet another attempt to force him into a war against Cuba:


It didn’t stop there. Kennedy eventually had to undertake vigorous action in order to stop the attacks. An April 6, 1963 article in the New York Times describes some of those actions:



THE EFFORTS TO INITIATE A DIALOGUE AND ACCOMMODATION BETWEEN CASTRO AND KENNEDY

The biggest motive for JFK’s steadfast resistance to going to war against Cuba was to prevent a scenario that could have led to a nuclear war (which is not to say that he had any desire to invade Cuba in the first place). In accordance with that motive he decided in 1963 (or earlier) that it would be good to establish a dialogue with Castro – as he had established with Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis. However, due to the intense hostility with which American elites regarded Castro, he had to be very careful about doing that. So his efforts had to be made in secret.

Douglass describes a complex series of negotiations involving Castro aid Rene Vallejo, U.S. ambassador William Atwood, Cuban ambassador Carlos Lechuga, and reporter Lisa Howard to arrange a meeting between Castro and Kennedy. I won’t bore you with the details, but here is how Douglass describes the status of the negotiations by November 18, 1963, four days before Kennedy’s death:


But more interesting than those quasi-official negotiations was the informal role played by the French journalist, Jean Daniel:


Interview of JFK by Jean Daniel – October 24, 1963

JFK’s interview with Daniel on October 24 is important because in that interview JFK expressed not only sympathy with Cuba’s plight, but also the responsibility of the United States for that plight, especially with respect to its former support for the corrupt repressive Batista government, which Castro overthrew in 1959. JFK’s sentiments were later relayed to Castro by Daniel. Here are excerpts from the interview:



Daniel-Castro interview of November 19-20, 1963

On the evening of November 19th Daniel began an interview with Castro that ended early the next morning. Early in the interview (See “Night Session” section) Castro expressed his grievances against Kennedy:


But then he expressed not only his empathy for the situation that Kennedy faced, but substantial admiration as well. His comments also confirm what many of us suspect about the difficulty that U.S. Presidents have if and when they choose to go against the wishes of their nation’s elites. Castro continued:


Wow!


More Castro-Daniel conversation – November 22, 1963

Douglass describes the last meeting that Daniel and Castro had prior to JFK’s death:



THE CONTINUING FIGHT FOR PEACE

Accommodation with Cuba was not the only reason for the hatred of Kennedy by our nation’s elites. It was probably not even the most important. Most important, it is clear that Kennedy intended to end the Cold War. A few months prior to his death, he announced to the American people the first nuclear test ban treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union, and soon thereafter prevailed upon the Senate to ratify the treaty. He also began talking with his close associates about pulling out of Vietnam. But perhaps the best evidence of Kennedy’s intentions to end the Cold War can be found in his peace speech at American University on June 10th 1963. I discuss and excerpt from that speech in much detail in this post. Here I’ll just recount one passage, in which Kennedy emphasizes the need for us to look inward with respect to the responsibility for peace:



Few of our current politicians would dare to say anything like that. If and when they do they get relentlessly lambasted, ridiculed, and marginalized by our nation’s elites.

I have often wondered (and written about) just how much leeway our Presidents and other elected officials have to move against the powers that be. Adlai Stevenson, former two-time Democratic nominee for President, and Ambassador to the United Nations in the Kennedy administration, touched on that issue when he said privately that Kennedy would never be allowed to establish diplomatic dialogue with Castro because “Unfortunately, the CIA is still in charge of Cuba”. And James Carroll, in his book, “House of War – The Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of American Power”, makes a similar point with respect to the power of the Military-Industrial Complex:


That is what now faces our nation – even more so than when Carroll said it. It is up to the American people to recognize what we face and stand up against it.

:kick:

Soviet motivations are completely absent here.

Kennedy surrounded himself with hawks that went on to screw up the 1960s.

But if you think that Soviet motivations are relevant to what I've said in this post, then please explain. In any event, the last thing that Khrushchev wanted was war with the US, and he worked with Kennedy to improve US-Soviet relations. He was certainly no Stalin.

As far as the hawks you're referring to who went on to screw up the 1960s, keep in mind that they were operating under a different president after JFK's death. They were advisors, and Kennedy had little hesitation to disregard advice that he thought was ill-founded. In fact, shortly after the
Bay of Pigs he got rid of the top CIA people who were responsible for the fiasco. Furthermore, it is highly likely that we would have withdrawn from Vietnam had Kennedy lived.

Citizen I disagree with you here. Yes the view of JFK as just another Cold Warrior is heavily pushed by Guru Chomsky, who I used to read all the time. Then I read about Encounter Magazine, and more importantly went and read EVERYTING about the policies of JFK admin. CHOMSKY GOODMAN ARE WRONG ABOUT JFK !!!!

I beg you to read JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and WHy It matters. The scholarship here is unimpeachable, and no this is not some dumb liberal camelot worhsiper the way GuruChomsky always makes JFK admirers seem. I used to hold your view of JFK . THen I read and read and now I know: the Assassination was not just a who done it devoid of policy implications the way it is presented in the foundation funded "left" JFK and the Unspeakable is a book more about COld War history than it is about the assasination itself

It is a book that is simply "mindblowing" as another DUer put it here last night on another thread.

"Operation Northwoods...911", I don't know what you're talking about. ;) ;)

But seriously, I'm afraid that if we discuss that issue, this post could get sent to the dungeon. So I won't discuss it, even though I think the analogy is so clear that one would have to have a few missing brain cells to miss it.

There's a lot of interesting material there.

UNSPEAKABLE" by James Douglass. It's a heartbreaking read. It's hard for me to have any hope when the right-wing has been in power for 45+ years and Generation X and beyond thinks the only thing JFK did was have sex with Marilyn Monroe (thanks to the revisionists who have have lied with impunity ever since 11/22/63).

The bottom line-the damage has been done and I don't see how it can be repaired.

:cry:

because in reality the men who killed or facilitated the killing and coverup of (not to mention Bobby and MLK) Kennedy, including Dulles and the Bushes, had risen to their positios by threatening FDR and by backing Hitler with their financial businesses in and with Nazi Germany. Their intelligence operations used Nazi operatives throughout and after the war and these guys became the architects of the present Fourth Reich (as Hunter Thompson called it).

The assassination of JFK consolidated their power in a way that had not yet been accomplished under Eisenhower (who had the backbone to call them on it in his final speech warning of their power), but the reality was that Naziism survived the Second World War, in fact was victorious in its goals, but remained in the shadows as the dark puppeteers of history, genocide, and mass murder. JFK was their last formidable obstacle to full fledged global domination.

That is where Obama stands today actually: he is the new JFK and if he has the integrity he might be able to set back these bastards for generation or more.

Fascism will always live and if suppressed will assume a dormant state until, like a virus, it can reemerge (as in Camus' the "Plague") but it CAN be suppressed if we have the wil and understanding of it to suppress it.

Keep the faith. Macca!

William Greider, in his book, "Come Home America", expresses his hope for repairing the damage like this:

I was going through my college papers from way back and I reached this conclusion about the reasons for JFK's assassination i a paper decades ago: Cuba had been the main money laundering operation for the Fourth Reich elites (Bush, Rockefeller, Dulles et al) and they wanted it back. JFK f**ked that all up and they wanted him dead.

He was bringing the troops home from vietnam (Brown and Root of Halliburton fame had contracts to develop the harbor in Vietnam and that would have killed those deals as well as all the other money to be made of the war)

and he had proposed and was pushing for a windfall profits tax on the oil companies.

Plus he had pissed off the wasp elites as the first catholic president and who could not be bought off cause he was already rich as they were.

This is good stuff that i had not seen before for the most pat. Thanks.


K and R

When he took office in 1961, U.S. troop levels in Vietnam were around 900. In December of 1963 that number had increased to 16,000. He was considering reducing levels in Vietnam and a possible complete withdrawal, but that would have been after the 64 elections.

and intentions at the time are clear.

becoming.

But, yes, that's something he sewed.

and the NY Times reported he had ordered the withdrawal of troops beginning in November 1963.

The order was rescinded by LBJ immediately after the assassination.

I think this is very well documented. I think this was the basis of Oliver Stone's thesis on why JFK was assassinated as well. Qui bono. etc.?

It is true that a full withdrawal of troops was something he planned to do incrementally and subtly (because of the 1964 elections and the possible perception that this course would have proved him "soft on communism") but nevertheless history shows that he had begun the troop reduction plan and implementation of it when he was assassinated


and my belief is that this was one element in the motive for his assassination.

Re: the Northwoods issue - there is no doubt that such contingency plans for drawing us in to unpopular wars were always available. That is why many believe that such events as 9-11 were based on the northwoods planning principal for drawing us in to a war for the benefit of the corporofascist elites. I believe that. Doesn't mean I can prove it, but the fact remains that the existence of Northwoods provides evidence of a modus operandi used by the BFEE which is the same as the 9-11 attacks.

My impression was that he was planning to withdraw from Vietnam, but not that he had actually issued the orders to begin, and that LBJ rescinded them. Wow. That puts a whole new light on the situation.

those 16,000 men in Vietnam were there on his orders, not Ikes, or LBJs or Allen Dulles. He ordered them there. He may have had second thoughts, but the day he died, 16,000 American Soldiers were in Vietnam by his hand.

In doing so he defied the PTB and wsa assassinated for it. How many U.S. Presidents have done that?

I'd say 1, with the possible addition of Lincoln.

which is much more complex than you seem to realize.

JFK walked into a fascist driven military-intelligence corporate government.

He needed, like Obama does today, time to get a handle on what was happening. The Southeast Asian enterprise of the fascist elites under Dulles et al was decades old. JFK had the same problem getting a grip on the Cuban issues. It took time, diplomacy, and tact to try to dismantle an apparatus which had been decades in the making.

On top of that he was being advised and driven by operatives of the fascist elites who he thought, initially, were the best and the brightest but who in reality served only wall street and were themselves treasonous and greedy enemies of the state. Ultimately they took him out because they could not control him.

1,000 troops were the first group ordered to leave in November 1963 (as Yogi Berra says you could look it up).

LBJ's security apparatus rescinded that order and escalated the hostilities on behalf of the texas and wall street fascist mafia

Because he was weak willed and ineffective against the Evil Empire.

because he was NOT weak willed and because they needed to render him neutralized

of military and intel operators.

I believe that Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis (both CIA) were the on the ground hit supervisors.

Essentially the operation was all for the proNazi elements in the government who'd backed Hitler and who were architects of the Fourth Reich.

I believe that the evidence for this theory is substantial.

This is incorrect technichally in the sense that not all of them were place there by JFK .BUT IT IS TRUE THAT HE PUT THE MAJORITY OF THEM THERE.

But that is a severly limited context .

WHat we need to understand is the incredible amount of far right agitation for DIRECT US GROUND TROOPS in both Laos and Vietnam by the JCS the CIA and most of the State Department on Vietnam as early as 61 63. This is what is left out by Guru Chomsky. YOU cannot believe that degree of rightwardness until you read JFK and the Unsepeakable and also House of War by James Carroll . THere were INCREDIBLE NUMBERS OF ACTIONS BY THE THE MILITARY AND CIA THAT WERE IN DIRRECT DEFIANCE OF JFKS ORDERS THAT WE NEVER NEVER NEVER HEAR ABOUT, TODAY BUT WERE SOMETIMES EVEN IN DAILY PAPERS AT THE TIME.

SO first JFK generated huge resentment in CIA JCS with his Laotion neutralization program.

THEN put on full court press for GROUND TROOPS in Vietnam as early as 1962 compleet with support from the Corporate Media. Now lets go onto JFK vs entire cabinet in Cuban Missile Crisis!!

So after blocking a way way way way way higher number of Ground troops in BOTH LAOS AND VIETNAM what we get in the controlled """""left""""" press is that JFK was just another Cold Warrior. WHY? THE NUMBER ONE GOAL WAS TO DETATCH THE LEFT FROM JFK assassination research. Think about it. ALL PUBLISHABLE LEFT STUFF IN US is aimed at College educated pop. Take Goodman CHomsky on Indonesia. WHy always 1975 and never 1965 more than a million killed by CIA coup. But more to the point most people will never even think about Indonesia

but THE EXECUTIVE THE LEGISLATIVE THE JUDICIAL, THAT IS IN EVERYONES HEAD FROM HIGH SCHOOL . IT IS MORE DANGEROUS BECAUSE ITS A COMMON DENOMINATOR ... ie not limited to let who
are only aloud to publish on snooty esoteric stuff that will automatically be ignored by at least 80 percent.

Who were the last left speakers to speak accross this class- education level threshold UMMMMMM MLK and RFK. Hows their health?

The Debate on JFK and Vietnam is Over: We just haven't heard about it mass-media wise the way the idea that JFK was getting out of Vietnam was roundly ridiculed in all the mass mass media when the movie came out in 92. Remember it was COVER STORY ON TIME AND NEWSWEEK SIX MONTHS BEFORE THE RELEASE OF THE MOVIE. The number one idea that was attacked was the Vietnam one.

SInce then every single major study has shown that JFK was getting out including Howard Jones Death of A Generation , Oxford University press, in which he says in intro that he started out trying to prove the absurdity of the theory that JFK was going to pull out, but something happened on the way to the Galleys: He looked at the evidence. Also David Kaisers book has similar conclusions.

The latest INCREDIBLY ABUNDANT Evidence is succinctly described in JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died And Why It matters. What is so great about this book is that it is the best Cold War History book in 20 years with incredible mind boggling stuff on events you though you knew like bay of Pigs, Then EMERGING ONLY FROM THIS HISTORY IS THE ASSASSINATION STUFF. Convinced Daniel Ellsberg to change his mind about assassination and call for a new investigation. But do you hear about THAT in The Nation? NO off limits. See Encounter magazine, History of ""Left""" controlled press.

Especially the CIA, among whom JFK fired the CIA Director (Allen Dulles, who strangely enough served on the Warren Commission) and some other top level CIA people. A lot of very powerful people must have wanted him dead IMO.

Your comment about the oil windfall profit tax, I think, is also highly relevant.

And welcome to DU :toast:

It is because of info like you posted that I was drawn here!

This is a wonderful contribution to DU. Thank you for it.

One thing that I'd add to the discussion has to do with JFK's understanding of, and appreciation of his heritage. There is a great book by Thomas Maier, "The Kennedys:America's Emerald Kings." The President understood what it meant to the people of a small island to be squeezed by the rulers of a larger land mass. Two-thirds of his name came here as a result of the Great Starvation. He is fully aware of his father's not being embraced by the ruling class here, because of that heritage. So he thought about and approached issues in a manner unlike any of the previous presidents of his century.

There are also fascinating accounts of one of his aides chatting with Che at a social event. The people in positions of power outside the administration were outraged.

We now have the first US President who thinks in a similar style as did JFK.

On edit: Nominated, of course.

And thank you for the book reference -- I put it on my list. I think it's very important to have a better understanding of why our Presidents do what they do and think like they think.

that you will enjoy and appreciate the book.

Which covered this. They gave much of the credit for the potential talks to Linda Howard and her drive to be an important reporter. The one hour show is an interesting one and includes interviews with many of the people still alive from that period.

If I did not have insomnia, I wouldn't have seen it.

K&R.

In particular the references are valuable. Kicked and bookmarked!

How come we didn't invade Cuba after he was assassinated? If he was the sole reason that the pro-war cabal wasn't able to attack
Cuba, why haven't we invaded them in the 40+ years since he died?

1. JFK did reach an agreement with the soviets that he would not which bound future presidents.

This defused the nuclear missile crisis.

2. Fascism needs a bogeyman: castro was a perfect foil to keep us paying billions in taxes for the war machine (oh no, communism is 90 miles away!!!)

3. Soviet deals with the US for trade etc meant we could "control" what was happening there by a back door.

4. There was no stomach for such an invasion after the dismal failure of the bay of pigs and in fact such an invasion would likely have failed.

5. We were already in a huge war in Southeast Asia.

6. Attempts were constant to destabilize Castro (arguably acts of war) which failed constantly.

If Kennedy was assassinated because he was refused to go to war with Cuba, why haven't we gone to war with Cuba? Obviously, the agreement with the USSR, which bound all future Presidents, had to have been know before he was killed, so killing Kennedy was not going to allow those pro war interests to start a war with Cuba.

I'm just saying Kennedy was assassinated for other reasons, nothing to do with trying to force the US to go to war with Cuba as the OP is suggesting.

was assassinated -- and I didn't say that either.

The issue with Cuba was one part of a bigger picture that involved the Cold War. JFK gave definite evidence prior to his death that he wanted to end the Cold War and intended to do so. The Cold War continued for nearly three decades after his death.

of his policies that pissed off the PTB i.e. that he wanted to normalize relations.

He had already preempted the likelihood of war.

If the PTB were powerful enough to kill a president and get a way with it they would have been able to force the next president to go to war with Cuba, if they were that set on doing so, and no other presidents were assassinated and we didn't go to war with Cuba.

I think it was an element only in the sense that he pissed people (see CIA) off not supporting the Bay of Pigs fiasco, not so much that he refused to go to war with Cuba afterwards. There was a relatively small window that would have possibly allowed US intervention in Cuba, but after the BofP that was closed until the missile crisis. Then it was unrealistic since the USSR had very close ties to Cuba and it would have been a conflict between the US and USSR and not just Cuba.

I see your point but think that the primary reasons for Kennedy's assassination had only a little, if any, to do with a possible war with Cuba.

if American Empire is a goal.

A positive attribute of POTUS Obama is his humility on the public stage.

Thanks again for great thoughts that cut through the fog.

was behind the JFK killing.

The increase in sales of tinfoil since then are staggering.