By Manuel Valenzuela
December 18, 2005
Part One of Two
And how the Cuban Missle Crisis
was barely avoided.
There is purpose behind having enemies, for their existence is the backbone of the corporatists. Indeed, there is a method behind their madness. Having enemies means having control both of fear and hatred of the people, as well as having control of the masses along with their animalistic emotions. Psychology can be manipulated at the push of a few buttons; an entire nation can be mobilized toward war in the time it takes two skyscrapers to be imploded. Nationalism and xenophobia make blind rational thought; ignorance makes deaf the sounds of wisdom.
The use of enemies distracts the minds of the people from their daily lives and chains truth to the dungeons of corporatists and neocons. The silhouette of the enemy helps supply the armies of invasion and occupation, it assists in mobilizing the nation’s economy into perpetual war readiness, and it distracts the people as their treasure is pillaged, just as it demands patience of the citizenry in the face of utter debacle.
Forty years ago Dean Acheson informed the American Society of International Law that legal issues do not arise in the case of a US response to a “challenge [to its] power, position, and prestige.” He was referring to Washington’s response to what it regarded as Cuba’s “successful defiance” of the United States. That included Cuba’s resistance to the Bay of Pigs invasion, but also much more serious crimes. When Kennedy ordered his staff to subject Cubans to the “terrors of the earth” until Castro is eliminated, his planners advised that “The very existence of his regime … represents a successful defiance of the US, a negation of our whole hemispheric policy of almost a century and a half,” based on the principle of subordination to US will. Worse yet, Castro’s regime was providing an “example and general stimulus” that might “encourage agitation and radical change” in other parts of Latin America, where “social and economic conditions … invite opposition to ruling authority” and susceptibility to “the Castro idea of taking matters into one’s own hands.” These are grave dangers, Kennedy planners recognized, when “The distribution of land and other forms of national wealth greatly favors the propertied classes … [and] The poor and underprivileged, stimulated by the example of the Cuban revolution, are now demanding opportunities for a decent living.” These threats were only compounded by successful resistance to invasion, an intolerable threat to credibility, warranting the “terrors of the earth” and destructive economic warfare to excise that earlier “cancer.”17