The Cuban Embargo Isn’t Just About the Embargo

The Official Memorial Service For Nelson Mandela Is Held In Johannesburg

Anti-Embargoists like Obama and Rand Paul keep making the argument that the “embargo hasn’t worked”. By working they mean that it hasn’t forced the Castros out of power.

That argument is a loosely stuffed strawman. The embargo on its own wasn’t going to force the Castros out of power. It was helping to maintain conditions in which they could be forced out of power. And to weaken their ability to do regional and international harm.

The distinction between the two is as important as the difference between a serial killer in jail and a serial killer on your block. Even with the embargo, Castro managed to wedge his way into multiple wars and to harm American allies.

But let’s set aside the debate over the embargo for a moment. “What good has the embargo done” is the new “Where are the WMDs”. It’s a smug one liner used by people who don’t really want an answer.

The embargo isn’t just about the embargo. It’s also about Raul Castro declaring, “We won the war”.

It’s about the perception that the United States is weak, that it willingly cuts any deal with the enemy on any terms and is grateful to even be allowed to surrender to them.

That’s the perception that Carter created. That’s the perception that Obama creates by running around and bowing to every tyrant he can find.

You can’t fix that perception by overcompensating and then bombing someone. It doesn’t work. Everyone knows that America has lots of bombs. The question that our enemies and assorted neutral parties and allies ask is, does it have strong leaders to make the decisions.

When Obama gives Castro everything he wants on a silver platter in exchange for a few prisoners, he isn’t showing strength. He’s being Carter. The same deal could have been made while camouflaging the prisoner exchange, but that would have taken away Obama’s political cover. So instead he chose to look weak abroad to look better at home.

Even if the embargo had to end, the terms on which it ended were at least as important as the embargo because they showed our measure. There’s a big difference between withdrawing and taking the last helicopter out, between cutting an unpleasant deal and making a deal so bad that your enemy announces that he beat you after the deal is made because he knows that you are too weak to do anything about it.

 

  • Texas Patriot

    Of all the people in the world today, I would expect Daniel Greenfield to understand that the Cold War has been over for at least twenty years and that WWIII against the forces of Islamic Jihad has been with us for at least since the massacre of the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. What perhaps Daniel Greenfield cannot see so clearly is that the worldwide combination of non-Muslims nations is the only real chance we have of defeating the combined forces of Islamic Jihad which are on the march throughout the world today. Cuba is a predominantly Christian nation and potentially one of our strongest assets against Jihadists here, there and everywhere. As such, the economic rehabilitation and restoration of Cuba is a strategic as well as a moral imperative.

    • ennis

      “Cuba is a predominantly Christian nation and potentially one of our best and strongest allies against Jihadists here,”

      You are aware that Cuba has had a history of backing Palestinian terrorism, right?

      • Texas Patriot

        That was probably during the days when all “liberation” organizations were viewed more or less in the same light. Of course the naive young Castro and his friends felt a kinship with revolutionary groups around the world. As we all know, Islamic Jihadists do not tolerate anyone except those who follow their own extremist brand of Islamic ideology, and I don’t think it is very likely that many non-Muslim revolutionary organizations feel a great deal of kinship with them today. The entire world is slowly waking up and adapting to the reality of global Islamic Jihad, and that includes the former revolutionaries in Cuba.

        • Daniel_Greenfield

          Castro was no more naive than Stalin or Mao.

          If we’re going to deal with reality, let’s deal with reality.

          Non-Muslim revolutionary organizations of the left in America and around the world feel a great deal of kinship with Islamic jihadists. And rally together with them.

          • Texas Patriot

            DG: If we’re going to deal with reality, let’s deal with reality.

            I couldn’t agree more.

            DG: Non-Muslim revolutionary organizations of the left in America and around the world feel a great deal of kinship with Islamic jihadists. And rally together with them.

            Why don’t we start by naming the non-Muslim revolutionary organizations who still feel any kinship with Islamic Jihadists. Black Panthers, probably. Nation of Islam, probably. IRA, probably not. Russia and China, definitely not. So maybe the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam. Anyone else?

          • Michael Garfinkel

            I agree that the Islamists must be stopped – by any means necessary.

            I agree that Cuba should be, and will again become an American satellite, if not an American state.

            There is likely going to be a very nasty war in the Middle East in which the West will prevail.

            But I believe the real strategic danger will come, again, from Asia.

          • Texas Patriot

            MG: I agree that the Islamists must be stopped – by any means necessary.

            Yes!

            MG: I agree that Cuba should be, and will again become an American satellite, if not an American state.

            Cuba will always be Cuba, but there is no reason to believe that Cuba will not be a great ally of the cause of truth and love against the forces of lies and hatred throughout the world.

            MG: There is likely going to be a very nasty war in the Middle East in which the West will prevail.

            It’s hard to say who will prevail and when and how. From my perspective, it is highly likely that any of the so-called moderate governments in the Middle East will be standing in five years.

            MG: Indeed, one can view the present fighting in Syria, Iraq, and in Gaza, as prelude to the coming conflagration.

            The conflagration is not “coming” it’s here, there, and everywhere, all around the world, now.

            MG: But I believe the real strategic danger will come, again, from Asia.

            Asia is somewhat of a vague term. Malaysia is a threat, to be sure Of course Pakistan is a threat. Otherwise, China is potentially a great friend, and so is Japan. So, where do you see the biggest strategic danger in Asia?

          • Michael Garfinkel

            Wars have a way of winding up, and winding down. The fighting in the Middle East is still on a low burner.

            CHINA presents the greatest strategic threat.

            Don’t take my word for it.

            Strategic thinkers at the Pentagon are concluding that if present trends continue, China will defeat the United States militarily.

          • Texas Patriot

            MG: Strategic thinkers at the Pentagon are concluding that if present trends continue, China will defeat the United States militarily.

            It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that if present trends continue that China will be capable of defeating the United States militarily at some point in the not too distant future. As America demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt in WWII, superior manufacturing capacity and superior technology create almost insurmountable advantages in modern warfare, and the United States has been slipping in both categories for the last fifty years. Unfortunately, America’s school system has gone from being the best in the industrialized world in 1964 to the worst (and most expensive) of any major industrialized nation today.

            During that same time period, Americans have become the most sedentary and obese among all the industrialized nations of the world with health care expenses going from somewhere around 5% of GDP in 1964 to more than 17% today. We’ve lost millions of jobs and even entire industries to foreign competition, and we’ve gone from being the largest creditor nation in the world to the largest debtor nation in the the history of the world with more than $18 trillion in debt and the need to borrow somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.6 billion a day just to pay our debts as they come due. As recently as the year 2000, China had an economic output just one-third the size of ours, but has now, in just fourteen years, closed the gap and surpassed us in annual economic production.

            Should we be concerned? Yes. Should we assume that China wants to defeat us militarily? Not necessarily. China has reasons for wanting the United States to stay strong, just has we have reasons for wanting China to stay strong. There are many ways America and China can benefit each other economically and militarily, and there are many reasons why we should hope they will start strong and vice versa. The truth of the matter is that there are many reasons to suppose that China will become one of our greatest allies in the global war against the forces of Islamic Jihad, and we should encourage and nurture that relationship. In the meantime, we obviously have our work cut out for us unless we want to be the weak siren in the relationship, and in that regard I would refer you to the work and the findings of Robert Atkinson, and his book Innovation Economics: The Race for Global Advantage which he introduced at the New America Foundation in 2012:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWM08DzTuhY

            Although it is perfectly clear that we are falling behind China at this point in time, it is not impossible that we may be able to regain our former competitive advantage, but that will not be possible without radical improvements in our education system, our health care system, and our ability to create and attract the best high-value added manufacturing companies in the world.

          • Michael Garfinkel

            I will explore this link, thanks.

            I do think you’re a bit sanquine about the chinese, while you put too much emphasis on the extent of the Islamic threat.

            At the same time, the Islamists are irrational, and totally vicious.

            Still, war game scenarios NOW, not at some point in the future, hold an American military victory in doubt in the event of a shooting war with China.

            China seeks hegemony in the Pacific, and is quite likely, in spite of economic imperatives, to run up against Japan very hard.

            American alliances with Taiwan and Japan will not be abandoned; the danger of war in the region, which will quickly involve U.S. assets, is not remote.

          • Texas Patriot

            I think it’s clear that we’re still in the process of transitioning between the Cold War and WWIII, and the sooner we move beyond the outmoded strategic mindset of the Cold War, the better. The truth of the matter is that our former Cold War adversaries are likely to be our best allies in the emerging global war against the combined forces of Islamic Jihad, and anything we can do to nurture and enhance those relationships will accrue to the benefit of all concerned. The best way to lose the war we’re in now is to keep fighting the war that was over more than twenty years ago.

          • Michael Garfinkel

            It’s not a question of one war or another – both situations are fraught with peril.

            But, we’ll see, won’t we.

            I hope you’re right.

    • Daniel_Greenfield

      Seeing that vision and insisting that it already exists are two very different things.

      Cuba may be a majority Christian nation, but as with China, that doesn’t mean that its government is or that they share any of our values or priorities.

      • Texas Patriot

        DG: Seeing that vision and insisting that it already exists are two very different things.

        Seeing the possibility of positive improvement and insisting that it does not exist are also two very different things.

        DG: Cuba may be a majority Christian nation, but as with China, that doesn’t mean that its government is or that they share any of our values or priorities.

        Beginning with the American Revolution in 1776, the idea that governments are more important than people ceased to exist. Governments are almost always corrupt. It’s a function of human nature. As the Right Honorable Lord Acton recognized almost two hundred years ago, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” So even if the governments of the United States and Cuba are dysfunctionally haywire and out of sync, there is no reason to suppose that the people of America and the people of Cuba do not have a lot in common.

      • Michael Garfinkel

        The Cubans remain very Catholic, beneath the communist veneer.

        The present government will not survive the death of the Castro brothers.

        A smart (for a change) American administration in 2017 can see to that.

    • Bamaguje

      You keep making the fallacious argument that Cubans are predominantly Christians, and therefore an ally in the global war against Jihadism.
      Cuban people are not synonymous with the Castro tyranny, which has supported Palestinian Jihadists.

      Until the Cuban people regain control of their country, the embargo should remain. Ending the embargo now – with the Castro tyranny still in place – only serves to bolster the repressive dictatorship and prolong the suffering of the Cuban people.

      • His Excellency

        There is no real embargo if there are so many holes to it. There are only limited sanctions. The so-called “embargo” is one of the largest lies of Castrogonia (aka Communist Cuba) in order to get undeserved sympathy around the world.

      • Michael Garfinkel

        This is true, but regardless, the communists are finished in Cuba.

        Even they know it.

  • Goosebumps

    Come on Daniel, I’m a fan of your work but this strikes me as taking American exceptionalism a little too far. “Where are the WMDs” was a perfectly valid question to ask – the whole case for invading a country had been made on it. Now I don’t doubt that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous man, and I’m not shedding any tears over his removal. But there were many scenarios other than a United States-led invasion in 2003 that could have played out, and it is not at all obvious that none of them would have been better than the present one. WMDs were the main argument for the invasion of Iraq at the time it was carried out, along with the even bigger lie that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. The sooner conservatives denounce this disgraceful part of the Bush-Cheney years, the more respect they will win back from the public. It is possible to express regret at these things, while still pointing out that the end result of Saddam being toppled wasn’t the worst one in the world, since it would have been a necessity someday anyway.

    • JayWye

      WMD turned out to be at Al-Muthanna,the “Dragon’s Egg”. (now in the hands of ISIS)
      The gov’t just didn’t publicize it.

      there may be even more,hidden elsewhere. No sense in making such sites known to everybody,including the enemy.

      Besides,to be CERTAIN that there’s no WMD,we had to invade,to go in and take a look around for ourselves..
      Saddam was playing too many games with the UN inspectors.
      (just like Iran is today with their nuclear weapons program…)

      Iraq invasion was a great strategic move poorly executed,and then derailed by US “progressives” acting as a “fifth column”.
      Our greatest mistake was allowing IRAN to interfere in Iraq.
      Also,the Iraqis failed to take advantage of the opportunity we gave them.

      • JayWye

        Further,the Iraq invasion was not just to seize and destroy Saddam’s WMD,but to deny Saddam the ability to create MORE WMD once sanctions were lifted or faded away,as they were.
        Saddam did have program materials hidden away,ready to restart once sanctions were gone or relaxed enough to allow it.

        http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/277115/saddam-what-we-now-know-jim-lacey

        an excerpt;
        “SADDAM AND WMDS
        When American tanks smashed into Baghdad, Saddam had already completed construction of an anthrax production facility, which was a week away from going live. If it had been permitted to go into production, this one facility could have produced ten tons of weaponized anthrax a year”.

        there’s more in the article….if you bother to read it.

    • ennis

      ” not at all obvious that none of them would have been better than the present one. WMDs were the main argument for the invasion of Iraq at the time it was carried out, along with the even bigger lie that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. ”

      Well No Wmds weren’t the primary reason why America went into Iraq. It was because Saddam had been in breach of 17 UNSCs. He had been in breach of the cease-fire that came out of the first Gulf war which he had provoked by invading and annexing Kuwait .

    • Daniel_Greenfield

      The question would have been valid if the people asking it had conceded that Democrats like Bill Clinton had stated that there were WMDs instead of pretending it was something Bush made up on a lunch break and that Saddam had utilized WMDs against civilians in the past.

      As it was it became a smug dishonest one-liner because it completely snipped away the pre-Bush background.

    • Michael Garfinkel

      The WMDs were delivered to Syria, where they remain as chemical weapons, and where other material was eventually destroyed in the Israeli bombing of a Syrian nuclear facility.

      Really, if weapons are put on trucks and moved from A to B, it doesn’t mean they were never at A, does it?

      This is the WMD trope that is on a par with “hands up – don’t shoot.”

      Incidentally, the Cuban deal looks good compared to the trade of five Taliban commanders for one American deserter.

      PS Regardless of the WMD issue, Iraq was a mistake – without question.

      • Patriot077

        And what was the proximate cause of the market crash?
        Repeal of Glass Steagall, the legislation enacted after 1929 to avoid future run-ups. That was in Clinton’s admin.

        • Michael Garfinkel

          The Democrats were as guilty as sin, as usual.

          But Bush’s customary deer-in-the-headlights look in the midst of the crisis reassured no one.

          • Patriot077

            No he was not at all reassuring. The press had never treated him well or with any respect, so I can’t say that I blame him!

  • JayWye

    Comrade Obama does NOT “look better at home”.
    He looks more and more like a muslim Manchurian Candidate.
    Anything and everything to weaken and destroy America,to turn it into a 3rd world nation,impotent and with no respect or influence.

    • halevi

      All the dolts love his Cuba idea and that’s probably a ,majority of the country.

  • His Excellency

    There is no real embargo at all. How is paying for food and other American supplies constitute an embargo? Humberto Fontova and Carlos Eire expose the truth about how the so-called “embargo” is too full of holes to be an actual embargo. There are limited sanctions. That’s all. If the world wants to see an actual embargo, they should have done to Castrogonia (Eire’s term for Communist Cuba) what they did to South Africa back in the ’80s. In South Africa’s case, that was an embargo. Embargoes work if they are done properly and by multiple countries.

  • Hard Little Machine

    So will the foreign aid package to Cuba be larger than that to Maduro’s Venezuela?

  • whyhearme

    We need change in our political system. The 2 party system is enslaving us. It is time we register Independent / Unaffiliated. Time to send a message to both parties.
    We are not a democrat/republican/libertarian site. We are independents trading ideas, solutions and info.
    We support how this nation was founded and designed with no national/nationalist parties and where the States were the biggest factions.
    The only thing wrong with our Republic is the operators called democrat/republican.
    We are Americans, no hyphen required.
    We need change. Freedom can not be defeated but you can surrender yours and join those who steal it and oppress your
    So join us at
    http://no2party.freeforums.org/index.php
    Our main commenting is at
    http://no2party.freeforums.org/us-2-party-politics-f3.html
    An overall view of the site is at
    http://boardreader.com/site/no2party_freeforums_org_528728342.html

    The site is run by membership only, we are free of trolls and spammers.