[NYTr] Bush - If It Failed Everywhere Else, Let's Do It in Cuba, Too

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

[Amusing, even if he doesn't know much about Cuba. Hurwitz uses such
sources as "there are reports that..."  (bad A, bad B, etc.). But
even someone who doesn't know much about Cuba sees this as more
of the same absurdities. -NY Transfer]

NorthStar Writers Group - Oct 29, 2007
http://www.northstarwriters.com/ah058.htm

Bush: If It Failed Everywhere Else, Let’s Do It in Cuba Too

by Alan Hurwitz

The Johnny-One-Note Administration is playing its music with a Latin
beat, by applying the only approach it knows to the dynamic Cuban
situation. The president is assuring any doubters that the U.S.
government will continue its unsuccessful Cuba policy of 50 years –
namely, saying their government is evil, refusing to deal with it in
any constructive manner and unsuccessfully pleading with other
countries to follow suit.

The administration’s stated policy seems designed to achieve several
objectives – limiting its own options in responding to current changes,
ensuring the new leadership has less incentive toward reform and
announcing that potential competitors for Cuba’s business have nothing
to fear from us. Some misguided folks might see an opportunity for
correcting a fruitless course and gaining new leverage. But “stay the
course” is again the phrase of the day. No quitters we.

Describing the complexity of the present Cuban situation as merely a
brotherly transfer of power is Mesopotamianly simplistic. The dynamics
of Cuban politics have been precarious for some time. Clearly the
Commandante’s mystique and charisma have largely kept the basic
structure of the regime in place. Without his persona at the helm, many
existing forces are likely to bubble to the surface.

Our president is right that many Cubans want to be more like us – at
least economically – Michael Moore’s rendition of their health system
notwithstanding. There are reports that many pre-Castro evils are
recurring – rampant prostitution, economic disparities and social
discontent. But Cubans are proud of many aspects of their situation –
gains in education, yes, health and a government that has refused to be
pushed around by Uncle Sam and gotten away with it for so long. Many
dislike multiple aspects of their current system and want serious
change, but they will never fight to trade their “revolution” for
George W. Bush’s “democracy”.

Our actions all but ensure that when the dust finally clears, our
friends will be a small and marginal minority, as are our “friends” in
many other countries. We are not doing them a service with our
narrow-minded “support”. They also ensure that the U.S. will be left
out of lucrative business opportunities that others exploit during this
dynamic period.

The administration uses the same hammer for any type of nail that comes
its way. Divide people into “good” and “evil”, threaten, and then
attempt to bludgeon the evil people into submission – first by other
means, then by force.

You’d think the failure of this approach to yield positive results
might cause some reflection and review. But these aren’t apparently in
the repertoire of the decider. As has been pointed out in several
recent books and articles, the job of the decider is deciding, which
doesn’t include second-guessing any of those decisions, regardless of
the results or situation on the ground.

The good can do no wrong, incompetence and even corruption
notwithstanding. And the evil can do nothing good, no matter how
balances of power and interests may shift. The Bible teaches that God
would rather have the sinner repent than be destroyed. Good enough for
God perhaps, but not for this administration.

I was no fan of Ronald Reagan as president. He shared qualities with
this president – deeply conservative instincts, the willingness to make
unpopular decisions, very little in the way of intellectual curiosity –
rather a tendency to apply basic principles and intuition to the
situation of the moment. But even Reagan took the world as it came,
rather than as he wished it were. He used U.S. power in ways that
generally avoided outright military force. He cut and ran when useful.

Relying on force or the threat of force as a principal strategy may
have had some possibility when the U.S. had the large preponderance of
power in the world, though even then with limits and downside. Now with
power and influence more evenly balanced, especially economic, this
approach mostly makes us look silly and emboldens and empowers our
adversaries.

We are still the most powerful nation on the planet, but raw power now
has its limits. We can’t get the Germans or the French to support
sanctions on Iran. We can’t get the Turks not to attack Kurdistan, the
only area of Iraq that has remotely complied with our vision for that
country. We can’t even get the Kurds to placate the Turks by, imagine,
fighting terrorism on their own soil.

Our current leadership has not factored new power limitations, and much
else, into current decision-making. Nostalgia feels good, but it can be
disastrous as a focus of foreign policy. Cuba, just 90 miles from
Florida, is an unfortunate example of this limitation. It’s not the
most dangerous.

© 2007 North Star Writers Group.