I am getting annoyed with all the articles and columns being written about how terrible it is that Obama keeps appointing Ivy Leaguers to his administrative team. Yeah, I know that JFK did the same thing and wound up with a bunch of boneheads that thought it was a great idea to invade Cuba and start another land war in Asia. George W. Bush appointed a bunch of dumbasses and drop-outs and they started two land wars in Asia. What matters is that someone learns the lessons of our recent past. If they have a brain in their head, that’s probably a good sign.
And if you went to Regent University, please do not apply.
Your history is a bit off. Yes, they invaded Cuba under JFK. But that was planned long before his Ivy Leaguers got to Washington. He wasn’t skeptical enough to figure it out in advance, and his idealists weren’t assertive enough to stop it. We’ve paid (in terms of Cuban votes) for 50 years.
I’ve been reading (non-stop) the criticisms of Obama that suggest that because he has appointed some people who “know the ropes” he won’t change things.
Sending rank amateurs into buildings full of veteran Washington career bureaucrats is a formula for failure.
the history is not off. Eisenhower initiated the planning, but it was Kennedy that signed off on it. And he signed off on it while simultaneously making other decisions that made it a hopeless endeavor.
What history are you basing this on? Fletcher Prouty says that CIA knew the invasion itself was going to be a disaster (the Bay of Pigs sold as the 1961 version of “They’ll greet us with flowers and candy”). They knew it was going to be a failure and wanted a situation in play that would force Kennedy to directly use U.S. airpower, which would have ripped away our figleaf of neutrality/non-involvement. Kennedy wouldn’t go for it. He stood up to the CIA when they tried to force him into directly invading Cuba.
True, JFK signed off on invading Cuba. The mission was ready to go. And he regretted it. That’s why he said he wanted to tear the CIA into a thousand pieces. Instead, the CIA shot him into several pieces. The rest is revised history.
There’s been an awful lot of revised history on JFK. I recommend David Talbot’s “Brothers” with the exception of his dependence on that NSA hack Walter Sheridan regarding Jim Garrison.
As for comparing Obama to JFK, it may just be a reminder from the military-industrial complex and their friends.
I wouldn’t cite Fletcher Prouty as a source. It’s interesting to read his ideas, but he was a little bit of theorist about things he had no direct knowledge about.
The facts remain that JFK authorized a half-assed plan thats only hope was direct U.S. Naval and Air Force involvement, but JFK precluded that possibility. It was truly an epic blunder for which he should bear near-total responsibility.
The CIA’s blame lies in not being honest about how long the odds were without U.S. intervention. In not giving JFK honest advice, they did him a disservice. But the point is that Kennedy and his whiz-kid advisers went along with the plan. And his advisers went right along with the escalation in Vietnam, too.
Of course, Kennedy and the whiz kids were relying on the CIA for their information. I mean, the CIA’s middle name is “intelligence”.
It’s kind of hard for me, at least, to criticize JFK for him believing what the CIA told him just months into his Administration. The CIA’s reputation as an independent operator was not known back then.
Prouty wrote a magazine article back in the seventies or eighties about the Bay of Pigs. I talked with him once over the phone back in the early, mid-nineties. Seemed like a nice guy. In checking wiki entry on him I was saddened to see he’d passed away.
That book by Talbot was fascinating. I knew that the ‘establishment’ wasn’t keen on the Kennedy’s but hadn’t realized the insane depths they went to to try and foil everything he did. That also goes along with the movie ’13 Days in May’-with Kevin Costner about the Cuban Missile Crisis which gave a pretty good overview of what happened.
RealHistoryLisa, who posts here often, apparently talked with Talbot while he was writing the book. You might want to engage her about the book.
Speaking only for myself, and referring only to his foreign policy and related appointments, it is not the fact that they “know the ropes” that disturbs me. What has me concerned is their consistent history of belief in a policy of world domination by any means, disrespect for third world states and people and unconcern for their human rights, support for coercion and military violence as a foreign policy tool, and obeisance to AIPAC and a right wing Israeli agenda. In addition, I do not find these histories inconsistent with the policies Obama is likely to adopt based on his own history and previous statements of his positions.
Whatever gave you the idea that Obama was a pacifist? The weakness of his ‘open vessel’ candidacy lies in that it handicaps his ability to govern – he will necessarily disappoint almost everyone, having willingly allow folks to project their ideals into him, however off-base.
Whatever gave you the idea that I have ever had the idea that Obama was a pacifist? On the contrary, from early on in the primary campaign I have been excoriated by many people for stating a realistic view of his foreign policy in general, and his policy toward Iraq and Israel in particular.
I have argued over and over and over again since the beginning of the primary campaign, that Obama’s plan, based on his own declarations, has never for a moment been to withdraw from Iraq, but merely to reconfigure and rebrand the occupation. And I have been excoriated for it by more than a few people. (And for the record, Hillary’s Iraq plan was virtually identical to his.)
In any case, I am not talking about pacifism. I myself am not a pacifist since I believe in the use of violence when necessary for self defense. There is a very big difference between pacifism and denouncing the use of military violence as a means of imposing one’s will on others.
I am disturbed by your statement “having allowed people to project their politics on him.” The fact is that a lot of naive folks didn’t read about Obama or didn’t listen, didn’t ask who he was, just claimed he was whom they wanted him to be.
He’s a progressive genius; but he’ll never satisfy every contrarian who voted for him.
Progressive genius? On what, specifically, do you base that?
Perhaps the argument should be made for a variety of life experiences, backgrounds, and educations. We don’t really want the top levels of government to be filled by folks who all think alike.
Anybody who thinks that academics at elite institutions all think alike hasn’t observed them much.
as long as they think!
you guys are both Cal Bears. Thought you should know.
Go big blue!