I have heard more than one commentator over the last week compare the the raid on an Al Qaeda structure believed to house Yemen terrorist leader Qassim Al-Rimi to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion during the first days of John F. Kennedy’s presidency. The focal point for comparing the two is that both military actions were planned by one administration and left for execution to the next.
One valid point does not a general comparison make. While the planning and execution of both operations spanned two administrations, the Bay of Pigs invasion was a covert operation developed by the CIA and its success was predicated on the false assumption the Cuban people would quickly join the rebels (exiled Cubans trained by the CIA). In contrast, the Yemen raid was planned by the U.S. Department of Defense and executed by U.S. special forces. The goal of the Bay of Pigs was to topple the Castro government. The goal in Yemen is less clear as Al Qaeda in Yemen is seen as a terrorist organization yet also is seen as an ally of the U.S., Saudi and UAE backed government in the civil war with Shiite rebels. Similar to the conflict in Syria, as they say in baseball, you can’t tell the players without a program.
Which brings us back to January 25, 2017 and the White House dinner at which the commando raid was approved. Despite the differences between the two operations, there were lessons from the Bay of Pigs which should have been early warning signs for Donald Trump. In hindsight, Kennedy realized he asked the wrong question during CIA briefings prior to the Bay of Pigs invasion. He admitted he wrongly focused on the level of preparedness of the CIA-trained exiles and the supporting air strikes. Instead, of inquiries about what and when, Kennedy realized the real question was, “Should we undertake this operation at all?” In documents archived at the Kennedy Presidential Library, the newly inaugurated commander-in-chief opined whether he should have restarted the decision process from square one. If he was going to own the outcome, should he rely on his predecessor’s decision process?
Clearly Trump is not a student of history, or if he is, he did not do well in the class. Assuming he was handed a proposal outlining the Yemen operation and was told the ONLY reason the Obama administration delayed execution was to wait for a moonless night, Trump should have seen numerous red flags. (NOTE: Obama officials involved in the decision process claim they felt uncomfortable because the on-the-ground intelligence was not sufficient to proceed. They were proven correct when it was determined the protection around the structure was greater than anticipated resulting in a prolonged firefight.)
The circumstances remind me of two teenage boys trying to create a little mischief. The first boy buys some cherry bombs and identifies the neighborhood targets (mailboxes and trash cans). Then he gives the firecrackers to his friend and tells him to light them. The friend asks, “Why don’t you light them? You did the easy and safe stuff.” His partner-in-crime replies, “But you get to do the exciting stuff.” Right, exciting until he loses a couple of fingers.
And that is what happened in Cuba and Yemen. Kennedy lit the fuse and had to take responsibility for the deaths of many of the Cuban exiles and the imprisonment of the invasion survivors. Whether he takes responsibility or not, Trump must reconcile the loss of a Navy SEAL as well as the deaths of nine women and 10 children without achieving the goal of capturing or killing Al-Rimi.
There was a another lesson from the Bay of Pigs, which fortunately President Kennedy embraced. “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” (NOTE: Not to be confused with George W. Bush’s attempt, “There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”)
Experience with the Bay of Pigs debacle is partially credited for Kennedy’s response to the Cuban Missile Crisis in November, 1962. Despite advice from his military advisers to use the placement of Soviet mid-range nuclear weapons 90 miles away from the U.S. coastline as an excuse for a second attempt to overthrow Castro, JFK knew he, and he alone, would have to answer for the outcome.
Why do I share this with you? Because I believe there are two more historical parallels on the horizon. And if the current occupant of the White House fails to take advantage of the lessons from past events, the botched raid in Yemen will be a footnote to his tenure in office. The first comes from the Vietnam era. The presence of the American destroyer USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin created a situation which was used to justify escalation of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. The result? 58,315 killed in action or non-combat deaths, 153,303 wounded-in-action requiring hospital care and 1,618 missing in action. On February 17, 2017 the US Navy sent the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson to patrol the South China Sea. The American people and Congress should be wary of any reported incident or Chinese provocation, especially if it is associated with a proposed increase in military involvement in the region.
The second, of course, is the March, 2003 invasion of Iraq, attributed to false reports of weapons of mass destruction stockpiled by Saddam Hussein. The result in this case? 4,424 killed in action and non-hostile deaths and 31,952 wounded in action. A political and governmental vacuum which opened the door to Al Qaeda and ISIS. All resulting from an imminent threat to the United States which was hardly a threat, much less imminent.
So when you hear of terrorist attacks in Bowling Green, Atlanta and Sweden, think of Iraq. Terrorism is real, but it need not be exaggerated for political purposes. And the fact there has not been an attack on U.S. soil directed from a foreign base since 9/11 should not be overlooked. These are among the truths we should hold as self-evident.
For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP