Talk:Operation Mongoose/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Albertw.li95.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

A Lot Wrong With This

Zapata was the Bay of Pigs related activities.

Mongoose was the post-Zapata CIA ops meant to keep it all covert.

While all of this can be generally called The Cuba Project, Mongoose was later essentially canceled and the entire thing was turned over to the military, who simply called it The Cuba Project.

It was during this time you had Northwoods, not while the CIA was in charge. Mongoose was gone. Again, it was only the Cuba Project at this time when at the Pentagon. JM/WAVE was majorly in decline during this period. And the Miami office was CIA, not military intell.

McNemara & Kennedy shortly afterwards got cold feet after Northwoods and started trying to end The Cuba Project as a whole, calling for detente, and reductions in troops. So it's correct, the military didn't have it for very long under Kennedy since shortly after he died.

There is far too much confusion on this subject and mixing codenames & relationships around. Most importantly, the Joint Chiefs and the CIA were not willfully cooperating extensively. Military were sheep-dipped into Mongoose, including the head of it, but that was all under order. Military distrusted the CIA. CIA distrusted the military. And both sides thought the other was incompetent.

Nowadays it's far more "joint" and much less rivalry. Well...Rumsfeld revived a bit of it with Afganistan when he stole their search from Bin Laden and turned it into an overt invasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.138.248 (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I "cleaned up" the article a little.--AI 10:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

There needs to be more detail about how it ended.

--

I tried to do the same. It is not too badly worded, but a couple things need sourcing, such as the direct quote and the anecdote about Jesus, which is the most odd fact. Contrarrevolucionario 03:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The most odd fact is clearly: "Many individual plans included making Castro's beard fall out,..."

Is it true, or is it vandalism? It strongly seem to be the latter. -- AttishOculus 09:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe so. This is something I have heard before, but yes it could use a source. Contrarrevolucionario 10:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've dug up a source for the beard and exploding cigar story. --Zleitzen 01:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Northwoods/Mongoose

This, I believe, seeps too much content from the Northwoods article and gives the impression that this was an important part of TCP when in fact it was barely considered. I moved it to a more appropriate place and shortened it without, I believe, understating the meaning. It appears that there is material at the Northwoods article presently which actually belongs here, on the other hand. See [1]. Anybody want to start? --Contrarrevolucionario 15:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You may be right Contrarrevolucionario to remove that info at this stage. And you've highlighted the need to format the information on both pages. I'll look into it when time allows. --Zleitzen 16:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Info from northwoods page

As per discussion above, below is the info from the Operation Northwoods page. --Zleitzen 15:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

---

In addition to Operation Northwoods, under the Operation Mongoose program the Department of Defense had a number of similar proposals to be taken against the Cuban regime of Fidel Castro.

Twelve of these proposals come from a February 2, 1962 memorandum entitled "Possible Actions to Provoke, Harass or Disrupt Cuba," written by Brig. Gen. William H. Craig and submitted to Brig. Gen. Edward Lansdale, the commander of the Operation Mongoose project.[2][3][4][5][6][7]

The memorandum outlines Operation Bingo, a plan to, in its words, "create an incident which has the appearance of an attack on U.S. facilities (GMO) in Cuba, thus providing an excuse for use of U.S. military might to overthrow the current government of Cuba."

It also includes Operation Dirty Trick, a plot to blame Castro if the 1962 Mercury manned space flight carrying John Glenn crashed, saying "The objective is to provide irrevocable proof that, should the MERCURY manned orbit flight fail, the fault lies with the Communists et al Cuba [sic]." It continues, "This to be accomplished by manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans."

Even after General Lyman Lemnitzer lost his job as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Joint Chiefs of Staff still planned pretext operations at least into 1963. A different Department of Defense policy paper created in 1963 (reported on by the Associated Press on January 29, 1998[8] and later in journalist James Bamford's book Body of Secrets, published April 24, 2001[9]) discussed a plan to make it appear that Cuba had attacked a member of the Organization of American States (OAS) so that the United States could retaliate. The Pentagon document says of one of the scenarios, "A contrived 'Cuban' attack on an OAS member could be set up, and the attacked state could be urged to take measures of self-defense and request assistance from the U.S. and OAS." The plan expresses confidence that by this action "the U.S. could almost certainly obtain the necessary two-thirds support among OAS members for collective action against Cuba."

Included in the nations the Joint Chiefs suggested that the United States covertly attack were Jamaica and Trinidad-Tobago. Since both were members of the British Commonwealth, the Joint Chiefs hoped that by secretly attacking them and then falsely blaming Cuba, the United States could incite the people of England into supporting a war against Castro. As the Pentagon report noted, "Any of the contrived situations described above are inherently, extremely risky in our democratic system in which security can be maintained, after the fact, with very great difficulty. If the decision should be made to set up a contrived situation it should be one in which participation by U.S. personnel is limited only to the most highly trusted covert personnel. This suggests the infeasibility of the use of military units for any aspect of the contrived situation."

The Pentagon report even suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: "The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro's subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on [the U.S. Navy base at] Guantanamo."

Illegal Activities?

Is it fair to label most (if not all) of the activities that were part of Operation Mongoose as illegal since they broke both US and International laws?

If you can find a source that states that they were unlawful, then yes.--Zleitzen 08:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

From the article

"..coordinated program of political, psychological, military, sabotage, and intelligence operations as well as assassination attempts on key political leaders"

Wouldn't sabotage and assassination attempts on foreign soil would be at the very least be breaking International laws? I have yet to read it but "Reflections on the Cuban Missle Crisis" by Raymond L.Garthoff is supposed to explain the nature of the activities in detail--Bmathew 05:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cuban Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050608074831/http://www.parascope.com/mx/articles/castroreport.htm to http://www.parascope.com/mx/articles/castroreport.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

User:Cambial Yellowing I see you reverted my edit, can you explain which citation mentions actual terror activity that occurred? I see a lot of mention of plans but its not clear what actions were actually taken, they may be buried in the article. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you are confusing this with Operation Northwoods, which was never carried out. To answer your question: all of the nine citations following the sentence you edited, and several more uncited. The quotes already in most of the citations show this unequivocally, referring to implementation of the terrorist attacks, not merely their planning. Of those without quotes, Franklin (2016) documents scores if not hundreds of instances, including their direction by the CIA, throughout the book, the most relevant pages being 34–79; the chapter by Miller (2002) documents some of those where attribution to the CIA is likely but less certain; Rabe (2000), quoted extensively in the body reports that

In analyzing U.S. relations with Cuba during the Kennedy administration, scholars have understandably focused on... the Bay of Pigs invasion, the US campaign of terrorism and sabotage known as Operation Mongoose, the assassination plots against Fidel Castro, and, of course, the Cuban Missile Crisis... [The U.S. Government] showed no interest in Castro's repeated request that the United States cease its campaign of sabotage and terrorism against Cuba.

. We might also add Brenner (2002):

..in October 1962 the United States was waging a war against Cuba that involved several assassination attempts against the Cuban leader, terrorist acts against Cuban civilians, and sabotage of Cuban factories.

I should perhaps stress that the quotes reproduced on the talk here are only those without quotes in the extant citations. Those with quotes (i.e. the majority) you are doubtless capable of locating in the references. They speak of both planning and execution of the CIA terrorism program. The specific terrorist attacks are discussed to some extent in the "Execution" section of the body, not so much buried in the article, as placed in the appropriate section. Cambial foliage❧ 09:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks For responding. I was hoping for something that pointed to some kind of specific terror attack attributed to the CIA besides the assassination attempts. I feel like it would be beneficial to say "As an example, forces loyal to the CIA bombed a civilian clinic and killed 13 civilians and blamed it on Castro" or something to that effect. I'll try to review some of the sources to see if I can find anything. Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

E.g. Franklin 2016, p. 54: "August 24: Two gunboats operated by the Cuban Student Directorate (DRE) based in Florida shell Havana’s Sierra Maestra hotel, the Chaplin theater, and the Miramar residential section, killing about 20 Soviet and Cuban people. On the following day, Prime Minister Castro formally protests to the United Nations. Subsequently, the U.S. Coast Guard impounds the boats. The CIA has trained members of the Cuban Student Directorate in demolition and provided the boats used in the terrorist attack." Cambial foliage❧ 20:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Civilians

The sources given in the lede sentence don't really support the text (maybe the "terrorist" part of it). Additionally, the lede is supposed to summarize the article. There is nothing in the main body of the article about this either. Volunteer Marek 11:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Your claims are directly contrary to the facts. The sources support the text to the letter, your inappropriate removal of a scholarly source notwithstanding. This is also mentioned in the body, albeit briefly, and could probably do with expansion - not a reason to remove it from the lead. The idea that you've repeatedly removed, US programs of terrorism against civilians in Cuba in the 1960s, is not only supported by mainstream Latin America scholars, Cuba specialists etc., but is not even controversial. For example, the Brookings Institution, save the CFR probably the most influential US foreign policy think tank and a pillar of establishment: "Eisenhower approved a plan to train Cuban exiles to commit violent acts of terrorism within Cuba against civilians, and the CIA trained and commanded pilots to bomb civilian airfields. This is to say nothing of the U.S.-sponsored assassination attempts against Che Guevara and Fidel Castro and suspected U.S. government involvement in attempted kidnappings and disappearances of Cuban nationals and diplomats over the years. U.S. government officials justified some of the terrorist attacks on Cuban soil on the grounds of coercive regime change" And just one of numerous other foreign policy scholars not cited, because Wp:OVERCITE is unnecessary:

..in October 1962 the United States was waging a war against Cuba that involved several assassination attempts against the Cuban leader, terrorist acts against Cuban civilians, and sabotage of Cuban factories.

There are no sources which deny this, which makes it look like your removal is based on your disliking what mainstream scholarship says on the subject. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

You can assert something that doesn't mean it's true. To wit:

No, there's nothing in the main body of the text about this.

No, the sources included in the article did no say anything of the source.

No, the Brookings source was NOT in the article. Nor is it now.

Wait a minute, that's actually NOT Brookings but an article from George Washington U archives.

Even in that source, the reference to "civilians" is in passing.

Currently the text (and I don't care how long it's been in there) is trying to make it sound like the CIA was bombing civilians or something whereas this operation was mostly a series of assassination attempts against Castro.

I would also appreciate it if you didn't speculate about my motives (discuss content not editors)... I mean, I can just as easily speculate about yours, right? Volunteer Marek 12:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

You're right, one can assert something and that does not necessarily mean it is true, but in this instance, the assertions I am making are true, and the ones you made are directly contrary to reality.

There is content in the main body of the text (section "Execution") - though I've not edited it, and it does need updating with more recent scholarship.

The text reflects the sources.

I've not claimed the Brookings Institution report is in the article. I mentioned OVERCITE, which means not putting an unnecessary volume of citations when something is already supported by citations, as in this case. I referred to the Brookings article here on talk as it is one of several examples that show this is no longer even controversial.

I cited two sources, not one. See above.

It's not in passing in Brenner: the opposite is true. After a few introductory sentences, this is stated in the first sentence of the first main paragraph because it is one of the key parts of the broader context of the crisis that is the subject the author is addressing in the article.

This operation was not mostly a series of assassination attempts against Castro, and that you think so suggests you are totally unfamiliar with the voluminous scholarly literature on the topic. It included bombings of hotels, residential districts, and numerous other sites populated by civilians. Numerous sources which are scholarly, peer-reviewed and/or have passed an academic press editorial board state this. Perhaps you can indicate what leads you to disagree with them, or leads you to believe that your nuanced understanding is superior - and perhaps look to get your analysis published by the Journal of Latin American Studies,, Yale University Press or another reputable publisher, so that we can weigh it here.

I can see why you interpreted my comment as a speculation on your motives, please accept my apologies. It was not intended as such. Perhaps you can explain the actual reason you ignored numerous academic book and journal sources - including this from Erlich, published by Routledge: "U.S. leaders also used violent, terrorist tactics...U.S. operatives attacked civilian targets" - in order to make the admittedly ballsy, but obviously and flagrantly absurd claim that the sources "don't say anything about civilians".

Perhaps also explain why you made the claim that this is not mentioned in the body immediately after removing where it is mentioned in the body. This website is not based on a suicide pact. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

No, this is not true.

Where in the "Execution" section is this discussed? That section discusses intelligence gathering and assignation attempts against Castro and some sabotage actions. It does not discuss "terrorist attacks on civilians"

As already pointed out, the text is NOT supported by the sources that are included. You can't "overcite" something by using citations which don't support it. It's also not possible to reply to supposed "other" sources which are not in the article or which are unlinked.

The word "civilians" occurs only ONCE in Brenner, so yeah, it's in passing. Any claims that it's "part of broader context" or whatever, is just your own original research.

"Civilian targets" (presumably the radio station and the sugar mill) is different than "civilians". Again, the text is trying to make it sound like the CIA was bombing civilians but that's not the case.

Volunteer Marek 14:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I've checked some sources because of this discussion. First Schoultz: That Infernal Little Cuban Republic. University of North Carolina Press, since he's a Professor (now Emeritus) focused on inter-American relations. The headline is "State Sponsored Terrorism". In the chapter is a plan of blowing up of civilian and military targets described and an indirect critique of Kennedy speaking publicly out again tactics of terror, but authorizing Operation Mongoose.

Checked also the article of Domínguez in the peer-reviewed Diplomatic History. The quotes in the articles are correct, it is also qualified as terrorism there. Both points of Domínguez about Kennedy, that Kennedy put a hold on Mongoose's actions as the Cuban Missile Crisis escalated, but "returned to its policy of sponsoring terrorism.." later are also mentioned in the article (so I see no cherry-picking either).

I've also checked the article of Rabe in the peer-reviewed Presidential Studies Quarterly, since the article lacks the pages for quotes (I will add them). However everything's fine so far. It's also qualified similar to the lead and the other sources "the U.S. campaign of terrorism and sabotage known as Operation Mongoose". The sources I looked into describe what's written in the article and more sources have direct quotes that seem to represent what's written too. It's maybe possible to change "civilians" to "civilian targets" (I'm inconclusive, I don't think the sources emphasize a difference there and don't think "civilians" is necessarily a wrong summary of attacks on civilian targets. Brenner, Brookings and Yaffe as the added sources here describe it as attacks on civilians, it seems others in the article more generally describe terroism and civlian targets). --Casra (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Casra. Marek, you're incorrect, CIA agents were bombing civilians, which is why the text is not merely trying to make it sound like the CIA were bombing civilians, but directly saying exactly that. Thus the text achieves the result of communicating that the CIA were bombing civilians, as that's exactly what occurred, and exactly what's stated in the most reliable types of RS (the one's you keep pretending don't exist or removed from the article). As just one of numerous examples, from one of the sources already cited, Franklin 2016, p. 54:

August 24: Two gunboats operated by the Cuban Student Directorate (DRE) based in Florida shell Havana’s Sierra Maestra hotel, the Chaplin theater, and the Miramar residential section, killing about 20 Soviet and Cuban people. On the following day, Prime Minister Castro formally protests to the United Nations. Subsequently, the U.S. Coast Guard impounds the boats. The CIA has trained members of the Cuban Student Directorate in demolition and provided the boats used in the terrorist attack.

Cambial — foliar❧ 15:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

This source does NOT say that the CIA was bombing civilians. It says that "Cuban Student Directorate", an anti-Batista student group, shelled this hotel. The target of the attack was not civilians but Soviet advisors who were staying at the hotel. And according to the US this attack was carried out independently and without knowledge of US government. You're doing a whole lot of WP:SYNTH to get from what the source say to what you want to pretend it says. Volunteer Marek 19:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Neither I nor the article are relying on this one instance, it's merely illustrative of the nature of the bombing of civilians the organisation undertook. I'm relying on the multiple, scholarly sources, published by major institutions or academic presses, which state that the Cuban project involved terrorism that killed civilians and was aimed at civilian targets, including hotels, theaters, workplaces etc. You removed reference to terrorism multiple times. You pretended there was no reference to civilians, despite the undeniable fact that multiple reliable sources which I drew your attention to clearly make multiple references to civilians, both in the quotes provided and on the pages referenced. Until you cite some level of scholarship which might match the twenty plus examples which support the current text, or indeed any sources whatsoever, there is little to discuss here other than your opposing content on grounds which fall apart under even the tiniest scrutiny.

Reviewing them briefly: "unsourced" "don't say anything about civilians" "might "refer to civilians" but not in the context and way that it's being presented". Well, which is it? Now you're just offering unsourced claims about how really the shelling of a hotel and theatre was not aiming at civilians. Your main tactic seems to be simply to deny that things say what they clearly say, or simply talk about the sources which don't mention a particular term, ignoring the multiple others which clearly do mention it in reference to this program. Well, reliable sources, like Brenner, Yaffe, Erlich, Bolender, and Franklin disagree with your frankly ludicrous analysis, and we rely on the reliable sources, of which you've pointed to exactly none. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Initially I wanted to change the lead to "civilian targets" (changed my remarks in the brackets in last moment), but you gave some good additional sources here at the talk that made me hesitant. It seems there were also more direct attacks on people. Maybe we can change the lead to ".. campaign of covert operations that involved terrorist attacks against civilians and sabotage against Cuban infrastructure, carried out.." to cover both. --Casra (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

"Civilian targets" is an improvement. Volunteer Marek 19:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The issue with a wording like that is that, by definition, the terrorist attacks were not covert operations. Quite the opposite, in fact. They were functionally reliant on being overt to have their intended effect. RS generally state this, saying sabotage *and* terrorist attacks. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

References