Skip to comments.Obama Re-enacts Bay of Pigs Invasion
Posted on 09/04/2013 10:09:33 AM PDT by Signalman
On April 17, 1961 about 1500 Cuban exiles, trained by the CIA landed at Bahia De Cochinos, Cuba with the goal to overthrow the regime of Fidel Castro. In English Bahia De Cochinos translates as Bay of Pigs.
The Bay of Pigs was a hugely irresponsible action not only because it capitalized upon the enthusiasm of recent exiles and had zero chance of success under a best case scenario but because of the way it made our nation look ridiculous and strengthened Castros hand. Now we are looking at the 2013 version:
During a meeting at the White House, the president assured Senator John McCain that after months of delay the US was meeting its commitment to back moderate elements of the opposition.
Mr Obama said that a 50-man cell, believed to have been trained by US special forces in Jordan, was making its way across the border into Syria, according to the New York Times.
The deployment of the rebel unit seems to be the first tangible measure of support since Mr Obama announced in June that the US would begin providing the opposition with small arms.
Congressional opposition delayed the plan for several weeks and rebel commanders publicly complained the US was still doing nothing to match the Russian-made firepower of the Assad regime.
Fifty men. The number of men I led on my first day in the Army as a 22 year-old second lieutenant. To be sent into battle in Syria. No armor. No artillery. No air support. Even if these men have been in training since the revolt against Assad broke out they are still only fifty men. I cant imagine what the human material involved in this exercise in futility is but I can guess. I think most of us can. A mixture of kids, former Syrian Army men, would be Simon Bolivars, al Qaeda sympathizers and Syrian Baathist informers.
I am skeptical, the the extent of being opposed, to the military intervention proposed by Obama. (This is distinct from the intervention John McCain, Lindsey Graham and the editors of National Review say theyll support.) It is silly, short sighted, and fated to embarrass the nation in the eyes of friends and foes alike. If Seinfeld was a show about nothing, this is a military intervention about nothing.
Upping the ante by sending 50 men, preceded by a press release, into combat against a competent (by Arab standards) army is not embarrassing. It is humiliating and it should be criminal. Within weeks they will be chewed up by either the Syrian Army or by the al Qaeda Syrian Coalition. Or we will find theyve gone over to al Qaeda en masse. They will be on television and YouTube either being beheaded, or ransomed back by the US government, or proclaiming their allegiance to Ayman al-Zawahiri.
What in heavens name is this bunch of clowns thinking? If we are not going for regime change then what possible good can inserting unsupported ground troops? John Kerry, who alleges he served in Vietnam, characterized the chemical attack on Syrian civilians that precipitated this crisis as morally obscene. True. But so is sending a handful of partially trained dupes to near certain death.
Forget the fact it is only 50 men.
What is to say if the SHTF, someone will come for them? If Benghazi is a reference point, whoever is leading this charge should resign his commissiion immediately and get a job on Wall Street.
The Bay of Pigs was worse than anyone thinks. The carriers were off the coast and the planes were ready to launch. Kennedy grounded them and the Admiral called the President in tears begging for “just one plane Mr. Pesident, just one plane”. Castro and Guevera backed way off until they realized we abandoned those poor bastards. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.