‘El Exilio’s’ lament

MIAMI – The change in U.S. policy toward Cuba has rattled one sector of the Cuban American community–hard-line exiles who consider themselves the real or “historical exiles”–to their very core. Amid all the shouting and the collective tantrum of the diehards, you could easily miss the fact that their attitude is not shared by about half of Cubans who live in the United States, as surveys and much anecdotal evidence have shown.

After all, the fury and the passion and the circus atmosphere on display most prominently at the Versailles restaurant makes for great video. If you get all your news from local television, as many people do, and especially if you get your news from local Spanish-language television and radio, as many Cubans and other Latinos do, you would easily conclude that virtually all Cubans reject president Obama’s opening to Cuba.

That’s far from the reality, as I will get to later in this piece. Here I want to concentrate on some of the main themes that emerge from the reaction of the hard-core exile and the local print and electronic media that to a considerable extent caters to it.

A Miami Herald headline captures well the initial reaction of the hard-liners: “Miami, heart of Cuban exile community, stunned by U.S. policy shift.” It’s accurate to say that everyone, from those in favor of the new policy to those violently opposed, were surprised. The only problem with the headline, which reflects the tendency I referred to above of assuming that even in Miami Cubans are monolithic on this issue, is the choice of verb. Heck, some Cubans in support of the new policy even showed up at Versailles and defended their views. More to the point, those of us who have been working a long time for a change like this and bear scars for it, as well as those who have remained cautiously silent while thinking change was long overdue, were not stunned. Elated.

The historical hard-liners, however, were undoubtedly painfully stunned. They had become so used to virtually dictating the policy of the United States on Cuba, so accustomed to politicians coming to Miami to pander for their votes, so assured in knowing in advance, being consulted, and having a veto that Obama’s announcement had to hit them with the force of a very powerful stun gun.

The administration, as well as the many other players involved in the delicate negotiations lasting a year and a half, pulled off an astonishing feat. Almost as impressive, no one leaked anything. My hypothesis is this rare event happened because all the players, from the Pope to the government of Canada to Obama’s team, were so sick and tired of that senseless policy that they weren’t about to provide their adversaries any warning so they could torpedo everything.

Outrage at another U.S. “betrayal” was a second salient reaction. Betrayal by the United States is a recurrent theme in the traditional exile narrative, from the Bay of Pigs to the Elian Gonzalez saga to last week.

An outsider might be puzzled at this sentiment. For one, there never would have been an invasion of Cuba by exiles or the fiasco at the Bay of Pigs if the United States had not planned it, organized it, recruited the fighters, paid to support their families, trained them, provided all the military equipment including ships and airplanes, and talked or pressured countries in Central America to provide the bases. Where is the betrayal?

The crux of the betrayal narrative involves President Kennedy’s refusal to order a second bombing run to destroy what was left of the Cuban air force. The prevailing myth is that had such a bombing taken place it would have crippled Cuban defenses leading to an exile victory.

The reality is that nothing short of a full-scale U.S. invasion would have led to that. In Cuba, in April 1961, there were masses of people so committed to the revolution and in support of Fidel Castro that they were willing to fight and die.

Even if the bombers had been launched, evaded the Cuban fighters against which the U.S.-provided B-26s had no defense, and gotten every last Cuban plane — hardly a foregone conclusion given the result of the first bombing — the 2506 Brigade would not have been able to defeat the overwhelming number of troops fighting them.

More likely, exile control of the air would have meant the exiles would have killed and wounded many more Cubans on the island before being defeated. In turn, such a bloody outcome would have produced demands by the Cuban people to execute every last invader, a desire even Fidel Castro might not have been able to oppose.

A better case for betrayal could be made on other grounds. The CIA’s plan was a disaster. Many people in the U.S. government knew it would end in defeat and failed to stop the invasion. There were too many U.S. personnel involved who felt contempt for Cubans in general and the exiles in particular. For instance, the supposed civilian leadership of the invasion was held incommunicado for the duration. The reason: “Cubans can’t keep secrets.” The lack of any leaks from Havana just belied that. And then there is the fact that U.S. presidents, from Kennedy on, promised the exiles the moon and many believed them.

There are many other, less central themes in the hard-liners take on what just happened, but I barely have the space to make a detour back to reality. A poll by Bendixen and Amandi showed that “Cuban Americans nationwide are almost evenly divided over support for the embargo and for President Obama’s effort to normalize relations with Cuba.” Perhaps even more significant, there is a “vast generational divide” on the topic. Younger Cuban Americans are much more supportive of the changes than their elders. You don’t have to be an actuary to figure out what that means.

Already, Marco Rubio’s and his Republican cronies in Congress are readying their bunkers to try to pull victory from the jaws of defeat. They are running full speed against the tide of history.