WI: US troops deployed in Cuba in 50s to fight rebels?

In other words, Batista convinces the USA to send soldiers to assist the Cuban government in fighting Castro's 26th of July Movement.

I'd imagine it'd be no big deal at first (assuming it's not a gigantic invasion force), but obviously the long term effects are what's important: how would Cuban society react? Would the rebels remain a problem, necessitating an ever larger American troop presence, etc.?

Ismailov said:

In other words, Batista convinces the USA to send soldiers to assist the Cuban government in fighting Castro's 26th of July Movement.

I'd imagine it'd be no big deal at first (assuming it's not a gigantic invasion force), but obviously the long term effects are what's important: how would Cuban society react? Would the rebels remain a problem, necessitating an ever larger American troop presence, etc.?

Click to expand...

Cuba is an island and the US had the strongest navy in the world. It can resupply itself and Batista's forces while Castro gets only the supplies he can scavenge off of dead US or Cuban regulars. Guerilla warfare rarely works without support from an outside power. Vietnam was 5,000 miles away and had superpower support. Cuba is about 90 miles away and would have no superpower support if the US blockaded the island, which it would.

It would mean no Cuban Missile Crisis, for starters.

Wonder if the US would kick Batista out?

Doo-wop versions of 'Fortunate Son' and 'All Along the Watchtower' would be an interesting listen.

The problem is that nobody, not even the US, really liked Batista, except for people who had his last name and lived in his house. To risk American lives to save a dictator everyone hated from rebels the US did not consider to be a threat would have been unthinkable. You can't have the US semi-voluntarily remove Batista from power and replace him with Jeneral 697-A, who offers up some bread and circuses to the people, because this would probably cause the rebels to lose a lot of support anyway. So the trick would be to (a) have the rebels remain a credible threat to the Cuban state, (b) have Batista be slightly dearer to the US or have a replacement that's not as bad, but still deeply unpopular in Cuba, and (c) have the US well and truly believe that M-26-7 is a Soviet-aligned Communist threat, which would be a significant overthrow of the conventional wisdom of the time.

Just thinking:
The USA receives Batista's request. Since they don't want him in power (none does), instead of ignoring it, they actually decide to support Castro.
Castro gets in touch with American advisors, diplomats, arms dealers, etc, and he and lower-midrange levels of the American administration get into some sort of understanding.
Once in power, Castro passes land reform, among other left leaning legislation. American companies lobby against Castro with the American government, but Castro's contacts within the American government prevent a breakup.
Castro then makes the choice to keep the most left wing elements of the Cuban Revolution (Say Ché Guevara or Cienfuegos) from gaining power within the government. Cuba never goes fully communist, and Cuba and the USA keep a stable, good relationship.

@juanml82: That probably would have been the better option overall, and at least that keeps Fidel on his toes towards restoring the 1940 Constitution which was one of his main aims. However, at some point Cuba would have to wean itself off of sugar, so maybe an Operation Bootstrap-type operation would also come into play here, which would certainly come in handy with improved education and health care systems.