American invasion of Cuba during the 1990s or 2000s
- Thread starter walmart
- Start date
Best I can think of is that Castro has an earlier case of intestinal bleeding that is fatal, the US decides to wait things out and watch what happens, but rather than liberalising the hardline communists are able to keep power within the Cuban government. After a couple of years and seeing that Cuba is unlikely to reform, combined with their guarantor Russia being indisposed, the US decides that regime change is the way to go.
A president gets the idea that, now that the USSR is dead, they want to get communism out of the western hemisphere as well?
Maybe the Castro government falls hard, now the Soviets aren't around to buy up all their sugar? There is a civil war, and the US gets involved, siding with anti-communist forces?
Don't know too much about this period, but here's me spitballing:
There's a slightly earlier, much worse global recession (for whatever reason) in, say, 1999. The result is a more radical Pink Tide in Latin America, with several countries (Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, etc.) seeing widespread political violence. Cuba, fairly or otherwise, is implicated in the ascendancy of the left in said nations, worsening relations with the US again. Throw in some American expats/tourists being killed or US property being destroyed by Castro-backed left forces somewhere to make things worse and provide an emotional 'punch' to geopolitical considerations. With the Cold War over and the War on Terror probably butterflied, the US becomes concerned over spreading Latin American Socialism. Maybe Bolivia's tensions escalate into civil war, the US sends Marines or Rangers or something to bolster the rightist faction or protect US citizens or something, and then said troops get themselves captured and/or killed by some Cuban special forces there to train/equip the other side.
I could see that possibly providing a causus belli if everyone's already in a belligerent mood. "We cannot stand by and allow a tyrant like Fidel Castro to interfere at will in the affairs of his neighbors, the survival of democracy in Latin America depends on his removal, blah blah blah"
I imagine the conventional Cuban forces would fold pretty quick a la Saddam. Insurgency is another matter--Lord knows the Cubans have got lots of experience with that.
Actually I suppose that might make an interesting ATL version of Iraq.
There's a slightly earlier, much worse global recession (for whatever reason) in, say, 1999. The result is a more radical Pink Tide in Latin America, with several countries (Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, etc.) seeing widespread political violence. Cuba, fairly or otherwise, is implicated in the ascendancy of the left in said nations, worsening relations with the US again. Throw in some American expats/tourists being killed or US property being destroyed by Castro-backed left forces somewhere to make things worse and provide an emotional 'punch' to geopolitical considerations. With the Cold War over and the War on Terror probably butterflied, the US becomes concerned over spreading Latin American Socialism. Maybe Bolivia's tensions escalate into civil war, the US sends Marines or Rangers or something to bolster the rightist faction or protect US citizens or something, and then said troops get themselves captured and/or killed by some Cuban special forces there to train/equip the other side.
I could see that possibly providing a causus belli if everyone's already in a belligerent mood. "We cannot stand by and allow a tyrant like Fidel Castro to interfere at will in the affairs of his neighbors, the survival of democracy in Latin America depends on his removal, blah blah blah"
I imagine the conventional Cuban forces would fold pretty quick a la Saddam. Insurgency is another matter--Lord knows the Cubans have got lots of experience with that.
Actually I suppose that might make an interesting ATL version of Iraq.
Last edited:
They feel like it. Well it would be valid for them. Slightly more seriously Cuba was apparently involved in narcotics trafficking into the US in the 1980s and '90s, that, say combined with Castro shuffling off the mortal coil, could be enough to hang a justification on.
@ OP
This would make the global anti-Americanism of the George W. Bush years look like a yankee-doodle love-in. There is, quite possibly, no other country in the world where even a double-digit minority of the citizens cares about "liberating" Cuba from Communism. You're not gonna see Tony Blair or John Howard going along with this one. Even right-wing allies of the US would probably try to avoid being seen as publically supportive.
This would make the global anti-Americanism of the George W. Bush years look like a yankee-doodle love-in. There is, quite possibly, no other country in the world where even a double-digit minority of the citizens cares about "liberating" Cuba from Communism. You're not gonna see Tony Blair or John Howard going along with this one. Even right-wing allies of the US would probably try to avoid being seen as publically supportive.
Last edited:
After the Cuban Missile Crisis, the US signed a treaty with the fUSSR agreeing not to invade Cuba. As far as I am aware, that treaty still hold sway, which is why the US has not invaded Cuba. Cuba is a much maligned and much misunderstood state in the Caribbean. Ever since Fidel Castro won the Cuban Civil War, he was declared by Washington to be a "Communist" and to be exporting revolution throughout the region. Washington didn't like him, rather obviously, with his (initially) mild leftist agenda. Vice-President Nixon declared upon after meeting the newly victorious Castro when he visited Washington that, "He was the closest thing to a Communist that I've ever met." In reality he wasn't and he only became a Communist to curry favour with the fUSSR and the PRC. Indeed, until 1968, Castro became too much of a Communist even for Moscow, which was forced to rein him in.
The US is more likely to continue engaging in more covert methods of regime change, like unsuccessful Castro assassination attempts or trying to fund and arm anticommunist rebels. Though perhaps Washington might take earlier US invasions of Panama and Grenada as a precedent for getting involved more openly in Cuba?
There is the invasion question which the USA seems incapable of asking itself. What will you do with the country once you have successfully invaded it? If you have democratic elections what happens if the original party wins them? Democracy is a b*gger when people don't vote the way you want them to.......
McPherson
Banned
This fits the probable OTL geopolitical situation very well. Plus there is the American internal political situation to consider. No Al Qaeda 9-11 means a more leftist America. I know that may sound crazy, but the RTL at the time shows this political situation (by American standards, mind you, we are not Europeans, so it would still be center-right by the rest of the global political scene.) is not as American center-right as it is generally assumed. The country was split 50/50 if we use the recorded voting metrics in elections as was measured at the time. So there is an existent political opposition to such lunacy. Justifiably so, since we have a long known history of USG shenanigans on this subject.
Politically the invasion is ASB, but militarily if the case could be made. (Example: Fidel is as mad as ever and he FINALLY does something he really wanted to do, which was mount some kind of "deniable" operation to damage the country which had for a century kicked his Cuba around like a soccer ball and incidentally whose government had tried to assassinate HIM, so that man was not wrong, when he thought people were out to get him.. Say he orders an operation that the Cuban intelligence service somehow completely bungles on American soil, such as introduce anthrax into Florida, with the result being thousands of Americans die in a substitute 9-11 incident.)
Cuba is an island, and it is not a very difficult island terrain wise by land or sea or AIR to occupy and CONTROL.
As the maps above show, it can be cut off and chopped up. The naval and air geography is very easy to exploit. The Gorilla is right next door and he can squeeze tightly.
This is the international law reason that the American opposition party would dig in its heels and denounce such an ASB action. Properly so, unless there was a REAL good (probably ASB) reason to contemplate such geo-political lunacy.
It would take a Black Tom or worse to make the OP even a consideration. More likely sanctions and chest puffery would be in play.
Last edited:
They are until someone decides otherwise. They signal the intentions of the signers. American had had it's fingers burnt at the Bay of Pigs and in the Missile Crisis. Washington obviously decided to de-escalate the problem rather than intensify it.
As far as I am aware, there was a formal written treaty, between Moscow and Washington.
Depends on how many of those 1 million plus reservists actually turn out and fight. Aside from how popular the government might or might not have been with its citizens if the US has gone all in on the invasion I could see the vast majority of them deciding to keep their heads down and stay out of things.
McPherson
Banned
There was no treaty. There was an exchange of letters and memorandums. The gist was that the United States would stay its intent to invade so long as the Soviet Union
withdrew offensive weapons from Cuba and the US could verify same. If the Russians BROKE their word, then Cuba was toast.
As much as I love Cuba and the Cuban people, I don't see how an invasion could have happened in the post-Cold War environment.
A better possibility could be a longer Special Period caused by the lack of Venezuelan financial support, which in 2008-2009 becames a full humanitarian crisis that forces a coup d' état and the removal from power of the Castro family. Then the military reaches an agreement with the United States, and Cuba starts a transition to democracy in the 2010s.