GREAT DEEDS REQUIRE GREAT MEN
Today (Nov. 22, 2013) marks the 50 year anniversary of President Kennedy’s assassination (Nov. 22, 1963). The question of whether it was solely the act of a lone gunman or if there was a conspiracy behind the shooting: is not resolved. I believe that there were powers and forces behind the assassination that were either directly or indirectly involved.
There has also been much debate over the years concerning JFK’s legacy: how great of a president was he? This can depend on the standards that are assigned to his or any other presidency. He wasn’t able to finish what he started because of his untimely end. One can only speculate on what would have taken place had he been able to fulfill his presidency. And, if re-elected it would have changed the course of future administrations: Johnson may never have been a president.
If he was an ineffectual president as some have surmised: why the need to kill him? There is normally a great reason for the killing of a leader and mostly it is both a combination of revenge for some deed and to put an end to it; to change the course of history. If revenge, what for? I believe that the revenge killing of President Kennedy was because he stood up to the great leader of the Soviet Union, Premier Nikita Khrushchev. Kennedy effectively shamed this proud leader by forcing him to back-down during their nuclear stand-off.
Kennedy had defeated Khrushchev in their stand-off with Cuba as the battleground. Not everyone saw it this way, but it would have seen this way by those in power in the Soviet Union. This victory by Kennedy symbolically ended Soviet expansion and even though the Cold War would continue in other theatres of engagement: the Communist push had hit a wall and forced to take a tactical retreat. This would eventually lead to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Soviet Union. I believe that this pivotal game changer is the reason that President Kennedy was killed.
For Khrushchev, a decision to take out his rival would be to save face so as to remain in power. On a personal level, it would be to defeat an enemy that forced the great leader of the Soviet empire to back down. In effect, the Soviet king took out the American king to demonstrate his power and to retaliate for a loss: checkmate!
In the end, this would be the only victory for Khrushchev’s war machine as the battle was lost. Later, Presidents Reagan and Bush would be credited for the fall of the Soviet Union and rightly so. But it was the stand-off between Kennedy and Khrushchev that would set this in motion. Kennedy lost his life for this; he gave his life for his country. This brings to mind his famous quote: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”
The Cuban Missile Crisis (13 days in October, 1962) has been debated with no general agreement in place. On the ground, it was about nuclear missiles in Cuba. To the leaders of the two superpowers in the world, it was a battle of wills. The threat of all-out nuclear war was evident. I do not believe that either side truly wanted a nuclear war and this was the reason for the stand-down by Khrushchev. But to dismiss this great event in history as a motivation for assassination is a mistake. I believe that President Kennedy was murdered because of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
A brief history of this time begins with the failed invasion of Cuba on April 17, 1961 at the Bay of Pigs. This took place because the U.S. distrusted Fidel Castro who came to power in an armed revolt in 1959. Castro had established a communist government with strong ties to Khrushchev. The CIA had developed the plan under President Eisenhower and President Kennedy authorized it. Castro was made aware of the impending attack and was prepared. The invasion was a disaster and had a lasting effect on the Kennedy administration. This led to a plan (Operation Mongoose) to sabotage and destabilize the Cuban government and economy. It included the possibility of assassinating Castro.
The Cuban Missile Crisis began with the discovery of nuclear missile sites being built by the Soviet Union on Cuba. Kennedy decided to place a naval blockade around Cuba to prevent the Soviets from bringing in more military supplies. He demanded the removal of the missiles already there and the destruction of the sites. A deal was made in which the Soviets would dismantle the weapon sites in exchange for a pledge from the U.S. not to invade Cuba. In a secret deal, the U.S. agreed to remove its nuclear missiles from Turkey (A threat to the Soviet Union).
The backdrop to this was Communism’s push into nations of Asia, Africa and the Americas. Khrushchev believed that the West would fall to Communism. Battles were being fought and a race was on to show superiority. The United States was the superpower of the West and the Soviet Union of the East. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a showdown between the two leaders of the superpowers vying for supremacy in world leadership. This can be likened to a chess match between the two great leaders of their nations: the winner will rule the world, the loser will not. World domination is at stake and so is the reputation of the leaders and of the people that they head up.
I see President Kennedy in a spiritual light as he makes the decision to stand-up to Khrushchev and the mighty Soviet machine. This is a choice that only he can make with the weight of responsibility on his shoulders alone. He has listened to all of his advisors and weighed the cost. His presidency has come down to this moment in time. The threat of nuclear war is real: the Soviets seek to put nuclear missiles within striking range of American cities. It will take courage to stand-up to Soviet aggression and try to halt the advance of Communism. But more immediate: to end this threat without triggering a war, a possible nuclear war.
This battle of wills between two leaders with nuclear arsenals held strong symbolism to the world. It was less about winning or losing but about diffusing a crisis that could lead to war. Khrushchev bowed to the pressure of Kennedy’s stand and backed down from this play. He probably did not see this as an American victory or a pivotal moment in the Cold War. But he did lose face internationally and at home he lost his office two years later. This loss of face to a very proud and powerful man would have been sufficient motivation to order a hit on the one who was at fault. At this time there is no evidence that a hit was formally ordered. But it is reasonable to believe that Khrushchev cursed his foe and voiced a desire to see him killed to save face: Kennedy would be a wartime casualty.
Likewise, when Kennedy created the committee to overthrow Fidel Castro (Operation Mongoose), he had to know that Castro could be assassinated. This tacit approval by Kennedy would have been seen by both Castro and Khrushchev as coming from him. Castro would later complain of the number of failed assassination attempts on his life. To counter this threat to Castro, Khrushchev sent military aid to Cuba. This then led to the Cuban Missile Crisis and Kennedy’s assassination. It is not a stretch to believe that Kennedy’s assassination has its beginnings in the plots against Castro’s life. Clearly, in this case the end justifies the means and the killing of a leader brings an endgame.
It is believed that the CIA devised the plots of Castro’s end in a variety of means. One involved the use of the Mafia. This makes sense given the Mob’s involvement in Cuba prior to Castro’s takeover. I do not believe that the CIA was directly involved in the assassination of Kennedy. But indirectly they played a role in removing the moral high ground from Kennedy’s administration. After he was killed, it is believed that the CIA did a cover-up. Not because they were guilty of involvement, but of guilt by association: that their actions or failed actions led to this end. It could be construed that the CIA’s operations set-up the conditions for the assassination of their leader.
The cover-up was to protect the image of the CIA and the government for national security reasons. The operation to somehow take out Castro and force a regime change had failed miserably. It led to the Cuban Missile Crisis and a real threat to national security. Cuba was the battleground for a showdown with the Soviets and both the overt operation at the Bay of Pigs and the covert operation had failed. Now the president was dead and any role in setting the stage needed to be covered-up. The lone victory belonged to Kennedy and for this he was killed. Like with President Lincoln before him: assassination in this manner is the bad play of a sore loser; a small victory for those that lost.
There are those that believe that President Johnson was a party to the cover-up in order to hide his involvement in the assassination. I do not believe that Johnson had any direct involvement in the murder. It is easy to believe that he had something to do with the eliminating of Kennedy as he gained the presidency, but having a possible motive does not assign guilt. Johnson, along with other people of power in Dallas and Texas were at odds with Kennedy’s politics and agendas as reported. But again, this does not implicate Johnson or political rivals as seeking to kill Kennedy for these differences. There were other political means to stop Kennedy and other means to get him out of the way.
Simply put, there have been many recorded instances of insider killings that were done using stealth. What took place in Dallas was a public execution by a military enemy. Using a sniper to take him out demonstrates a military motive. It also indicates that it was not done by an insider, but by a rival from afar. There is a symbolic distance between the shooter and the target. If there is an insider aspect it is that of the sniper Oswald being an American. But his Communist affiliations are well documented that make him un-American. A parallel can be drawn to 9/11 in the use of American planes to carry out the assassination of enemy combatants (as designated by Usama bin Laden). In the end it proved to be an enemy leader who authorized this killing of innocents.
Another parallel is that of triggering a war effort. The sneak attack on 9/11 led to the current war in Afghanistan. After Kennedy’s assassination, President Johnson gave the order for escalation of the Vietnam conflict. The forces at play that led to the Vietnam War are still being debated. But clearly it was a battle of the greater conflict of the Cold War, a justifiable war. I believe that Kennedy’s military-like killing was the motivation for the escalation of the war effort in Vietnam. It would later be called Johnson's war because of his dogged determination to wage it.
The American people would be divided over the necessity to fight this battle much like Kennedy himself. Even though Kennedy had a Vietnam policy and political agenda, it is believed that he was opposed to an escalation of hostilities (I believe that he would not have used more military force). This was in opposition to the military brass at the time but one can only speculate what Kennedy’s next move would have been. The complexities of the war have been much discussed, debated and written about, but in the end it was a battle to stop Communist expansion, much like what Kennedy did in Cuba.
The war effort would come to dominate the news and Kennedy’s assassination was no longer in the forefront. The Warren Commission did not solve the question of ultimate guilt, only assigning blame on a lone gunman. This led to many conspiracy theories, some credible but lacking proof and others lacking common sense. I believe the answer lies in what makes the most sense and what the signs point to. The escalation of the war itself points to a belief in Communist involvement by those in power. However, the threat of nuclear war would have prevented a public forum of this possibility. The fear and threat of a nuclear annihilation of the planet led to the demonstrations against the war and the use of conventional weapons in Vietnam. In many ways, the Vietnam War was a casualty of the nuclear age as was Kennedy.
There were other forces at play at the time that would discourage the assignment of blame. At home and in the theatre of engagement, drugs were coming to the forefront and influencing culture and behavior and creating a new battle: the War on Drugs. Musicians and entertainers became activists and put pressure on politicians to back away from war. This was not just about free love and flower power but about the very real fear of a nuclear confrontation between two superpowers. WWII came to an end when two nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan. The war in Vietnam could have ended as a nuclear cataclysm. The danger of raising hostilities is the danger of a nuclear solution to an unwinnable war. All that was needed was a spark like the assassination that triggered WWI, followed by accusations. It is not unreasonable to believe that there were those that argued to use a weapon of mass destruction.
It is possible that the policies that Kennedy enacted after the nuclear stand-off in Cuba prevented a nuclear war after his death. He knew at the time that the world was dangerously close to a nuclear confrontation as Khrushchev had his finger on the bomb and was threatening to push the button in order to win the stand-off. Maybe it was only a bluff, maybe pride and anger would demand a response. The stakes were high and this was on the shoulders of a man who knew war and its consequences. After the face-off, the reality of just how close the world came to a nuclear war dictated policy. It was now clear that any conflict could end with nuclear bombs being dropped. The images of this possibility would find its way into popular culture further enforcing the need for restraint.
Did President Kennedy know that he would give his life for this moment in time? Possibly only at the moment that he was struck by an assassins bullet. Even if he was given a warning of impending doom (by the psychic Jeane Dixon), he could not have stopped what was to take place. This isn’t about right or wrong decisions made or not made, this is about the march of destiny and once events are set in motion, they cannot be changed or altered. It is not about free will or the lack thereof, but about the river of destiny that we are all a part of. All of the choices and decisions made prior to this event by all concerned led to this fateful moment in time.
The next question is that of Fidel Castro and his brother, Raul’s possible role in the assassination. It is true that Castro hated Kennedy as the Kennedy Administration gave him a reason to hate. Does this mean that he gave the order to have Kennedy taken out? I do not believe that it came from Castro or any member of his regime: it came from his mentor Khrushchev. It is, however, believable that he set the hit in motion through his version of the CIA: the G2. Just as the Kennedy brothers used the CIA to take out Castro and his regime, Castro could have instructed the G2 to take out Kennedy and his administration. This would distance him from whatever took place and leave the blame on a patsy to carry it out. By hitting back, a powerful message is sent to the CIA and to any future president to back off or suffer a consequence.
There was reason than as now not to claim involvement in the successful assassination and change of administrations. It was enough that Castro had threatened that action could be taken without admitting to anything. Castro had motive to end the assassination attempts on his life, but he also had to be careful as the U.S. was threatening to invade Cuba and overthrow his government. If he had a direct hand in the assassination or it was believed that he did, it would be reason enough for an invasion. He could have given tacit agreement to turn the tables on Kennedy, but nothing that would implicate him. It was enough to warn and threaten through the press and nothing more. That Castro and his regime could have been a conduit for the “hit” is plausible, that it initiated from him is not.
Another aspect of the time was Kennedy’s economic embargo of Cuba. Economic sanctions were a weapon used in the Cold War, a way to make a nation and people suffer, just short of wounding with bullets. It is still used today and it is still in use against the people of Cuba. It is truly effective as the people will feel the pressure physically and they in turn will pressure the government for relief. But it is a failed policy when it creates a united resistance. I believe that it is still in place in Cuba because of the enmity that existed between Kennedy and Castro and Castro’s possible hand in the assassination. It is the spiritual hand of Kennedy against Castro and until his demise, it will probably stay intact. In this, rationality prevailed and nuclear war was averted: but not without sacrifice.
There is a message for today in this clash of beliefs: that nuclear war is still a possibility. The belief that nuclear weapons in and of themselves are a deterrent only applies when there are leaders who possess a rational mind. The argument is that they will not be used because the leaders and the people want to survive. This took place with the Cold War on both sides of the conflict resulting in conventional battles being waged. The threat today is of a rogue nation or radicals willing to sacrifice the people to achieve an objective. The ideology of suicide bombings as a viable weapon of war becomes more deadly with a nuclear arsenal. The choices and decisions made then prevented nuclear war. The threat of a nuclear Armageddon exists today as it did then, unfortunately for the world.
The need for secrecy existed then as now. If Castro had a hand in the assassination, he would not be compelled to reveal it today. Nor would the secretive Cuban Intelligence reveal any role in what took place; or of any plans that they had in place to deal with Kennedy. Another secretive group is the Mob. The involvement of organized crime is in question, then as well as now. There is little known as facts due to their experience at keeping their actions secret. What role, if any, could the Mob play in the hit on Kennedy? They had motive for playing a role as they hated the Kennedy brothers for their war on organized crime. They wanted to end the pressure on them as much as Castro did. But would they go so far as to order a hit on the President of the United States? The role that they most likely would have agreed to play is one of liaison, a go-between.
In this scenario, the Mob’s role would have been to watch over the loose-cannon that was Oswald. This would mean that they would be his contact, the ones to direct his actions and advise him on how to get away with the murder; thus insuring secrecy. The one known to have contact with Oswald was Jack Ruby, a man with connections to the Mob. He is a shadowy figure with much reported but little facts. What is a fact is that for some unknown reason, he felt compelled to murder Oswald: effectively silencing him. This all seems too convenient to be just a heat of the moment event, as Ruby claimed. Again, secrecy is maintained and any real connection to a conspiracy to kill the President is silenced.
In the role of overseeing Oswald, they could have had foot soldiers on the ground at the time of the assassination as lookouts. It is also possible that one of the Intelligence agencies would have had an operative on the ground as well: there could have been a Cuban or Soviet witness to Oswald’s handiwork. They would have been there to observe, not to engage. They booked it out of Dealey Plaza when it was confirmed that the assassin’s bullet had hit its mark. This gave rise to the belief that there was more than one shooter; that someone was hiding in the grassy knoll. But there was only one gunman at the scene: only one person crazy enough to do the deadly deed. It was the sniper Lee Harvey Oswald, high in his eagles nest above the ground and above everyone.
Most of what is known about Oswald was researched and recorded by the Warren Commission and various publications over the years. The rest is just speculation. It was Oswald who opened the door to the conspiracy theories when he declared that he was a patsy. This implies that there were others behind the assassination, that there were plotters. It also suggests that he was angry that he got caught and others would get away with it. He may have been angry with himself that he was captured, that he was too clever to be the fall guy. He probably knew that if he was captured, he could be killed to shut him up. Describing himself as a patsy also implies guilt, that he did it but there were others involved.
Did Oswald know who was ultimately responsible? I do not believe that he did; he only knew his contacts or those that he contacted. He lived in a shadowy world, making him an ideal person to take the fall if caught. He was thought of as crazy or unstable and often associated himself with extremists. It could easily be concluded that he had a lone, personal agenda; an extremist who acted alone on his own dark feelings. This would be attractive to anyone who plotted to kill Kennedy but did not want to claim credit. Even if Oswald was captured, he alone could take the fall.
What was Oswald’s motivation; his extremist beliefs? I believe that he was angry with America, the government in particular and the direction that Kennedy was taking the nation. He was egotistical to the point of believing that he was right and something needed to be done. He felt compelled to take action to change the course of history, to right a wrong and to see the establishment of his views. If he was president, he would have made the correct decisions and choices: unlike Kennedy. The Bay of Pigs would not have taken place for he would have embraced Castro and Communism. He would not have stood up to Khrushchev as Communism was the correct and best political system.
Did Oswald have a personal reason to murder the president of the United States? Yes, he sought to end Kennedy’s agenda and possibly open the door to his agenda and those that agreed with him. He was going to kill a leader that was leading America and the world in a direction that knew to be wrong. The world would one day come to know that he was right, that the wrong person was president and the wrong political system was ruling America. Communism is the one true perfect system to rule the planet and Kennedy stands against this purity. Kennedy represented the cancer that is taking over America and the head of this cancer needed to be severed from the body. He would go after the head, the one who is making the cancerous decisions. The body will follow the head and if new leadership took over, the body could be healed of this infectious cancer that is killing the body.
All will one day come to see how he saved America and the world from this infection. In his mind, it had to be done. Someone had to stand up to Kennedy and end his life so as to save the lives that mattered. Only he, Lee Harvey Oswald, had the means to do this. He was called to do this great and noble deed. To end the pain and suffering that was being inflicted on the world body. He will kill this corrupting man and his wrong headedness. He will end the pain, the torment, the suffering. It will all end when this man is dead. This pain and hurt will be turned into joy and praise when this brave deed is credited as saving the world.
He will have done this, Lee Harvey Oswald: he did it. History will record this deed as righting a wrong, setting the course for the righteous to rule, saving all of mankind. He has only to execute the deed, to escape and wait for the change to take place. To watch the stream of human history flow in the right direction, no longer subverted by those with false beliefs. In this he was crazy, but in his ability to do this act he was not.
I can see Oswald as he is shooting the President. There is a strong, dark force with him as he shoots with the thought going through his head that: they really want him (Kennedy) dead. It drives him to take careful aim and to make sure that he doesn’t miss and fail in his mission. It is not just Oswald’s will that this deed is done, but the combined will of those that want Kennedy to be killed; that want him dead. The dark force empowers Oswald and gives him the strength and courage to carry out his mission.
He is the lone assassin, but he is not alone in spirit and purpose. In doing this dark deed, he is the most powerful man in the world at this moment in time. The world will long remember what he did here: the man who killed the hated President Kennedy. The mission is done: he, Lee Harvey Oswald, has shot the President! Suddenly he feels weak and alone as fear sets in. He needs to escape, to run for his life. He is a fool, the one who will take the blame if he is caught. The dark force that was by his side has left him. His mind is racing: run, run as fast as he can without drawing any suspicion. Be clever! Speak to no one and just leave; leave as fast as possible for the President has been shot and those that care will be looking for the one that did this. He feels weak, alone and scared. Once in safety, he will reflect on this great deed and plan his escape. He will have to wait for the hero’s welcome from his friends and colleagues. But for now there is only flee, flee the scene.
I did it: I killed Kennedy! He says this to himself with conviction and bravado. He is smug in this knowledge and no matter what happens he can take great pride in this.
There were others involved in the assassination, but clearly Oswald was the one determined to pull the trigger. He sought to do this and was not put-up to it or deceived about it. He was not recruited nor was he trained directly to take this action. This was of his will and he volunteered for this mission. He had his own motivation to commit this act of vengeance on his hated enemy. Kennedy needed to die for the furthering of Communism and for Castro’s Cuba. This was an act of war: the assassination of an enemy; political decapitation of the one who was prosecuting the war.
Oswald was a patsy only in the sense that he would be the only one to be caught. The ones who ordered the hit to take place or wanted him dead would not be named. They too hated Kennedy enough to want this to take place. They would remain in the shadows: the light of justice would not shine on them. Oswald would be declared the lone criminal in this act; the only one to be in chains. The blame was laid at his feet as he pulled the trigger: he killed Kennedy. Others wanted to see him dead but they were not there. They were not the assassin in this play: the killing of a President.
In conclusion, President Kennedy was assassinated because of the Cuban Missile Crisis. This effectively changed the course of history: ending the threat of an all-out nuclear war. The Cold War would continue to be waged by other presidents and leaders of democracy, but the symbolic end began with the stand-off between Kennedy and Khrushchev. It was a showdown between the two superpowers in the world at that time. The fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the spread of Communism would follow this. I believe the desire for vengeance for this showdown came from President Kennedy’s rival and equal on the world stage Premier Khrushchev. Whether or not Khrushchev ordered the hit on Kennedy or simply indicated that he wanted this to take place, he would also have done nothing to stop it if he got wind of it by those loyal to him.
Khrushchev had motive and opportunity through Castro: who also had motive and something to gain with his enemy out of the picture. It could also be said that Castro ordered a hit to be made based on orders from above. Or, he merely indicated that he would give the green light to this if approached. I see this in much the same light as the assassination of President Lincoln: an act of revenge for his standing up to the Confederacy and prosecuting the war. Lincoln stood behind his beliefs and words and this translated into his deeds. Kennedy also stood by his beliefs and words and he, like Lincoln before him, paid the ultimate price. Lincoln served his country by preserving the Union. Kennedy served his country in its moment of need: a threat to the survival of the U.S. by a nuclear Armageddon.
Although Kennedy can’t be given credit for the fall of the Soviet Union, he can be credited for the pivotal stand-off that set it in eventual motion. What Kennedy started with his showdown to Soviet expansion was waged by his successors and soldiers on the battlefield. Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address could be applied here replacing the Civil War with the Cold War: many gave their lives in this battlefield and their sacrifice needs to be remembered. What should be remembered in regards to Kennedy’s time as president is that a good American stood-up for God and Country and thereby sacrificed his life.
Truly he was a flawed man, as we all are, but what defines a man and his legacy is how he conducts himself when duty calls and all is on the line. Courage under fire reflects character. Like King David, the flawed king of Israel, the focus can be on human shortcomings. Or the focus can be on the battlefields of life. King David should be remembered for both his courageous stand-off with Goliath and his shameful behavior with Bathsheba. Both reveal character and one should not overshadow the other. I believe that a man who outwardly lives a sin-less life but will not make a stand for God and/or country: should be seen in a lesser light than those that sacrifice for love of something greater than themselves. In my book, John Kennedy did just this: he lost his life in the service of God and Country. Like Abraham Lincoln, he stands head and shoulders above his peers.