Analysis of the Handling of “The Cuban Missile Crisis”
Crisis Management is a critical element for humans, given the number of daily conflicts. Some conflicts extend and get out of hand, risking the lives of many others and affecting the quality of life of others. The handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis has been a point of debate for many decades regarding the stalemate and the risks involved in the stalemate. Despite the debate, the handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis did not fully observe the requirements of the “National Incident Management System” NIMS and “Incident Command System” (ICS) when used as needed.
The Cuban Missile Crisis stemmed from the failed attempt by the US government to overthrow the then-president of Cuba, Fidel Castro (Cyr, 2022). In a planned operation, Russia offered to place its missiles in Cuba to help prevent future invasions into the country by the United States. Missile sites and launching [ads were constructed in strategic locations of Cuba, which were discovered by the US intelligence systems. This intelligence was shared with the House committed and the executive at the time, presenting the imminent threat of the Kremlin against the United States. In response to what was then considered a probation, the US contemplated bombing the site to destroy it, which would then be followed by an imminent invasion of Cuba on the one hand and the issuance of strong warnings against Russia for their crimes.
Kennedy, however, chose the intermediate option, which entailed ordering a quarantine over Cuba. The term quarantine was used to indicate that it was not yet a war but a response towards the protection of American soil. President Kennedy then sent out to Khrushchev to warn against delivering weapons to Cuba (Markwica, 2018). This was later responded to by Kruschev, who stated that the quarantine act by the US was considered “an act of aggression.” Later on, a message was sent from the Kremlin to the United States, requiring that both countries come to an agreement and avoid a thermonuclear catastrophe. However, this proposal did not seem to last, given the conditions of the Russians regarding the removal of nuclear missiles from Turkey and the shooting done in a US U-2 reconnaissance jet that was over Cuba. A second message was issued, but the US chose to ignore it. However, the teams agreed to have the Russians dismantle their nuclear armaments and, in response, have the United States not invade Cuba and have their quarantine of Cuba stopped. This event was handled impeccably and provided an excellent image for President Kennedy, given the fact that his choice helped avert a nuclear war that would threaten the lives of many. However, it was not smooth sailing, and the resolution was curbed with numerous misunderstandings that might have resulted in a tremendous blood bath. A hotline between the Whitehouse and Kremline was established to help prevent future misconceptions by allowing a direct line of communication between the Kremline and the Whitehouse.
While there was a lack of proper communication channels between the Whitehouse and the Kremlin, one of the best practices depicted during the crisis was a proper crisis management system. There was excellent cooperation between the different security agencies and the decision-making bodies that helped manage the crisis. Both sides of the decision-making bodies provided clear and outright direction to the then President, Kennedy, for a timely response, which allowed Kennedy to choose a position between both sides of the divide constituting a threat to Russia and a willingness to take the path of diplomacy. The second-best practice entailed the communication mechanisms. At the time, the communication was mediated through back-channel diplomacy. Although it was not as efficient as the later proposed “hotline,” it helped facilitate the exchange of messages between the Whitehouse and the Kremlin. No memorandum of understanding was found to have been used. Elements such as a purpose, communication mechanism, crisis management mechanism, and a commitment to de-escalation would have formulated an excellent MOU for the two countries. They would have helped resolve the conflict early and in time. The protocols that should have been implemented would include a proper and direct communication mechanism from the Whitehouse to the Kremlin. Secondly, a crisis management strategy for different crises. Thirdly, a commitment to de-escalation would have been impeccable in helping resolve the crisis.
Several training exercises should have been done and implemented before this crisis that would have enhanced the effectiveness of the response. Training on Crisis communication would have helped unveil the weaknesses and inefficiencies of their then-present communication systems. This was a later realization that led to the creation of a direct line of communication, “the hotline,” between the Kremlin and the Whitehouse. Secondly, they should have been trained in Crisis management processes, which would have enhanced their understanding of managing crises. Other training would have included crisis preparedness and resource management training during a crisis (Altman, 2021). While unclear, the NIMS and the ICS could have been utilized more effectively.
References
Altman, D. (2021). Red Lines: Enforcement, Declaration, and Ambiguity in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Journal of Strategic Studies, 46(5), 977–1009. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2021.2004397
Cyr, A. I. (2022). The Cuban Missile Crisis: Miscalculation, nuclear risks, and the human dimension. The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters, 52(3). https://doi.org/10.55540/0031-1723.3173
Markwica, R. (2018). The Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962. Oxford Scholarship Online. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198794349.003.0004
write