Our classical line of conspiracy thinking may be "If the CIA was involved it means they killed him"
But maybe we are growing in our understanding that the world is very complicated, and that any number of actors could have been indirectly involved, with any number of motives, and that the 'final straw' may have been something a bit more simple, but facilitate by the complex web of weirdness.
It's very easy to believe that the CIA etc. wanted Castro's head and an invasion, and that they were upset JFK wasn't supportive, and that they took a lot of clandestine steps towards 'something'. It's even easier to believe that there were even rogue actors within the agency that either went to for for ideological purposes or maybe even by accident.
... and then the dominoes fell in an ugly way.
It'd be nice if some day we got to the bottom of this.
> It's very easy to believe that the CIA etc. wanted Castro's head and an invasion, and that they were upset JFK wasn't supportive, and that they took a lot of clandestine steps towards 'something'.
This is the part I never understand about this approach though - The Bay of Pigs invasion happened on Kennedy’s watch, as did his push back on the Missile Crisis and the embargo so this narrative that he was soft on Cuba or something just isn’t the case.
IIRC the CIA and other parties were upset Kennedy didn’t commit further to the invasion. Kennedy’s refusal to provide direct air support after the CIA backed forces lost the initiative is usually cited as a major point of contention.
More conspiratorial theorists like to speculate that the CIA hoped to lure the US into a full-scale invasion of Cuba by escalating the Bay of Pigs invasion. By refusing to provide direct air support, Kennedy essentially stopped that from happening and doomed the invasion and ruined Allen Dulles’ reputation. I have no clue how valid these theories are, but it’s what’s usually cited.
This isn’t some speculative scenario about how JFK felt toward Dulles; JFK fired Dulles after the Bay of Pigs!
But the failed invasion of Cuba was not an isolated incident. JFK was undermined by an intelligence community he did not control many times, another famous one being the CIA-backed military coup against Charles de Gaul which also failed. But the French foreign minister to the US has record of a conversation with Kennedy where he says he is not fully in control of his country’s foreign policy.
Our classical line of conspiracy thinking may be "If the CIA was involved it means they killed him"
But maybe we are growing in our understanding that the world is very complicated, and that any number of actors could have been indirectly involved, with any number of motives, and that the 'final straw' may have been something a bit more simple, but facilitate by the complex web of weirdness.
It's very easy to believe that the CIA etc. wanted Castro's head and an invasion, and that they were upset JFK wasn't supportive, and that they took a lot of clandestine steps towards 'something'. It's even easier to believe that there were even rogue actors within the agency that either went to for for ideological purposes or maybe even by accident.
... and then the dominoes fell in an ugly way.
It'd be nice if some day we got to the bottom of this.