Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume X, Cuba, January 1961–September 1962

176. Memorandum for the Record⁰

Washington, April 26, 1961.

[Here follows a brief discussion of the problems posed by the Communist insurgency in Indochina.]

Question: How did the President get his intelligence on this operation.¹

Answer: He received a daily intelligence bulletin which included information on Cuba and intelligence was discussed at all the task force meetings. However, he never received any special intelligence briefings, as such, on this problem.

At this point it was decided that it would be helpful to run through the intelligence information contained in the 11 March paper² on the proposed operation against Cuba. This intelligence in essence indicated that despite growing discontent within Cuba time was against us. Castro was increasing his police state controls and his military effectiveness to the extent that unless some outside support, some shock action, was taken within six months, it would probably be militarily infeasible to overthrow Castro with a force composed of Cuban exiles.

Statement: It should be made very clear that the idea that time was running out weighed very heavily in the decision making.

Question: You mentioned the requirement for shock and yet the invasion plan that was finally implemented was purposely limited.

Answer: But the purpose of this, sir, was not to limit the shock on the Cubans, but rather to limit the shock on the rest of the world, making it appear that the invasion was something that the Cubans could do by themselves.

At this point in the meeting the intelligence available to the planners and the tactical commander was discussed. With regard to Castroʼs air force it was stated that the location of all Castro aircraft was known, even to the extent of knowing which aircraft were operational and which were not. They were surprised, however, by the capabilities of the pilots which Castrocommitted against the invasion force. In retrospect it was believed that these aircraft were probably flown by 50 Cuban pilots that had been trained in Czechoslovakia and returned to Cuba a few days before the invasion.

With regard to Castroʼs navy, it was believed that the capability of this force was low and that they would not be inclined to fight. This estimate held good, for only three small vessels were committed, two of which were sunk, while their larger naval units remained at their stations.

The weakest tactical intelligence was on the location of the ground troops. A reason for this was because the militia was not well organized in the sense that no two units were organized exactly the same nor with the same number of personnel. Intelligence was aware, however, of the location of Castroʼs armored units and his military headquarters. In this connection it had been pointed out that Castro had a force of 6,000 troops armed with tanks and artillery which could arrive at the beachhead within 10 hours. Itʼs believed the tanks used against the invaders were part of this force. If the troops fighting the invasion force were militia, then the estimate of the militiaʼs willingness to fight was incorrect. However, if this force was not militia, but rather the force mentioned above spearheaded by foreigners, then the estimates were not wrong.

The possibility that this force was spearheaded by Czechoslovakians was indicated by the report that one of the tanks knocked out had three persons aboard that were not Cuban. Further, another report said that some of the command chatter was in a foreign tongue. With regard to the absence of uprising throughout Cuba during the period of the invasions, it should be pointed out that reports from agents of the numbers of people that were likely to support the invasion had been reduced from 20-30,000 down to 2,500 to 3,000 active guerrillas. It was also stated in the intelligence estimates that there would not be any major uprisings until the Cubans could see visible evidence of the invasion force. Consequently, no major uprisings were anticipated until the invasion force had been able to take towns in the Matanzas Province.

Statement: You are now describing much more than a successful lodgment.

Response: Yes, but we felt that the force had to move out to make the lodgment visible.

Question: Inasmuch as this was a key element in the JCS decision, was it ever made clear to them this degree of success was necessary in the ultimate success of the operation.

Answer: I believe the impression was given that the lodgment should last for at least a week. This would have been a significant factor in influencing potential dissidents.

Statement: It was also hoped that the landings in the Oriente and uprisings in the Pinar del Rio would help create the catalyst necessary to trigger uprisings throughout Cuba.

Statement: One of the factors that made us think that the resistance potential within Cuba was substantial was the fact that we had a backlog of 19 requests from our agents for supplies, arms and ammunition for 8,000 people. These people were crying for supplies. Had we been able to provide this equipment these people would have had something to rise with.

At this point General Taylor requested a brief tabulation of how many reports had been received indicating that people were ready to rise against Castro, and also indicating the number of people that were ready to rise.

Statement: Special Intelligence also gave indication of government concern with dissident activities. These evidences were further substantiated by debriefings of people coming out of Cuba.

Question: At any time did you give an estimate of the resistance potential within Cuba.

Answer: I donʼt believe any numerical estimate was given.

Question: You did expect enough uprisings throughout the country, however, to start the army of liberation.

Answer: Yes.

Question: At no point, however, was any formal estimate of this possibility given.

Answer: I have a paper of 3 March³ in which it was estimated that between 2,500 and 3,000 were actively engaged against Castro, that 20,000 were potential supporters of the invasion force, and that 25% of the population was opposed to the Castro regime.

Question: Did you ever actually define the degree of success necessary to provoke adequate uprising to permit ultimate success.

Answer: To establish a beachhead and hold it for some time, approximately a week, together with activities by our air units carrying out their scheduled missions.

Question: Do you believe that the impression prevailed that there would be spontaneous uprisings.

Answer: I myself didnʼt believe there would be major uprisings within 24 to 48 hours.

Question: Do you recall what the JCS said on this issue.

Answer: They said the invasion force had a reasonable chance of establishing a lodgment and that ultimate success would depend on uprisings within Cuba.

At this point the JCS Evaluation of the alternate objective area proposals was read.⁴ Following this the question was raised as to whether JCS had ever acted on the Zapata Plan. The answer was given that the JCS had been advised of the change by General Gray.

Question: Where in the JCS Evaluation of the Zapata Plan does it say that there will be air strikes.

Answer: It doesnʼt.

Statement: At this stage of the game there was no plan—only concepts. There was no time to develop a plan as such.

Statement: At this point General Gray stated that as he remembered, and as his notes indicate, the Joint Chiefs understood that the Zapata Plan included only D-Day strikes and no pre-D-Day strikes.

Question: How much time did the JCS give to this problem.

Answer: About one hour. It should be pointed out, however, that at the time the JCS considered the alternatives, the Trinidad Plan had not been ruled out and so in the evaluation of the alternatives it was stated that Zapata was the best of alternatives, however, the Trinidad Plan still had the best hope of success.

Question: When were the JCS or their representatives first briefed on the original plan.

Answer: On 3 February.

Question: Was a careful study of this plan made at this time.

Answer: Yes

Question: The basic Trinidad Plan did not change prior to March 11 when alternative proposals had been requested.

Answer: This is essentially correct.

Question: Was Mr. Rusk briefed on the Cuba Plan prior to 10 March.

Answer: I believe he was briefed on some elements of the plan, but not on the military details.

Statement: State Department representatives, however, had continued to oppose the plan.

Statement: In attempting to overcome State Department objections, CIA prior to March 11 had agreed to give up the pre-D-Day air strikes.

Statement: The 11 March meeting resulted in two new parameters for the operation. First, a less spectacular landing and, second, possession of an airfield to which the B-26 aircraft could be attributed.

Statement: These decisions led to the hurried search for alternative operational concepts that would meet the new parameters.

Statement: JCS representatives were briefed on these concepts on the 14th of March.

Question: What factors led to the decision to split the force in the Zapata Plan.

Answer: Further investigation had revealed that the airfield at Red Beach was inadequate for our purposes. It also revealed there was an airfield south of Red Beach that was adequate to our needs. Consequently the decision to split the force was made in order to protect the airfield and to protect the defiles into the landing area. Furthermore, we were concerned about the fact that the ships that went to Red Beach had an 18-mile run and might not get out.

Statement: At the 15 March meeting the President indicated that he did not like the dawn landings and directed that this aspect be reconsidered. On the 16th of March the President approved the revised Zapata Plan for progressive implementation, but he retained the ability to cancel.

Question: At the 16 March meeting was the JCS preference for the original Trinidad Plan over the Zapata Plan presented.

Answer: I donʼt think so.

Question: Do you think it was in the Presidentʼs mind that these men could disappear as a guerrilla force if necessary.

Answer: Yes.

Statement: The Zapata area has traditionally been an area for guerrilla operations.

Response: When we went to the State Department we discussed the seriousness of calling off the air strikes. However, I did not say that we would cancel the operation because at this time we did not have the ability to call it off.

Statement: I canʼt believe that if the President had understood how important the air strikes were that he would have called them off.

Response: All members of the Group concurred.

Statement: If the Presidentʼs decision had been made earlier I would have flown out to Glen Ora and discussed the matter with him. However, when the decision was finally made it was too late to do this.

At this point Mr. Bissell gave some of his personal views as to some of the wrong judgments made. First, the underestimation of Castroʼs capability in certain specific respects, mainly his organization ability, speed of movement and will to fight. We also underestimated his air capability. Example, contrary to our opinion, the T-33s were armed and flown with skill, loyalty and determination. In retrospect, some of the reasons for this underestimation may have been the use by Castro of bloc technicians and, if this is so, it is believed that one of their greatest contributions may have been in the staff work. Our second major mistake was our failure to develop an adequate air capability. We should have had at least 50% more B-26 pilots. We should have been able to foresee the need for these pilots. We should have allowed for some attrition, and the two aircraft cover over the beach was understated. Another major mistake was the restriction on the employment of our air capability between D-2 and D-Day. As to the administrative and organizational shortcomings, it is believed that these contributed much to the final failure. Another error was involved in the inevitable conflict between the requirements for military effectiveness and those of disclaimability. In the late stages of this operation I believe unnecessary concessions were made in favor of disclaimability which were unrealistic. Inasmuch as so much of the operation was already common knowledge, our chances of success would have been much greater if we had been allowed to use U.S. soldiers of fortune and to make air strikes from U.S. bases. In any future operations a cold-blooded appraisal should be made of the degree to which it is necessary to make concessions in favor of disclaimability as opposed to military effectiveness.

At this point Mr. Dulles interjected that he was in basic agreement, but he would like to add two additional items. First, he felt that he should have asked the Navy their opinion of what was necessary to assure that the men would get safely ashore with their material during a night landing on an unfamiliar coast. This opinion should have been rendered without concern for political considerations. Another factor was that the President was faced with hurried and difficult decisions. We had made it very clear to him that to call off the operation would have resulted in a very unpleasant situation.

Statement: The odds against any operation of this kind are almost insurmountable until the Government faces up to making sharp decisions promptly.

Question: Did the Government give the CIA an almost impossible job?

Answer: I donʼt believe so. I think we were closer to success than you realize.

Statement: Despite the disaster the U.S. must retain the capability for unofficial military actions. Whenever the U.S. engages in this sort of operation we will again be faced with the same dilemma of disclaima-bility versus military effectiveness. In this connection, I think we should consider changing our overt foreign policy posture for we have a tendency to make our operations extremely difficult by oversanctimonious announcements.

Statement: In the future we must carry out any operations of this type in such manner that the President, who has shown the highest courage, will not have to assume the responsibility.

0. Source: Kennedy Library, National Security Files, Countries Series, Cuba, Subjects, Taylor Report. Secret; Eyes Only; Ultrasensitive. The drafter is not listed, but it was probably Colonel Tarwater. The meeting was the fourth in the series conducted by the Cuba Study Group and took place at the Pentagon for a brief discussion of Indochina and subsequently at the Central Intelligence Agency for the discussion of Cuba. The participants in the meeting, in addition to Taylor, Kennedy, Dulles, and Burke, were Cabell, Gray, Bissell, Mitchell, Tarwater, and General McGarr for the discussion of Indochina.
1. Although not identified in the source text, Bissell probably answered most of the questions relating to intelligence and the CIAʼs role, while Gray probably provided the information relating to the briefing of the JCS.
2. Document 58.
3. Not found.
4. Reference is to JCSM-166-61, March 15, Document 62.