By Pastor Herrera Macurán
Horizonte Cubano News
For more than six decades, Cuba has been trapped in a political confrontation that has produced plenty of slogans but very few durable solutions.
Today, as Cuba faces one of the most serious economic and social crises in its modern history, some voices outside the island are once again presenting military intervention as the answer.
It is easy to call for an invasion from a microphone, a television studio, a political rally, or the safety of another country.
It is much harder to explain what happens the morning after the first bomb falls.
An invasion is not a Cuba policy.
It is the beginning of a war.
Who Would Pay the Price?
Any serious discussion about military intervention must begin with the people who would actually live through it.
Cuban families would be caught between military forces. Civilian infrastructure could be damaged. Electricity, transportation, communications, hospitals, ports, food distribution, and water systems could be disrupted precisely when the population is already suffering from shortages.
And the consequences would not remain inside Cuba.
A major conflict only 90 miles from Florida could generate another migration emergency in the Caribbean, placing enormous pressure on the United States, neighboring countries, and regional governments.
Those demanding intervention should therefore answer a simple question:
Who pays the human price?
The answer will not primarily be politicians in Washington or activists in Miami.
It will be ordinary Cubans.
Cuba Needs Change — But Cubans Need a Future
Recognizing the dangers of military intervention does not require defending the Cuban government.
Cuba needs profound economic reforms. It needs political reforms. It needs institutions capable of responding to the aspirations of younger generations and an economy that allows citizens to build prosperous lives without depending permanently on the state, remittances, or emigration.
The Cuban government also has responsibilities it cannot indefinitely avoid.
But Washington has responsibilities as well.
For decades, American policy toward Cuba has moved repeatedly between sanctions, isolation, migration restrictions, diplomatic confrontation, and expectations that economic pressure would eventually produce political transformation.
The results deserve serious examination.
After more than sixty years, the fundamental political conflict remains unresolved, while millions of Cubans have left the island.
Repeating policies simply because they are familiar is not strategy.
The United States Should Defend Its Interests
The United States has legitimate national-security interests in Cuba and the Caribbean.
Washington should be concerned about migration, narcotics trafficking, foreign military or intelligence activity, regional instability, human rights, economic security, and the presence of strategic competitors close to American territory.
But protecting those interests does not automatically require invading Cuba.
A serious Cuba policy should combine diplomacy, economic engagement where legally possible, pressure against individuals and institutions responsible for abuses, support for legitimate private economic activity, migration agreements that are enforceable and humane, and direct communication between the two governments when American interests require it.
Foreign policy should be judged by results, not by applause lines.
Listen to Cubans — Including Those Who Live in Cuba
There is another uncomfortable reality in the Cuba debate.
Too often, people outside the island speak on behalf of eleven million people without actually asking them what they want.
Cubans living on the island are not a political abstraction.
They are workers, retirees, entrepreneurs, farmers, students, professionals, mothers and fathers trying to survive an extraordinarily difficult economic environment.
Their opinions will not all be identical.
Some want political transformation. Some prioritize economic stability. Some want greater private enterprise. Others simply want electricity, food, transportation, medicine, decent salaries, and the possibility of keeping their families together.
A responsible American policy should be capable of listening to those voices without demanding ideological loyalty as the price of being heard.
There Must Be Another Choice
For too long, the Cuba debate has been presented as though only two alternatives exist:
Accept the status quo or invade the island.
That is a false choice.
There is enormous political territory between unconditional acceptance and military intervention.
Diplomacy exists.
Negotiation exists.
Economic engagement exists.
Targeted pressure exists.
Humanitarian cooperation exists.
Migration agreements exist.
Private-sector development exists.
And, above all, patient political strategy exists.
The objective should not be to win another ideological argument about Cuba.
The objective should be to create conditions under which Cuban families can envision a future on their own island while the United States protects its legitimate interests and encourages peaceful economic and political evolution.
Before Anyone Calls for War
Those advocating military intervention should be required to answer several questions.
How many Cuban civilian casualties would be acceptable?
How many American casualties?
Who would govern Cuba afterward?
Who would rebuild the country’s infrastructure?
How would Washington prevent a massive migration crisis?
How long would American forces remain?
How much would reconstruction cost American taxpayers?
And what happens if the Cuban people themselves reject the political arrangements designed for them from abroad?
These are not arguments for preserving the status quo.
They are arguments for seriousness.
Cuba unquestionably needs change.
But destroying a country in order to change it would be one of the most dangerous mistakes the United States could make in the Caribbean.
Cuba needs a future.
The United States needs a strategy.
And an invasion is not a strategy.
Pastor Herrera Macurán is the founder of Horizonte Cubano News. The views expressed in this article are those of the author.