(Cliff's comments are in this color and blue; mine are in black and green).
If the plan had succeeded why would anyone care that Dulles was in Langley or not? In fact, why would anyone care whether it was viewed as a CIA plan?
Success has a thousand fathers, failure is an orphan. Winning is everything, and winners don't apologize.
Had the BOP been a success without direct US military intervention the controlled news story would have focused on the Cuban People's liberation from Castro due to the valiant effort of Cuban exiles (Brigade 2506) in conjunction with a general uprising from within Cuba. In this way, the US could plausibly deny responsibility. Victory, in this case, as well as in any other covert action, does not reside solely in the success of the military operation, but also in the War of Words: Propaganda.
Good point regarding US fingerprints, but what impact would the location of Allen Dulles have on the post-operation focus on "the Cuban People's liberation from Castro due to the valiant effort of Cuban exiles (Brigade 2506) in conjunction with a general uprising from within Cuba."
What hay was to be made out of Dulles being on his job at Langley, if the operation were a success?
One last try: Nobody would believe that Dulles would be out of the country to give a speech at a Puerto Rican University IF THIS WAS A CIA OPERATION!!!! So it is a preemptive strike against Soviet propaganda.
On the other side of the coin, freeing Cuba of Castro would not have been in our "best interest" if it could be plausibly attributed to the United States by the Soviet Union.
And having Allen Dulles at his desk in Virginia was going to ID the CIA and give the Soviet Union cause for blaming it all on the Americans?
No! That's not what I said. Having him ABSENT from his desk makes the claim that it was his operation appear ludicrous.
This rationale of yours is weak tea, with all due respect.
Your inability to grasp it is not credible.
The Soviets would have claimed it was another example of the danger that American Imperialism posed to the world. More importantly, it very likely would have triggered a retaliatory response from Khrushchev vis-à-vis Berlin and it would have been very difficult for the United States' "kettle" to call the Soviet Union's "pot" black.
Allen Dulles at his desk wouldn't have raised any such fuss.
Now, either you are dense or just trying to convince me of it.
Bingo! His absence was a significant factor in the plan's failure. It looks as if the powers-that-be wanted the BOP operation to go forward in a manner that would guarantee its failure.
And guarantee there would be a new DCI, DDCI, and DDP.
I agree that his absence contributed to the failure in that he was unreachable. However, as I said, I don't give him the benefit of the doubt by asserting he was merely seeking an alibi. Still, the "seeking an alibi" was certainly his "cover-story" when later confronted as to why he was incommunicado. It was a "cover story" that JFK did not accept. I also agree that the BOP was designed to fail, but I believe that Dulles was one of those desiring it to fail unless JFK could be compromised into using direct US military might.
Now we're getting down to a disagreement about why the mission was designed to fail.
Had JFK done that the "other" goal of this Intel Op would now be apparent. Primary goal: Remove Castro. Secondary goal: Compromise the Executive Branch. Third goal: Condition JFK to go along with the old boys network. Fourth goal: Move on to South East Asia (where Harriman wanted to focus in the first place). Your "leap" that asserts the BOP failure was designed to remove Dulles, et al, ignores the secondary and tertiary goals inherent to all covert intelligence ops.
Lovett was the heavy of the piece. He was the one with the motive, means and opportunity to sabotage the CIA career of one Allen Dulles.
That statement begs the question. We are discussing the merits of whether or not the purpose of deliberately failing the Bay of Pigs was to get rid of Dulles. You are assuming (above) that Dulles was the main objective and then identifying Lovett as the one with the motive, means and opportunity to pull it off. It is a circular argument and therefore fallacious.
How could Dulles sit still and let someone [Rusk] obviously antagonistic assume the Highest Authority?
Because Rusk and Dulles were on the same page. Neither wanted it to succeed, but for different reasons. Dulles had a "fall back" position. Put another way, if Dulles was available he probably wouldn't have needed to consult with the President. He would never have misjudged the pre-dawn airstrikes to be anything less than crucial to success. And if he pretended not to know their importance, nobody would have believed him in the aftermath. So had he been available he would have either told Bundy to piss up a rope or he would have personally called the President. That assumes he wanted the mission to succeed. But he didn't want it to succeed (unless the success compromised JFK). So by not being available, Dulles circumvents the hot seat by leaving it to Rusk. And Dean Rusk was better positioned to weather that storm (the aftermath) than Dulles by appearing too ignorant to have known how important the airstrikes were to success. After all, Rusk was not of a military mind nor of an intelligence mind.
Joe Kennedy and Robert Lovett wanted Dulles gone.
From the Center for the Study of Intelligence Newsletter Spring 1995 Issue No. 3
The Elusive ``Bruce-Lovett Report''
(Among those signing this statement was another board member, Joseph P. Kennedy. "I know that outfit," the ambassador said after the Bay of Pigs, "and I wouldn't pay them a hundred bucks a week. It's a lucky thing they were found out early.")
This quote from Joe Kennedy came AFTER the Bay of Pigs. It does not prove that he wanted Dulles out before the Bay of Pigs,
He signed off on the Board of Consultants scathing critique of Dulles. He was on the same board as Lovett and held the same convictions.
Did you read the link I cited?
There was widespread dis-satisfaction with Dulles within the Eisenhower Administration. A lot of folks the State Department wanted him out.
and it is certainly ludicrous to suggest that Joe would compromise his own son's authority in a plot to get rid of Dulles by conspiring with Lovett to sabotage the Bay of Pigs!
Not if Joe viewed Dulles as a bigger problem than the passing embarrassment his son suffered from the BOP.
When a person pushes me to the point of needing to read my own rules of engagement so as not to violate them...'nuff said. Now I know why I created the WAR ROOM.