A sane article about US/Cuba relations

Focusing only on the article cited, it isn't clear where the title comes from. At no point do the editors explain or document why or how the sanctions actually keep the Castro's in power. True (likely), they do not train terrorists anymore. But, what does that "fact", and a response to it, actually do to keep the Castro's in power? Sure, if the sanctions were intended to produce a revolution that would remove Castro, violently or otherwise, than that has not happened. But, again, the fact that the sanctions didn't end their tenure is not evidence that the sanctions preserved their tenure (that argument is mysteriously missing from the entire editorial – and assuming everything else in the world would stay the same if you change one thing, or that all else would be different had you not done that one thing is, well, remarkably dumb). True, no other country supports the U.S. sanctions. But, how does that result help preserve the Castro reign? Yes (o.k., not really, U.S. embargo allows for cash-up-front sales of food, agricultural goods and medicine) the sanctions keep U.S. companies out of the Cuban market. But so what? How can that fact be taken as evidence that the sanctions keep the Castro's in Power? Perhaps it is true enforcing the sanctions results in a massive tie up of U.S. resources per investigations. But, how does that act/fact benefit Cuba and/or reward Castro? Cuba may or may not be kept on the State-Sponsored Terrorism list, but on or not doesn't keep or help keep Castro is power. An article in Economist is essentially an economics-based piece. It is money-talk which, as usual, is masquerading or some moral and or political thesis. Nothing wrong with pointing out the sanctions have not produced major changes. But, the article cannot even begin to explain of justify the title chosen by the editors who, apparently, aren't too concerned by this. One question: Castro is in power in 2012 because…? Only someone naïve to most of politics and a lot of history would say, "U.S. sanctions". Ignore the 3 million tourists last year and the investments so big the Economist cannot be sure what they are, these don't help Castro, it is those sanctions no one else honors that keeps him in power. Maybe. Maybe not.

I always get a laugh out of the fact that because a U.S. federal policy does not work, this is supposedly a good reason to alter it or cancel it. The War on Poverty does not work, nor does the War on Drugs, but they just keep sucking in taxpayer dollars. (Although maybe the War on Drugs will finally change.)

I actually think that Washington (where I was born) works the other way around: An embargo or "war" on something is perceived as BETTER IF IT DOES NOT WORK! That way, the new agency doing the embargo or war can keep growing and building more power! Who wants to work in an agency that might have success and thus go out of business?

I used to work in aerospace during the Cold War. We never asked ourselves "What if the U.S. wins the Cold War? Then what?" We won and the "then what" is that a whole lot of aerospace workers lost their jobs. So, Washington has learned that it is better to start something that WILL NOT WORK, so that it will keep growing and employing lots of people who can tell themselves they are "bettering mankind."