The state-run media outlet CubaSí has quickly crafted a narrative to downplay the CBS News leak regarding U.S. military preparations involving Cuba. By branding the leak as mere "fabrication," they attempt to trivialize it as routine bureaucracy and wrap it in the familiar rhetoric of resistance against the "empire."
Authored by Favio Delfín Roca, the article does little to dismantle the report's impact. Instead, it aims to dull its political sting by accusing CBS of psychological warfare, mocking journalist James LaPorta, hinting at U.S. electoral motives, and concluding with the inevitable slogan "We Shall Overcome!"
The core argument is uncomplicated: as the document cited by CBS doesn't explicitly mention Cuba and the readiness of military units is part of standard U.S. Army procedures, there's supposedly nothing noteworthy. It's all noise, manipulation, ratings, and propaganda.
This is a half-truth turned into a smokescreen. Certainly, militaries are bureaucratic. Units report readiness, and there are rules, forms, chains of command, and administrative deadlines. But military contingencies don't start with fanfare—they begin with memos, logistics, fuel, medical personnel, engineers, military police, and readiness assessments.
Strategic Implications of Bureaucratic Moves
Bureaucracy doesn't negate strategic significance; often, it enables it. CBS didn't claim an invasion was ordered, nor did it hide that the internal document didn't directly mention Cuba. What it reported was that the Army Reserve was evaluating support capabilities for the Southern Command within 90 to 120 days, and U.S. officials linked these preparations to scenarios involving the island.
CubaSí twists these cautionary notes into supposed contradictions. It's the same old trick: taking the nuances of the original source, pretending they're flaws, and selling them as "revelation."
The underlying issue is the plausibility of CBS's report given the context. Washington has been signaling for months: statements from Donald Trump about Cuba, pressure from Marco Rubio, intelligence flights in the Caribbean, military movements in Puerto Rico and Guantanamo, fuel pressure, and strategic documents placing the island within a hemispheric security framework.
None of this confirms an imminent intervention, but it explains why a military readiness inquiry can no longer be read as ordinary paperwork.
Incoherent Arguments and Misdirected Blame
The official article fails to maintain a coherent line. It initially claims everything is routine, then shifts to psychological warfare, follows up with CBS's alleged ratings chase, and suggests it either benefits Democrats or creates electoral issues for Trump. It's a catch-all approach, hoping something sticks.
If it's irrelevant routine, there's no need to cry conspiracy. If it's psychological warfare, then it's not so irrelevant. If it's only about ratings, the geopolitical barricade rhetoric is unnecessary. However, propaganda doesn't seek coherence; it aims to reassure its base.
The attack on James LaPorta follows the same logic. CubaSí doesn't just challenge his data; it ridicules him for being a former Marine, for writing from a "protected, comfortable, and air-conditioned" environment, and for previously publishing uncomfortable reports about Cuba. When the message can't be discredited, they smear the messenger.
Marco Rubio is also painted as the obligatory villain. The text blames him for the "multidimensional aggression" against Cuba and even for the climate that allows reports like CBS's. It's the official media's automatic response: if Washington pressures, blame Rubio; if Trump moderates, it's damage control; if CBS publishes, it's a media operation; if the regime feels targeted, "We Shall Overcome!"
What remains unasked is the more troubling question: why has the Cuban regime driven the country to a point where a leak about U.S. military support units becomes politically credible?
The regime also avoids a debate that's been dodged for decades: whether Cubans are willing to continue enduring blackouts, hunger, repression, mass migration, and economic ruin to maintain an entrenched elite in power, or if they prefer a verifiable transition with international observers and a real consultation about the country's future.
Empty Slogans Amidst Growing Challenges
That debate doesn't fit in CubaSí. For that, they would need to stop speaking on behalf of the people and actually ask them.
That's why the article's conclusion is so telling. After accusing CBS of fabricating, it ends with a litany: Cuba firm, Cuba resistant, Cuba stubborn, Cuba irredeemable, Cuba shouting "We Shall Overcome!"
The problem is that slogans no longer mask the blackouts or fill the markets. Nor do they erase the fact that Washington is increasing the cost of the regime's stay in power.
CubaSí intended to present the CBS leak as an exaggerated routine by the U.S. press. What it inadvertently revealed was something else: that Havana needs to keep repeating that nothing is happening because it suspects this time Washington might be more than just talking.
Understanding the Political Dynamics of Cuba and the U.S.
Why is the CBS report considered credible in the current context?
The CBS report is seen as credible due to ongoing signals from Washington, including political statements, military movements in the Caribbean, and strategic documents that involve Cuba in hemispheric security considerations.
How does CubaSí characterize the CBS leak?
CubaSí characterizes the CBS leak as a "fabrication," reducing it to routine bureaucracy, and accuses CBS of engaging in psychological warfare while ridiculing the journalist involved.
What strategic implications does military bureaucracy have?
Military bureaucracy, while often seen as routine, is crucial as it lays the groundwork for strategic actions through logistics, readiness assessments, and other preparatory measures.