Why Isn't Alan Gross on Next Plane Home After Bowe Bergdahl?

Both Men Worked for the United States — But Only One Is Free

Captive: Protesters rallying around the cause of freeing Alan Gross.
Getty Images
Captive: Protesters rallying around the cause of freeing Alan Gross.

By Fulton T. Armstrong

Published June 16, 2014, issue of June 20, 2014.
  • Print
  • Share Share

The Obama administration’s bungling of its media strategy with the release of the captive Army sergeant Bowe Bergdahl has obscured the essential fact that negotiations — even with interlocutors we can’t stand — do work. Anyone doing the American government’s bidding overseas deserves our protection and, if problems arise, our commitment to get him or her home expeditiously. That includes Alan Gross, who’s been sitting in a Cuban prison for four and a half years.

The activities Gross was conducting in Cuba when he was arrested at the end of 2009 were instigated, approved and fully funded by the government. Part of the $45 million-a-year core of the Bush administration’s Cuba regime-change strategy, Gross was simply carrying out policy that was embraced enthusiastically by senior officials. Washington cannot hide from that responsibility any more than it could deny that Bergdahl was an American soldier.

The Cuban government arrested and convicted Gross for three main reasons: Through his work in the “democracy-promotion program,” he violated Cuban law (and, as his trip reports made clear, knew he was doing so); Havana wanted to rein in activities similar to his, and the Cuban government, believing President Obama’s early rhetoric about a “new beginning” in bilateral relations, saw an opportunity to force Washington to engage in credible dialogue.

The Obama administration rejected the Cubans. It denigrated Cuban laws — even though a Cuban government agent would face serious charges if caught in the United States setting up sophisticated covert communications networks, as Gross was in Cuba. After initially undertaking a series of reforms to clean up the regime-change programs, the administration reneged under pressure from the handful of Cuban American legislators who want the operations to be as provocative and well funded as possible.

So Gross sits and waits, and Bergdahl, despite some possibly questionable personal behavior, comes home. How could the administration negotiate with a group like the Taliban but give Cuba, which poses no threat to the United States, a sharp elbow in the face?

There are, of course, many differences between Bergdahl and Gross. One wears a photogenic military uniform with an American flag on the shoulder, the other a guayabera in need of ironing. One is a noncommissioned officer in the U.S. Army, the other a civilian subcontractor. One was in the custody of terrorists known for cutting off limbs and committing torture, the other in the custody of a government we don’t like, in a hospital cell and with good medical care.

Arguments on their behalf in Washington have also been radically different: Bergdahl’s advocates emphasized that a man should never be left behind by the military and that the administration should get him home. Gross’s strongest advocates in Congress — the people who defend his secret activities and stridently demand his unconditional, unilateral release — have opposed negotiations and forcefully urged ramping up the regime-change programs to provoke Havana. (Senator Patrick Leahy is the clarion exception; he’s called the programs “nuts” and suggested we talk to the Cubans.)

But the similarities between them are more important. Both were carrying out operations approved by, and on behalf of, the U.S. government. Both knew the risk of jail or, worse, that they were running as U.S. agents and both knew the limitations of what the government could do to help them. Both accepted special payments or allowances for that risk. Both were obviously conducting activities intended to undermine the legitimacy and authority of their keepers — indeed, destruction of the Taliban infrastructure in Afghanistan and regime change in Cuba. Both have claimed — albeit using the word in different contexts — to be hostages.

The similarity that trumps all others, however, is our moral commitment to them. Anyone working on behalf of the U.S. government deserves our most fervent efforts to bring him or her home safely and swiftly. Why exclude Gross from this solemn contract? Because he wasn’t a full-time government employee? Because some in Washington — those who don’t want progress in Cuban relations — see political advantage in keeping this obstacle in place? Because we are embarrassed by the naivete of his government patrons, who believed that covert action by an untrained subcontractor would help overthrow the Cuban government?

Only the Cubans know their bottom line for reviewing Gross’s case and granting him a humanitarian release, but successful negotiations on other matters over the years — immigration issues, troop withdrawals from Africa and other matters — set an ample precedent. The Cubans are tough, focused and (like us) often infuriatingly concerned about appearing weak. But they’re smart, know that our two countries’ interests can be served by the give-and-take of negotiation and have a good reputation for implementing agreements.

To get Bergdahl home, Obama released five pretty tough Taliban commanders, and it’s probably more than a coincidence that the previous week, on May 25, he deepened his commitment to “bring America’s longest war to a responsible end.” Havana’s price will be much more reasonable. The much-bantered proposal to swap Gross for the remaining of the “Cuban Five” prisoners in U.S. prison — serving on espionage charges — may not be as immutable as Havana’s rhetoric would suggest. (They’re certainly a lot less scary than Taliban who are not likely to have fond memories of their Guantanamo stay.) Cuban policymakers are, if anything, realistic in their expectations of what Obama can do. And they would not expect a dramatic announcement from No-Drama Obama regarding a bold strategy to normalize relations.

Instead, the administration should do what the Cubans have wanted all along — clean up the regime-change programs, which, as carried out, have achieved nothing and cost us much, and talk to them. Neither would be very hard. Cuba’s rhetoric toward the United States has changed in recent years, but Washington’s has not. If Havana is willing to forgo the comfort of Cold War enmity and slogans, why aren’t we? There’s a lot to talk about — including getting our man in Havana, Alan Gross, back home.

Fulton T. Armstrong is the former senior adviser to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman and is a former U.S. national intelligence officer for Latin America.


The Jewish Daily Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, The Jewish Daily Forwardrequires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, our spam filter prevents most links and certain key words from being posted and The Jewish Daily Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.





Find us on Facebook!
  • This is what the rockets over Israel and Gaza look like from space:
  • "Israel should not let captives languish or corpses rot. It should do everything in its power to recover people and bodies. Jewish law places a premium on pidyon shvuyim, “the redemption of captives,” and proper burial. But not when the price will lead to more death and more kidnappings." Do you agree?
  • Slate.com's Allison Benedikt wrote that Taglit-Birthright Israel is partly to blame for the death of American IDF volunteer Max Steinberg. This is why she's wrong:
  • Israeli soldiers want you to buy them socks. And snacks. And backpacks. And underwear. And pizza. So claim dozens of fundraising campaigns launched by American Jewish and Israeli charities since the start of the current wave of crisis and conflict in Israel and Gaza.
  • The sign reads: “Dogs are allowed in this establishment but Zionists are not under any circumstances.”
  • Is Twitter Israel's new worst enemy?
  • More than 50 former Israeli soldiers have refused to serve in the current ground operation in #Gaza.
  • "My wife and I are both half-Jewish. Both of us very much felt and feel American first and Jewish second. We are currently debating whether we should send our daughter to a Jewish pre-K and kindergarten program or to a public one. Pros? Give her a Jewish community and identity that she could build on throughout her life. Cons? Costs a lot of money; She will enter school with the idea that being Jewish makes her different somehow instead of something that you do after or in addition to regular school. Maybe a Shabbat sing-along would be enough?"
  • Undeterred by the conflict, 24 Jews participated in the first ever Jewish National Fund— JDate singles trip to Israel. Translation: Jews age 30 to 45 travelled to Israel to get it on in the sun, with a side of hummus.
  • "It pains and shocks me to say this, but here goes: My father was right all along. He always told me, as I spouted liberal talking points at the Shabbos table and challenged his hawkish views on Israel and the Palestinians to his unending chagrin, that I would one day change my tune." Have you had a similar experience?
  • "'What’s this, mommy?' she asked, while pulling at the purple sleeve to unwrap this mysterious little gift mom keeps hidden in the inside pocket of her bag. Oh boy, how do I answer?"
  • "I fear that we are witnessing the end of politics in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I see no possibility for resolution right now. I look into the future and see only a void." What do you think?
  • Not a gazillionaire? Take the "poor door."
  • "We will do what we must to protect our people. We have that right. We are not less deserving of life and quiet than anyone else. No more apologies."
  • "Woody Allen should have quit while he was ahead." Ezra Glinter's review of "Magic in the Moonlight": http://jd.fo/f4Q1Q
  • from-cache

Would you like to receive updates about new stories?




















We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.