I think though, we shouldn't confuse Ken's statement that make the simple point that he and a lot people believe: Castro and the Cuban Government have been bad guys. To me, he's lamenting that reality.

If one wants to argue about how "good" a guy Castro his government have been for us in the areas that Ken lamented about their shortcomings, have at it.

What's the point in arguing about whether we would be better with Batista, and his presumably more friendly successors) -- or Castro, who has clearly been our enemy and fomented problems for us and the hemisphere and other parts of the world? Castro provided the USSR with an opening that almost led to worldwide nuclear destruction. He fomented anti-US and other actions against us in Latin America, etc. He exported violence. He made it his mission to be our enemy -- and we returned the favor. Castro will have outlived almost every one of the US leaders that sought to eject him. (Let's let's not argue longevity equals wholesomeness, manifest destiny, or Darwinian realities equating to historical vindication, etc.

All we will do with such a retrograde argument is get into a discussion of the efficacy our own (flawed and meddlesome) approach to Latin America that has been evolving over the last few centuries and into the first part of this one. One will get into an argument of our Monroe Doctrine to compare it with Putin's Ukraine approach. Whether power must be projected by the righteous to effect "good" -- or whether one should only act on others when absolutely necessary for ones essential self-interest. Etc., Etc.

Having said all this: If one COULD, with the "sweep of the hand" have kept the Shah of Iran instead the Ayatollah or Batista instead of Castro, we would all be better off today?

I'd be inclined to say, "Yes"; but, so what!(nl)