An internal Army Reserve request seeks the possible availability of logistics, engineering, medical and military police formations for U.S. Southern Command within three to four months as Pentagon planners continue examining military contingencies involving Cuba, although no deployment orders have been issued.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom.
The U.S. Army Reserve is assessing whether specialized support formations could be made available to U.S. Southern Command within 90 to 120 days, adding a new operational layer to months of Pentagon contingency planning involving Cuba.
An internal Army message reviewed by CBS News directs subordinate Reserve commands to determine the possible availability of six types of formations that could operate under SOUTHCOM, including logistics, engineering, medical and military police units. The message itself does not mention Cuba or identify an operation, but multiple U.S. officials said the request is connected to continuing Pentagon planning involving the island, according to CBS News.
There is no indication that President Donald Trump has ordered military action against Cuba, that any Reserve formation has been directed to deploy or that the Army request represents a final operational decision. The document does not specify the number of troops that could ultimately be required, their destination or the mission they would perform.
The types of forces being surveyed, however, have prompted differing assessments from experts about what planners may be preparing to support.
“This sounds like planning for an invasion and occupation of Cuba, rather than a leadership decapitation or limited air strikes,” William LeoGrande, professor and dean emeritus of American University’s School of Public Affairs, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “The 90- to 120-day timeframe suggests something more imminent than normal contingency planning. An invasion would be a risky proposition. The Cuban armed forces are well-trained, disciplined, and loyal to the regime.”
Sebastian A. Arcos, director of the Institute for Cuban Studies at Florida International University’s Steven J. Green School of International and Public Affairs, offered another interpretation.
“Judging by the type of personnel they are requesting, it looks like an exercise for a potential humanitarian intervention,” Arcos said. “It could be a serious exercise, or just a way to ratchet pressure on the Cuban regime.”
Among the formations identified in the Army message is a combat sustainment support battalion, a unit designed to coordinate transportation, maintenance, fuel and supplies. The Reserve is also assessing an engineer battalion and an expeditionary sustainment command capable of managing logistics across a larger theater.
Army officials are additionally examining whether a medical brigade could be available, along with a forward surgical unit designed to provide emergency trauma care closer to operations and a military police brigade whose responsibilities can include security and detention missions.
“This multi-pronged military mobilization could be setting the stage for a med- to long-term military operation, which would have both military and peacekeeping and humanitarian components,” Daniel Pedreira, a visiting assistant teaching professor in Florida International University’s Department of Politics and International Relations, said. “The increase in additional military forces in the region could point to possible action in Cuba given President Trump’s repeated statements, as recently as at the UNGA, about regime change in Cuba. The Pentagon is responding in kind to the administration’s statements.”
The Army Reserve did not respond to a request for comment.
U.S. Southern Command, whose area of responsibility covers Central America, South America and most of the Caribbean, is the combatant command responsible for military operations, contingency planning and security cooperation across the region.
Steven McLoud, a media relations officer with SOUTHCOM’s Public Affairs Office, described the broader coordination as part of the command’s continuing responsibilities.
“U.S. Southern Command continuously coordinates with the Joint Force to assess a range of potential requirements across its AOR in support of assigned missions,” McLoud said. “Last month SOUTHCOM published Gen. Donovan’s four imperatives focusing on enhancing the command’s warfighting capabilities, combating narco-terrorist networks, and strengthening collaboration with military partners across the hemisphere. Two recent initiatives, the activation of JTF-WHEM and the establishment of the SOUTHCOM Autonomous Warfare Command (SAWC), demonstrate how Gen. Donovan is putting that vision into practice.”
The latest Reserve inquiry is not the first indication that military planners have been examining options involving Cuba.
Earlier this year, U.S. forces conducted reconnaissance of the seafloor and maritime approaches around the island, while air elements were placed on heightened readiness and instructed to pre-stage personnel for a possible deployment that ultimately did not take place, CBS News reported, citing multiple military personnel.
Pentagon planning had become more explicit by July.
Senior defense officials examined several possible courses of action, including an Army-led air assault involving thousands of soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division, according to a CBS News report citing multiple U.S. officials familiar with the discussions. Those officials emphasized that developing military options did not mean Trump or the Pentagon had decided to carry one out.
The U.S. intelligence community was separately studying possible Cuban responses to American military action as early as May while the Pentagon developed options that could be presented to Trump, according to another CBS News report citing two anonymous U.S. officials.
Evan Ellis, a Latin America research professor at the U.S. Army War College who was speaking independently of the Army, cautioned against assuming that contingency planning necessarily signals an impending operation.
“The U.S. has maintained publicly for some time that military options, among other things, are on the table as the Administration seeks change in Cuba,” Ellis said. “It is normal for forces to be prepared for contingencies that create options for the President, but not every contingency that the military prepares for necessarily means that the President will choose that course of action.”
The potential risks of military action have also become part of the planning debate.
Cuba has longstanding security relationships with several U.S. adversaries, and the possibility that Havana could employ unmanned aircraft against nearby American territory has received particular attention.
Classified intelligence reports cited by Axios in May alleged that Cuba had received more than 300 drones similar to Iran’s Shahed-136 or Russia’s Geran-2. Such systems could potentially increase the threat to Florida in a direct conflict, although the details of Cuba’s operational capability and the reported transfers have not been publicly established.
A Russian Ilyushin Il-76 military transport aircraft also landed in Cuba on Feb. 2, an arrival that drew attention because a similar Russian aircraft movement preceded U.S. strikes in Venezuela, according to Defense News. The aircraft’s presence fueled speculation about whether Moscow was assisting Havana in preparations for a possible U.S. confrontation, although the cargo it carried was not publicly confirmed.
“They [Cuba] have had this alliance with Russia and China and even North Korea and Iran,” national security expert Brandon Weichert previously said. “They have been given access to the systems of those countries. It is very likely that on some level, they have some element of those weapons.”
The U.S. intelligence community has separately assessed that Russia wants to expand existing security and diplomatic ties with Cuba and Nicaragua and that China, Russia and Iran are seeking continued economic, political and military engagement throughout Latin America, according to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Experts disagree over how a U.S. military operation against Cuba might unfold and how much resistance American forces could encounter.
“They would be quickly overwhelmed, but U.S. forces would almost certainly sustain far more casualties than they have in Iran,” LeoGrande said. “Moreover, Cuban military doctrine calls for sustained guerrilla warfare to make occupation too costly to sustain, so there is a real risk that occupied Cuba could become a quagmire similar to Iraq. CSIS estimates that occupation would require upwards of 100,000 U.S. troops. With domestic opposition to the war in Iran growing, it is hard to imagine that a prolonged occupation of Cuba would be sustainable politically.”
Pedreira emphasized the disparity in conventional military capabilities.
“As in any military operation, U.S. service members run the risk of losing life and limb,” Pedreira said. “Yet, the U.S. military relies on advanced technology today that gives it the upper hand when dealing with a significantly inferior military force like Cuba’s.”
Ellis said the level of danger would depend heavily on the scope of any U.S. mission.
“If the U.S. chose to occupy the island, the danger to U.S. forces on the ground would obviously be higher, particularly given Cuba’s doctrine which emphasizes a decentralized guerrilla resistance,” Ellis said.
Arcos disputed assessments that Havana could mount significant sustained resistance to American forces.
“Most experts agree that the current regime in Havana will not give up power without some sort of US military pressure, which, by the way, might be successful without the commitment of significant ground forces,” Arcos said. “It is an established fact that the Cuban military cannot offer any significant resistance to a US military action due to lack of firepower, technology, and low morale, and the possibility of an organized urban or irregular resistance has been vastly exaggerated by the regime’s propaganda machine. The available data indicates that an overwhelming part of the Cuban population does not support the regime and is willing to support a US action.”
Arcos separately described the administration’s broader policy toward Havana as extending beyond individual military contingencies.
“The Trump administration has been building a case around Cuba’s asymmetric threat to US national security and the stability of the Western Hemisphere,” Arcos said. “None of these objectives can be achieved without regime change in Havana. That is the strategic objective.”
Washington’s public rhetoric toward Cuba has also intensified.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio addressed concerns in Havana during a Jan. 3 news conference.
“If I lived in Havana and I was in the government, I would be concerned at least a little bit,” Rubio said.
Trump delivered an even more direct message during his address to the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, telling the international body that “freedom will be coming to Cuba,” according to the White House. Reuters separately reported the same remark from his Sept. 22 address.
LeoGrande said the administration’s broader approach to the Western Hemisphere and Rubio’s longstanding attention to Cuba could influence how Trump evaluates military options.
“The Don-roe doctrine that the U.S. must be dominant in the Western Hemisphere, and Marco Rubio’s special interest in regime change in Cuba could be sufficient motivation for the president to take the risk, especially since the campaign of economic pressure has failed to dislodge the Cuban regime,” LeoGrande stated.
Weichert offered an even more direct assessment of Rubio’s position.
“I think that Marco Rubio would love nothing more than to initiate military action against Cuba,” Weichert previously stated.
For now, the most concrete new development is the Army Reserve’s request for information on whether six categories of support formations could be available within 90 to 120 days. The inquiry does not name Cuba, and no unit has received orders to deploy, but U.S. officials cited by CBS News have connected it to the Pentagon’s continuing Cuba contingency planning.
Comments