"We go in to liberate Cuba, but Cuba still isn't free; we don't really think through what we'll do after the initial treaty is signed, but we're still occupying. There's chaos and torture and finally an outcry"

This quote by Sarah Vowell captures the intricacies and unintentional consequences of interventionist foreign policy, utilizing the historic context of military actions in Cuba as an example. At its core, it highlights the space between the objectives behind military interventions and the real outcomes that follow.

The phrase "We enter to liberate Cuba" speaks to the initial motivation or reason frequently utilized for military intervention: liberation from injustice or tyranny, which is rooted in noble intents of bringing flexibility and democracy. However, Vowell quickly juxtaposes this with "but Cuba still isn't free", indicating that in spite of these objectives, the wanted outcomes are not constantly attained. This highlights the difficulty in changing a complex social and political environment, where simply eliminating a program or occupying an area does not instantly lead to freedom or stability for individuals there.

Vowell continues, "we do not really analyze what we'll do after the preliminary treaty is signed", which underscores a common critique of interventionist policies: a lack of detailed planning for post-conflict restoration and governance. This often leads to continued military existence (" however we're still inhabiting"), which might exacerbate tensions and create a dependence on force instead of cultivating self-sustained peace and development.

The reference of "mayhem and abuse" indicate the capacity for human rights abuses and condition that can emerge in the vacuum left by inadequate planning and understanding of regional dynamics. These conditions can weaken the authenticity of the intervention, causing domestic and global backlash, or "an outcry."

In general, Vowell's quote works as a cautionary reflection on foreign policy, stressing the requirement for extensive planning, regard for regional contexts, and a commitment to the long-term well-being of a country beyond immediate military triumphes. Her words welcome a crucial assessment of past interventions to learn from these lessons and strive for more effective and ethical methods in future international engagements.