Militant History

The Reagan Administration attacks wages, conditions and social programs at home on behalf of the major corporations – big business – which demand higher profits at the expense of the working and middle classes. Its foreign policy is also dictated by these same corporations and their need to preserve their profits, markets, sources of raw materials and power abroad.

The economic system of big business, which is capitalism and landlordism, has brought increased poverty and starvation to the majority of the people of the under-developed countries of the world. As a result, wave after wave of revolution unfolds as the working class and peasants of these countries fight to change their societies in order to live.

Inevitably, these revolts challenge the wealth and power of big business. U.S. governments have historically intervened to defeat these revolutions. The war in Southeast Asia in the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s was an example of this. This war resulted in the first military defeat of the United States.

This defeat came about because the Vietnamese workers and peasants saw that victory for the Viet Cong, irrespective of the lack of workers’ democracy that would accompany such victory, would take the weight of capitalism and landlordism off their back. A secret congressional report in 1967 explained the “high morale” of the opposition forces. It stated, “The Viet Cong have eliminated the landlords and reallocated lands… to the landless….”

The defeat in Southeast Asia in 1975 led to a mood of isolationism in the U.S. The majority of Americans wanted no repeat of the suffering and trauma of the Vietnam war. This weakened the ability of U.S. big business to defend its interests abroad as it depends on working-class Americans to do its fighting for it.

Colonial revolution

The revolt of the starving peoples of the former colonial countries continued. In Nicaragua, the U.S. backed dictator, Somoza, was overthrown and replaced by the Sandinistas who initally declared their solidarity with the Cuban revolution, their opposition to U.S. big business, and favor towards revolution in all of Central America.

The colonial revolution was now a sharp reality in U.S. big business’s own backyard. Reagan mined Nicaragua’s harbors, enforced economic sanctions and armed the thugs of the deposed dictator Somoza, the Contras, whom he then called “freedom fighters” and set up bases in Honduras to attack Nicaragua.

Faced with continued and rising revolts in Asia, Africa and Latin America, U.S. big business through Reagan continued its efforts to turn around the mood at home to enable it to intervene more effectively abroad. It held up the threat of “Soviet military superiority” and stepped up arms spending. It blamed the Soviet bureaucracy for the revolts in the former colonial countries and increasingly prepared the mood of the U.S. people for new foreign wars.

The Soviet bureaucracy seeks to come to an agreement with U.S. imperialism (big business) to divide up the world between them into spheres of influence. They do not seek to stir up new revolutions as these increase world instability and increase the risk of their own working class overthrowing them and establishing workers’ democracies. Reagan in his major foreign policy speech on March 14 quoted Gorbachev as saying “the Soviet Union required international calm to deal with its internal problems.”

The colonial revolutions arise out of the crisis of capitalism and landlordism. They do not result from the promptings of the Soviet bureaucracy in spite of what Reagan says, and in spite of the attempts by the Soviet bureaucracy to get the rising forces of the colonial revolution into its camp and to use this in its negotiations with U.S. imperialism.

Terror groups

As well as using the threat of “Soviet expansionism,” the Reagan administration has taken every opportunity to exploit to the full the lunatic actions of the individual terror groups who bomb civilian aircraft, spray airport lounges with machine guns and kill American tourists. These activities strengthen Reagan and American big business by helping to confuse the U.S. working and middle class and create a new mood: “We cannot let them push us around like that and do nothing.” This is a comment increasingly heard.

The strategy of U.S. big business to more aggressively defend its interests abroad was moved up into higher gear in the last days of March. The U.S. Navy assembled its largest force since World War II and sailed into the Gulf of Sidra which is claimed as Libyan waters by Libyan leader Gaddafi. Given the past activities of Gaddafi, and his use of anti-U.S. rhetoric to keep his hold on power, it was certain he would take some actions. The U.S. government deliberately provoked this by their aggression, and than sank Libyan ships and bombed Libyan bases.

Backed by the media, Reagan successfully associated Gaddafi with the individual terror groups with whom he undoubtedly has links and won the support of the majority of Americans once again for U.S. military actions abroad. The other effect of his actions was to strenghten Gaddafi.

Big business considered this a price worth paying as the real object of the operation was not in the Mediterranean but in Central America. Simultaneously with his aggressive Libyan actions, Reagan pulled Nicaragua onto center stage. He portrayed a “hot pursuit” action of the Sandinistas against the CIA-organized Contras as “a major threat to Honduran sovereignty.”

Reagan then pressed $20 million of U.S. aid on the Honduran government and insisted they send troops to the border area with Nicaragua where the Contras were based. And in a major escalation of American involvement, he provided U.S. helicopters and pilots to fly in these troops.

At the same time, he threw his opponents in Congress who opposed his $100 million aid to the Contras onto the defensive. The Senate then proceeded to back his package, and no doubt the Democrats who control the House after their ritualistic posturing will now also approve money for the Contras.

Sandinistas

U.S. imperialism is absolutely committed to overthrowing the Sandinistas in spite of the Sandinistas’ move to the right, its increased repression of unions and the right to strike, and its continued support for 60% of the economy remaining in private hands. Their determination is because the Sandinistas came to power through a revolution which overthrew a U.S.-backed dictator, dared to oppose U.S. imperialism’s policies and stooges in the area and have survived in the backyard of the U.S. itself. It is therefore a beacon to all forces in Latin America fighting corrupt right-wing U.S.-backed regimes.

A new Cuba in the area and especially on the mainland of the continent is not going to be tolerated. When the Bishop regime came to power in Grenada, Reagan used a split that developed in that regime to invade. He is also committed to overthrowing the Sandinistas.

It is now clear that the Contras are unable to achieve this, so he has dragged Honduran troops onto the firing line. They will be incapable of overthrowing the Sandinistas in any war which could be provoked between them. At the same time as the U.S. have pilots and helicopters flying Honduran troops to the trouble spots, they have 2,500 troops in Honduras, and they have built large airstrips capable of taking large military supply aircraft. Now, in a further stepping-up of direct involvement the Reagan Administration announced in the first days of April that it was going to send “advisors” to aid the Contras.

Military involvement

The most likely prospect now is for increased involvement of U.S. troops leading towards large scale military involvement and war in Central America. This is not yet certain as revolutionary events in Chile, Mexico and throughout Latin America could unfold with such power that U.S. imperialism could be forced to hold its hand.

This seems to be the only development which can cut across increasing U.S. military involvement. The fact that a majority of Americans still oppose Reagan’s Central American policies can be overcome. The New York Times recently described the mood of the country “as being in a transition to an earlier mood – pre-Vietnam.”

The Gulf of Tonkin is now regularly mentioned in the U.S. Congress and press. The U.S. government falsely claimed that U.S. forces had been attacked by North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964, and used this as an excuse to commit large numbers of troops to the war in Vietnam. They can easily repeat such a fraud to change the mood at home.

They have set the stage for it by putting U.S. pilots on the Nicaraguan border. A U.S. government official recently stated, “I cannot promise you an American won’t be shot.” And the Wall Street Journal stated, “One of the dangers here is that in such an incursion [the Sandinistas pursuing the Contras] some American troops might get killed and this could be the event that triggers a direct U.S. military involvement.”

If U.S. troops do become involved in a war in Central America, they will become bogged down in a drawn-out conflict in the area as a whole. They will be used to fight and kill workers and peasants in the area and to defend the capitalists and landlords.

U.S. labor

U.S. labor must mobilize its forces against all acts of U.S. big business’s aggression and to stop a war developing in Central America with the accompanying slaughter of workers and peasants of Latin America along with the working class and youth of the United States itself.

Instead, U.S. labor must link the struggles of the working class, youth, and especially-oppressed minorities in the U.S. with the workers and peasants of Central America and Latin America as a whole. They must wage a common struggle against the big corporations which constitute a dictatorship over the U.S. and the entire continent of Latin America.