FEATURES

The growing size and prestige of the U.S. military’s

Special Operations Forces (SOF) is one of the clearest
indications of the Reagan administration’ s militarist and
interventionist intentions toward the Third World. Spe-
cial Operations Forces — similar to the Vietnam War’s
infamous ‘Green Berets’ — have enjoyed phenomenal
growth since Reagan took office. If the U.S. decides to
intervene directly in Central America, secret operations
by SOF will clear the way. Indeed, there is some evi-
dence that American Special Operations Forces have
already been used in action in Central America.
__ This is the view of one of the world’s most authorita-
tive independent military studies institutes, Washing-
ton’s Centre for Defence Information. The most recent
issue of its publication, The Defence Monitor (Vol. 14,
No. 2), warns that ‘‘the revitalization of Special Opera-
tions Forces could lead to an expansion of U.S. covert
activities worldwide which would bypass Congressional
Teview, violate Congressional restrictions, and greatly
increase the likelihood of the U.S. becoming involved in
a war’’.

Special Operations Forces are a shadowy and little-
known element of the U.S. Armed Services. Most in-
formation about them is classified. But, as the Monitor
Points out, they are ‘competitively selected, highly
trained troops with capabilities and missions unlike
those of conventional troops. They are ... trained to
Operate as guerillas and to engage in clandestine activity.
Special Operations Forces are usually called on to do
‘dirty’ jobs”.

It was SOFs who were responsible for the botched
Tran hostage ‘‘rescue mission’’ in 1980, and who were
the leading edge of the Grenada invasion in 1983.

Since 1981, funding for Special Operations Forces has
More than tripled, the number of SOF troops has risen by

0 per cent and whole new generations of ‘‘special”’
Weapons have been developed for their use. Much larger
creases are projected for comung years.

he only conceivable use for such forces is in so-called
“low-intensity conflicts’? — that is covert operations,
guerilla warfare, sabotage and destabilization in the
Third World.

U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defence, Paul Thayer, re-
cently noted that ‘‘U.S. national security requires the
Maintenance of Special Operations Forces capable of
conducting the full range of special operations-on a
worldwide basis, and the revitalization of those forces
must be pursued as a matter of national urgency’’.

Special Operations Forces are already the most heav-

Backgrounder

Fred Weir

ily used of all U.S. combat troops. They make up 25-35
per cent of all U.S. Military Training Teams abroad,
concentrating in right-wing, authoritarian client-states of

‘Central and South America. Despite ‘‘Congressional

restrictions’ on the use of U.S. troops in war zones,
SOF ‘“‘trainers’’ have been frequently observed going
into combat with government forces in El Salvador.

As one SOF commander told reporters: ‘‘Our job is to
kill people and destroy things ... We’re killers, not
trainers’’.

s

SOF — the extension of Reagan’s thinking

Last September a ‘“‘private’’ helicopter flying for the
Nicaraguan contras was shot down, killing the two
American pilots. One was later found to have been a
Captain in the Special Operations Forces of the Alabama
National Guard. There have been continuous reports of
U.S. Special Operations Forces involved in secret sup-
port missions for the contras, particularly flying supplies
in unmarked aircraft, and intelligence-gathering.

The great danger, notes the Defence Monitor, is that
while CIA operations are subject to at least some form of
Congressional review, ‘‘no such requirement exists for
SOF activities’’. The growth of Special Operations
Forces under the Reagan administration has raised fears
that SOF could become a “‘uniformed version of the
CIA”’.

Now that Congress has denied further direct funding
for the contras, and President Reagan has declared that
he will find ‘‘alternative’’ means of providing such aid,
the true role of SOF may become obvious.

According to Senator James Sasser, a strong Con-
gressional critic of Reagan’s military policies, ‘‘there is a
real danger that these Special Operations Forces could
be used to carry out CIA programs, and thus skirt Con-
gressional review’’.

The Defence Monitor concludes: ‘‘Many fear that the
SOF buildup presages a new wave of U.S. covert opera-
tions in the Third World and increases the danger of the
U.S. being dragged into a war, particularly another war
in which the U.S. does not have clear political or military
objectives and may not be able to win. Even more sober-

‘ing is the prospect of SOF activities — which the

Administration repeatedly states are intended to counter
the USSR — leading step by step to a major conflict with
the Soviet Union.

““By providing support for authoritarian regimes
through military training and advice, SOF contributes to
the undermining of America’s basic principles of democ-
racy and freedom. SOF activities can be important in
sustaining dictatorial regimes which have deplorable re-
cords on human rights and economic reform.

“The renewed emphasis on Special Operations

_Forces is one more clear application of the Reagan ad-

ministration’s policy of seeking military solutions to
Third World problems. The U.S. is sending Special Op-
erations Forces to conduct counter-insurgency training
— and perhaps clandestine operations — around the
globe, instead of concentrating on diplomatic and eco-
nomic initiatives which address the root causes of
conflicts.”’

Star Wars author target of peace groups

One of the leading proponents of the
Reagan administration’s Star Wars scheme
Is visiting Vancouver June 14, and peace
activists are gearing up to counter the
retired U.S. general’s push for Canadian
involvement in the latest planned escala-
tion of the arms race.

End the Arms Race (EAR), the Lower
Mainland’s umbrella peace organization,
Plans a demonstration — called “the real
face of Star Wars” — outide the Hyatt
Regency hotel that day, at 12 noon, as
former Lt.-Gen, Daniel O. Graham
addresses a right-wing audience at a lun-
cheon inside.

Gary Marchant, a vice-president of
EAR, warns that the public should know
the difference between the “public face”
and “private face” of Star Wars, known
formally as the Strategic Defence Initia-
tive,

“Graham’s portrayal of Star Wars has

No basis in fact. It will not make us techno-
logically closer to peace,” said Marchant
June 10. ;
_ “In fact, Star Wars threatens the exist-
Ing Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty,
escalates the arms race dramatically, and
Icreases the world’s dependence on so-
Called ‘infallible’ technology. There is no
Such thing,” he asserted.

Marchant himself has amassed a body
of material on the Star Wars scheme,
Material which reveals not only the true

Intent of the plan — to enhance the Uni-
ted States’ superiority in nuclear weaponry
— but also shows much about the minds

hind the plan, and the insidious effort to
Sell Star Wars to peace activists.

Reagan’s attempts to market Star Wars

as a “peace” initiative, using the claim that
its futuristic technology would ensure the
eventual elimination of nuclear weapons,
has its roots in High Frontier, a right-wing
lobby group for Star Wars scenarios
headed by Graham.

High Frontier's marketing strategy
found its inspiration in John Bosma, a
consultant to the group who authored a
memorandum leaked recently to Star
Wars opponent Theodore Draper. In it,
Bosma advised that a ““BMD” — Ballisitic
Missile Defence — system could be sold
to the public, and even elements of the
peace movement, with the right strategy.

“A primary objective is to force a dras-
tic reorientation of the arms control
debate in such a way as to make it politi-
cally risky for BMD opponents to invoke
alleged ‘arms control arguments’ against
an early BMD system. In fact, the project
should unambiguously seek to recapture
the term ‘arms control’ and all the idealis-
tic images and language attached to it,”
Bosma wrote.

“Also,” Bosma advised, “with approp-
riate political and emotional packaging,
the approach may be able to tap the
(nuclear) free constituency.” :

In his memo, the current editor of the
pro-military journal, Military Space, lists
“target groups and individuals” including,
on the pro-Star Wars side, the right-wing
Heritage Foundation, Reader’s Digest,
Omni science magazine and what he called

the “U.S. Jewish pro-Israel community.”

For the “‘anti-BMD” side, which he categ-
orized as ‘some convertible, some declared
enemies,’ ” Bosma includes major U.S.
daily media, Catholic bishops, freeze

groups and the Physicians for Social
Responsibilty.

Bosma admits that “BMD is primarily
a ‘right-wing’ cause, because assent to the
BMD position means subscribing to a
whole array of other ‘conservative’ pro-
defence arguments.

“Nobody has yet tried to sell BMD to
political centrists and liberals,’ Bosma
wrote in his 1984 memo.

The revelation provided by Bosma’s
memo sheds some light on why Graham’s
Vancouver talk is alledgedly open to
“peace groups.” The former director of
the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency,
former deputy director of the CIA and
military advisor to Reagan during his 1980
presidential campaign will undoubtedly
try to sell the false “peace” notion as well
as the equally false promise of jobs for
Canadians through Canada’s involvement
in Star Wars at his luncheon speech.

EAR, in a recent statement, notes that
“the economic and technological benefits
to Canada from Star Wars would be very
small.”

Being capital-, rather than labor-
intensive, the project would produce few
jobs, and, “for every military dollar the
U.S. invests in Canada, Canada is obli-
gated. . .to buy one dollar’s worth of U.S.
military goods. The economic and techno-
logical pay-off to Canada will be much
greater if we refuse to participate in Star

. Wars research and instead invest in civ-

ilian technical innovations,” EAR notes.
The peace organization also notes the

evidence linking Star Wars to NORAD

and the revamped DEW Line, now called

the North Warning System. EAR reports
a recent New York Times article which
revealed “That the U.S. Defence Depart-
ment is devising a nuclear war fighting
plan and command structure that would
integrate offensive nuclear weapons (such
as the cruise, Pershing II and MX mis-
siles), Star Wars and NORAD.”.

That contention is backed by Star Wars
opponents.

Commenting in a debate sponsored by
Harper’s magazine and the U.S. Lawyers’
Committee on Nuclear Policy, political
commentator and author Theodore Draper
hit the Star Wars proponents’ claims that
the costly strategic defence initiative would
stop; a nuclear attack: “If it managed to
stop 9,000 missiles out of 10,000 — an
extraordinary percentage for any defence
— the 1,000 that got through would still
be utterly devastating.”

Graham himself has argued for an
immediate start on a Star Wars or BMD
system incorporating available technol-
ogy. In this he lost the ear of President
Reagan to cold warrior Edwar Teller, who
convinced the president to adopt the futu-
ristic laser and particle beam plan involv-
ing $26 billion in research during the next
five years.

But, Marchant noted, whatever version
of Star Wars is currently in vogue with the
Reagan administration, Graham will be
promoting the concept when he addresses
the talk sponsored by the Canadian Con-
servative Centre this Friday.

The Conservative Centre was formed a
few months ago, apparently with the
express purpose of selling Star Wars to
Canadians.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, JUNE 12, 1985 e 5