An economic action was the response of the United States to the Cuban Revolution. Reaction to the Cuban Revolution was focused on an economic action in order to prevent agitating the country openly, which could have increased its chances of forming an alliance with the Soviet Union. Thus, an economic action was opted for and it characterized the United States not purchasing raw materials and sugar from Cuba. The U.S. policy makers wanted to ensure that they defended global capitalism. This was facilitated through cutting Cuba’s sugar quota by about 90 percent. According to Chasteen (2011), this resulted in the utter boycott on publicly produced sugar coming from Cuba. It wanted to maintain control over Cuba and hence display its military mighty over all the countries around the globe. These policies were strategically implemented. This was a key step towards the attempt of undermining Fidel Castro’s rule of Cuba. However, according to Chasteen (2011), the plan backfired significantly and there was no change of economic of Cuba. This plan failed because Fidel Castro made a deal with several Eastern European communist states that bought goods originating from the country. When the economic action failed utterly, attempts were made to deal away with Castro’s rule through waging a war. Notably, this reaction of the United States also failed as Castro’s forces retaliated with might.
The United States decided to set up significant military policies towards Cuba. This was done with the assertion that it was attempting to protect its citizens and its self-image. Notably, there was a need to incorporate local armies from Latin nations, which orchestrated the formation of new doctrines and military policies. These doctrines and policies were between the U.S. and Allied Latin American military (Chasteen, 2011). In addition, several tactics were employed by the U.S. policy makers to ensure that Cuba was reverted to the tender mercies of global capitalism. Some other methods employed by the U.S. policy makers involved espionage, outright invasions, sponsored sabotages, hijackings, and trade sanctions. Chasteen (2011) is also of the opinion that this U.S. policy is evident on other countries, which have ever gone against ideals when it comes to use natural resources, capital, markets or land. The U.S. condemns any country as an enemy if the country insists on either self-development, public ownership or egalitarian human services (Chasteen, 2011).
The response affected Latin America positively. This can be seen from the fact that many Latin American countries experienced rural guerrilla conflicts and urban terrorism, which was in response to political repression and social inequality (Chasteen, 2011). Notably, these uprisings were motivated by Cuba’s model and it should also be known that Cuba played a significant role in providing training centers and material support to guerrillas. Chasteen (2011) affirms that this development in Latin America was twofold considering that while Cuba supported guerrillas in anticipation to upsurge regarding social inequality and political repression, the U.S. was at the same time aiding governments to strengthen their armed forces through the provision of aid. This was intended for countering guerrilla operations. However, many Latin nations continued to experience more counterinsurgency, which brought about the decline of many civilian governments and rise of military regimes. Thus, Chasteen (2011) indicates that it was necessary for the United States to place emphasis on land reforms and other measures that would ensure that all the core grounds for insurgency were dealt with. This explains why the U.S. provided military aid to the Alliance for Progress, which was commenced by President John F. Kennedy, for the purposes of facilitating the U.S. policy in Latin America.