US Military Buildup in Puerto Rico: Is 'Defense' the Right Word?
Rep. Velázquez argues the U.S. military presence in Puerto Rico is detrimental, and she’s not wrong. However, the mainstream narrative conveniently bypasses the fact that Puerto Rico isn’t just a pleasant Caribbean island; it’s a strategic military asset acquired through conquest (the Spanish-American War in 1898, for the history-averse). While the U.S. claims to be protecting the island and its
citizens, the reality often looks more like exploitation, with Vieques used as a bombing range for decades (until protests forced a halt in 2003, for some context). This isn't about 'defense' for an independent nation; it's about maintaining a colonial outpost under the guise of security, ensuring U.S. geopolitical dominance in the Caribbean. One might wonder if the U.S. military buildup is about
safeguarding Puerto Ricans, or if it's about safeguarding U.S. interests, regardless of the colonial burden on the island. After all, when has a military presence ever truly benefited a population without their full consent and sovereignty? The current calls to end this 'buildup' are merely trying to dismantle a perpetual state of affairs that has existed for over a century. How many more
centuries must pass before self-determination doesn't require a constant fight against colonial remnants? It appears the 'defense' is mostly of the U.S. right to project power.