Source : INDIA TODAY NEWS
Hundreds of people have been killed in the year since the US military began bombing boats it said were ferrying drugs off Latin America’s Caribbean and Pacific coasts. The Trump administration is now seeking to extend that campaign to land, pursuing agreements that would allow US forces to carry out joint military operations in allied countries across the region.
US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said during a visit to Panama last week that Colombia, Guatemala and Honduras had agreed to allow the US to conduct joint operations against criminal groups on their soil, after Ecuador launched similar missions with Washington in March. Guatemala, however, has denied any such agreement. Speaking during a military drill in the Panamanian jungle, Hegseth said it would be “like you saw with the strikes on the drug boats” and added: “Same effect on land. And so we’re working with Ecuador. We’re working with Colombia. We’re working with partners to bring the fight to the (designated terrorist organisations) on land.”
advertisement
The move marks a new stage in the Trump administration’s push to get governments across Latin America to align with its security priorities and assert what it calls “American dominance over the Western Hemisphere”. While voters in parts of the region are increasingly backing Trump-aligned leaders, critics have warned that a widening US military campaign could lead to civilian casualties and trigger a backlash that lasts beyond the current Republican administration. “What’s going on is an attempt to legitimise the increased use of the US military in the region,” said Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue think tank. “It projects power, demonstrates military superiority and enables Washington to impose its agenda. This is not cooperation, it’s obviously a very asymmetrical relationship.”
The US military has long operated in Latin America, supplying allies with weapons, intelligence and training to fight drug trafficking, alongside a legacy of support for military coups and dictatorships. Since Trump returned to office in January 2025, however, Washington has taken what the report describes as its most interventionist approach in decades. The administration has designated 20 Latin American criminal groups as “foreign terrorist organisations”, sent US forces into Venezuela to capture its president, and involved CIA agents in drug lab raids in Mexico. It has also killed more than 200 people in over 60 boat strikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, while offering little evidence that those targeted were “narco-terrorists” and raising questions about the legality of the attacks.
William LeoGrande, a Latin America specialist at American University, said sustained US combat operations alongside local forces would be “new and different”, and would test long-standing sensitivities around sovereignty and the presence of US troops. Hegseth gave few details of what such joint operations in Colombia, Guatemala and Honduras would involve. In Colombia, where Trump-backed Abelardo de la Espriella took office this month, Hegseth raised the possibility of US forces joining strikes against armed groups such as the National Liberation Army, or ELN, the country’s last major guerrilla group. Hegseth said de la Espriella had asked for greater US military involvement. “Anywhere you traffic drugs or you threaten the American people or our partners, you are a target just like ISIS or al-Qaida,” he said. On Saturday, after an ELN drone attack on troops, de la Espriella said the rebels would “pay a high price”.
Ecuador has become the clearest example of direct US military involvement, launching joint raids with Washington even though voters overwhelmingly rejected foreign military bases in a November 2025 referendum. A New York Times investigation found that one strike on an alleged drug lab in March had in fact destroyed a cattle farm. The effort to expand such agreements has found the most support among conservative leaders elected in recent months on promises of tough action against crime. Guatemala has been an exception. Its progressive government has worked closely with Washington on security despite political differences, but President Bernardo Arevalo has denied agreeing to joint anti-drug operations, saying they would be illegal without congressional approval. Honduras, Colombia and Ecuador did not respond to requests for comment on Hegseth’s remarks.
Mexico has also stood apart from the emerging US anti-trafficking alliance, despite being a major source and transit point for fentanyl and other drugs entering the United States. President Claudia Sheinbaum has cooperated closely with Washington on security, but has resisted growing pressure for a US military role in tackling cartels on Mexican soil. “Ultimately, the United States will have to define what joint operations’ means in each of these countries. It may discover pretty quickly that this is something most governments – even governments on the right – are quite uncomfortable with,” said Adam Isacson of the Washington Office on Latin America.
Analysts have also questioned whether a more militarised approach would bring lasting security gains. Shifter said the campaign could partly serve as a show of force, building on the capture of former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro as the Trump administration tries to offset foreign policy setbacks elsewhere, including in the Middle East. Others warned of the risk of civilian casualties, especially in Colombia, where armed groups operate among civilians and often act as de facto authorities in areas beyond the state’s control. Jeremy McDermott of InSight Crime said military strikes were more likely to force such groups to adapt than to defeat them. “The US bombs an ELN camp in Colombia or in Venezuela, what is the first thing the ELN are going to do? They’re going to dismantle all their camps and move into the villages and towns,” he said.
As the US pushes for a larger military role in Latin America, the debate across the region is increasingly centred on how far governments can go in pursuing security objectives without ceding too much sovereignty. “All of these presidents, no matter how far right they are, face pressure to do something about security and to make a show of pursuing the ‘bad guys’ who are making people feel unsafe. There is broad agreement on that,” Isacson said. “But they also know there is only so much sovereignty they can cede before public opinion begins turning against them.”
With PTI Inputs
– Ends
SOURCE :- TIMES OF INDIA
