Colombia's Return to Direct US Military Operations Undermines Sovereignty and Constitutional Order Without Serving Stated Security Goals
Source: Carlos Cruz Mosquera. "Colombia’s President Wants US Boots on the Ground." October 17, 2026. jacobin.com
The Gist
The author argues that Colombia's new right-wing president is letting US troops operate on Colombian soil without the Senate approval the constitution requires. He sees this as a step beyond past US-Colombian military ties, and as a return to a failed, repressive approach that mainly serves US oil and strategic interests. He says it threatens Colombian sovereignty and does little to reduce drugs or violence.
Conclusion
President de la Espriella's agreement to allow joint operations and a direct US military presence in Colombia is a dangerous and illegitimate break from past cooperation. It violates Colombian sovereignty and constitutional law, and it revives a repressive, imperialist security model that serves US strategic and economic interests rather than Colombians' security.
Premises
- Within days of de la Espriella's inauguration, Hegseth announced an approved agreement for joint operations, and there are confirmed reports of US troops and aircraft operating in Colombia (Venom helicopters in Tumaco, a possible SOUTHCOM role in the Catatumbo hostage rescue).
- Colombia's Constitution (Art. 173(4)) requires Senate approval even for the transit of foreign troops, and de la Espriella has not sought it, apparently because he lacks coalitional power.
- Past US-Colombian cooperation (Plan Colombia and earlier) formally kept US forces out of direct combat, whereas current developments erode that distinction by moving toward US forces operating alongside Colombian troops on Colombian soil.
- Historically, US military assistance in Colombia, though justified as counter-narcotics or security, has been tied to persecuting left-wing leaders and movements and to counterinsurgency abuses such as the 1955 Villarrica offensive.
- Militarized counter-narcotics approaches have not produced lasting reductions in coca cultivation. They displace production, worsen armed conflict, and endanger rural and Afro-Colombian communities.
- The US presence serves strategic and economic interests, such as oil, coal, and the Tumaco port and pipeline terminal, which the language of defense and security obscures.
- Petro's Total Peace offered an alternative to militarism, but its shortcomings and elite pressure opened the way for this renewed militarist offensive.
Assumptions
- Joint operations and US troop presence count as 'transit of foreign troops' under Art. 173(4), so Senate approval is legally required.
- Historical patterns of US involvement predict the purposes and effects of the current deployment.
- The stated counter-narcotics and security rationale is a pretext, and strategic or economic interests are the real drivers.
- Direct US participation in operations is qualitatively worse for sovereignty than training, intelligence, and logistics support.
- Negotiated solutions are preferable to, and more effective than, militarist approaches against armed groups.
- Evidence of presence and consent (SOUTHCOM photos, official statements) is sufficient to show a constitutional violation, even where details remain unconfirmed.