'Criticizing the US military does not mean being un-American'

Tinian airfield

By Jayvee Vallejera

The push-pull of U.S. military presence in U.S. territories lends itself to a false narrative of either-or contradiction that should not automatically bar anyone from being critical of military activities. Criticizing American military activities does not mean one is un-American.

That was one of the main points raised at a virtual dialogue hosted by the advocacy group Right to Democracy on Oct. 30, featuring the views of political science and anthropological experts from Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico.

Kenneth Gofigan Kuper

The three panelists discussed the effects of militarization in U.S. territories and how they play out in their respective territories.

The hyper-militarization currently underway in U.S. territories is proving to be a two-edged sword. The weak economies of U.S. territories mean they badly need the cash that an increased military presence would bring. This also means more impacts on the environment, including land use and water contamination, as well as social and cultural changes that negatively affect residents.

“If you're in a desert, and someone offers you [soda], you’re probably going to drink it, even though you know you'll probably get dehydrated. The soda doesn't actually hydrate,” said Kenneth Gofigan Kuper, associate professor of political science at the University of Guam’s Micronesian Area Research Center. 

“Are we experiencing something similar here? If you were only given [soda] to drink in the desert, you're going to be grateful that you have a source, you have a drink, but maybe we should be shifting. And I think we can have a balanced, honest conversation about all of these things,” he added.

In the case of Guam, its economy is a two-legged stool that is heavily dependent on military spending and tourism. With tourism not fully recovered yet from the impacts of Covid-19, Guam is left banking solely on military spending to shore up its economy.

About 27 percent of Guam is occupied by the U.S. military. “That's quite a lot for a 212 square mile island,” said Kuper.

Such a large footprint will inevitably lead to some issues. Kuper likens it to a 12-foot giant in one’s house, where he is bound to step on you sometimes.

“What do we do in which what's good for the United States, at least maybe from their perspective, will negatively affect Guam? Do we then just lie on the altar and say, ‘Okay, you get your way’? And I think the answer is no. Despite being a territory, I think two things can be true at once. I think we can hold two things at the same time,” he said.

Some people label such an attitude as "un-American," which Kuper finds odd.

He rejects this label, arguing that the ability to speak out is fundamental to being an American.

Criticizing the U.S. military, he said, is not criticizing an individual but an institution that has a large and disproportionate influence and effects on a place like Guam.

The better position, he said, is for territories to find the middle ground, where they are neither uncritically supportive nor opposed to everything the U.S. does.

“I think we need to leave room for nuance,” he added.

The panelists also discussed the re-militarization of old assets and their potential for reclaiming them for use in the context of 21st-century geopolitics.

Dr. Theresa “Isa” Arriola, who chairs the community advocacy group Common Wealth 670 on Saipan and is a former assistant professor in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Concordia University, said this is particularly true of the U.S. military’s old assets on Tinian.

Tinian is famously known as the place where the Enola Gay took off to drop atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. It was then known as the world's busiest airfield.

Arriola said that Tinian plays an increasingly important role as part of the U.S. military’s plan to turn the island into a divert airfield in case Guam is not available due to war or a natural disaster.

“It's actually being re-militarized today. So we're seeing that militarization actually often begets further militarization, that a historical military site is often refurbished to increase militarization once again,” she said.

The Department of War is leasing two-thirds of Tinian.

The same scenario is happening in Puerto Rico, said Dr. Melody Fonseca Santos, associate professor of Political Science at the University of Puerto Rico.

Although the U.S. Marines left Vieques in 2003, efforts are now underway to re-militarize the old naval training range, Santos said, including the former airport, which is being used again. Citing investigative reports, she said that repairs are being made at these old facilities.

“These repairs are for the prolonged use of these facilities,” she said. Santos spoke in Spanish and her remarks were automatically translated into English.

In the past few months, she said, there have been many military practices in the southeast coast of Puerto Rico.

All these events are unfolding against the backdrop of intensifying military activities in the Pacific, amid escalating tensions between China and the United States, and in the Caribbean, the panelists noted.

Under the Trump administration, Puerto Rico is once again at the center of U.S. military operations in the Caribbean.

Santos cited the increasing number of U.S. military strikes against drug traffickers in the waters off Venezuela, which are scaling up violence in the region.

“We can see that the strategic position of Puerto Rico again has become of high interest to the United States,” she said.

This dramatic escalation in the role of the U.S. military is also causing worries on the environmental front. Santos said the increased military activities mean the release of more greenhouse gases in Puerto Rico.

In the past, she said, other municipalities have also suffered from displacement, contamination, and sometimes even loss of life.

In the context of a militarized territory occupied by a colonial entity, where its own citizens participate in this army, this has the implication of militarizing even the collective imagination, Santos said.

“This makes it even more complex in the ways that we understand the Army and its presence within the archipelago, because there are familial ties that are created, certain references are created and established,” she said.

“To that, we add the reality of the thousands of Puerto Rican people who have formed or are still a part of the U.S. armed forces.”

 Subscribe to

our digital

monthly edition