One of my most comforting times as a U.S. Ambassador was in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy. I was in charge of the U.S. Embassy in Ethiopia, and the day started with devastation – the World Trade Centers destroyed, the Pentagon attacked, a plane downed in Pennsylvania, the White House and Capitol evacuated, and literally no one answering the phones of the U.S. Government in Washington. But then things changed as I received calls - first from the Ethiopian leadership, and then from every single ambassador (except North Korea), assuring me of their support for our local American community, and their nations’ unqualified standing with America.
How the world has changed! Now, following recent moves by our President to forcibly take Greenland from our own NATO ally Denmark, it would be unimaginable for our nation to receive such backing if we were again the victim of a similar attack.
The most charitable interpretation for the President’s threats is his tendency to address global issues through the “Art of the Deal” -- thus making the possible Greenland attack an opening gambit-- instead of relying on geopolitical realities or historical precedent. In this view, his threats to take Greenland by force is a “red herring” to achieve his goal of either U.S. ownership of the Island or gaining more favorable access. But even voicing such an outlandish possibility is beyond reasonable comprehension. Attacking a long-term treaty ally is akin to the guard dog in the hen house joining the foxes. And the foxes – Russia’s Putin and China’s Xi – are delighted!
The worst-case scenario, of the U.S. actually annexing Greenland by force would be cataclysmic. Secretary of State Rubio has often stated that America’s international actions must meet one of three conditions: does it make the U.S. safer, more secure, or more prosperous? Attacking Greenland would result in just the opposite – perhaps the biggest poison pill America has ever swallowed.
The following are some of the expected potential reactions to a U.S. attack:
If any of the above somehow make America stronger, more secure, or more prosperous, I’m missing it!
In 1968, Walter Cronkite, the news presenter of the era universally trusted across America, visited Vietnam and came back with a changed attitude toward the war. He had been a strong supporter of our Vietnam involvement. After returning, he presented a series of news reports voicing his belief that the war was a bloody stalemate and unwinnable. Seeing the stories, then-President Johnson said, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America,” and he decided to not seek reelection.
This may be a “Cronkite moment” for the American people as recent poling indicates that the overwhelming majority strongly oppose threatening Greenland.
The current uproar is most unfortunate since this administration has pursued a number of worthwhile foreign policy initiatives to end savage conflicts, some – like Sudan, Congo, and Armenia/Azerbaijan – in places the world had forgotten. It would be tragic if these efforts end up being overshadowed by the Greenland fiasco.
After the 9/11 attacks, Lee Greenwood’s song “Proud to be an American” surged to the top of the charts and we all stood tall together, despite the carnage of the terrorist attacks, as most of the world looked on us with respect and admiration and had no doubts that we would come back stronger.
Wouldn’t it be great to recover that type of image instead of global eye rolling among many and gloating among the rest over what America has come to.