Could Trump's obsession with Greenland spark war between U.S. and its NATO allies? Does our president-elect know what he's doing in foreign affairs?

(Instagram)

Donald Trump's obsession with the United States taking over Greenland, perhaps via the use of military force, could lead to war with America's NATO allies, according to an op-ed piece by Steve Benen at MSNBC and Yahoo! News. Do Americans think that would be a good idea, considering the pivotal role NATO has played in maintaining peace and stability in Europe -- especially during the Cold War, by acting as a deterrent to Soviet aggression. 

Now we have a president-elect who seems blissfully unaware that he could spark such a war and the devastation it would wreak. Maybe Trump simply does not care if a NATO war breaks out, assuming that his usual bullying tactics will ensure that peace prevails. But a dreadful conflict is a real possibility, as Benen explains under the headline "When Trump directs veiled threats at a NATO ally, it’s a problem":

As this week got underway, Donald Trump turned his attention anew to one of his stranger priorities. “Greenland is an incredible place, and the people will benefit tremendously if, and when, it becomes part of our Nation,” the president-elect wrote by way of his social-media platform. “We will protect it, and cherish it, from a very vicious outside World.”

A day later, the Republican’s oldest son appeared at a local gathering in Greenland, at which point the president-elect called in to extend his regards by way of speaker phone. “You’re so strategically located,” he said.

Soon after, Trump held a press conference at Mar-a-Lago, where he said something new and unexpected about one of his territorial targets. NBC News reported:

During a free-wheeling news conference at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, Trump was asked by a reporter if he could assure the public that he would not use military coercion against Panama or Greenland, a goal he has floated in recent weeks. ‘No, I can’t assure you on either of those two, but I can say this, we need them for economic security,’ Trump said.

What is the status of Greenland at the moment? Benen provides important background:

While Greenland is currently a semi-autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republican went on to tell reporters that he’s skeptical of the geopolitical relationship. “People really don’t even know that Denmark has any legal right to it, but if they do, they should give it up because we need it for national security,” the president-elect added.

It was bizarre when Robert O’Brien, Trump’s former White House national security advisor, appeared on Fox News last week and seemed to make a veiled threat toward Denmark — a longtime friend of the United States and a NATO ally.

But it was vastly worse to see the president-elect do the same thing.

When Trump was asked to rule out the use of military coercion as part of his pursuit of the island, what he should’ve said was obvious: “Of course the United States isn’t going to use the military.” Except he said nothing of the kind, refusing to offer any such assurances.

Benen sees signs that this is more than a case of Trump being Trump -- or Trump not knowing what he's doing, although it's likely he doesn't know what he's doing. Benen writes:

While I’m mindful of the fact that the Republican is full of bluster and nonsense on a nearly daily basis, and it’s generally wise not to invest too much energy into any one comment, Trump’s yearslong fixation on Greenland is quickly evolving past the point of silly tweets. As The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake summarized:

[H]e just left open using a military threat against a NATO ally. ... And NATO rules require an attack on any member to be treated as an attack on them all. That’s certainly no small thing, even if it’s just Trump being Trump.

Did Americans go to the polls on Nov. 5 and vote for an imperialistic presidency and a chaotic foreign policy? I don't recall those topics being discussed much during the campaign. In fact, my sense was that Trump planned to be an isolationist, staying out of other countries' problems; now he seems to be doing his best to create problems. Was he truthful with voters? My guess is "probably not." Is this a case of "The Orange Turd" kicking the MAGA faithful in the shins? Benen writes:

The rhetoric, Blake added, was “the latest ratcheting up of Trump’s increasingly imperialistic entreaties.”

To the extent that Trump and his MAGA “movement” are distinct from the traditional Republican Party and its priorities, there are a handful of differences worth appreciating. The president-elect and his followers are more hostile toward American institutions than the traditional GOP, more conspiratorial, more reflexively nativist, more invested in a specific leader, more amenable to an authoritarian vision, and more overt in their rejection of democratic norms and election results they don’t like.

But perhaps most importantly, MAGA and the Republican Party diverge wildly when it comes to foreign policy.

What implications do such a divergence have for Americans, many of whom seem to have put their full faith in Trump, and likely see no signs of problems brewing on the international stage? Does it make sense to trust Trump to keep the peace? Absolutely not, Benen writes:

In recent generations, the GOP has embraced what is often referred to as a “muscular” foreign policy, rooted in international interventions, enormous Pentagon spending, support for alliances and low thresholds for use of military force. Trump and Trumpism ostensibly embrace a different kind of vision, in which the United States is highly reluctant to engage militarily abroad while expressing hostility toward international partnerships.

The pitch, at least at a superficial level, is intended to present Trump as a “man of peace” and an opponent of “endless wars.” Gone are the days of Bush, Cheney, Reagan and their embrace of American militarism, the argument goes. Under Trumpism, the U.S. will no longer be the world’s police force.

Oddly enough, even some ostensible liberals express occasional sympathy for Trump precisely because they perceive him as some kind of “dove” on matters of international affairs.

The idea has long been difficult to take seriously. We are, after all, talking about a Republican who’s spent years advocating for U.S. missile strikes into Mexico and eyeing the possible use of military force in Iran. It’s hardly the stuff of isolationism.

But those who want to see Trump as a champion of peace really ought to know better by now. The charade has unraveled. A leader willing to make veiled threats at a NATO ally as part of a wildly unnecessary imperialistic pursuit is not a leader who can be counted on for responsible restraint on matters of foreign policy.