Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair
In early March, US president Donald Trump upped the stakes on his previous musings about purchasing Greenland from Denmark. “We need it really for international world security,” he said in a speech to Congress. “And,” despite disinterest in the notion from Greenlanders and Danes, “I think we’re going to get it. One way or the other, we’re going to get it.”
One way: Denmark and/or Greenland agree.
The other: US military forces invade and occupy, and the US government annexes, Greenland.
Those are really the only two ways. And while Trump has a well-earned reputation as a mercurial flip-flopper, he wouldn’t keep bringing it up if he didn’t have a persistent bee in his bonnet.
The idea of acquiring Greenland isn’t fundamentally as daft as it sounds — the place is rich in natural resources and located conveniently to support the Arctic ambitions of whichever regime controls it — but absent the consent of its inhabitants, the means of acquisition are necessarily reduced to war.
And the thing about wars is that short little wars tend to turn into long big wars. I’d say “unexpectedly,” but history says to expect it.
Would Trump really pull that trigger? If so, it probably won’t be over “national security” considerations. The reasons will be domestic and rooted in the economic chaos produced by his “trade war” antics.
“If soldiers are not to cross international boundaries on missions of war,” Otto T. Mallery wrote in 1943, “goods must cross them on missions of peace.”
At some point, that quote got shortened (and misattributed to Frederic Bastiat) in the popular mind to “when goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will,” which works just as well.
The standard argument for Mallery’s point is that international trade promotes amicable ties. If 50% of your oil or 30% of your grain comes from a trading partner, going to war means supply disruptions, shortages, and high prices. War is bad for the economies of nations engaged in international trade, so they’re less likely to engage in it.
There’s a second argument, though, far more applicable to Trump in particular:
Going to TRADE war ALSO means supply disruptions, shortages, and high prices.
Supply disruptions, shortages, and high prices translate to domestic discontent.
War provides a great distraction during times of domestic discontent.
You may have noticed that Trump’s an enthusiastic trade warrior.
You’ve almost certainly begun to notice the effects of Trump’s trade war enthusiasm on your own bottom line.
If you’re not discontent, you soon will be.
At some point, Trump’s options will come down to extracting his cranium from his rectum on trade and economics, or distracting you with a war. The likelihood of the former, based on his record, looks slim.
If not Greenland, Mexico. If not Mexico, Panama. If not Panama, Canada. Heck, maybe all of them and more.
War wouldn’t make your life, or others’ lives, better, even if it made for better entertainment than The Apprentice (and what wouldn’t)?
Recommendation: Hope for the best and stock up on canned food.
