I don't understand the idea to buy Greenland.
Clearly it has some strong Republican Party components to it. If the U.S. bought Greenland, it would provide the opportunity to end Greenland's national health care system, gender equality rules, educational system, environmental protections, and international history of compliance with treaties and other international agreements.
It could also enhance Republican jingoism and opportunities for both regional military actions, and the coddling of Pentagon brass which has become a hallmark of our "military" structure. We have run out of land to seize from native inhabitants. And since WW-II, we have been run out of lands that we had taken over under the Monroe Doctrine, and post-WW-I colonial realignments.
Greenland's less than 60,000 citizens would probably be no big challenge for our massive Pentagon (although Reagan's folly in Grenada might lead some to worry).
We have to wonder who was thinking what to propose this plan. The Donald has already ceded the entire arctic region to control by China and Russia. Moscow Mitch is ensuring that the Pentagon is not budgeted to challenge either China or Russia in the Arctic until any such challenge would be merely symbolic noise.
Greenland is the site of a yuge U.S. airbase. Mouthing pieties about expanding that base to provide a global Arctic "defense" cover could provide political cover with the Donald's base, while more concessions are made to Chinese and Russian suzerainty at the top of the globe, particularly on sea routes through the melting ice. The airbase is far enough away from the "regular" U.S. to be even more isolated from any sort of oversight, even more that Pentagon operations are generally.
The Pentagon, unlike other branches of government, takes climate change seriously, and has been developing plans to adjust and move bases that will be underwater soon. For decades, Pentagon planners sited bases with consideration of officer amenities prevailing over military necessity. Thus from Newport News to San Diego, it didn't matter if bases were isolated or at sea level. What mattered was climate and amenities for admirals and generals who were "too busy" defending America to take regular vacations. So bases were located where there were fabulous beaches, and expansive lands that could be developed into private, officer-only golf courses.
How this works out in the real world sometimes pops into our history books. On December 7, 1941, the cream of the Navy's leadership was heading for the links, for pleasant rounds of golf, while the might of our navy sat, without defensive planning, as the Japanese navy arrived. It took hours for War Department brass back on the East Coast to learn what was going on. General Marshall wasn't playing golf that morning. Rather, he was out riding one of his horses on the private riding grounds provided by the Army. But still out of communication.
It would take days before families across the nation would begin to learn the costs that putting golf course planning ahead of ship and facilities defenses had inflicted on their sons.
The Pentagon is planning better now. Over the objections of the Donald and Moscow Mitch, the Pentagon recognizes climate change and rising sea levels. The Pentagon understands that the U.S. Naval academy, already frequently flooded, will soon be too underwater to be even a submarine base. So how about relocating the academy to Greenland? Greenland is an island, after all, providing a yuge variety of options for training sites and naval access.
If it was good enough for the Vikings, shouldn't it be good enough for U.S. sailors? As Annapolis sinks into the sea, the sun rises on Greenland, particularly if it is greener as glaciers melt away.
And that greener, warmer Greenland could also be a location for fabulous new golf courses, bridle paths and other stress relieving facilities for underworked senior officers. As the weight of the glaciers melts away, Greenland may even rise, just as the U.S. East Coast is sinking as a result of the last ice age. That would protect the island from the very sea level rise that its melting glaciers is causing.
With the Pentagon's long (let us not say honorable) history of facilitating rapacious corporations, melting glaciers and "defensification" of the island virtually guarantees a fresh crop of fabulously wealthy new generals and colonels.
The melting glaciers will also be exposing the resource rich surface of Greenland. The Donald mentioned those resources in his announcement of the plan. With the Pentagon's long (let us not say honorable) history of facilitating rapacious corporations, melting glaciers and "defensification" of the island virtually guarantees a fresh crop of fabulously wealthy new generals and colonels.
There remains, of course, the problem of that pesky population of local citizens who probably won't want mining operations dumping their waste directly into local rivers and lakes. But South Africa relocated unwanted black people to "homelands," and Israel has isolated its Palestinian trouble makers in secure camps. If the Donald can come up with a convincing label with which to denigrate island "Greenies," relocating them, or even better deporting them, that will free the island for proper "development" by the Pentagon and favored corporations
But none of this quite explains why the Donald got on board with this idea. It sounds like a Steven Miller wet dream. Especially if some of the "Greenies" can be riled up to offer resistance. Then they can all be relocated to for-profit, private cage camps (under lucrative contracts), and treated no better than if they were Hispanic children.
Still, what does the Donald get out of it? A new territory, like Guam or Puerto Rico, where he can boss people around and ignore their claims to legal rights? But since he's always moving toward bankruptcy, the Donald is always looking for a money angle. How does he monetize the purchase of Greenland?
Would he try for a piece of the action on building new military facilities on the island? Even the most corrupt of the Pentagon's "contract colonels" probably couldn't get past the Donald's history of contractor fraud. And his "expertise" with golf courses is in designing places for prestige-seeking nouveau-riche strivers, not general officers looking for privacy and comfort.
There is, of course, the Donald's desire to deliver for Czar Vlad, his long-time financial backer. Taking over Greenland would solidify Russian ascendancy in the arctic and arctic sea routes. And with Denmark officially labeling the idea "absurd," if the Donald could flex some (flabby) muscle and stir up friction with NATO over the idea, that would certainly advance Czar Vlad's efforts to weaken NATO and the EU, even as it payed Europe back for liking President Obama so much more than the Donald.
But no hotels or touristy golf courses. 55,000 Greenlanders are not prime candidates for a Donald casino or gold-plated hotel. And deporting them would mean getting rid of the potential resort labor force.
Possibly, the Donald is thinking that he'll be in line to make lucrative deals with corporations planning to strip mine the island for it resources. But even magnates in places like Azerbaijan have shown that they can negotiate circles around the Donald. His "art of the deals" probably risks him paying corporations for giving them the right to exploit the island. Like he paid Carrier not to move workers to Mexico, and then watched the workers go anyway.
But his base will be satisfied in any event. That loose liberal Reagan didn't have the chutzpah to take absolute control of Grenada, after conquering that island. The Donald could certainly do better than Reagan's folly by delivering to the base a yuge island, full of non-Americans who can be derided and abused. The adulatory cheers of the base might almost overcome the lack of any personal profit.