It is hard to predict what a nation will do to defend their homeland. That is the dilemma being faced by the people of Greenland and Denmark. The one question that has never or rarely been raised, by members of the media or politicians, is how many men and women will the trump administration be willing to lose over a territory that they already have a treaty to build military bases on.

The scenario is reminiscent of how the United States acquired the Virgin Islands from Denmark in 1917. While at the time, America was a third-rate military, fearing that Germany would invade it led Secretary of State Robert Lansing, in what became known as the Lansing Declaration, to issue a threat to take over the Danish West Indies, as they were called then, if Denmark didn’t sell the islands.

Despite its claims of spreading democracy, imperialism is not new to America. It just hides its true intentions from the American public. In some respects, the effort of America historically is reminiscent of Russia’s Empress, Catherine the Great who said, “I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them.”

The present situation is different. In 1917, NATO didn’t exist. In 1917, the Danish viewed the islands as a liability and actually wanted to sell them. American military was a third rate power with armed forces of approximately 127,000 men. There is no threat of a foreign nation other than America posing a threat to the sovereignty of Greenland. It is hard to ascertain why Trump says that Chinese and Russia submarines are in the area when Nordic diplomats deny this. On top of this, the US has Pituffik Space Base, which is the first line of defense from an attack from the east namely Russia.

It would be rational to believe that if the US attempted to take Greenland by force it would be a fool’s errand to resist. History may however provide a different conclusion.

As one reads history, despite the assistance of France, the idea of 13 colonies being victorious in the American revolution would have been just as preposterous. The British at the time was the world’s premier military power and had expended what in today’s currency was the equivalent of 25 billion dollars in fighting the war.

History provides numerous examples of smaller less powerful nations gaining victory or inflicting great casualties on powerful nations. These include Japan against Russia, Finland inflicting massive casualties on the Soviet Union, Vietnam against France, the US and China, the Dutch Republic against the Spanish empire and even in antiquity, Athens against Persia.

This is not to suggest what would happen but to recognize that American hubris is not a guarantor of victory even with its overwhelming military power. While the US likes to talk about its Navy Seals,            they too have had their share of failures and shortfalls including the 2011 Extortion 17 mission in which 22 SEALS were shot down in Afghanistan, Grenada, the 2005 Operation Red Wing where a full seal team was lost, the recent Red Sea mission as well as the 2019 mission in North Korea.

While the relationship between Denmark and the US has always been positive, including the Danes providing arms to the colonies during the American Revolution, this latest move by the Trump administration may lead to irreparable hostilities.

Perhaps the Trump administration is feeling exuberant about its relative ease in extracting the Venezuelan dictator. If intelligence expert Malcolm Nance is right however, Maduro most likely was handed over by his own military and the subsequent invasion was a smokescreen for a done deal.

To overlook Denmark’s resolve would be a huge mistake. Even now European nations, including Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands as well as Canada, are deploying troops to Greenland. While ostensibly it is conceivable that they are deploying, troops as a counter to what some consider strategic moves by Russia and China in the arctic, it would be naive to think that they are not also doing so to send a message to the American administration.

America can no longer be considered a reliable ally to Europe. It will create a great schism about the future of NATO quite possibly leading to the end of NATO as it is presently structured. There are times when use of the American military is warranted. This is not one of them.