It was as telling a moment as any when it comes to the Republican Party’s relationship with President Donald Trump.
At a June hearing, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made it sound a little like the Trump administration had drafted plans to take Greenland by military force (among many other such plans in the Pentagon’s possession).
That couldn’t possibly be true, Republican Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio seemed to wager.
“You are not confirming in your testimony today that at the Pentagon there are plans for invading or taking by force Greenland, correct?” Turner said.
But Hegseth responded merely that the Pentagon “has plans for any number of contingencies.”
So, Turner asked again, adding, “I sure as hell hope that it is not your testimony.”
But Hegseth again declined to back off, saying only: “We look forward to working with Greenland to ensure that it is secured from any potential threats.”
Republicans have spent years picking and choosing which Trump ideas they want to take seriously; such is the political upside of Trump’s penchant for spouting nonsense.
But it’s become increasingly clear that taking Greenland isn’t just a lark for Trump, and Republicans are starting to treat it accordingly.
Even shy of invading Greenland, merely applying pressure on NATO ally Denmark to sell this massive, semiautonomous island that it controls risks severely inflaming the Western military alliance.
The question now is how Republicans handle the situation, with the possibility of a significant vote being forced to the Senate floor by Democrat Ruben Gallego of Arizona on the horizon.
There are few good options for the GOP.
Save for a few advocates for securing Greenland, the prevailing hope seems to be that Trump isn’t actually all that serious about this and will eventually move on. Many Republicans are couching their statements accordingly.
But Trump’s intentions are getting increasingly difficult to dismiss, given the US mere days ago ousted the leader of Venezuela and that his administration is talking more forthrightly now about its expansionist plans for the Western Hemisphere – and Greenland more specifically. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt in a statement Tuesday and a briefing Wednesday explicitly reserved a military option in Greenland.
So, Republicans are starting to step forward to throw up caution flags.
There were joint bipartisan statements from key lawmakers in both the House and Senate.
In the House, Congressional Friends of Denmark Caucus co-chair Blake Moore of Utah joined with a Democrat to say, “Sabre-rattling about annexing Greenland is needlessly dangerous.”
Senate NATO Observer Group co-chair Thom Tillis of North Carolina also issued a statement with his Democratic counterpart cautioning Trump that even “coercion or external pressure” violated the principles of the alliance.
Among the other reviews:
- Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas called it “none of our business” and warned about the “demise of NATO.”
- Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said the United States “must see it as an ally, not an asset, and focus on continued partnership rather than possession.”
- Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa urged the administration to be “good partners to Denmark.”
- Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska told CNN’s Jake Tapper: “It’s unacceptable and I hope other Republicans line up behind me and make it clear to the White House that it’s wrong.”
Other prominent Republicans have been reluctant to go that far. But we are seeing signs of them suggesting the White House might want to pump the brakes.
House Speaker Mike Johnson said Tuesday evening of military action: “No, I don’t think that’s appropriate.” He added Wednesday that “all this stuff about military action and all that, I don’t even think that’s a possibility.”
“I don’t see military action being an option there,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Tuesday. He added that he hoped “there’s something there that can be worked out” on security issues with Greenland.
“We need to not threaten a peaceful nation that’s an ally where we have a military base already,” said Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma.
Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky also opposed a military option, and Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana called it “weapons-grade stupid.”
The good news for Republicans is that, to the extent they don’t want the military option on the table, they have the opportunity to take it off.
Gallego is introducing a resolution to block a US military invasion of Greenland before it could be launched. Because such measures are privileged, it could earn a vote soon
Similar efforts to curb Trump’s strikes on alleged drug boats and to block his attack on Venezuela failed. And Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina is flatly predicting the GOP-controlled Congress will do nothing to rein in Trump’s war powers on anything.
But Greenland certainly poses more difficult dynamics than those other votes.
While both the boat strikes and Trump’s ouster of Nicolás Maduro are both legally dubious, they at least aligned with the GOP’s political goals.
When it comes to Greenland, this appears to be something that very few Americans are asking for. Polls have shown Americans oppose taking the island by margins large as 49 points, and most show even Republicans generally oppose the idea.
A March Reuters-Ipsos poll showed just 13% of Americans even wanted to apply pressure on Denmark to sell Greenland.
The NATO situation is also extremely relevant. While Trump has regularly lashed out at NATO and NATO allies, this is one of his biggest provocations to date. Greenland isn’t just a semiautonomous territory, after all; it’s a semiautonomous territory controlled by NATO ally Denmark.
However seriously he’s doing it, Trump is effectively threatening to invade a NATO ally. And NATO countries are obliged to treat an attack on one of them as an attack on all of them. That even raises the seemingly ridiculous prospect of the rest of NATO coming to Greenland’s defense against the United States.
Republicans also can’t pretend that this just isn’t a serious proposal anymore. The White House and the administration have repeatedly left this option open, including explicitly in Leavitt’s comments this week.
Leavitt said that “utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief’s disposal.” She was asked about taking the military option off the table again Wednesday, and declined to do so. “All options are always on the table for President Trump,” Leavitt said. And White House adviser Stephen Miller stressed the might of the country’s armed forces when he told CNN’s Tapper this week that nobody would defend Greenland militarily from the United States.
To the extent Senate or House Republicans decline to block Trump from invading Greenland, they’d be effectively allowing him to invade a NATO ally, if that’s what he decides to do. That’s certainly not something the NATO hawks would relish.
Among the many tough votes Trump has forced upon his party, this would certainly be up there.
Republicans might not have wanted to believe this was their reality. But as usual with Trump, you ignore his intentions at your peril.
No comments:
Post a Comment