Trump's Rhetoric Regarding Greenland Is A Danger To Us All

I am at a loss for words right now.  I no longer recognize our government or our nation.

Yesterday, a mile from my house, ICE was going door-to-door.  At the gas station I frequent, masked individuals in unmarked vehicles were swarming a lone pickup truck hauling lawn mowers and weed eaters.  And when I turned on the news, I saw our bumbling crybaby in chief threatening our ally with military force because his fragile ego had been bruised.

I am, of course, talking about Greenland.

The rhetoric of taking Greenland by force is as absurd as it is serious. It is not strategy. It is reckless talk that ignores how the world actually works.

Greenland is part of Denmark. Denmark is a NATO ally. That one fact matters more than anything else being said. NATO rests on a simple commitment. An attack on one member is treated as an attack on all. So when a U.S. president talks about using force against Greenland, he is talking about the United States attacking its own alliance. There is no upside there. You do not gain security. You do not project strength. You fracture NATO and hand leverage to adversaries who would love nothing more than to see that alliance collapse from the inside.

The justifications being floated make it worse, not better. There is no imminent threat coming from Greenland. No hostile act. No emergency. And tying the use of military force to ego, grievance, or personal slights is not how serious nations make decisions about war. In the military, force is always the last option. It has to be necessary. It has to be proportional. It has to serve a legitimate objective. Greenland meets none of those standards.

What concerns me most is what this kind of rhetoric does to the people in uniform.

Every service member is taught the same thing early on. You follow lawful orders. You refuse unlawful ones. That line is there for a reason. After World War II, the world made a hard decision. “I was just following orders” would never again be an excuse for illegal war or aggression. That lesson is baked into military law, rules of engagement, and professional ethics.  I know this because I taught these principles to recruits for nearly five years. I lived them for twenty-seven.

So imagine being a young soldier or airman hearing this talk. Imagine wondering whether you could be ordered to attack a country that has done nothing to us and is, in fact, an ally. That puts people in an impossible position. Archbishop Timothy Broglio was right to raise that alarm in a radio interview yesterday. He was not being political. He was being responsible. Moral injury does not start on the battlefield. It starts when leaders put troops in situations that violate law, ethics, and basic judgment.

Refusing an unlawful order is not disloyalty. It is loyalty to the Constitution. Service members swear an oath to the Constitution, not to a person. That oath demands judgment. It demands courage. And it should never be tested by reckless civilian leadership.

After completing my tour as a drill sergeant, I was selected to serve as a mission planner. I can tell you there are safeguards everywhere for a reason. Legal review. Alliance coordination. Congressional authority. Rules of engagement. Those are not bureaucratic obstacles. They are guardrails. When a president talks casually about using force against an ally, he is signaling contempt for those guardrails and indifference to the consequences.

And the damage is already happening. Allies are watching. Adversaries are listening. Troops are paying attention. The image of the United States as a nation guided by law, restraint, and credibility erodes every time this goes unanswered.

Congress cannot hide behind silence. Silence is not neutrality. Civilian control of the military does not mean unchecked power. It means accountability.

And one final point, because it matters.

This is not only about what a president says. It is about what the most senior military leaders do. Any military leader who knowingly attempts to carry out an illegal order to attack a sovereign nation, especially a treaty ally, is violating their oath. Responsibility does not stop at the civilian who gives the order. It extends to the commanders who choose to execute it.  I would argue that our senior military leadership has a legal, moral and ethical responsibility in this moment to stand firm and refuse illegal orders.  They must lead our men and women in uniform by example.

The obligation to refuse unlawful orders applies at every level of command. The higher the rank, the greater the responsibility to say no. History is clear on this. Military law is clear. Professional ethics are clear. Carrying out an unlawful act of aggression exposes leaders to removal, liability, and lasting damage to the institution they claim to serve.

The military is not a tool for ego. It is not leverage. It is not theater.

When civilian leadership forgets that, uniformed leadership has a duty to remember it.

That is not insubordination. That is leadership.