CAN DONALD TRUMP TAKE "YES" FOR AN ANSWER?

In "Trump's Greenland Folly," John Hinderaker notes, "I have often said that, while Donald Trump sometimes says dumb things, he rarely actually does dumb things. His current policies toward Greenland, sadly, are an exception to that rule."  To the editors of The (Not Detroit) Free Press, the Greenland initiatives are "Trump’s Dangerous Greenland Game."  Reason's Eric Boehm describes Our President's Greenland gabbling as "The Least Popular Idea in American Political History."  I think that's in the unpopular a priori category; we did have an amendment establishing alcohol prohibition, the only one repealed in full.

Those posts make a common set of points.  Acting like an international bully is what China or Russia or a medieval kingdom do, treating other states as clients or satrapies rather than as allies.  Denmark and Greenland and the Atlantic Alliance powers all seem perfectly amenable to authorizing additional military bases and control stations for space lasers there.  The mineral resources Our President covets are currently too costly to develop, what is it about all the elements of Mendeleyev's periodic table shaking out in pure form at the cold latitudes anyway?  Rod Dreher adds another observation: the Trump presidency has up to this point encouraged the Militant Normals (the "nationalist right" in more academic circles) to vote for politicians that don't toe the globalist line, a political development strengthened by recent kinetic actions in Iran and Venezuela, two of the shelter pets of the globalists, as well as the pressure campaign on Cuba.  But a great power treating an ally like a satrapy?  Hungarians and Poles and Frenchmen have less than happy memories of such days.  His conclusion is the same as that reached by the authors cited infra.

No country likes to be bullied or humiliated, especially when it involves losing territory. Trump might win Greenland in the near term, but if so, the long-term loss to America’s position among its for-now allies, and to the strength of imperiled Western civilization, will be profound.

And so it came to pass, this morning DeKalb time, that Our President delivered another free-associating ramble (fortunately, there was strong coffee on the stove) that his press office spins as "In Davos, President Trump Outlines Bold Vision for American Prosperity, Transatlantic Strength," and this afternoon came an announcement of "a framework of a future deal:" undoubtedly the not-always-loyal opposition will be cracking wise about "concept of a plan" language.  At least a stupid trade war between Europe and the United States is on hold and Wall Street bourses can breathe again.  What will transpire for space laser control stations or mineral extraction or a Ho-Chunk casino in Nuuk is yet to be determined.

That noted, Hot Air contributor David Strom was pleased to see Our President throw a little insult comic material into his speech.

Donald Trump has offended many European leaders because he has been stern and, to be honest, very disrespectful to them. I note, though, that most of these European countries have been extremely disrespectful of the United States for decades, lied to us about their own commitments, broken many agreements, and have tried to bully the United States through regulations, while relying on the US to protect their territory and world trade.

Trump is treating them like children because they have behaved like children, threatening to run away from home while having depended on us for all their lives. They scream, ineffectually, like toddlers, and Trump is treating them as if they are throwing tantrums.

John Hinderaker would like to see that framework.

The fact that Trump’s proposed tariffs have been canceled is good news, and the financial markets shot up on the report. As to whether there is yet a “framework” in place to address security matters going forward, it seems doubtful.

In any case, I think it is virtually certain that an agreement will be reached with Denmark and Greenland, and perhaps other European countries, that will give us whatever free rein we need to use Greenland to enhance our (and perhaps Europe’s) security. That was never in doubt, so I think we are back where we started, before President Trump started talking about possible military action. Whether anything has been gained in the meantime is questionable.

Whether conventional diplomacy would have led to the possible additional military bases or mining agreements or Inuit casinos with less drama will no doubt occupy students of international relations for some time.