Perhaps you should spare a thought for two United States four-star generals, Gregory Guillot and Frank Bradley, for in the next few weeks they may face a decision that outweighs even their half-million dollar pay grades.
It is no exaggeration to say their respective personal calls may massively affect not only their own country but the world at large.
Their decision relates to whether they will obey or decline Donald Trump’s order to invade Greenland — if it comes.
The media in the United States have been rolling rocks over in the last few months with regard to the motives for the Trump administration’s plans in this direction. These rolling rocks have crushed the administration’s justifications based upon military necessity and the defence of democracy.
However, these investigations have brought some very unpleasant alternative motivations into view.
There is increasing evidence Greenland is of primary interest to a small group of billionaire kleptocrats that have influence over this administration. A considerable amount of this interest is related to money and the means by which the extension of US models of ownership to Greenland’s resources would open avenues to further massive personal enrichment.
Additionally, members of this group have publicly identified Greenland as a candidate for a new post-democratic cybertech-state, in which the rich will be free to rule and the poor will have no presence.
The primary vehicle for this social vision is a US company called Praxis that is backed by over half a billion US dollars in capital — more will be available.
While the first of these billionaires’ objectives may very adversely affect Greenland’s current 50,000+ inhabitants, the second, more covert one, represents a direct threat to their very lives.
These billionaires have a history of meaning what they say, and of reliably getting what they want. Therefore, ‘‘Greenland’’ is likely to happen, even though some 80%+ of the plebiscite of every nation involved, including the US, oppose the idea of annexation.
As Greenland and Denmark are functioning democracies bound by their democratic mandate to reject any purchase or voluntary handover arrangement, a presidential order to acquire Greenland by force thus appears to be imminent.
Presently, the only body that could prevent a takeover of Greenland by the US armed forces is ... the US armed forces. This is where the two generals above come in.
The presidential order to invade Greenland will come down a specific chain of command. The order will go from the president to the Secretary of Defence (a civilian Trump appointee), and then directly to one or more military ‘‘unified combatant commanders’’.
This short-chain arrangement was developed as a solution to the inter-service rivalries at high-command level that bedevilled US operations in World War 2.
There are 11 such commanders. All are four-star generals, nominated by the president. Seven have command of all US armed forces in a specific geographic area, while the remaining four have control over key support functional specialisations.
Any order to invade Greenland (a small operation) is likely to go to Northern Command (Geographic — General Gregory M. Guillot, USAF) and Special Operations Command (Functional — Admiral Frank M. Bradley USN).
If the views of these two generals align with those of the wider US population, then there is only a 6% chance that both of them will think that invading Greenland is a good idea.
However, if that’s all they think they are likely to conform with their operational training and obey the order.
Nevertheless, these are general officers, and the training of such individuals goes beyond operational matters and into the fields of politics and law.
This wider perspective may cause them to consider the domestic and international legality of any such order, and thus the possibility that it is their duty to not obey it.
The most direct case for illegality under international law is via Article 6a of the Nuremberg Principles ‘‘Crimes Against Peace’’. It is relevant to these two generals because it was used to hang Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel and General Alfred Jodl in 1946, even though they were acting as military officers upon orders received from the German civil administration.
Article 6a states: ‘‘‘Crimes against peace:’ namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances ... ’’
As both the US and Denmark are members of Nato, and thus bound by a mutual non-aggression pact, a case could easily be made against both of these officers under this principle if they obeyed an order to invade Greenland.
However, while the US has freely created and used international law to pursue foreigners, it has no history of allowing international law to be applied to either its own behaviour or that of its citizens, so the generals can rest easy there.
The domestic case for illegality is rather more ominous for the two generals. The constitution of the United States reserves the right to declare war for Congress.
Presidents may also deploy forces (without shooting), and may make war if specifically authorised to do so by either Congress or (maybe) the United Nations.
While recent presidents have wriggled hard to enlarge them, none of these loopholes really fit this situation, so there are therefore only two presidential fig leaves available — President Trump may contend that declaring war means sending a letter rather than an army.
The issue with this position is none of the multiple wars that have occurred since 1945 have started that way.
He may also claim moving US forces into Greenland is only a deployment, but this will only work if there is no shooting, which seems unlikely as multiple European nations move military forces into an already heavily armed local population.
If these generals refuse the order, their positions and their liberty might only last a few minutes.
However, if they obey, the personal outcomes may not be much better for them. The unsavoury motivations for the Greenland plan, its inoffensive target, apparent constitutional illegality, massive international repercussions, very low levels of domestic public support and President Trump’s behaviour may well lead to the swift impeachment of both President Trump and Vice-president J.D. Vance for abuse of presidential power.
So, the two generals must wait and sweat.
Who would want to be in their shoes?
- Dr Robert Hamlin is a senior lecturer in marketing at the University of Otago. He is writing here in a personal capacity.
