So what is the big deal with Greenland anyway?

For a country most Americans have never visited or considered very much, Greenland sure took front and center on the world stage when President Donald Trump announced his intent to buy it from Denmark. When he said he intended to impose tariffs not only on Denmark but also on other NATO allies to get them to the bargaining table, stock markets were roiled worldwide.

Why would a territory that is part of the kingdom of Denmark generate so much interest and controversy unless it was very important or some other underlying issues were at stake for America?

Greenland has a population not much larger than Chapel Hill spread across a vast and often cold and desolate landscape. It is a strategic chokepoint near the Arctic through which Russian and Chinese military ships and nuclear submarines could pass should they ever choose to attack the United States and western Europe.

Greenland has deposits of rare earth minerals, lithium and uranium, all of which are critical in the manufacture of semiconductors and batteries, along with the production of nuclear energy. It will take the full combined efforts of all NATO allies to protect Greenland and to undergo the dangerous but important mining efforts to extract these strategic minerals. Many of these deposits may lie beneath three kilometers of ice, which will take years if not decades to find and extract.

Denmark does not have the resources to protect Greenland from any attack — missile or otherwise. Like every other NATO country, Denmark has relied on American military protection since World War II. There is some military involvement from other NATO nations in Greenland today, but not to any significant degree compared to American forces or installations.

Greenland has provided Trump with an opportunity to finally get NATO countries — now close to a century after World War II — to take responsibility and make their taxpayers pay for their national defense and our shared common freedoms around the globe, including Greenland.

For much of the post-World War II era, American taxpayers paid for roughly twice the amount of military spending relative to GDP than any in NATO alliance countries.

Once America flexed its transformative influence during and after World War I, the United States of America became seen as the only world superpower who could help others withstand the dictatorial might of others soon to come.

Try to imagine what a sad and dangerous world it would be today had there never been a United States of America to do what it has done to protect freedom and democracy in Europe and around the globe since 1917.

Not only did America once again come to the rescue of its European allies in World War II, but it also remained the only world power capable of helping destroyed economies rebuild and retool after the war. To do so, American troops and military installations stayed in Europe, where oftentimes they were the only defense force that could face off against the threats offered by the new Soviet Union.

Since the recovering NATO allies were having to rebuild destroyed economies, they were unable to rebuild their military forces at the same time, so American forces remained as the only defense possible. German and Japanese military forces were rightly restricted from rebuilding, for obvious reasons.

During the 1980s, a growing number of American politicians began to question the fairness of asking U.S. taxpayers to foot the bill not only of protecting America but also of fully covering the cost of defending European allies under the umbrella of “protecting American interests” overseas. They were rebuffed by defenders of the status quo who said “peace was easier to fund than war,” which is true to an extent.

As you try to shake the wheat of truth from the chaff of fiction in any news account about Trump and Greenland, put on a long-term strategic thinking cap and see what is best for the United States over the next 100 to 1,000 years in terms of access to strategic minerals, shipping and commerce lanes, and having allies who share in paying for all of it.

History is rife with nations and kingdoms rising to power only to fail at some point to think far enough ahead in time to protect their interests and remain not only as a superpower but as a national entity at all.

Greenland may be one of those important hinge points in history people need to take seriously — which has nothing to do with whether Trump was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize or not.