This is the kind of thing that even die-hard Trump true believers should find, if nothing else, odd.
Although it was barely discussed during the campaign, President-Elect Trump is sparking head-explosions and headlines by talking about expanding American geography and territories. He says he wants to take the Panama Canal back; he says he wants Denmark to hand over Greenland, and he also wants to make Canada a state.
The U.S. hasn’t added any significant geography to its dominion since the Spanish American War, and gave up the Canal Zone to Panama during the Carter Administration. James K. Polk, the Democratic President who came into office as the herald of “Manifest Destiny,” had well-publicized designs on the Oregon territory as well as Mexican holdings from the start of his administration, and was threatening both Great Britain and Mexico to get his way. In the end, Polk got most of the Oregon territory in a compromise deal the English, and although it took a war with Mexico to do it, snatched California and the New Mexico territory. Then Polk retired and promptly died, his mission complete. Whether one ranks him as one of our most successful Presidents depends on how one feels about American imperialism, or perhaps whether one believes that, upon reflection, acquiring California was a mistake.
I join with Dana above in screaming “What’s happening?” The three supposed Trump targets are from various compartments in his unique mind. The Canada stuff is pretty clearly trolling. It’s not going to happen, and adding Canada would be instantly destabilizing and politically disastrous. It would also mean that the Republicans would probably never win another national election. Canada is culturally distinct from the U.S., which is having cultural problems already. Trump is just fooling around.
Is it ethical for a President to “just fool around” like that? No. Of course not.
Taking back the Canal Zone is slightly more serious, but not much. There are some serious security issues facing the Panama Canal, and legitimate cause for worry regarding how well Panama can manage them. Maybe the United Nations should take over the Canal Zone, or a theoretical U.N. that wasn’t useless, as the real one is. However, the United States can’t just seize territory (as Teddy Roosevelt did, in effect, helping to start a revolution in Panama to get it separated from Columbia, and then using that assistance to seed a treaty handing over the Canal Zone, then giving it back to Panama, and then, if Trump is serious, seizing it again, making the Canal Zone a metaphorical ping-pong ball and making the U.S. look even more untrustworthy.
The Greenland plan, however, may be serious. I think it should go without saying that the new President will have a lot of problems to solve domestically and internationally (and promises to keep if he doesn’t want his two-year window with a Republican Congress to slam shut in 2026) without concocting new controversies with a James K. Polk impression.
Does Donald Trump suffer from ADD? Just wondering. Many creative and successful people do, but it is still a handicap.
Oh…as for re-naming the Gulf of Mexico “the Gulf of America,” why not? I know the President is talking about this to annoy Mexico, but the main objection I see is that it would ruin the lyrics of Johnny Horton’s classic, “The Battle of New Orleans”…
Ethics Alarms 
One fundamental thing to note is that he’s not wrong about the reality of the relationships-
Canada does exist more comfortably than it would otherwise entirely because of the United States power.
A Panama Canal dominated by anyone other than the United States would be disastrous geopolitically for us and commercially disruptive for the rest of the world.
Greenland is a key geopolitically strategic piece of land that, with Alaska, would permit the United States to dominate access to the Arctic where the Arctic currently would be dominated by Russian proximity.
None of what he asserted about the reality of the terrain and relationships is wrong.
Trolling Canada (though really trolling Trudeau) is something the president shouldn’t do. And no Canada isn’t going to be annexed.
But you can be guaranteed that if the Panama Canal actually came under even merely contractual domination by a nefarious country like China- we *cannot* sit by and let it happen. Polite diplomatic niceties will be tossed immediately.
Greenland, however- would be a brilliant addition to our “portfolio” so to say. And floating ideas of buying it are not unethical nor clownish.
Also. The only ethical name change is to the “Gulf of Texas”.
And everybody knows it.
But four states—Texas, Florida, Louisiana and Alabama, border on the Gulf. And Texas IS America, maybe more than any other state today
I’m allowed to be irrationally chauvinistic about a few things.
Ugh. I mean “irrationally partisan”
(Mississippi also)
I do love that the soon to be resigned Justin Trudeau is running around declaring that Canada will never, ever be a US state. Game. Set. Match goes to Trump.
jvb
A song is a song. I can still sing “Gulf of Mexico” in the song even if it’s not the name anymore, even as I can call Denali Mount McKinley and as I used to call the RCA Dome the Hoosier Dome after they renamed it because we were still being taxed an extra penny in sales tax for that thing (and we still are, despite the fact that it has since been torn down) in order to house the Colts after they fled Baltimore in the middle of the night and stuck their landlord with the bill.
But I can be a stick in the mud sometimes.
No question that taking Canada would be a terrible idea, but it is in keeping with the history of the United States that attempts to gain Canada to add to our girth has been a goal of many throughout the last almost 250 years. We tried it in the War of 1812 and there were demands to get it as reparations of a sort from England after the Civil War over what was considered England’s interference.
Trying to get Canada, it would seem, is as American as apple pie. But getting it would probably be like eating a pie made with crabapples.
We wouldn’t have to give them Statehood. I mean- I’m not sure they have anything remotely qualifying as “government” or “laws” anyway. They’d need significant heavy handed governance directly by the Department of the Interior before we could qualify them as capable of membership in the Federative relationship enjoyed by the 50 states.
I have no idea what he is going with this.
Some of it almost seems like a distraction or diversion.
-Jut
All three of these may be counter threats to the Communist Chinese threats to Taiwan. All of these locations are in our backyard, relatively easily defensible by us, and have high economic and strategic value to both our countries.
Threatening to take them is an inexpensive signal to the Chinese that there will be consequences for continuing aggression against Taiwan.
China would gladly endorse us taking Greenland if we let them take Taiwan. I don’t think Trump is signalling anything towards China. Like it or not, the world is cycling into a semi-hunker down mode and like it not, Americans in general are feeling a little bit “isolationist”, so any vision that includes bolstering “fortress America”, will communicate a contemporary idea of strength.
Trump is threatening the end of the Communist Chinese party if they continue on their course vis-a-vis Taiwan, not looking to trade property with them.
Greenland and Canada are both strategic locations to protect from an ICBM and intercontinental bomber perspective from multiple nuclear threats.
https://www.civitasinstitute.org/research/trump-and-the-panama-canal-why-he-should-invoke-the-monroe-doctrine
My point is- a theory that Trump is saber rattling about conquering Greenland as a deterrence towards China taking Taiwan doesn’t strike me a likely theory.
acquiring California was not a mistake however allowing present day inhabitants to reproduce may be.
the more northern regions of Canada with their oil and gas would be a positive addition. The border cities of Quebec, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver would just add to the present California problem
Greenland is a strategic must but more importantly we need more of their North Atlantic cod.
As long as the climate keeps shifting warmer- Canada’s value especially in agriculture will continue to grow. (So will Russia’s hinterland)
But especially the value of the Northwest Passage will grow and Arctic geopolitical competition.
Strangely absent from any global warming hysterics is the advice to buy large tracts of land in Canada, which would theoretically soon become prime real estate. Maybe I’m just missing the boat here on a great investment strategy.
I didn’t have the specifics, but the idea that he’d do something embarrassing and insulting to allies before even taking office was as predictable as the sun rising in the east. The triple feature did surprise me a little, though.
Don’t forget “The Gulf of America”!
He was asked a dumb question about strategic forecasting by a reporter who knows his modus operandi is “don’t ever reveal what you aren’t willing to do”.
And of course in that vein, he said “I’m not ruling out military action”. When you also take into account later hypotheticals the reporter asked about we realize it’s in the context of a very unrealistic imagined context of Greenland voting for independence and even less likely Greenland voting to become a state and Denmark refusing to accept a referendum….
And the truth of the matter is- no leader should outright say what options are off the table. Just as a miscreant reporter shouldn’t ask that question.
Believe it or not- our closest ally Great Britain, would never “rule out military action” against us. And we wouldn’t rule it out against them if the circumstances arose…
What an unethical reporter that was.
Over the course of “Four Years at Joe’s,” er, the Biden “Administration, I’ve often wondered, why don’t we just annex all of North America south of the border down to the Columbia border? That would solve the “immigration” problem. I could have been the Border Czar. Move the border! All those wonderful people so desperate to get to the United States could just stay home and BE in the United States at the same time. Problem solved!
Regarding Canada, Greenland and Panama: Hello? Anybody home? Trump’s a real estate developer. Real estate developers identify undervalued tracts of real property and find ways to maximize their asset value. These are simply underutilized assets that, if acquired and properly managed, would be great long-term plays for the U.S. Again. He’s a real estate developer. He’s not a life-long vote-grubber, er, ahem, uh, public servant.
The lefties on TwitteX are howling that Trump has threatened to invade Canada and Greenland.
Trump was obviously trolling with the Canada suggestion, but maybe with a bit of a purpose. He’s a negotiator, and not above churning the waters with irrelevancies or things he doesn’t really care about to get his opponent distracted or off-kilter, and maybe inclined to want to settle down and give in to some reasonable negotiations.
The US has offered to buy Greenland before. It’s an “autonomous territory” of Denmark, with supposedly a right of self-determination. What would happen if we offered each citizen $100,000 to be our autonomous territory (but not a state)? That would only be about $3.2 billion. (It’s a boring place, but if it would help, I’ll kick in a 50DKK note I have left over from being there last summer.)
Mexico is in North America, and they and others in the Americas south of our border sometimes complain about only us being called Americans, because they are also “Americans”. What’s wrong with the “Gulf of America”, then?
The canal can’t be controlled by the Chinese (state or companies…same thing). Carter should have demanded an agreement stipulating that the ports be controlled by the US, or our selected representatives, and that US naval vessels would have priority access, and pay no fees for transit.
I think I’ll try to find a copy of The Wind and the Lion to watch. Maybe Trump could get a few sent to the Hamas goons still holding Americans.
Brian Keith made the best Teddy Roosevelt ever. It’s a terrific movie, even if its history is a little skewed.