The United States military prepares for a wide range of potential conflicts, but one scenario was previously considered unthinkable: attacking its own allies. This concern arises from recent statements made by the president, who reportedly told the Norwegian prime minister that, due to the Nobel Committee’s decisions, he no longer feels bound “to think purely of Peace” and may pursue war against NATO.
A Threat to the Alliance
According to Anne Applebaum, the president’s message to Norway demands a response from the U.S. political system to restrain his actions. The president’s rhetoric suggests a potential invasion that would force “citizens of a treaty ally” to become unwilling participants, all stemming from personal grievance. Despite this, Congress and White House officials have not intervened.
The U.S. military is legally and ethically obligated to refuse illegal orders. However, the situation presents a challenge with orders that are not explicitly illegal but are considered immoral or illogical, such as planning an invasion of Greenland. While such orders might initially be framed as war games—potentially using code names like “Verdegrun”—the implications are deeply troubling.
Military officers, having trained alongside allies like Denmark for decades, are likely to find such directives deeply unsettling. Denmark fought alongside the U.S. during both World Wars and, more recently, alongside American forces in Afghanistan, experiencing significant losses.
A Perversion of Training
Officers are aware of the president’s plans and, according to reports, recognize the fundamental contradiction in being asked to apply their training “backwards”—against those they have prepared to defend. This would require a complete reversal of established military doctrine.
While the armed forces are conditioned to obey civilian authority, these potential orders would force them into a “mirror universe” where the U.S. acts as the aggressor against NATO. Implementing this would require dismantling and rebuilding military training, transforming defensive strategies into offensive ones.
The prospect of planning an invasion of a NATO country was previously unthinkable within military education. Such a proposal would have likely resulted in scrutiny, potential removal of leadership, or even psychological evaluation. Now, this stance has become the policy of the commander in chief.
Some military personnel may rationalize following orders, viewing allies as potential enemies. However, the majority are likely to experience conflict and disturbance attempting to translate the president’s “unhinged obsessions” into a viable military plan.
What Could Happen Next
If senior military leaders follow through with the president’s directives, lower-ranking officers and enlisted personnel are likely to obey the chain of command. This outcome could lead to a tragedy and potentially a global catastrophe. However, the responsibility to prevent this situation does not lie with the armed forces, but with American citizens and their elected representatives.
Frequently Asked Questions
What prompted this concern about a potential attack on allies?
The concern stems from a reported message from the president to the Norwegian prime minister, stating he no longer feels obligated to prioritize peace due to the Nobel Committee’s decisions and may pursue war against NATO.
Is the U.S. military legally obligated to follow all orders from the president?
The U.S. military is obligated to refuse illegal orders. The situation raises questions about how to respond to orders that are not explicitly illegal but are considered immoral or illogical.
What role has Denmark played in past U.S. military efforts?
Denmark fought alongside the U.S. during both World Wars and joined the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11, suffering significant casualties.
Given the unprecedented nature of this situation, what role should civilian leadership play in safeguarding international alliances?
Worth a look