The Psychological Stake in Greenland
With the next big media-geopolitical moment shifting to Greenland, we find ourselves amidst many interesting discussions revolving around precisely what it is about the hoary territory that has captured Trump’s unanimous obsession.
One interesting proposition has been put forth in a new piece by Michael McNair. It elaborates on the theory that Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby is the true architect behind Trump’s Greenland grab, and in fact outlined his vision for this very maneuver in his 2021 book, The Strategy of Denial: American Defense in an Age of Great Power Conflict.
The article asserts that, just like the ‘hidden hand’ of Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 was suspected to have provided the underlying ‘script’ for Trump’s second term—despite profuse denials—in the domestic sphere, Elbridge Colby’s ‘playbook’ is likewise secretly shaping Trump’s vision for not only Greenland—with the territory merely being one key cog in the overall scope—but the wider American geopolitical strategy, which includes the newly reinvisioned ‘Donroe Doctrine’.
The piece quotes John Konrad in describing Colby’s influence inside the Pentagon:
“…aside from Hegseth, the most powerful gravitational body in the building is Elbridge Colby.” He added that Colby’s “grand strategy remains exactly what he published in his books and interviews long before taking office. He is executing it now.”
It goes on to praise Colby’s ‘sophisticated’ strategic thinking, implying at every turn that he is a rare and generational savant under whose stewardship the US’s geopolitical interests will be impeccably served.
What distinguishes Colby from most strategic thinkers is his recognition that strategy operates as a complex adaptive system. He doesn’t ask “what should we do about Taiwan?” in isolation. He asks “what is China’s optimal strategy, and how do we make that strategy fail?” He thinks through second and third-order effects, understands how actions in one theater affect capacity in another, and builds a framework where the pieces actually connect.
Of course, if you really pay attention to the author’s description of his genius, you quickly realize Colby is not the great thinker he is made out to be, but is rather a typical one-dimensional American neocon strategist capable only of processing the world through a shallowly binary and adversarial mindset, which is what sets him apart from the people who run policy in civilizational states like China. American neocons can operate only from the imperial vantage, utilizing the modalities of hostility and game-theoretic resource control.
It’s no surprise then that Colby happens to be descended from the “best” of them:
Is this true strategic virtuosity, or merely the same old clannish nepotism?
In short, he is a dangerously brilliant man, we are to assume. Thus, his carefully plotted Greenland campaign will be one of the most impressive strategic masterstrokes of the century.
What is his strategy, exactly, as outlined in his earlier-mentioned seminal book? The author summarizes for us:
Colby’s core claim is that U.S. strategy in the 21st century should aim to prevent China from achieving hegemony over Asia. The rest of his framework follows from that point.
Simple enough, but here’s the kicker:
Even the Western Hemisphere focus fits his framework. Securing the home base is not a retreat from Asia. It is a prerequisite for sustaining power projection into the Indo-Pacific. You cannot fight a war in the Western Pacific if hostile actors control your southern approaches.
He wrote the playbook. Now he is running it.
In short, the claim is that the White House’s strategy currently being played out is not a Monroe Doctrine-esque “retreat” from the outer world as many have assumed, with the US focusing on a ‘Fortress America’ strategic enclave in the Western Hemisphere, but rather is a fully offensive strategy aimed at impeding China from its now-inevitable ascendancy. The US’s focus on “interior” projects like Venezuela and Greenland is meant only to empower the US to act abroad by stripping China and other adversaries of life lines and advantages, etc.
This seems logical enough.
It is in essence a repudiation of this famous meme making the rounds, which implies Trump is willfully dividing up the world by ceding remaining hemispheres to Putin and Xi.
The idea is summarized by this key section:
The confusion comes from mistaking prioritization for abandonment. When Colby argues that Europe should take primary responsibility for its own defense, he is not saying “Russia gets Europe.” He is saying Europeans have the resources to handle their own continent, so American resources should concentrate where they are actually needed for the balance of power to hold.
The Western Hemisphere focus is not America retreating to its corner either. It is securing the base of operations. You cannot project power into the Indo-Pacific if hostile actors control the Gulf shipping lanes, your canal access, or critical supply chains in your own hemisphere. The Monroe Doctrine reassertion enables the Asia strategy. It does not replace it.
Despite my facetious tone, the content of the article is likely accurate: it is true that the US does not appear to be “retreating” into its sphere; it is clearly still intent on dominating the Middle East for the sake of Israel, as we are now witnessing play out with the Iranian saga, interventions against Houthis, etc. Instead the ridicule is aimed at the idea that Colby’s so-called ‘strategic vision’ can actually succeed while ignoring real second and third-order consequences, which are already beginning to manifest.
