Dear America: Perspectives on Diplomacy and Well-Being

I write today as a veteran—and as the daughter of a father who was shot down while serving in the Army Air Corps during World War II and taken as a prisoner of war. I offer this perspective not to claim authority over others, but to ground these concerns in lived experience and a shared responsibility for the consequences of national decisions.

It is from that place that I ask us to look carefully at the idea of the United States attempting to acquire Greenland.

The diplomatic cost would be profound. Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, a long-standing ally and a founding member of NATO. Any unilateral move toward control—particularly one that disregards Greenlandic self-determination—would fracture trust not only with Denmark, but across the alliance. NATO’s strength has never rested on force alone; it rests on confidence that treaties, sovereignty, and consultation matter. Undermine that confidence, and the alliance is destroyed.

A weakened—or fractured—NATO would have direct consequences for the safety of Americans. NATO is not symbolic; it is a coordinated deterrence system. If the United States were perceived as willing to override an ally’s sovereignty, other member states could reasonably question whether collective defense commitments would be honored consistently. Even doubt is destabilizing. Reduced deterrence invites testing by adversarial powers, increases the likelihood of miscalculation, and shifts risk onto civilians at home and service members abroad.

It is also important to challenge a central claim often used to justify this idea: that taking over Greenland would make Americans safer. This argument does not withstand scrutiny. Greenland is more than 3,000 miles from the continental United States. Meanwhile, Alaska—already part of the United States—lies only six miles from Russia at its narrowest point. If proximity alone were the driver of national security, our focus would be on strengthening existing defenses, diplomacy, and infrastructure at home rather than expanding territorial control abroad. Safety is achieved through alliances, intelligence-sharing, and restraint—not through distant acquisitions that increase global tension.

Equally important—and too often overlooked—is the well-being of the people of Greenland themselves. Greenland is not an empty strategic asset; it is home to communities with deep cultural roots, Indigenous identity, and a fragile relationship to land and climate. Imposing external control risks disrupting social cohesion, economic stability, environmental stewardship, and cultural continuity. Respecting the dignity, autonomy, and long-term health of the Greenlandic people must be central to any discussion of Arctic engagement.

There is also a responsibility to future generations. Decisions made today will shape the world our children and grandchildren inherit—politically, environmentally, and morally. Normalizing territorial acquisition in the modern era risks setting precedents that erode international norms, fuel global instability, and leave future generations with fewer tools for cooperation and peace. The long arc of history shows that short-sighted power plays often burden those who come after us with conflict, debt, and ecological damage they did not choose.

Economically, the ripple effects would be felt by American households. Trade retaliation, disrupted defense cooperation, higher defense expenditures to compensate for lost allied support, and market volatility would follow. The costs of governance, infrastructure, defense, and environmental stewardship in Greenland would not be isolated; they would be borne by taxpayers already navigating economic uncertainty. Strategic overreach often carries long-term costs that far exceed any initial gain.

From a national safety standpoint, expanding territorial control in the Arctic would escalate militarization in an already sensitive region. Rather than increasing security, it would heighten the risk of confrontation and arms buildup—placing people in harm’s way. My family’s history is a reminder that when great powers misjudge the human cost of ambition, ordinary lives carry the burden.

There is a better path. The United States can remain engaged in the Arctic through diplomacy, scientific collaboration, environmental stewardship, and multilateral security agreements that respect sovereignty and human well-being. Leadership does not require ownership. It requires restraint, credibility, and partnership.

I ask my fellow Americans to engage now, before decisions harden into consequences. Please reach out to your members of Congress in Washington, D.C. Ask where they stand. Ask how they are protecting our alliances, our economy, the well-being of Greenland’s people, and the long-term safety of our own—and of future generations. Democratic accountability matters most before commitments are made.

America has always been strongest when it balances power with wisdom. My hope is that we choose cooperation over coercion, stability over short-sighted gain, and human well-being—at home, abroad, and for those yet to come—over provocation.

Respectfully,

A Veteran

A Daughter of a WWII Prisoner of War

A Citizen Concerned for Our Shared Future