Dear Editor,

A really good piece in last Sunday’s New York Times caught my eye: Greenland.

Presumably, most would instinctively conjure up the picture of our illustrious President. You would be forgiven if you thought the Times piece was about Trump’s drawn-up plans to invade Greenland.

Nope, it would be Dr. Phil and some other “guys” who actually shared the role of protagonists. Don’t worry, there is space (and words) for President Trump. I read on.

Initially, Dr. Phil’s introduction meant nothing to me. As it turns out, it was Dr. Phil McGraw, the television personality and Trump supporter. I have never watched “Dr. Phil’s” television program, but I know who he is. The other prominent and notable figure was former Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry.

You’ll probably want to ask, how did the likes of Dr. Phil and a former Louisiana Governor make their way to the “front-of-the-line” in the President’s imperialistic plans to “invade” Greenland? 

Well, in a Trojan horse, of course. Dr. Phil and Landry are of course the sacrificial “canaries” — the prelude to what Trump will assert are the international necessities for his eventuality and legacy as leader of the hegemonic state.

In a singularly peculiar way, I got to thinking about how Trump is not ideologically bound by social issues. He doesn’t particularly like folks who don’t look like him, but he doesn’t know why. He is really an extreme product of our American foreign policy — a policy that doesn’t necessarily parallel most Americans’ sentiments; a policy that is developed and implemented, in many cases, against the will of the majority of Americans.

History should be our teacher, right? Dr. Phil and Landry are not invading Greenland. Nevertheless, their trip is the predicate. We don’t need (or wish) to be reminded about our (sentient) species’ historical propensity to invade our neighbors and claim the spoils. Post iron-age history also shows us that there were none better than the British, the French, the Spaniards, and the Portuguese at using sheer force to take and occupy all manner of foreign lands and goods.

U.S. imperialism and colonization are not simply course studies in history books. We (America) learned well. It may have taken us a bit longer, but we wasted no time in recognizing the advantages of military and technical capabilities. To this day, the vestiges of those self-described, audacious occupations are there for the world to see and witness.

It didn't take long after the CIA was formed and folks like Henry Kissinger came knocking, for us to realize that minerals, oil, and resources in other countries were there for the taking. Some would require “regime changes" — others required displacing folks who impeded policy changes to cloak a takeover.

Much of Africa and almost every country in South America are prime examples. History is replete with our “forced” interventions, most in the name of saving some form of democracy. Just ask Vietnam or Bolivia.

Read the New York Times piece. Here we go again.

What's wrong with “forcing” Greenland to give up its mineral wealth? What was proposed, with a straight face, is that America's investors and oil barons would share up to 15% of the profits.

Some extra large cojones, eh? I see Kissinger's ghost hanging around here someplace.

Most importantly, however, are Trump’s hegemonic propensities. Our “eye” may be on Greenland for now. One may wish to ask about Trump’s and Rubio’s foreign policy developments in Venezuela and Cuba, where Rubio claims to have some unfinished business. Could it be Batista was a distant relative?

We don’t know what the next two years will bring us. We wait, just like the rest of the world waits. Maybe we will invade Greenland and force its 45 citizens to swear allegiance to Trump.

Rudy V. Garcia

Gilpin County