The Enduring Threats to America from Europe

The Atlantic really is an anti-Europe moat

America has interests in Canada , Greenland, Mexico, the Panama Canal , the Gulf of Mexico, and of course the Atlantic, which actually is an anti- political “Europe” moat—not a geographic anti-European moat.

Canada

The American interest in Canada is indicated by the North American Aerospace Defense Command, which includes Canada as a partner within the command:

The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is a United States and Canada bi-national organization charged with the missions of aerospace warning, aerospace control and maritime warning for North America. Aerospace warning includes the detection, validation, and warning of attack against North America whether by aircraft, missiles, or space vehicles, through mutual support arrangements with other commands.

Aerospace control includes ensuring air sovereignty and air defense of the airspace of Canada and the United States. The renewal of the NORAD Agreement in May 2006 added a maritime warning mission, which entails a shared awareness and understanding of the activities conducted in U.S. and Canadian maritime approaches, maritime areas and internal waterways.

Not only is air and missile defense and detection important, but preventing Russian and Chinese domination of the Arctic and its natural resources and potential trade routes important.

Further, when Britain was hostile, Canada was a launching point to attack America from the Revolution to the American Civil War. We do not want a hostile threat in North America. In both the Revolution and War of 1812, America invaded Canada to push our homeland shield away from our border.

And we have an interest in an allied Canada not stinking on ice so America doesn’t have to devote extra resources to protect what Canada should protect. Which pushes our defense of the homeland farther north. And NATO ally Canada is also our largest trading partner within the USMCA trade agreement (formerly NAFTA). Nor can I forget that Canada resolutely fought at our side in Afghanistan on the ground in close combat. Few of our allies did that.

Greenland

Greenland is also important. Toss in nearby Iceland as an important outpost. As early as 1867, shortly after the American Civil War highlighted British and French potential threats to America, the United States proposed buying Greenland and Iceland. Indeed, it was felt that American possession of those islands would de-fang the threat of British-controlled Canada. Today, Greenland is another place to prevent Russia and especially China from gaining influence in the Arctic. It was useful for securing Atlantic sea lines of communication in World War I. Greenland was also vital in World War II as a stepping stone to Europe and to help fight German U-boat operations in the North Atlantic. During the Cold War, anchoring the anti-submarine barrier as the northern edge of the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom Gap was important. And add in air and missile detection roles, which are important for direct homeland defense.

Mexico

Mexico is important as a USMCA trading partner and to keep the southern border peaceful. Remember the Zimmerman Telegram? But even short of that potential military problem, we have a peacetime problem of mass illegal immigration and China’s Opium War-style war on our people with deadly illegal drugs, such as Fentanyl, flowing through Mexico into America. Again, homeland defense is improved with a more effective Mexico cooperating with us to secure our common border against drugs, infiltration, destabilizing mass illegal immigration, and of course preventing a direct military threat from arising.

Panama Canal

The Panama Canal is vital for American commerce and for easily shifting the Navy between the Atlantic and Pacific without the long trip around Cape Horn. The Panama administrator of the canal rejects Trump’s charge that it is threatened by China:

In an interview with The Associated Press, Ricaurte Vásquez denied Trump’s claims that China was controlling the canal’s operations, and said making exceptions to current rules concerning its operation would lead to “chaos.”

He said Chinese companies operating in the ports on either end of the canal were part of a Hong Kong consortium that won a bidding process in 1997. He added that U.S. and Taiwanese companies are operating other ports along the canal as well.

Nonetheless, the high profile exposure of our concerns about China’s operations there could lead to agreements between America and Panama that ease our worst-case scenarios. I sincerely doubt that short of a major war that America would send troops to take over the canal as a preventive move. But a deal that reduces the need for such action benefits Panama and America. Panama might even want an agreement that provides U.S. troops if China does become even a peacetime threat.

Gulf of Mexico

Even the Gulf of Mexico is important for both trade and for sending troops and supplies to Europe and Africa. In the Cold War, Cuba as a Soviet client was a potential source of Soviet-controlled interdiction of those sea lines of communication. And it was a potential base for Soviet offensive weapons, including nuclear missiles which triggered the Cuban Missile Crisis. Toss in Iranian influence in Venezuela and you have another potential source of interdiction, which could include terrorism. Indeed, we have down there a little Axis of El Vil (which if my translation app is accurate, means the Axis of the Vile):

One day after being sworn in for a third term as Venezuela's president, Nicolás Maduro addressed widespread international opposition, stating that Venezuela, along with its allies Cuba and Nicaragua, is "preparing" for the possibility of armed conflict.

Those are potential threats to our homeland from Cuba and Venezuela, with a Nicaragua cheering section. And if we call the body of water the Gulf of America? So what? There are geographic naming disputes all around the world that don’t convey legal ownership. If Italy wants to call it the Gulf of Columbus, have a ball.

Anti-Europe Moat

And last but not least, while calling the Atlantic Ocean the “anti-European moat” is amusing, it is also accurate, reflecting a vital American interest. Not against Europeans, many of whom are our friends and allies. But against a hostile power that controls the economic, scientific, demographic, and military potential of Europe.

If the Atlantic functions as our moat, we’ve effed up because that means an enemy is in control of Europe to the extent it can attack us across the figurative moat that is our last line of defense. The homeland is not secure if an enemy can use the Atlantic as a highway to strike us. That’s the foundation of why we waged war in Europe during World War I, World War II, and the Cold War. And preventing that threat from arising after the so-called “end of history” is still a reason to remain a leader in NATO to keep our Great Wall in Europe intact. Consider the threats to North America that have arisen from Europe:

The French and Indian War. Actual attack from Europe.

The American Revolution. Actual attack from Europe.

The Quasi-War with France. Actual attack from Europe.

The Tripolitan War. Actual attacks on American shipping enabled by European complicity. America sent forces abroad to defeat this threat.

The War of 1812. Actual attack from Europe.

The Civil War. Threat of attack or diplomatic and economic warfare from Europe to support the Confederates.

The Spanish-American War. Actual war against a European state, primarily over their colonies in the Americas. With some forces sent to the western Pacific.

World War I. Threat of attack. Before the war Germany had military contingency plans to attack New York City and occupy it. And Germany tried to push Mexico into fighting America to pin America down at home. America went to Europe to defeat the threat.

World War II. Actual attack. German U-boats struck along our coast and throughout the Atlantic. If that had been to cut off our trade after Germany controlled western Europe, that would have been devastating. Germany even tried to develop long-range bombers to strike America. And South America would have been ripe for Nazi penetration if it ruled western Europe. America went to Europe (and Asia, of course, with Japanese attacks on American soil) to defeat the threat.

The Cold War. Threat of attack. The primary threat was nuclear weapons. But the Soviet navy posed a threat to Atlantic sea lines of communication. Controlling western Europe would have made the threat much greater. And Soviet inroads into Latin America threatened to tie us down at home. This time America stood on foreign ground to keep the threats far from America.

The 9/11 terror attacks. Actual attack. Heck, some of the training and preparations were done in Europe. And in America and Afghanistan, of course. America went abroad to fight the threats.

And if you really want to get back to the beginning, would the original settlers of the Americas have preferred to have their first line of defense in Europe rather than going about their business and looking up to see sails on the horizon getting bigger and bigger? And yeah, that was an actual attack on those who controlled the Americas then.

Russia is the potentially severe threat right now because it is trying to rebuild the old Soviet Union. The USSR was far enough west to threaten the Western toe hold on the continent as well as being strong enough to have a fleet that posed a threat to free use of the North Atlantic, if used to interdict the sea line of communication. With Europe held by enemies, homeland defense is much more difficult. During World War II, American troops took up occupation duties in Greenland, Iceland; and set up bases in Canada and the Caribbean Sea under the “bases for destroyers deal” to shield America from the Axis threat via the Atlantic; and fought an undeclared naval war against Germany in the Atlantic. And that’s why, after France fell, we aided Britain to keep that last Atlantic shield-holder intact on the other side of the Atlantic.

Keeping Russia as far east is possible is why I support military aid to Ukraine as a component of homeland defense.

But let’s not forget that in the past threats have arisen from within the heart of Europe. I believe the proto-imperial European Union is a potential threat across the moat if it finally deletes that annoying prefix.

Ultimately, Trump reminded us that homeland defense isn’t a matter of sitting in bunkers on our coasts and land borders watching for a threat to reach us. And if we have friends abroad willing to cooperate with us for mutually beneficial reasons, homeland defense is strengthened in a stable way unlike empires that conquer vassals for use as expendable buffer states.

NOTE: The map is from Powerline Blog.