In Focus delivers deeper coverage of the political, cultural, and ideological issues shaping America. Published daily by senior writers and experts, these in-depth pieces go beyond the headlines to give readers the full picture. You can find our full list of In Focus pieces here.
The law and the writings of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine strongly suggest he would reject an order by President Donald Trump to attack Greenland. Has Caine already made that clear to the president?
It’s possible. Observe Trump’s backtracking on his prior military threats to Greenland during his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Wednesday. The widespread pushback from America’s allies against those threats, along with the economic instability they’ve triggered, are the most likely reasons for Trump’s toned-down rhetoric. But might Caine and the Joint Chiefs also have played a role?
AMERICA’S ICE-PROTESTER IDIOCY
Caine won Trump’s favor by impressing him during the president’s first term. His quiet professionalism also sets Caine in positive contrast to Trump’s final first-term Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Mark Milley. The latter chose to cultivate the media and his public persona over the necessity of apolitical military professionalism. Wherever possible, Caine has chosen to quietly get on with the job.
But how does Caine’s character bear relevance to Greenland?
Put simply, it’s the Constitution, stupid. While the chairman serves as the president’s chief military adviser rather than as a combatant commander, his supervision of both the military’s legal counsel and the various uniformed service chiefs would likely enable him to prevent an illegal order from reaching the combatant commander responsible for Greenland, Gen. Gregory Guillot. At the same time, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Guillot would almost certainly resign in the face of such an order from Trump. A constitutional crisis and Trump’s impeachment would likely follow.
The law is clear.
Absent a credible threat from Denmark or Greenland, any order to attack Greenland would be unlawful because it would breach America’s treaty commitment to NATO. That matters because under Article VI of the Constitution, “all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Under the Defense of Greenland treaty of 1951, the U.S. further committed to respect Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland. An unprovoked attack on Greenland would be manifestly illegal under U.S. law. Military personnel would be obliged not to follow such an order.
Caine’s biography and writings suggest he knows this. A Washington Examiner study of Caine’s writings on his now-defunct blog show that he is an adherent of Marcus Aurelius, stoicism, and a man of deep faith and self-reflection. His writings offer various compelling examples to suggest that he would refuse an unlawful order in furtherance of his Constitutional obligations.
Consider Caine’s stance on the law.
In a 2017 blog post dedicated to his daughters, Caine emphasized his affection for the Constitution and Founding Fathers amid the public’s growing partisanship. He noted that, “Each branch has a system of checks and balances over the others to make it all work — which is exactly the way our brilliant founding fathers wanted it to. We would all just hope that there is some civility in [political] conversations.” Another of his posts reflects on a newly commissioned officer Caine had sworn in. “When a servicemember takes an Oath of Office they are making a legally and morally binding commitment,” Caine wrote.
Caine adopts a similar philosophy toward doing what is necessary and morally right. Celebrating the virtues of courage, justice, temperance, and wisdom, he observed how “History tells us that Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus, Cato [the Younger], President Lincoln, and General Marshall all embraced these virtues and lived them in their day-to-day life. Every day I deliberately try to lead using these virtues as well. I hope you will too.”
Perhaps the example of Cato, bearing in mind his defining clash with Julius Caesar over the future of the Roman Republic, is the most interesting here. Cato killed himself rather than allowing the victorious Caesar to bestow a poisoned clemency upon him and thus symbolize the triumph of his dictatorial values over Cato’s commitment to the Republic.
This ideal of standing up for what is right, even when it involves senior leaders, is clearly important to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. In another post, Caine references an incident in which his F-16 fighter jet was nearly lost due to poor leadership by a superior. He pledged that the incident had a profound impact on him: “Never again would I forget that no matter how inexperienced you are, you have a duty and responsibility to do your part to prevent someone from making a critical judgment error … Never again would I not have the courage to speak up.”
Caine repeatedly emphasizes the importance of honest communication in his writings, noting that “There are times as a leader when you have to sit down and have a difficult conversation with a teammate.”
Caine has earned Trump’s trust. But Trump should be wary of assuming the nation’s top military officer is loyal to him over the Constitution. Indeed, in a lighter example of the two men’s differences, Caine remarked, “Years ago I realized that I (and everyone else) talks too much and that we need to all be quiet and listen.”
THE SVALBARD PROOF TRUMP WANTS GREENLAND FOR DOLLARS, NOT DEFENSE
Caine rightly follows Trump’s lawful orders without question. That includes Trump’s legally justified strikes on drug smugglers and his orders to use force against adversary threats in places such as Iran, Yemen, and Venezuela. But Caine’s writings and career make clear that his oath is his professional anchor. Trump can say what he wants, but he is neither a king nor is the military in his possession.
The military defends the Constitution and the nation. Caine knows well that an attack on Greenland would be incompatible with both.
