I'm also here to talk about what I think is amateurish behavior with respect to the treatment of our NATO allies.
And it has to start with an interview that I saw with one of the president's senior policy advisors, Stephen Miller, on CNN a couple of nights ago.
Mr. Miller said that (…) obviously Greenland should be part of the US.
That is absurd.
We have to go back and take a look at the relationship to Greenland, and why am I coming to the floor, a senator from North Carolina?
Because since 2018, I have been the Republican leader for the Senate NATO observer group.
I've gone to every NATO conference. I've gone to the security conference. I've met with almost all of the leaders of the countries who are part of the 32-nation coalition known as NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty (…) Organization.
Now, let's talk about why I think it was an amateurish comment and something that a deputy chief of staff and senior policy adviser should not have taken the position on.
Number one, he doesn't speak for the US government. He speaks for the president of the United States, and on that basis, he can. But when he says that the US government thinks that Greenland should be a part of NATO, he should talk to people like me who have an election certificate and a vote in the US Senate
Because I know what he either doesn't know or he should know. And if he did know, I can't imagine why he'd make the comments that he did the other night in a television interview.
Let me give you some facts about Denmark for example. Denmark who has responsibility for Greenland. Although Greenland is an autonomous territory under NATO, it's a part of the Kingdom of Denmark. But let's talk about Denmark for a minute.
Denmark was one of NATO's most disproportionately high contributors in Afghanistan relative to its population size and force structure. What do I mean there?
There's been one time in the 75-year history of NATO that the NATO allies responded to the article 5 commitment, which means when one of our NATO allies are attacked, we go there to defend them. It's been exercised one time in the history of the alliance to come to the aid of the United States in the war on terror in Afghanistan.
Since their first mission began, more than 18,000 Danish soldiers have deployed to Afghanistan with American and British forces. Throughout their deployments in Afghanistan, 43 of their soldiers lost their life fighting aside American soldiers defending our freedom and holding the Taliban and Al Qaeda responsible for the events of September the 11th.
43 soldiers losing their lives. There are only about five or six NATO countries who lost more. And what's remarkable about this is this is a country of about six million people. On a per capita basis, Denmark suffered over six times the fatality rate of Germany and more than three times the fatality rate of France, matching or exceeding losses much larger allies with far greater resources.
So despite its small military, Denmark has deployed forces to some of the most kinetic some of the most dangerous kinetic combat zones, particularly Helman province fighting alongside UK units at the height of the insurgency. Danish forces accepted frontline combat roles. Some lost their lives as a result of it, not low risk symbolic missions.
For a small democracy, sustaining this level of risk over more than a decade reflects a serious commitment to NATO and a serious commitment to the safety and security of the United States.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I could have that specific language and the list of NATO countries who came to our aid and a photograph of our US Marines thanking the Danes for their work that they did in Afghanistan submitted to the record.
Mr. President, some people around here call me cranky. I've got a couple of buddies that call me cranky. You know what makes me cranky? Stupid.
What makes me cranky is when people don't do their homework. What makes me cranky is when we tarnish the extraordinary execution of a mission I fully support in Venezuela by turning around and making insane comments about how it is our right to have territory owned by the Kingdom of Denmark.
Folks, amateur hour is over.
You don't speak on behalf of this US senator or the congress.
You can say it may be the position of the president of the United States that Greenland should be a part of the United States, but it's not the position of this government because we are a co-equal branch. And if that were come to pass, there would be a vote on the floor to make it real, not the surreal sort of environment that some deputy chief of staff thinks was cute to say on TV.
So, you want to get me back to thanking the president for all the good things he's doing, then give them good advice.
One of two things happened with Greenland. Either one, the president came up with the idea that maybe we should have Greenland as a part of our assets.
And somebody said that's a great idea versus saying, "Mr. President, take a look at our alliance. Take a look at the most important alliance in the history of the United States, the NATO alliance. This could actually destabilize that. Mr. President, Mr. President, you should know at one point we had 17 military installations in Greenland, and they'd be happy to have us back.
They're not refusing to let us have access to project power into the Arctic. We can do it without taking over a NATO country.”
That's the sort of advice that they should have been given. So, if the president thought it was a good idea, then he needs the expertise to say, "Mr. President, that's why this is not a good idea."
And I would defy you to find any credible uh general with a star on his shoulder who would say that it is because they understand that the NATO alliances is what has kept this nation largely or this world largely safe for over 75 years.
The flip side could be that Mr. Miller or somebody else said, "Hey, this would be cool. Let's take over Greenland. It'll be like a big aircraft carrier."
Well, that's stupid, too. And I'm sick of stupid. I want good advice for this president because I want this president to have a good legacy. And this nonsense on what's going on with Greenland is a distraction from the good work he's doing. And the amateurs who said it was a good idea should lose their jobs.
Mr. Miller said that (…) obviously Greenland should be part of the US.
That is absurd.
We have to go back and take a look at the relationship to Greenland, and why am I coming to the floor, a senator from North Carolina?
Because since 2018, I have been the Republican leader for the Senate NATO observer group.
I've gone to every NATO conference. I've gone to the security conference. I've met with almost all of the leaders of the countries who are part of the 32-nation coalition known as NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty (…) Organization.
Now, let's talk about why I think it was an amateurish comment and something that a deputy chief of staff and senior policy adviser should not have taken the position on.
Number one, he doesn't speak for the US government. He speaks for the president of the United States, and on that basis, he can. But when he says that the US government thinks that Greenland should be a part of NATO, he should talk to people like me who have an election certificate and a vote in the US Senate
Because I know what he either doesn't know or he should know. And if he did know, I can't imagine why he'd make the comments that he did the other night in a television interview.
Let me give you some facts about Denmark for example. Denmark who has responsibility for Greenland. Although Greenland is an autonomous territory under NATO, it's a part of the Kingdom of Denmark. But let's talk about Denmark for a minute.
Denmark was one of NATO's most disproportionately high contributors in Afghanistan relative to its population size and force structure. What do I mean there?
There's been one time in the 75-year history of NATO that the NATO allies responded to the article 5 commitment, which means when one of our NATO allies are attacked, we go there to defend them. It's been exercised one time in the history of the alliance to come to the aid of the United States in the war on terror in Afghanistan.
Since their first mission began, more than 18,000 Danish soldiers have deployed to Afghanistan with American and British forces. Throughout their deployments in Afghanistan, 43 of their soldiers lost their life fighting aside American soldiers defending our freedom and holding the Taliban and Al Qaeda responsible for the events of September the 11th.
43 soldiers losing their lives. There are only about five or six NATO countries who lost more. And what's remarkable about this is this is a country of about six million people. On a per capita basis, Denmark suffered over six times the fatality rate of Germany and more than three times the fatality rate of France, matching or exceeding losses much larger allies with far greater resources.
So despite its small military, Denmark has deployed forces to some of the most kinetic some of the most dangerous kinetic combat zones, particularly Helman province fighting alongside UK units at the height of the insurgency. Danish forces accepted frontline combat roles. Some lost their lives as a result of it, not low risk symbolic missions.
For a small democracy, sustaining this level of risk over more than a decade reflects a serious commitment to NATO and a serious commitment to the safety and security of the United States.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I could have that specific language and the list of NATO countries who came to our aid and a photograph of our US Marines thanking the Danes for their work that they did in Afghanistan submitted to the record.
Mr. President, some people around here call me cranky. I've got a couple of buddies that call me cranky. You know what makes me cranky? Stupid.
What makes me cranky is when people don't do their homework. What makes me cranky is when we tarnish the extraordinary execution of a mission I fully support in Venezuela by turning around and making insane comments about how it is our right to have territory owned by the Kingdom of Denmark.
Folks, amateur hour is over.
You don't speak on behalf of this US senator or the congress.
You can say it may be the position of the president of the United States that Greenland should be a part of the United States, but it's not the position of this government because we are a co-equal branch. And if that were come to pass, there would be a vote on the floor to make it real, not the surreal sort of environment that some deputy chief of staff thinks was cute to say on TV.
So, you want to get me back to thanking the president for all the good things he's doing, then give them good advice.
One of two things happened with Greenland. Either one, the president came up with the idea that maybe we should have Greenland as a part of our assets.
And somebody said that's a great idea versus saying, "Mr. President, take a look at our alliance. Take a look at the most important alliance in the history of the United States, the NATO alliance. This could actually destabilize that. Mr. President, Mr. President, you should know at one point we had 17 military installations in Greenland, and they'd be happy to have us back.
They're not refusing to let us have access to project power into the Arctic. We can do it without taking over a NATO country.”
That's the sort of advice that they should have been given. So, if the president thought it was a good idea, then he needs the expertise to say, "Mr. President, that's why this is not a good idea."
And I would defy you to find any credible uh general with a star on his shoulder who would say that it is because they understand that the NATO alliances is what has kept this nation largely or this world largely safe for over 75 years.
The flip side could be that Mr. Miller or somebody else said, "Hey, this would be cool. Let's take over Greenland. It'll be like a big aircraft carrier."
Well, that's stupid, too. And I'm sick of stupid. I want good advice for this president because I want this president to have a good legacy. And this nonsense on what's going on with Greenland is a distraction from the good work he's doing. And the amateurs who said it was a good idea should lose their jobs.