An author named John Mac Ghlionn wants you to believe that America should “take Greenland, whatever the cost.”

That sounds crazy, and when you read the piece you realize this guy isn’t thinking clearly, if at all. Who is he? Who knows, but The Hill should know better than to float his disinformation.

To make his “whatever cost” Lebensraum-sounding annexation swallowable, he coats his argument with a saccharin list of historical precedents that he probably assumes nobody will correct him on.

After all, who has two thumbs and actually studied history, let alone the ethics of military intervention? Without further ado, allow me to explain how very wrong, so incredibly wrong, all his examples are.

Diego Garcia: “Negotiation and Agreement”

Ghlionn writes that the US “built Diego Garcia into a major military hub through negotiation and agreement rather than force.”

Dude. Agreement? Not even close. This is horse shit. It was seized by force and has been the subject of much protest.

The U.S. lost control of its Ethiopian stations for spying on the Middle East and as a side-effect, between 1968 and 1973, the British government forcibly expelled every single inhabitant of the Chagos Islands. Over 1,500 people had their identities wiped out. Officials killed their dogs. They loaded families onto cargo ships and dumped them in Mauritius, where many died in poverty. The UK cynically reclassified the permanent population as “no permanent population” to avoid legal obligations.

Indian Ocean military operations relocated there, without room for negotiation. Anyone registering the .io domain today is sending money to the UK government for islands they forcibly and illegally stole.

Yes, it was illegal. In 2019 the International Court of Justice ruled British administration illegal and called for decolonization. In 2024, the UK finally agreed to cede sovereignty to Mauritius.

“Negotiation and agreement” basically states the opposite to reality, which was ethnic cleansing.

Yeah, this level of wrong is how we are supposed to buy into the invasion of Greenland. Sure. Ok.

Iceland: “Diplomatic Finesse”

Ghlionn claims the US “gained long-term access to Iceland during World War II because the island mattered more than diplomatic niceties.”

Come on. Again? I’m going to need a bigger shovel.

What actually happened was Britain invaded neutral Iceland on May 10, 1940, the same day Churchill became Prime Minister. I mean, Iceland had declared neutrality and Britain occupied it anyway. Then the US showed up to replace British forces in July 1941 (months before Pearl Harbor) while still officially neutral. Notably, America was so neutral that it could force 40,000 troops onto an island of 120,000 people.

This was clearly the military occupation of a neutral country. Calling that military to civilian ratio diplomatic access is weak propaganda.

Okinawa: “Negotiation, Despite Local Resistance”

What is this guy smoking? Describing Okinawa as a “negotiation” insults both the dead and the reader’s intelligence.

The Battle of Okinawa killed over 12,000 Americans, 82,000 Japanese military personnel, and somewhere between 40,000 and 150,000 Okinawan civilians. We are talking about possibly a quarter of the island’s population, dead. The US administered Okinawa as an occupied territory all the way to 1972.

Alaska: Inverted Causation

Ghlionn writes that America “purchased Alaska to keep Russia away from its doorstep.”

This is a grade school level mistake. Every kid supposedly learns that Americans considered the purchase foolish. “Seward’s Folly” am I right? The sale kept nobody away from anything, because Russia was already leaving and even America didn’t want it, really.

Even more to the point, Russia had initiated the sale. They were overextended after the Crimean War, feared losing Alaska to Britain in a future conflict, and needed money. Russia wanted out. America begrudgingly stepped in, persuaded by Russia.

Panama: Omission as Technique

Ghlionn acknowledges the US “backed Panama’s break from Colombia.” Ok, but again this was NOT negotiation. Roosevelt himself bragged about it:

I took the Canal Zone and let Congress debate, and while the debate goes on the Canal does too.

He took it. His words. No negotiation.

And “backing” had a bitter end. When Colombia’s Senate rejected the canal treaty in August 1903, Roosevelt dispatched warships to both coasts of Panama. A French lobbyist named Philippe Bunau-Varilla, of course with financial stakes in the canal company, met with Panamanian separatists at the Waldorf-Astoria and wrote them a $100,000 check to revolt. Colombian generals arriving to suppress the rebellion were literally tricked onto a train car to be separated from their troops. When Panama declared independence November 3, 1903 the US rushed to recognize it within three days. The canal treaty was signed fifteen days later, conveniently not by any Panamanian, but by Bunau-Varilla, the French lobbyist.

The New York Times called it “an act of sordid conquest.” The New York Evening Post called it “a vulgar and mercenary venture.”

In 1921, the US quietly paid Colombia $25 million as “reparation”, less any actual admission of guilt than a bribe to open Colombia’s oil fields to Standard Oil.

You can see how someone might be foolish and think “if Roosevelt did it we can park some warships near Greenland and pay a random French dude to sign it over” but that is most definitely not how anything works, and it still isn’t even close to an example of successful negotiation.

Take territory through force, then pay off the victim when you need something else from them. Makes the whole “negotiation” framing even more absurd.

The Hill Technique

Ghlionn also mentions Louisiana (Napoleon wanted to sell) and Gibraltar (British conquest in 1704) as if they help his case. They don’t.

This is a propaganda piece, and not a very good one. It attempts to establish a series of false precedents, then presents a controversial position as simply following the falsely established pattern.

Did I mention the history presented is false?

Ghlionn’s historical examples unfortunately do not appear to be mistakes. They are load-bearing lies, fabrications. Remove his false history and you’re left with a man advocating that America should annex another country’s territory “whatever the cost”. Stripped of its pseudo-scholarly veneer, that is simply an argument for bat shit crazy imperialism. Or I believe the precise term is Nazi Lebensraum.

The editors at The Hill published this guano.

They should be asked why.

And again I have to ask who is this guy? According to his various bios, a “psychosocial researcher” with an unnamed doctorate from an unnamed institution. His usual beat is culture war chumming for outlets like Brownstone Institute, Epoch Times, and Townhall. Nothing suggests he has any expertise in history, military affairs, or geopolitics, which might explain why every historical claim in his Lebensraum propaganda piece is so wrong.

Looking at you The Hill. Or should we now call you The Shill?