You might want to pick another example; the assertion “ground troop deployments are politically infeasible” is looking more dubious this year than before.
I’m saying that major deployments might well happen in 2026, not that they already have.
Most obviously, he’s already sent a small number of troops into Venezuela for a mission, plus he’s literally said that he wants the US to be in charge of Venezuela (his Administration walked it back, but he himself still seems happy with the thought). There are plausible things that could happen that would lead him to send in a significant number of soldiers.
Secondly, he allegedly asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff to draw up an invasion plan for Greenland. Which would certainly cause a surrender rather than a fight, but a non-dangerous mass deployment would still be a mass deployment.
Crucially, he’s not paying any domestic political price for talking as if he wants to deploy troops in either country, which contradicts your assertion already even without those events (yet) happening. The GOP in Congress once again chickened out of taking any action to constrain him, when they saw that his base wasn’t bothered by it at all.
Add to that his saber-rattling against Cuba, and the possibility that something big happens in Gaza or Iran and he feels like it’s an opportunity.
I’m not claiming a major deployment is over 50% likely, but I’d say it’s over 5%, which is enough that I think your footnote is wrong.
You might want to pick another example; the assertion “ground troop deployments are politically infeasible” is looking more dubious this year than before.
What deployment are you referring to?
I’m saying that major deployments might well happen in 2026, not that they already have.
Most obviously, he’s already sent a small number of troops into Venezuela for a mission, plus he’s literally said that he wants the US to be in charge of Venezuela (his Administration walked it back, but he himself still seems happy with the thought). There are plausible things that could happen that would lead him to send in a significant number of soldiers.
Secondly, he allegedly asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff to draw up an invasion plan for Greenland. Which would certainly cause a surrender rather than a fight, but a non-dangerous mass deployment would still be a mass deployment.
Crucially, he’s not paying any domestic political price for talking as if he wants to deploy troops in either country, which contradicts your assertion already even without those events (yet) happening. The GOP in Congress once again chickened out of taking any action to constrain him, when they saw that his base wasn’t bothered by it at all.
Add to that his saber-rattling against Cuba, and the possibility that something big happens in Gaza or Iran and he feels like it’s an opportunity.
I’m not claiming a major deployment is over 50% likely, but I’d say it’s over 5%, which is enough that I think your footnote is wrong.