Over a thousand years ago, the Viking leader Erik the Red discovered a new land after being exiled for murdering his neighbor. To entice his fellow Vikings to settle the icy island, he called it Greenland, highlighting its more hospitable southern and western coasts. The settlers that took the bait struggled but endured.

Today, Greenland’s value needs no exaggeration. Its mineral wealth is well-understood, certainly by some in Washington, who seek to acquire the island — ­­a Danish territory. Some of the same voices also promote Greenland’s military value. Gaining political control of the island may, in fact, be a bad deal for the United States, but Washington cannot afford to ignore Greenland’s importance to Arctic and North Atlantic security.

The 2024 Defense Arctic Strategy of monitor-and-respond is insufficiently resourced for competition and not viable for conflict. A geostrategic view shows that the United States should view the Arctic as a connective region with important military ramifications for Europe and the Indo-Pacific, rather than as a separate theater. The United States should re-imagine its strategic framework to view its geostrategic position as a large “line of contact” extending from the South China Sea, over the Arctic, to the Black Sea. Greenland is a linchpin in this framework, providing basing and sensor opportunities permissible by the 1951 Defense of Greenland treaty, with Danish concurrence. Modest investments in sensors and bases in Greenland would significantly enhance America’s strategic Arctic position.