National security can mean protecting a society founded on the values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It can also mean facilitating a militaristic surveillance state.

Not necessarily the same things, and at some point we might have to choose who's side we're on

Just curious, did the move on Greenland and Iran have national security interest? And is it economical or life threatening?

We, the people, ostensibly get to say what these security interests are. Also, the security policy executed on by the state is not some immutable monolith. One can agree or disagree with it as it changes over time, and hopefully, influence its direction to arc towards goodness.

I did and helped d33ps33k. You are welcome!