Commentary
The revelations by Prime Minister Mark Carney that the Canadian military, with his support, has prepared for the possibility of a U.S. military invasion have understandably generated a lot of passionate discussion.
Some of the discussion has been reasonable. Some, not so much. It’s the sort of thing we want to address sensibly and with a cool head.
So let’s dissect what was actually said, how the word got out, and what we should make of it all.
I first saw the news via a social media post from CTV News: “BREAKING: PM Carney prepared for ‘risk’ that Trump might order U.S.-led military invasion of Canada: report”
Yikes. That’s scary stuff. Breaking news! Military invasion!
It’s hard to fault a news outlet for putting out a headline that entices people to click through and read the details. But as provocative headlines go, this one is up there.
When you did click through, the story explained that the information came from an interview that the prime minister sat down for with The New York Times, and which touched upon many issues.
Carney said that a military invasion of Canada by the United States is “an extreme tail risk”—meaning highly unlikely—but that it’s “irresponsible” not to prepare for such events.
The story goes on to report that Defence Minister David McGuinty subsequently told journalists that exploring “risk scenarios” was “normal.”
The problem, though, is that it was never made clear that this planning was not based on any particular threat assessment. A significant number of Canadians may have interpreted the story to mean there was a recent compelling reason to think that the United States was indeed planning an invasion of Canada in some shape or form. But there is no such evidence and no one is making that claim. This is a ruckus of our own making.
In some respects, the PM’s words were entirely fair. National defence and emergency preparedness need to game out any number of scenarios, no matter how far-fetched.
A decade ago I wrote a book about how we are unprepared for a collapse of our electrical grid in the event of a large-scale solar flare or electromagnetic attack. It’s the sort of black swan event that is very unlikely but so catastrophic that you want to have a plan to address it in the rare event that it does happen.
So, sure, let’s prepare for an American ground invasion in the same way that we should also prepare for other countries invading from over the Arctic or across the Pacific.
This recent news wasn’t framed as routine, prudent planning, though. That Carney’s comments were made in the context of the current tariff dispute and the American president’s recent remarks about making Canada the 51st state is what allowed the issue to get blown all out of proportion.
After all, in the same interview, Carney teased that one response to such an invasion would be the use of Taliban-style guerrilla warfare to push back American troops. Delving into tactical matters like this encourages people to think even more imaginatively about such an invasion.
In contrast, Mike Dunleavy, the Republican governor of Alaska, said at an event in Banff that there was “zero chance” such an invasion would happen and remarked that “Pennsylvania has a better chance of being invaded by West Virginia.”
It’s nice to hear this from one of our allies, particularly one whose state borders Canada. But he wasn’t the only one on that stage to offer compelling insights.
Gov. Dunleavy was joined by Jody Thomas, who previously worked as former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s national security adviser. Thomas called the idea “an improbable, slightly impossible” notion—a good way of saying that while it could happen she didn’t want to give it any unnecessary credibility.
What Thomas said next, though, was interesting: “There’d be maybe a few days of mobilization and movement before I think it would stop because Canada would not want harm done to our citizens. We would not want to see loss of life.” In other words, we’d lose and surrender right away. Obviously.
I’ve seen and heard a number of Canadians fantasize over their participation in an invasion response, as they discuss how they’d take up arms. People were clearly getting a kick out of the whole discussion.
It’s not a conversation we want to fuel, though. It’s especially not one that we want the Americans to start pondering, as their experience with such an invasion would be the opposite of ours.
While those Canadians looking to vent their frustrations with the U.S. president may feel briefly good about romanticizing taking up arms against our neighbour to the south, Jody Thomas illustrates why we should put this chatter behind us.
