Carney, the NYT, and an American Attack

 I was traveling when this story broke, so I did some media, but haven't addressed it here.  What was Mark Carney thinking when he discussed how he had to consider the "extreme tail" possibility of a US military attack against Canada?  

Carney was being honest--it is the responsibility of a leader to think a bit about all of the possibilities even very unlikely ones if they have the potential to be devastating.  So, of course, as it has been reported, folks at Canada's Department of National Defence have had to think a bit about what an American attack would look like (more on that below).  As retired LGen Leslie put it, the military plans, it is what they do.  The US had plans in the 1920s for attacking Canada in case of a conflict with the UK.  But leaders aren't always honest, so why answer the question.   He could have demurred or deflected.

Carney is very deliberate in his messaging.  His Davos speech got picked up widely as it was clear in many ways (and not clear in many others) but mostly it said that Canada was not going to be pushed around by Trump and that Canada was not going to operate as if the situation was normal.  It was a very costly signal--that he and everyone else knew that saying this stuff would antagonize Trump who is incredibly thin-skinned.  Sending that signal to the Canadian public has paid dividends as his popularity has been boosted by his anti-Trump stances (giving him cover to do all kinds of unpopular things domestically--he is the most right-wing Liberal politician in recent history and it is not close).  Sending that signal to Europe and Asia made it clear that Canada is ready to do some business even if it upsets Trump.  Sending that signal to the US was part of the larger bargaining process as well.  

Stepping away from the bargaining table took that speech and tripled down on it--it was not just a costly signal but a costly act, as the trade war has intensified.  Again, it sends signals far and wide, that Canada's stance is for real.  

Yet Americans haven't taken seriously the 51st state bullshit.  By speaking out about how Canada has had to contemplate an American attack in an American newspaper, he tells Americans that Canadians are taking this quite seriously.  In addition, as the economic pain of various sectors of the American economy increases due to the trade war, this also helps to remind Americans who to blame.  Oh, and Carney had this interview in late September.  Too early to be an October surprise for the midterms but definitely midterm adjacent.  Is this an attempt to tell Americans that they should try to restrain Trump via voting Dem in the midterms?  Again, Carney is deliberate, so he is aware that saying this at this time would be read this way even if this message is not his intent.   

So, yeah, I think Carney is putting his thumb on the scale of the American election.  Given how the Trump administration has tried to encourage separatism in Quebec and Alberta (and actually hurting their respective causes since he is so incredibly toxic in Canada), this move is very much quite fair.  Of course, Trump won't see it that way since he thinks Canada should just roll over.  He keeps saying Canada is nasty... for protecting itself.  

On the whole attack thing, I am not privy to what the DND/CAF people have been gaming out, but I would guess that the extreme tail risks would include:

• hybrid attacks a la the Russians--jamming, cutting cables, drone overflights, etc.
• threat of and then actual use of air power. 
• use of special forces to try to seize Carney just as the US seized Venezuela's president and, yes, what Putin tried to do in 2022 in Ukraine.
• deployment of airborne to seize Ottawa airport as part of an effort to land troops in the capital. 
• symbolic or not so symbolic deployment of forces from Fort Lewis in Washington and Fort Drum in New York.  

There are probably other possibilities, bu there are the ones that come to my mind.  Canada is vulnerable to all of this, and any of these would impose much pain on Canada.  But none of them would be painless for the US, and several of them might just risk a major crisis in US civil-military relations.  It is one think to hit boats in the Caribbean or strike a long time antagonist (via air and sea power only) like Iran.  It is another thing to attack an ally that fought and bled alongside Americans in Afghanistan and elsewhere.  Trump and Hegseth are not smart enough to realize that one could issue an order that might be too far, but that would be one "center of gravity" that the Canadians would be targeting--how to get the American military to refuse orders to attack Canada.  Something to think about.  Maybe write about some other day.

I don't think Trump will use military force against Canada--it is extremely unlikely.  But Trump creates uncertainty about everything, and he has done plenty of incredibly dumb, self-destructive stuff.  So, one cannot simply rely on reason and cost/benefit calculations to deter Trump from doing dumb stuff.  Which means, yes, Canadian officials have to think about it.  They certainly watched the coercion aimed against Greenland.  They also watched Trump back down and take a deal that didn't change a damned thing.  

Anyhow, let's hope he gets distracted by some other squirrel. 

 

What Is and Is Not Sovereignty

 This is some basic stuff, but I see enough stuff in the media, social and otherwise, getting this stuff wrong.  Indeed, I was on a radio program yesterday, and it was a call-in show where, yes, some of the callers didn't quite understand what is going on with Canada and the EU.

Back in the day, when I was deciding what to do my dissertation on, I noticed that the traditional definition of sovereignty focused on two things--government and territory--that a state was sovereign if it could claim a hunk of territory and that it had its own government.  I raised questions about why countries interfered more with the government part of that than the territory part until I read more and realized that the international politics of secession was not what people claimed.

Anyway, the key here is mostly the government part--that a sovereignty country is one that has agency--that it can make its own decisions.  That does not mean that such a country is not impacted by other countries, but that the country in question can choose which side of a tradeoff is less problematic.  It also means that delegating to an other institution is a choice and a choice that can be undone.  

My fave example is NATO: Article V can only be invoked if all countries agree, and, even then, no country is forced to do anything.  Each decides exactly how they want to participate.

These days, much talk of a sovereign Canada.  Most of this is about reducing dependency on the US, but one aspect of this stuff does touch on the heart of sovereignty.  In multiple trade discussions, Trump wanted to have a veto on Canada's arrangements with other countries.  That would be reducing Canadian sovereignty, not just raising the costs of one action versus another, but of reducing the ability of Canada to make its own decisions.  

That Canada has rejected this is "nasty" according to Trump, but it is very fundamental.  

International relations is chock full of difficult decisions, and, yes, countries will put pressure on other countries to do what they want.  The very definition of power is to get others to do what they would otherwise not do.  But the weaker players can still make decisions and then pay the price of resisting.  Canada just did, and, ironically, has gained more stature and more influence.  Carney is lionized in Europe for bucking Trump.  The Davos speech was a start but just talk, costly talk for it did antagonize an always sensitive Trump, but the rejection of the trade deal was a real policy decision.  This deal with the EU, whatever Associate Membership will eventually mean, is symbolic for the moment, but it is also a policy decision--to agree to do something that Trump did not want Canada to do.  

There will be costs, but there will also be benefits.  It was and is up to the Prime Minister of Canada to decide how to weigh them, as Canada remains sovereign.  Even if it is hardly independent economically or militarily. 

Considering the State of American Civil-Military Relations: APSA 2026 Edition

Yesterday, I was on an APSA roundtable with the sharpest minds on US civil-military relations (I did feel like playing the old Sesame street song): Peter Feaver, Heidi Urben, Risa Brooks, Carrie Lee, with Lindsay Cohn serving as moderator (she chimed in during the Q&A).  We all know each other as civ-mil is a great community of very generous scholars.  As a johnny-come-lately (I switched from doing the IR of ethnic conflict to civ-mil after my 2nd book/time in the Pentagon), I greatly appreciate this community.  To be sure, my switch nearly 20 years ago, but I forever felt behind.  Anyhow, I wanted to sum up what these folks said as the consensus was bleak--American civil-military relations is in deep crisis, and whatever problems there were before pale in comparison to what the Trump govt is doing these days.  

I took good but not great notes so I may be getting the views of the panelists wrong--blame me, not them. 

Feaver said:

• this is our moment--that our work and our voices are very relevant now
• what was implicit is now explicit--our understanding of norms of civ-mil depend on assumptions that are now being violated
• the dubious actions of the Trump government are officially legal (more on that below), which presents real challenges
• Chairman Caine made a speech that was a bit out of context but still had the wrong tone---that should just advise the civilians on whether something can be done, not whether it should be done--that there might be consequences (say, bombing Iran?)
• Trump/Hegseth are an overcorrection to the failure to criticize civ-mil under the Dems
• this is a low information environment, produced both deliberately and via incompetence and Congressional failure to do their role

Urben focused on tangible actions to repair US civ-mil, mostly by civilians--building or rebuilding:

• repeal the various authorizations to use military force that allow presidents to use the military in questionable ways without Congressional blessing
• narrow the criteria for domestic deployment so that the insurrection act does not give a government a relatively easy pathway to using troops at home against protestors 
• Congress should constrain executive action, more scrutiny through oversight powers, withhold $, investigate the military advise that has been provided on things like the boat strikes
• Reinstate those admirals and generals Hegseth has fired with backpay (if good enough for those who refused vaccines....), stop doing voice votes for approvals of promotion lists.  [apparently 10% of GOFOs have been fired]
• Create a commission to reinvigorate the military profession. 
• damage too deep for military to do it--restoring Judge Advocate General role, greater protections o senior JAGS, rebuilding institutions that prevent civilian harm, strengthening investigative procedures, improve Professional Military Education, go back to non-awful base names
• work on recruiting and retaining women and minorities

Brooks: 

• biggest concern how homeland security missions undermine civil-military relations/civilian control
• JTF West Hemisphere striking small boats/counternarc missions
• Deployments to city streets
• Northcom 's ops JTF South border 
• effects
• hurts society relations with military--military becomes unpopular
• morale tensions in units
• changes in military's understanding of its appropriate missions.  Hegseth views border as greater threat than China

Saideman:

• The old discussions of whether x moment was a crisis in civ-mil are quant as we now know what a real crisis looks like
• The focus of principal-agent theory will turn to the principals.. 
• I discussed how my effort to develop a list of the incidents where Trump/Hegseth violated the norms of civ-mil led to an effort by four (at least) distinct groups coming together
• Who is doing oversight now?  Not Congress?  OSD (SecDef and his people) are overseeing pushups and gender/race of promotions but not usage of missiles, not rotation of aircraft carriers, etc.  American exceptionalism in how it did oversight over the armed forces is gone.
• that civ-mil crisis in US is going to cause civ-mil crises elsewhere as allied militaries will still focus on working with US military as that becomes toxic in the domestic politics of most democracies.

Lee:

•  blatant norm breaking first time since civil war with President thinking about using military to mess with elections, American military engaging in war crimes (summary executions in Caribbean), tis a 5 alarm emergency
• long term, generational harm with massive selection effect--GOFOs leaving at rapid pace, responding to extraordinarily rapid changes in incentive structures.  
• rapid deprofessionalization, compliance with unlawful orders that violate law of armed confict
• officer corp wants to return to normal, to snap back, but we need a full reckoning
• norms need to be legislated by bipartisan action
• criminal prosecution needed for mil and civs

 

A few general points from this roundtable and conversations this week:

• the whole idea that troops can disobey patently unlawful orders is problematic as the lawyers will generally say something is lawful or questionable but not patently lawful AND the law does not say that patently unlawful is the standard
• lawyer shopping--you can always find a lawyer who says something is ok
• one reason ICE is expanded and military is not doing domestic stuff much is that the military does retain some sense of profession, of professional ethics.  ICE people are not professionals in any sense

Some differences in the panel:

• can you legislate norms?
• what will military think of Dems when they return
• can a future Dem administration cut the military budget?

The big question is what can we as civil-military scholars do?  We need to inform the public and the legislators about what is happening and what is at risk.  We need to make it clear that the consequences of bad civil-military relations will ultimately have electoral consequences (lost wars, excessive casualties, use of military in our streets).  Our community has not been silent, but it also hasn't been that influential. Much work left to do, but listening to these folks taught me a lot.

We received great questions, but I have to run and explore Boston.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

congress