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. 

 

The State of US-Canadian Relations, June 2026

 Lots of stuff happening the past week or two:

• Canada decides to buy a Swedish plane (no, not that one), rather than the American one. Rumors have abounded of Canada cutting its F35 buy and getting 60 Gripens instead.
• Canada finishes the contract on the HIMARS launchers
• I attended a conference on Canada diversifying its defence procurement, with former military folks mostly wanting to get "the best capability" which is code for American stuff. 
• Trump repeats the 51st state crap which gets reposted by his ambassador to Canada, the wildly unpopular Pete Hoekstra.  
• Much noise about the opening of negotiations over revising NAFTA 2.0 aka CUSMA aka USMCA (why does Mexico never go first?).
• Efforts to organize a panel for the next International Studies Association meeting fail as I can't get Canadian scholars to commit to a conference in the US.
• ISA-Canada, which is a subunit of the ISA, had its business meeting at the Canadian Political Science Association meeting, and much of the conversation was on whether to have any activites at the next meeting in the US.  A reminder--these folks like to travel and engage other scholars and yet they won't go to the US.  Kind of like not playing Sun City. 

  I am sure more has happened, but this gives you an idea of where things are at.  Best summarized thusly:

 Re defence, it would seem to be contradictory to buy American stuff at this time given the threats from the US.  The Carney folks are in a difficult spot.  Someone in the audience of the diversify conference that Elbridge Colby cited Carney's Davos speech and asked whether Canadian resistance is causing American coercion.  And I wanted task about time travel since Davos is after all the 51st state stuff.  As I keep saying, if someone is going to punch you in the face whether you accede to their demands or not, you might as well do what you want, not what they want.  Which is what the AWACS/HIMARS decisions illsutrate--when Canada can get good but perhaps not the best stuff elsewhere, it will--the Swedish/Canadian AWACS plane.  When it can't build it at home or partner with a non-American actor, then, yes, it will buy it--HIMARS.  A colleague pointed out the very instructive language in the announcement that had never appeared before, I believe:

This is Carney playing to the Canadian audience explaining why we are buying American in this case.  Pretty sure previous Canadian governments didn't have to do this.  And it won't be the last time, as much in the contracting pipeline is American.

Re the F35/Gripen conversation, damned if I know what is going to happen.  I firmly believe the F35 is the best choice as a mixed fleet of planes (or subs) would be incredibly expensive.  While it might be cool now to hop to 3.5 or 4% of GDP spent on defense, in the long run, future governments will not be as enthused, and the public will not be as supportive (the nationalism will fade some after Trump leaves the scene).  So, the military will have to pay quite a bit to keep one set of planes or subs in the air and at sea, and won't be able to afford the costs of two sets of spare parts, two sets of training systems, and two sets of everything.  So, perhaps don't mess this up now?  Sure, it won't go over well with the Canadian public.

Re the Ambassador: declaring any ambassador persona non grata is a huge deal, almost akin to starting a war.  Doing that to an American ambassador would shake everything up in a big, big way.  Carney has been a mixture of caution and risk-taking in his handling of the US relationship.  He won't do this.  But he could summon the ambassador and demarche him for getting too involved in Canadian domestic politics--the Alberta separatist stuff and the like. It wouldn't change American behavior, but it would play well in Canada and draw a line or two.

The conference stuff is a signifier, as less engaged, less knowledgeable Canadians will have stronger opinions and a greater willingness to thumb their noses at the US.  We have already seen how much it has affected tourism and trade, and that will leave a mark for quite a while.

Which gets us to the trade agreement.  Trump, Hoekstra, Colby, and the rest want to impose their will on everyone including Canada.  Carney won't submit but he will bend, but the fundamental problem in all of this is that Trump won't take yes for an answer.  He got a revision of NAFTA last time.  Yet he asks for more.  What will satisfy him?  What compromise, what concession will end the coercion, the torment?  The answer is: nothing. There is no satisfying him.  You can distract, you defer, you can buy time.  But he will come back again and again demanding more and more.  

So, the answer again is: do what is in Canada's best interest, which sometimes means cooperation but not always.  I will disagree with Carney on much stuff (gutting environmental regulation, firing lots of govt people, etc), but he has been mostly right on the mix of cooperation and resistance.  No need to punch Trump in the face with PNG-ing Hoekstra, but definitely a need to buy defence stuff from elsewhere.  I do trust Carney not to sell us out.  And that might seem minimal, but given how so many relatively powerful actors (Harvard, rich law firms, etc) have given in, holding the line on some things but not everything would be better than most.

Finally, one last note on civil-military relations: the RCAF probably wanted the American plane, so that is a loss for them and evidence of some civilian control of the armed forces.  But the CAF is getting a lot of money and equipment very fast, so I hope they get neither cocky nor whiny, and instead plan on getting
enough stuff now that can be sustained during leaner times.  Because there will be leaner times. And, no, this does not change my basic stance about Canadian civil-military relations--there is oversight and control over procurement, perhaps too much, but it ain't the same in most other realms of civ-mil stuff.   More on that down the road.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What Does Davos Mean Anyway?

 I have been asked to comment on a flippity flopish move by Prime Minister Carney re Iran: first saying, hey, we love them Americans bombing Iran to, hey now, maybe we should all be a bit more restrained.   How to make sense of this?  Hmmm.  I think the first thing to consider is that the Davos Statement is not that clear and is certainly not that prescriptive in this moment.  Second, domestic politics may play a role.  Third, bad habits may have been in play.  Let's contrast the statements:

First statement:

Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security. 

Second statement:

We take this position with regret, because the current conflict is another example of the failure of the international order. Despite decades of United Nations Security Council resolutions, the tireless work of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and a succession of sanctions and diplomatic frameworks, Iran’s nuclear threat remains. And now the United States and Israel have acted without engaging the United Nations or consulting with allies, including Canada.

So where to from here? With a rapidly spreading conflict and growing threats to civilian life. Canada reaffirms that international law binds all belligerents. We condemn the strikes carried out by Iran on civilians and civilian infrastructure across the Middle East. We implore all parties, including the United States and Israel, to respect the rules of international engagement.

So, first, Carney's statement at Davos says that Canada can't always side with the US (as he likened the US-based world order to Soviet-occupied Czechoslovakia) and that Canada needs to be pragmatic, not always principled.  Okey dokey, what does that mean for this weekend?  Whatever you want, really.  The first statement complies with Davos as it is unprincipled, woot!  Second statement complies as it is more critical of the US--not consulting with allies, needed to be reminded not to do war crimes.  

On the other hand, the first statement looks sketchy as all get out because it was buying the US story immediately without waiting for any sense that the Trump administration had a plan, a justification, etc.  Supporting a bad faith actor can only go .... badly.  We should know that by now.  I was pretty outraged by the initial statement because this is a badly justified war fought badly, and Carney should have understood that.  Don't support dumb shit.*  

Second, domestic politics: supporting an attack on Iran is popular among the Iranian diaspora and among many Jewish Canadians, so why not pander to them?  Playing to ethnic groups does not always mean bad policy outcomes, but, well, disaporas rarely know best.  They tend to be more extreme than those who remained behind (leaving is a selection effect kind of thing) and become more extreme as they don't have to pay the price for what they advocate.  I used to study diasporas, so I apologize for brutally generalizing about behavior that is well, pretty general.  While Jews hate Netanyahu, they hate Iran a lot, too.  The polls in Israel are instructive on this score.  Not sure how North American Jews feel as, yes, not all Jews think the same way on things, and the schism between Israeli Jews and North American Jews has widened since October 2023.  Still, I can imagine political operatives around Carney saying quickly before people had time to think: hey, we have to support attacking this regime because our voters think it is icky (which, to be fair, it was/is).  

Third, habits and bureaucratic routines may have dominated at first.  Canada always sides with US, always has problems with Iran, so those in GAC and PM's Office went with the old scripts, not really thinking through how Davos and Trump and rank incompetence might suggest a different approach.  

Why the change in heart?  Maybe Carney noticed the other allies being a bit more circumspect.  Maybe the schoolgirls and other reckless attacks and Hegseth's repeated assurances that he will war crime had an impact.  Maybe the realization that the US is a bad faith actor run by morons who did no prep, and tying oneself to them is not great?  Maybe the realization that Elbows Up includes not siding with the US automatically?  I hope someone can get the inside scoop on why the flip flop.  The new position isn't great either, but it is better than the first one. 

Of course, this raises what Canada should have done. What a great time to distance from the US?  This would have been an opportunity to show that the heart of Davos, not being so attached to the US, is what matters and matters in a crisis.  Look at the accolades the Spanish are getting, look at the Brits initially refusing to let the US use Diego Garcia.  If Trump wants to be transactional, then be transactional.  Don't give loyalty unless you can get something for it.

* Yes, it is a bad war--the flailing for a decent justification is more than a clue.  There was no need to attack Iran this weekend.  We have lived with Iran being an obnoxious, awful regime for quite some time.  Another day, week, month, year doesn't really change anything except to the Iranians who we are not really helping (killing moderates alternatives is just about the dumbest thing since the US disbanded the Iraqi military over night).  Yes, Iran was in pursuit of nuclear weapons, but there had been diplomacy that had addressed that.  These days, the Iranians get that they can't bargain with bad faith actor Trump.  Maybe two weeks ago, but not now and not anytime soon.  So, destroying the one reasonable pathway is very dumb.  And then there is the execution of this war---no consultation with allies so people are stuck in the region.  Friendly fire incidents galore.  Dead school girls.  Allies lacking protection from the obvious Iranian reaction.

 Oh, and I realized as I talked to the media today: if you push Iran into a corner where the existence of the regime is at stake, why should they hold back anything?  It makes no sense to save any instruments of power for a more desperate future.  So, they launch missiles and drones in every direction, they may close the Strait of Hormuz, they may encourage terrorist attacks around the world.