Front Burner - What if the U.S. invaded Canada?

Episode Date: February 18, 2025

U.S. President Donald Trump has made it clear that he’s serious about wanting Canada to become the 51st state, with his deputy chief of staff saying Trump has made no concessions on the topic. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says that threat is “a real thing”.Trump says he’d use economic force to drag Canada under America’s boot. But he’s been less delicate about other places, saying he could use military force to acquire Greenland and the Panama Canal.Howard Coombs is director of the Queen’s Centre for International Defence Policy. He’s also a retired member of the Canadian Armed Forces and deployed as a civilian counter-insurgency advisor in Afghanistan.He talks to Jayme Poisson about what a theoretical takeover of Canada by the U.S. could look like. One that could include tariffs, but also boots on the ground.For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

On the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz comes an unprecedented exhibition about one of history's darkest moments. Auschwitz, not long ago, not far away, features more than 500 original objects, first-hand accounts and survivor testimonies that tell the powerful story of the Auschwitz concentration camp, its history and legacy, and the underlying conditions that allowed the Holocaust to happen. On now exclusively at Rom. Tickets at Rom.ca. This is a CBC Podcast.

Hey, I'm Jamie Pressant. So I think Canada is going to be a very serious contender to be our 51st state. What I'd like to see Canada become our 51st state. I think Canada would be much better off being a 51st state. So Donald Trump has made it clear. He says that he's serious about this. His deputy chief of staff says that Trump has made no concessions on the topic. And Prime Minister Trudeau says that the threat is a real thing. As you know, Trump says that he would use economic force to drag this country under

America's boot. He's been less delicate about other places, saying Greenland and the Panama Canal could come under U.S US control at gunpoint. I want to read you something from the National Post last week. It's by Canada's former vice chief of the defense staff, Mark Norman. Quote, in this emerging reality, are we as Canadians any different than Ukraine is to Russia or Taiwan to China? We need not like or even agree with this possibility, but we had best acknowledge and understand it. Today we're going to try and do exactly that, understand what a potential,

and yes, theoretical, takeover could look like. One that could include tariffs, but also boots on the ground. Howard Coombs is going to take us through a military thought experiment that I can safely say nobody here wants to see happen. And while Coombs says that the chances are slim, I found that gaming it out like this really sobered me to the challenges that Canada is up against right now. Coombs is the director of the Queen's Center for International and Defense Policy. He's also a retired member of the Canadian Armed Forces and was deployed as a civilian counter-insurgency advisor in Afghanistan, where of course Canadians fought and died alongside our US allies at the time. Howard hi, thank you so much for coming on to Front Burner.

Thank you very much for having me. So, look, a US military invasion is obviously very theoretical here and I think very fair to say an incredibly remote possibility. But how remote a possibility do you think it is at the moment? Like, do you think this could actually happen? In terms of a US military offensive against Canada, the chances I think of it occurring are slim at the most. If we look at what's happening right now between Canada and the United States, the frictions that are happening, Um, if we look at what's happening right now between

kind of the United States, the frictions that are happening, which are quite, which are new to us since the second world war. But, uh, these frictions occurred prior to the second world war. Um, and in the, really in the 18th and 19th centuries, the U S was. Seen as an invader and, uhader or an oppositional force. We have US invasions during the American Revolution, the War of 1812. There was fighting back and forth across Canadian border. After the American Civil War, we have disaffected Irish soldiers known as Fenians who invade. And in fact, in the post-Second World War,First World War period, we had our own war plans, defense scheme one, which was to a preemptive Canadian strike against the US hostilities.

And the Americans had their own plan called War Plan Red. With the Second World War, and we became very close allies, and that wartime alliance has turned since the second world war into something much stronger, much more intertwined across our borders in terms of everything from culture to economics. And I think that's where we are. The biggest issue we're seeing right now is there is a form of warfare that is not military power being conducted, but more so on the economic realm. I would argue that right now the United States is at war with us and they're using the their economic instrument of power

to gain whatever objectives that they've set for themselves. But if they could not achieve what they wanted through dialogue, discourse, threats, coercion, then the possibility of a military invasion could possibly occur. Right. Okay, Howard. That's very disconcerting to hear. With the caveat that this is a very slim possibility, I do want to talk about how this could play out step by step here, right? If the US invaded Canada, what is the first thing that they would do? If the US did decide to invade Canada, I think it would actually, in terms of physical movement, their objectives would mirror their, believe it or not, their 1920s war plan, war plan,

which is actually, for anybody who wants to take a look at it on Wikipedia, it's actually a great rendition of the plan. But the United States saw splitting up Canada into three broad fronts, Western, Central and Eastern, isolating parts of Canada, and that land offensive, combined land and sea offensive would capture major Canadian cities that had relevance to either communications, transportation, governance, like Vancouver, Winnipeg, Montreal, Ottawa, Halifax, Quebec City, major cities. Where they, by isolating population centers, taking over communications hubs, transport centers, are major ports in the case of the 1920s for Vancouver and Halifax. They could see us

breaking up Canada and separating the different pieces that could actually reinforce each other and support each other and therefore, fragmenting the opposition, which would be us and the population centers. In a similar fashion, I could see that happening today. But I think because although war, the essence of conflict, the violence, the friction, the human factors have not changed, but the technology around conflict has. You look at the US Army, just the Army for example, between the National Guard Reserve and active duty forces, they can muster a million under arms. As compared with our all in of about 60K, maybe on a good day.

And our forces are nowhere near as robustly structured as theirs are. So what would it look like? Do we see tanks roll in from the borders? Is, is this coming from the air? Are they bringing down our telecom and transportation systems? The organization of such an offensive in the Canada, uh, would have different layers, I guess is the right word, depending from its opening stages to the main course attacks.

And I would say that we would first see things that are information types of warfare, computer network attack, maybe physical attack against vital communication centers and vital infrastructure that would be necessary for Canadians to coordinate a response. I think the overriding thing we have to keep in our minds is any American efforts in this regard, they would want to minimize, I think, I hope one would hope, one would believe they would want to minimize Canadian casualties and minimize the damage to Canadian infrastructure. Because the hope would be that at some point, this would be up and running again, the things that are necessary to make Canada work as a nation, the physical infrastructure, to be easily repaired and bought back up online and then the country could be

functioning again, albeit under a different governance structure, I would assume. And as well, you don't want to disaffect a Canadian population. And honestly, these are types of rules of engagement that we and amongst the NATO allies used in places like Afghanistan. We had very strict rules about what types of munitions could be used around population centers and when we couldn't, couldn't use them in terms of the potential civilian casualties that they could cause. So this isn't, the processes here aren't new

and neither are the means. So we're actually seeing the things that we saw used in the Middle East over the last 20 years would be used against us. So the precision strikes to start off paralyzing our ability to govern, communicate, coordinate. And I think you also you would see special operations used to a significant degree. And I would also highlight right here the United States Special Operation Command, which is combined coordinates the activities of all special operations forces in the US military, be it Army, Navy, Air Force, etc.. Their special operations command is almost as large

as the Canadian forces. So the Canadian forces in its entirety is about person for person the size of special ops in the United States. So that kind of gives you an idea of the dimension of the problem for us as Canadians, a military problem. We can really, we can pose some resistance if we can organize and communicate and self-prepare, but at the end of the day, we would be overwhelmed. Can you just flesh out for me some more historical comparisons here from around the world for

what kind of takeover and yeah, occupation this might look like. I think if we look at the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, they did something like I would suspect came here because of precision attacks, special operations, going to key centers, taking key members of the government hostage, paralyzing operations, and then follow up with a ground attack. So that, and they, the Russians were very successful with moving in Afghanistan in 1979. However, one could also argue that they, the keeping the peace in Afghanistan was, became very difficult for them, which resulted in their withdrawal in 1989. Now it's interesting. Right. Fair to say, would it be fair for me to say that the Mujahideen who led that charge against the Soviets, I don't know if there's a parallel here with Canadians. So could we have, I think if we want to think about the idea of a homegrown insurgency, I actually believe

it would be very limited. It's simplistic in a way to say that everybody would fight for Canadian sovereignty and for our Canadian way of life. I think the reality is if the United States is a physical invasion, and they had, there were minimal casualties, and infrastructure damage, and it was accomplished fairly quickly, that the desire to fight them would, would be very low. I believe if we look at again, we look at the Second World War, the Netherlands, there's a great museum in Amsterdam, it looks

at it examines three groups, the population, it divides the population into three groups. It says, it looks at those that resisted, those that did nothing, and those that cooperated with the German occupiers and examines the motivations for each. And it really talks about the resistors were a very small group because although they were supported from outside, the potential consequences for oneself and one family are extreme. So they had to really believe that the end goal of resisting the German occupier would be a free and functioning sovereign Netherlands and, but many people just didn't want to become involved. They were just,

they just went with the flow. The reality is, and if we can look at we can look across Europe, people that actively fought German occupiers in Second World War, those groups, although in hindsight, we'd like to think that, you know, they were widespread, they weren't. And they received a lot of outside assistance. So, and that's the other thing that we would not have. If maybe-

Yeah, before we go there, tell me more though about, I don't know, are we talking about like Vichy France or Britain, Shetland Island, yeah. Yeah, no, it's a good point. So occupying governments we have in Norway, for example, there's a great Netflix movie out rightying governments we have in Norway, for example, there's a great Netflix movie out right now. I think it's called 24. It talks about the Norwegian resistance and the Norwegian collaborative government and how they were completely twinned

with the German occupiers. We see the same thing in Vichy, France, the section of France that the Germans at first didn't occupy. They set up a collaborative government under Marshall Tate. The Channel Islands, for example, which were captured by the Germans, the British administration stayed in place, and the policing systems and administrative systems worked alongside the German occupiers for the bulk of the war. So the precedents on the Europe, from a European perspective are there. And I don't think it'd be any different in Canada. The parts of the government that couldn't be co-opted

would be replaced. And if we even look at the British example, colonial India, the colonial governments are, the British, the Canadian government set up by the British was, had benevolent rule by the British. The Canadian government set up by the British had benevolent rule by the British governor general until the Treaty of Westminster in 1931. We had that relationship with Imperial England. We were a client government as part of the dominions. So until we were given self-governance in 31.

So this is it's not a new thing. Okay. But there is not to mount a case for Canadians to mount an insurgency against the U S occupying force. But if I guess suppose if I were to do that intellectual exercise, there is some history of armed resistance movements here like the FLQ in Quebec in the 60s. First known as L'Armée de Liberation Quebecois,

they introduced terrorism to Canadians with painted slogans and Molotov cocktails. Then they graduated to dynamite time bombs, homemade, crude, but deadly. The terrorist targets were symbols of anything Anglo-Saxon or federal. The Mohawk of Girasatake. They were trying to prevent the town from expanding a nine-hole golf course

on what they claim is ancestral land. Tonight, the barricade is completely surrounded by the Canadian Army. The soldiers have dug themselves in after a day of high tension and drama. I must be number one on the list, eh? Well, you're number one on my list too. You a bit nervous, perhaps?

You think? There are militia groups in Alberta. There are a lot of guns here. People own a lot of guns. You know, is there any case that we could put up a good fight? Well, I would say we, people could put up some degree of resistance. I'm not saying that that would not happen, but sustaining it over time is very

difficult without outside support because you need a constant influx of arms, weapons, explosives, munitions of all kinds. We're talking, we're talking an enemy that's high tech. We could use low tech measures just like the Afghans did against us, for example, the Afghan insurgents. But the reality is without that outside support, you will not have a successful insurgency. Right. I mean, if we're looking at like the Viet Cong, they succeeded against the U.S., but obviously they had a huge outside backer. The Algerian National Front beat the French,

the Irish Republican Army against the British. Yep. Does that all hold for you? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. That's correct. So they all had outside support. But the other thing too is poorest borders with a neighbor that you can move into. Our borders with the US, so little support there. If we go up north and try, we look at our bordering, the Arctic Council countries, I'd be shocked if somebody could think of a viable way

in which we could move stuff across the Arctic Circle and down into Southern Canada. So that's a problem too. Why wouldn't we have friends or backers? Why not? It's easy to send a plane and do something, but projecting and sustaining support over time over vast distances, consumes huge amounts of resources. And we don't have any neighboring countries that are able to easily support us

or to be used as a support base for allies that can negotiate with them to support Canada. That's the biggest problem. If we look at our closest European ally is the UK. So how would, in terms of an intellectual exercise, how would the UK support an active resistance unit in Canada? How could they support that movement? And I can't think of a way that's sustainable. I can think of, you know, sub drops, perhaps strategic aircraft, but let's face it, NORAD is very effective. So the architecture of sea and air defense from a continental perspective is in place. So if you're going to try to put a plane in the air to do an airdrop in Canada, chances are it's not going to get

there. If you try to move a sub into the offshore Canada, you are taking your chances because we have very effective post-line surveillance. So I think the fact is Canada is a bit of a castle with a moat around it in terms of if we, if somebody wanted to actually defend Canada and had the military wherewithal to do it. Right, because I was going to ask you if NATO would be obligated, but that's not really your point.

Your point is that they care. Do it. On the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz comes an unprecedented exhibition about one of history's darkest moments. Auschwitz, not long ago, not far away, features more than 500 original objects, first-hand accounts and survivor testimonies that tell the powerful story of the Auschwitz concentration camp, its history and legacy, and the underlying conditions that allowed the Holocaust to happen. On now exclusively at ROM.

Tickets at rom.ca. What does a mummified Egyptian child, the Parthenon marbles of Greece, and an Irish giant all have in common? They are all stuff the British stole. Maybe. Join me, Mark Fennell, as I travel around the globe uncovering the shocking stories of how some, let's call them ill-gotten, artefacts made it to faraway institutions. Spoiler, it was probably the British. Don't miss a brand new season of Stuff the British Stole. Watch it free on CBC Gem.

Okay, look, I know you said at the beginning of this conversation that you thought the more likely outcome, I'm still not saying that this is the likely outcome, but the more likely outcome is really extreme economic warfare, right? I know you said you actually already think that we are at war with the US. Just worst case scenario that for me, I guess, is there a scenario where Canada ends up in like a Venezuela type situation where all of the economic force just causes a huge level of social and economic chaos here internally? I think it could, but I don't believe that in terms of economic resistance, I think there's a point where we would stop. We would just say, okay, what is this going to take to come to some kind of agreement? I would see us being a client state. The United States has

done this before. Here's the Philippines, for example. And they have that kind of relationship with the client state, exchange of goods, staples for refined goods. In some cases, they would use American currency. So I won't say we would become a colony of the US, but I could see some kind of transactional relationship, because at the end of the day, the United States doesn't need to physically invade us to dominate us. And we're already seeing this with the unrest and uncertainty is being caused by the pronouncements are coming under the current US administration.

And honestly, we are in a state of disarray right now. Our government is not effectively reacting. And in terms of central resistance on an economic trend, it doesn't seem like, at least from somebody on the outside. And I, I would like to be giving everybody a benefit down and thinking that right now, furiously in Ottawa, there are federal government ministers and trying to knit together what does an immediate response look like and what are long-term plans. But in my heart, I don't think that's happening. And we have no effective military response to that.

We don't have the capabilities anymore. We have no air defense capability left in Canada. We have almost no tanks left in Canada. We have almost no artillery left in Canada. So a military response to an incursion by US forces is not likely, honestly. And if we could organize and get mobilized quickly enough to put those forces out, they have very limited capabilities as today. So they really couldn't matter in effect of resistance.

They would be more sacrificial than not, to be quite honest. Howard, I know there's kind of no shortage of people who have thoughts on the off-ramps here, right? Like how to stop this from happening. But I'm curious, like what you think we could do. I'll predicate my remarks by saying, you know, I study war and I'm an historian, so I'm not a political scientist or an economist, but I do know whatever course that we do that's effective

is going to have an economic cost and it's going to be a burden on the population. So I believe Howard Coombs, the guy sitting here in Kingston right now, looking at historical examples, we need to start thinking about what it means to be independent and sovereign and then doing the things that it takes to be a sovereign nation. We need to start encouraging home industries. We need to start reestablishing our industrial base for many things and our high-tech sectors because a lot of it has now been farmed out to the US. We need to reinvest in Canada as a nation and we need to start looking right away. We should be looking at other allies who would be, who are not the

United States. But I think it's doable because we look at the Finns in the Soviet diaspora after the second world war, they were able to do it. Oh, go ahead. Sorry. No, I was just saying, do you think part of that is investing more in our military? And what would you say to somebody who thinks that that's just not where our priority should be? I would say it's more than that. Our military right now is at such a low capability. We could throw money at it like there's no tomorrow and it wouldn't change much, quite frankly. What we need to invest in is a robust military. That means we need to recruit, educate, train people and equip the force, start planning

on equipping a military that has capabilities across the spectrum of conflict. I'm not talking a huge military, but one that's technologically enabled and has enough ground troops and naval forces as well as air forces to actually be a deterrent and help protect our borders. That's not an overnight project. We are now isolated in the world. Over the last decade or so, we have minimized ourselves in the international front. So those, those alliances that were part of our Cold War strategy, they don't really exist anymore. You know, all kidding aside, we have to, you know, pull up our pants and we have to go out there and activate our voice in the world become the middle power we used to be. power we used to be. Today, we need an integrated strategy because the conflict area in which we're now fighting is international in nature. It's not just in Canada and it encompasses a whole range of areas across diplomatic areas, the information environment, the military environment, and for God's sake, we all have to recognize this economics. So anyway,

that's my polemic. I don't know if any of that was useful but that's kind of what I'm using on the topic right now. It was useful and interesting and I would also say equal parts disconcerting. Howard, I really want to thank you for this. It was really, it was it was great to talk to you. Thank you very much. I enjoyed our conversation. All right, that is all for today. I'm Jamie Puehso. Thanks so much for listening. Talk to you tomorrow.