For now.
Admiral Samuel Paparo, head of U.S. Pacific Command, was asked if he would follow orders to attack Canada.
“Canada is a close ally,” he stated.
But then he added, “I follow the orders of the president.”
So Trump is the final arbiter of a military attack on Canada. A sundowning dementia patient who is showing distinct signs of mental deterioration.
That’s always going to be the case. A U.S. military commander might refuse a command to bomb, say, Boston. MIGHT - there’s no guarantee. But almost none of them will ever refuse to carry through with an attack on another nation, no matter how much they hate the idea. Senior officers might push back a little, try to argue it’s a bad idea. A handful of enlisted men might refuse. But when push comes to shove they military is going to swallow their private objections and do what they’re told. That’s how professional militaries work. You have to get to civil war conditions before that even potentially starts to breaks down.
Attacking Canada won’t be a civil war condition, despite the arguments of a poster or two on this board. It might be on the road to it, but it’s not there.
Paparo merely said what he had to say in the moment. He doesn’t owe the press a look at the cards he’d play should the situation move from hypothetical musing to a confirmed order.
It beggars belief that the words of a Trump order would be airtight enough to head off malicious compliance (obeying the order in a narrow sense, but making sure the overall objective of the order is not accomplished). “Attack Canada!!!” won’t cut it.
“Lob some missles at 'em!!!” “Sorry sir – the guidance system malfunctioned and the missles [sans warheads - wink] ended up in the Arctic Ocean.”
“March on London! Send the Michigan National Guard from Detroit across that new bridge!!!” “Crap – we forgot our weapons. We just basically had a parade into Canada! Good times.”
The military would follow orders, but no invasion happens instantly. It takes time to mobilize. The U.S. put equipment in place for months (from August 1990 to January 1991 for Operation Desert Shield) before launching Operation Desert Storm in the first Gulf War. There was a similar buildup before the 2003 invasion of Iraq (which led to worldwide protests because everyone knew an invasion was likely due to the buildup of forces).
Something similar would happen in a potential future conflict. And if Canada were the target, the protests here in the U.S. would be off the charts. It might even prompt Congress to get off their butts to preempt an attack. But if not, I think this might be something that would finally induce them to immediately impeach and remove Trump.
Before the midterm elections I find it highly doubtful articles of impeachment would pass in the House. That applies to anything DJT might do, including bombing/invading Canada.
If it did happen by some miracle I see no chance getting the 67 votes needed in the Senate to convict.
With the current administration in charge, an invasion of Canada will go about as well as invading the Ukraine has for the Russians. That’s even before Canada invokes Article 5. Don’t be fooled by the general politeness of Canadians, in war they have a bit of the opposite reputation.
Nitpick, but “the Ukraine” is both incorrect and disrespecting the sovereignty of the country. (The word Ukraine means borderland and to call it “the Ukraine” is tantamount to just calling it the borderland of Russia.)
See this BBC News article for a citation.
Which is fascinating bizarrity of contemporary English, given the utter lack of definite articles in Ukrainian and Russian: “The Ukraine” vs “Ukraine” is not a distinction either of these languages can make.
I suspect that this incorrect usage derives from associations with constructs like “the UK” and “the United States”. In the case of Ukraine, the use of the determiner “the” is just plain wrong. It’s used in the cases of the UK and the USA because those compound names contain common nouns (“kingdom” and “states”, respectively).
I thought this thread was about the Greenland.
Just how I’m used to saying it, probably from hearing it that way. No disrespect intended, Ukraine it is.
“The Ukraine” is the styling that was used here in the U.S. before the country became independent in the 1990s (at which point the proper styling dropped the “The”), but I still heard “the Ukraine” used here until recent years.
It was only relatively recently that Ukraine got any significant coverage/mention in the U.S., between it being the focus of Trump’s first impeachment, and then being invaded by Russia.
Moderating:
@Smapti gave a polite enough reminder that this is the Panama Canal/Greenland thread, not one of the Ukraine ones, nor one about the many issues with English (American English especially).
No more of the discussion in this thread, please.
Edited - never mind
Isn’t attacking a country with which we have treaties of peace and cooperation a literal violation of the law? Couldn’t commanders insist that to the best of their understanding such would be illegal orders?
What law? I mean that seriously. Now a treaty ratified by the Senate is law, but “international law” is almost a oxymoron.
Yes, I meant actual ratified-by-the-Senate treaties, which I’m certain we have several with Canada.
The main treaties that would seem to apply are mutual defense treaties: the 1940 Ogdensburg Agreement and the 1949 treaty creating NATO.
And going back to the original topic of the thread, Trump has now threatened two members of NATO (Denmark and Canada).