If the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said this, he’d lose his job.
As for Pete Hegseth, Trump had a reason for insisting on cabinet yes men.
Trump would find a general who thinks Canada would give up before the rest of NATO could begin to mobilize. History tells me that Trump could find a bold general like that. He (or she? do we have female Trumper generals?) might even win.
We have not dehumanized them enough yet.
Maybe in a couple weeks.
Well, the US does have a history of that thinking.
“The acquisition of Canada this year will be a mere matter of marching”
By the way, I’ve never told you this, but cool user name. I get the joke therein, and “penultimate” is an underutilized word, IMO.
Yes, Milley was much abused by Trump, which I imagine does not endear the latter much to the military as a whole.
I would suspect that other generals and high-ranking military wo/men would oppose Trump if he proposed or ordered an invasion of Canada, but I’m the furthest thing from an expert on our military.
Yes. It would make Russia’s buildup on the Ukraine border look like a well-kept secret.
Yes, enough to trigger a civil war in the US. Absolutely impossible. Anyone who thinks that Trump would just order the troops to invade, and invade they would, is delusional. All hell would break loose.
It doesn’t matter how many people he fires. We don’t have generals who can wish hundreds of thousands of infantry and billions of dollars worth of materiel into position. Supply chains can’t just be established by fiat. Soldiers need to eat. Tanks need fuel. Guns need bullets. It takes time, money, and legislation to procure all of that and move it into position, and it’s not something you can do in a weekend without anyone noticing.
It took over a year of buildup for us to be ready to invade Iraq in 2003, and that’s a county 1/20th the size of Canada. Prepping an invasion of Canada would be a WWII-sized effort.
Correct. The idea itself is nonsensical. Look what happened to Russia in Ukraine. That was done by a country with a pliant, demoralized populace.
Try the equivalent in the US, which is ripe for a revolution, with lots of completely pissed people on both sides of the political divide. It would make the invasion of Ukraine look like a cakewalk.
Trump doesn’t understand power. He understands fucking with/hacking the system in the context of a functional system. The moment he hacks too much, he and the GOP are done. So is the country (or I should say, the current political order, which everyone hates anyway).
Not really, in terms of population. Something close to 80% of our population lives within 100 miles of the US border. We’re not Ukraine; we’re Chile laid east to west.
Most of our land mass is very sparsely populated.
Yes, and half of the US would be willing to fight for Canada.
I imagine that other 20% could easily hold out for years, though, and the US doesn’t really have a great track record fighting bush wars against embedded partisans.
The only thing keeping Trump from exercising illegal acts are the limits his subordinates are willing to offer him these options. Trump would bomb California if it was offered as a viable option to him by the secretary of Defense.
There are no limits to his vile, hostile, chaotic, irresponsibility. The Americans have put right wing fascists into controlling all 3 branches of the US government (legislative, executive, and judicial) and these people have staunchly built and supported a current streamlined administration unchecked by constitutional norms and legal repercussions.
For now, I think the US civilian and military bureaucracy is strong enough to prevent an invasion of Canada. However, Trump as many years left on his watch. A bit more weeding out the old guard, promoting fascist toadies, war mongering shock tactics, and time.
He could get anything he want done. Fascists don’t just stop with their brinkmanship. They continuously attack to test the limits of their power and erode public checks to it.
For now Canada is militarily safe.The US is getting more fashy by the day thou. The next few administrations need to stomp this fash out before they get a real evil bastard in power of a weak government.
US Troops would not be ordered to fire on unarmed civilians. The entire premise is absurd. In order to kill an unarmed, nonthreatening person, they must be positively identified as belonging to a group to which status-based targeting is authorized. For perspective, not even the Taliban had such a designation. Targeting or engaging Taliban was threat-based, and US military personnel could not fire on them unless and until their individual actions posed a specific threat. They could walk around and wave their flags freely as long as they weren’t a threat. An order to “shoot that unarmed Taliban because he’s a Taliban” was not a legal ordered and all soldiers had an obligation to disobey it.
If there was a war with Canada, status-based targeting would only be authorized for Canadian military personnel. So, the US Army could be ordered to shoot an unarmed Canadian soldier, but not an unarmed Canadian civilian. But again, it’s a stupid thing to even consider.
repeat post
FWIW, no one in the US Military even thinks is a question worth asking. We’re too busy planning our next joint training exercise with our brothers-in-arms to the North.
“Military age male”. Aren’t vague definitions of threat useful?
In real life the US military is quite happy to just kill people on sight.
Being a “military age male” was never sufficient targeting criteria. But you’re free to believe whatever you want.
Almost half of America would be pro-Canada. Almost half of America was pro-Mexico during the Mexican War (1846-1848). That doesn’t mean they did or would actually fight for Mexico or Canada.
But if millions of pro-Canada Americans were armed, and found their way to the Canadian side of the Canadian front, that wouldn’t delay the war. What it would delay – if they got to Canada in time – is the possibility of U.S. victory. But, actually, I do not think enough of them would get to the front to dictate the outcome.
The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers response to Trump’s order to release California water is instructive. They could have said – Mr. President, to achieve your goal of getting northern
California water to Los Angeles, we must first build a giant water pipe through mountains. We’ll meet with Elon’s tunneling company and get an estimate. That would be the equivalent of saying that logistics for invading Canada would take many months. Now, what did the U.S. Army do?
At one point, “status” to a particular group was determined by specific footwear. So, soldiers were allowed to shoot military age males wearing particular clothing. But that was because the particular clothing was used to positively identify their membership to a group authorized status-based targeting. Certain footwear, like any other clothing or insignia, can be a type of “uniform”. Military age males wearing a uniform that identifies them as a status-based target can be shot, weather they are armed or not, and weather they are a threat or not. That’s different than saying someone is a threat. And being a military age male is not in itself a threat by any definition.
It is and has been. Along with “standing in a group”, “large vehicle”, and "approaches a previous target ; and nobody cares if that means weddings, school buses and rescue workers get bombed and sniped.
I recall reading during the Iraq occupation how US troops were patrolling the streets under orders to kill anything that moved, and killed a local chief of police who stepped out his front door. And how during our siege/attack on Fallujah we forbade any males exit, then attacked killing all we saw because obviously, if they weren’t insurgents they’d have left.
With US troops it’s “war crimes all the time”, we just like to lie about it.
In real life, there are civilians who would be quite happy to just kill people on sight. Murderers exist in real life. That isn’t something unique to the military. The Las Vegas shooter was not a Soldier and was not acting on orders. Yet, he killed people on sight who were not a threat to him.