What to make of a United States which threatens the sovereign territory of an allied democracy? Which invades another country to snatch its head of state and then makes the rest of the regime “an offer it can’t refuse” with respect to its oil resources? Where the head of the central bank is subjected to a sham criminal investigation for refusing to let the head of state interfere where the law forbids it? Or in which gangs of masked government thugs roam the streets, picking up anyone they wish and consigning them, with seemingly no due process, to a semi-legal hell on earth—and even shooting citizens who get in their way with seeming impunity?

It is almost beyond comprehension, as is the fact that much of the American political and judicial system has simply stood back and let this happen. This is, after all, a system founded on separate but equal branches of government whose primary function is to check one another and prevent the rise of the kind of despotic monarch Americans rejected when they handed in their British citizenship.

The situation prompts one to think the unthinkable. We now live in a time where, even if something remains highly unlikely, it is no longer impossible.

And so, as President Donald Trump continues his semi-invasion/proxy takeover of Venezuela and keeps threats to Greenland simmering, my thoughts turn to an unsettling question. What would we do if our restive neighbour to the south decided to test, once again, Thomas Jefferson’s maxim, propounded in 1812, that taking Canada is “a mere matter of marching”? How would we actually defend ourselves?

The analysis would depend on the related questions of why the Americans would go about invading us and how they would do it. On the question of why, Trump’s mercurial personality makes it difficult to base an answer on presumption of rationality. If Canada’s relations with him deteriorate to the point that he is seriously thinking of military action, that point will probably come after an acrimonious exchange over something like his desire to own our resources and/or control our Arctic—in both cases, for reasons of “national security.”

Presumably, we will have rejected a set of egregious demands, and he will turn to unsubtle military threats (likely framed as “everything is on the table”) to soften us up. In this telling, Trump’s actions are best seen as an example of hard-nosed bargaining. But deeper psychological imperatives cannot be dismissed, including a desire to be viewed by history as the man who more than doubled the size of the US and accomplished its “manifest destiny.”

This is a goal American leaders have pursued since before the Revolutionary War. In 1774, even before declaring independence, the First Continental Congress approved an open letter to the residents of what would become Canada, urging them to join—or face the consequences: “A moment’s reflection should convince you which will be most for your interest and happiness, to have all the rest of North-America your unalterable friends, or your inveterate enemies.” In 1775, the fledgling American forces attempted an invasion of Canada but were repelled. They would try again in 1812.

On the question of how the Americans might invade Canada, it is obvious that, if they decided to pull the full “shock and awe” special, we would be up the proverbial creek. But it seems unlikely they would do this. Our cities and infrastructure are valuable and would have to be expensively rebuilt after the conquest. Why........

© The Walrus