Although I am now a senior, there is no doubt in my mind that should the Americans ever invade Canada (a notion unthinkable just a short time ago), I would do my best to resist. That resistance would likely involve violence. That may seem laughable coming from someone like me, but before I made my grand exit from the world, I would want my presence here to account for something. And what could be nobler than fighting for the country I love?
An article by Aisha Ahmad, an associate political science professor at the University of Toronto, suggests that we could make life a real hell for an invading force:
If Trump ever decides to use military force to annex Canada, the result would not be determined by a conventional military confrontation between the Canadian and American armies. Rather, a military invasion of Canada would trigger a decades-long violent resistance, which would ultimately destroy the United States.
As someone who has studies insurgencies around the world for the past two decades, Ahmad knows of what she speaks:
The research on guerrilla wars clearly shows that weaker parties can use unconventional methods to cripple a more powerful enemy over many years. This approach treats waging war as a secret, part-time job that an ordinary person can do.
Guerrillas use ambushes, raids and surprise attacks to slowly bleed an invading army, and local communities support these fighters by giving them safe havens and material support. These supporting citizens can also engage in forms of “everyday resistance,” using millions of passive-aggressive episodes of sabotage to frustrate and drain the enemy.
Trump is delusional if he believes that 40 million Canadians will passively accept conquest without resistance. There is no political party or leader willing to relinquish Canadian sovereignty over “economic coercion,” and so if the U.S. wanted to annex Canada, it would have to invade. [In that regard youi might want to read Stephen Harper's reflections on what he would do to stop U.S. economic warfare.]
Resistance, says Ahmad, would take various forms:
When your child is dying in your arms, you become capable of violence. Once you lose what you love, resistance becomes as natural as breathing.
Except for a few collaborators and kapos, my research suggests many Canadians would likely engage in various forms of everyday resistance against invading forces that could involve steal, lying, cutting wires and diverting funds.
Meanwhile, the insurgents would unleash physical devastation on American targets. Even if one per cent of all resisting Canadians engaged in armed insurrection, that would constitute a 400,000-person insurgency, nearly 10 times the size of Taliban at the start of the Afghan war. If a fraction of that number engaged in violent attacks, it would set fire to the entire continent.
Canada’s geography would make this insurgency difficult to defeat. With deep forests and rugged mountains, Canada’s northern terrain could not be conquered or controlled. That means loyalists from the Canadian Armed Forces could mobilize civilian recruits into decentralized fighting units that could strike, retreat into the wilderness and blend back into the local communities that support them.
Please take a moment to read Ahmad's full article. It provides much food for thought, as well as a roadmap to navigate the perilous times we are now entering.
