Canada war-gamed a U.S. invasion. A former NORAD commander explains why

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In recent weeks, we’ve learned that Canadian military leaders war-gamed U.S. military action against Canada earlier this year, with Prime Minister Mark Carney having described it as an “extreme tail risk,” in an interview last month with the New York Times.

That revelation was a stark reflection of an increasingly strained relationship amid the tariff war, even as Arctic, missile, drone, and homeland-defence threats continue to rise. To understand how the Canada-U.S. defence alliance is holding up amid these tensions, National Post spoke with retired General Glen VanHerck, commander of U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) from 2020 to 2024.

This Q&A has been edited for clarity and length.

Gen. Glen VanHerck: It did not affect the military relationship or defence cooperation on a day-to-day basis. What it did was, at times, create doubt about the political commitment to the military mission — to Canada’s responsibility to its NORAD commitment and continental defence in general. That’s what I would say it created questions or doubt about at times.

From a military perspective, I never doubted the commitment of the Chief of Defence staff (of Canada), the military personnel assigned to NORAD, the military personnel I interacted with at Canadian Joint Operations Command (CJOC) or anyplace else.

But when you see politically questionable support for that military institution at times — when you see statements that express, ‘Yes, we’re going to do NORAD modernization,’ but no money comes with it; when you see that there’s discussion of a new strategy, but that strategy is delayed a year or two — then that creates questions in one’s mind about commitment and long-term support.

I don’t have concerns that the trade challenges we’re experiencing will impact the relationship or military commitment … The commitment is there. The trade challenges and relationships could ultimately impact their ability to support (that commitment) because of a lack of money, resources, platforms that are capable, interoperable, and integrated.

Well, I think the greatest thing Canada commits to and has is its posture, its location in the Arctic, the geography that it offers. Certainly, the United States can replace material things, whether it’s radars or airplanes. It cannot replace a government that is committed to a binational relationship. That’s the most powerful thing you can have. And that relationship — and even expanding that to NATO — is an asymmetric advantage that the United States, Canada, and our partners and allies have had. I would say that relationship has actually prevented the great powers from going to war.

The friction we have politically, in my mind, makes that relationship and that support questionable and erodes strategic stability, because potential adversaries see that and they question our alignment, our support for each other. Are we going to have each other’s back, and are we committed to defence and going to war over each other’s sovereignty and the things that we support as an alliance? That’s the worst thing that could happen.

I think both countries are at fault. I think countries have reacted based on emotion rather than fact. At times, there’s been immaturity in the relationship both ways, and it would be better if we sat down and looked at the positives of the relationship rather than making emotional decisions out of political positions by leaders on both sides.

I do think Canada needs to do more for its defence posture and support. I think that has eroded over the years. With various elected officials who have been in power, Canada’s support for the defence apparatus did wane a little bit. But at the same time, I think the U.S. could have had these discussions behind closed doors, in non-emotional terms, and gotten to a better place.

I think the strongest evidence is that North America has been kept safe. We have fielded operable capabilities. Canada and the United States have gone to war, into conflicts around the globe, attached at the hip, side-by-side. Certainly the commitments from each country look different, but that doesn’t mean that the commitment from the political (realm) and the people has been any different. That’s just a fact of gross domestic product and the size of industry that has limited Canada’s commitment.

I think the biggest weakness is that the partnership and relationship, as we’re seeing it play out, can be significantly influenced by single leaders and emotional leaders in ways that impact an entire country. The rest of the people, and the military apparatus, our national security, our prices of goods — all become affected by two individuals who don’t necessarily agree over policy.

Canada’s very exposed to that. From a defensive perspective and being able to track, it’s going to require a satellite constellation to track hypersonics that are going to attack North America. The United States is committed to building a Low Earth Orbit constellation to do that. To my knowledge, Canada has not yet built radars that’ll be able to bridge that gap. So both the United States and Canada are vulnerable to that threat.

Since I’m not the commander, I don’t see under the tent and see what’s going on necessarily — but my understanding is that Prime Minister Carney has absolutely furthered the commitment to NORAD. He made sure the money that was committed but never really provided under the last administration in Canada has gone forward, and he’s added to that.

On the 2 per cent (of GDP for NATO defence), I think that number is just pulled out of thin air and doesn’t mean anything for the United States, Canada, or NATO. We need to figure out what the threat requires, what stability requires, and then get a commitment of all nations, whether that’s 2 per cent, 5 per cent, 2.5 per cent, 1.5 per cent. I don’t know where the number is, but just arbitrarily putting percentages out as a goal, in a military planner’s mind, is not really the way to do business.

If you’re looking at it from a NORAD perspective, there are terms of agreement — there are rules that you must follow that require political leaders on both sides to commit to. So Canada has all the influence and power it needs in that agreement. That would be for NORAD support. If the United States feels differently or Canada feels differently, then you can take actions outside of the NORAD construct through your forces or additional U.S. forces.

We saw that play out in some way with NORTHCOM taking action to shoot down the (Chinese high-altitude surveillance) balloon, which flew over both countries’ airspace. The legal justification to shoot it down was under U.S.-only law and policy, and therefore the authority used was a NORTHCOM authority.

Canada needs to focus on what’s in its best interest and the best interest of national security for Canada and the binational relationship of NORAD and security for North America.

The thing that’ll make us most secure is compatible, integrated capabilities, to where, if we needed to share airplanes, if we need to share bases, if we need to share command and control, if we need to share fuel, weapons, people, if I need to land airplanes in Canada and have Canadians service them and work on them, we’re far stronger if we do that than we are if we do something different — if we don’t have integrated, collaborative types of operations.

With that said, I fully respect Canada’s sovereignty and its need to become less dependent on the United States in its national military, defence industrial base, et cetera. But when you do that, it is important to consider whether you are going to remain operable and integrated. I think that’s a crucial lesson and point.

I wouldn’t say it stunned me. I was quite surprised that there was any perception that the U.S. military would invade Canada, candidly. But with that said, military planners should plan for all scenarios, and whether it’s the U.S., Russia, or China, it’s almost irrelevant except for geographic location, where a potential invasion may come from.

But it was surprising to hear the prime minister say he was planning for a potential invasion by the U.S. military just because of the relationship commitment and the fact that the countries are neighbours and trade partners. I just don’t see how that could benefit either country. I was just very surprised by that. There were no indicators, except for rhetoric of one person, that would lead to something like that. And that rhetoric didn’t indicate, in my mind, that a military attack on Canada was likely or even being planned for or considered. That’s what concerns me a little bit.

Not to my knowledge. During my timeframe, I never saw anything remotely close to that.

Into Canada to support Canada, potentially logistically, under NORAD commitments, moving U.S. military squadrons and stuff into Canada, yes. That was planned for and considered likely to happen, but not under a threat from Canada or to Canada.

That would be a Russia threat, a potentially Russia-China threat — most likely the first one, Russia — where air defence, further surveillance capabilities, submarine capabilities would be needed to sustain submarine and maritime operations, potentially even maritime vessels from the U.S. Navy using Canadian ports for refuelling, restocking, those types of things.

I think a clear lack of character, militarily — in military leadership and integrity, one way or the other — (could affect it).  That trust and those relationships are built on character and integrity, telling the truth, having factual conversations, agreeing to disagree.

But when you start having questions about one’s character on the other side — and I’m talking the military dimension only, not the political — then there can be a breakdown of trust militarily.

Never.

Militarily, I think the trust is still really good. And this is from talking to both U.S. and Canadian senior leadership. There is absolute trust and respect, and they continue doing the NORAD mission — that’s defence of North America, both Canada and the U.S., and they do it side-by-side.

What concerns me most is that decisions will be made based on emotion, not based on fact and long-term national security, but rather on perceived short-term penalties to the United States. What I’m talking about is buying inferior, less operable equipment.

I understand the need for Canada to have sovereignty and to become more dependent, less dependent on the United States, but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t buy the best equipment available at the most affordable price. That does concern me — that Canada will make decisions based on emotions, not facts.

I think the relationship, for both nations to get this right, is really, really important for both nations’ national security and economic prosperity.

We are tied together, whether it’s electric grids that go across the border, goods going back and forth, our people, or education. And the sooner we can get beyond emotion and friction generated out of that emotion, the better off we’ll be, not only as individual nations, but more importantly, the more stable the world will be, and we’ll become another role model to the rest of the world of how neighbours should operate.

Frankly, I’m disappointed with how neighbours are operating based on emotion today. And, candidly, that’s why I’m a commissioner on the Second Century Commission. We’re just getting started, and the commission includes Canadians and Americans, former ambassadors, former deputy prime ministers — I’m the only military representative — U.S. ambassadors to Canada, vice versa. There are about 20 of us who are going to write a report that will basically be a blueprint for the next century. It’s called the Second Century Commission. And I think it’s really important that we get this right, that we partner with Canadians to look at what the next century is going to be for the two countries and how to make that happen.

We are going to meet this month in Baltimore, Maryland, and we’ll meet in the spring in Montreal. We’ll draft reports, and that will likely, through editing and recommendations, and coordination, take us about 18 months to complete.

National Post

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our newsletters here.