military coup d'etat

[Paladin Solo]

I can't see the US suffering a coup, now, that is, even in the current mood we're in. The US has no definite culture, and that would be a big obstacle for a potential rebel leader. Different people have different ideas.

Another good point that was made is the difference between an all volunteer military, and a conscripted one. Sure, there were plenty of differences in the mood of conscripted soldiers in WW2, and that in Vietnam, but you have to look at the times, and reasons between the two. Especially now. Perhaps directly after 9/11, an order of conscription would've been better accepted than one right now, with the situation in Iraq.

Another big obstacle would be the standard of living. I think most Americans live comfortable lives. Sure, we have bills and taxes to pay, and maintaining order and stability around the household can be a bitch at times, but it is far more preferable than how Somalis, for example, live. Even a hard-lined, anti-Bush advocate might have difficulty using force to get Bush out of office. Do we want to sacrifice pleasure? Which brings me to another point, will and determination. Do we sacrifice for our children, or will they sacrifice for us?

And then, there's popular support. Ok, so a general gets a bunch of rag-tag group of wanna-be leaders together, thinking they could do better, or perhaps, knowing they could do better. How will the rest of the population respond if they succeed? Whatever the reason is, if it is not popularily supported, some might not find the transition of life styles appropriate, and then further cause more rebellion. At most, the group may just get heard, but I don't think they could take power and hold it for long. Take my town for example. I live in a small town. As with most small communities, people tend to think the same. Doesn't mean that's how people elsewhere think.

And then there's the manner of approaching the matter at hand. If they choose to go in trigger happy, then they might not have a good image in the neighborhood.

Personally, I have thought of such matters before hand, but in a different approach. It was a question asked by one of my history teachers. He gave us an assignment for the weekend. We were to go home, and write and essay on how we think the US will come to an end. Some said nuclear war, others said the slow erosion of time and economics, one person even said aliens, then a few said a giant, catastrophic, natural, and/or galactic disaster, and I said, a coup. Personally, I think that one day, a small matter of dissatisfaction that hardly affects us now, will be the major reason behind a rebellion in the future. I don't know, maybe I got bored with all the regular doomsday scenarios, and just decided to point out a self-extermination one where the rest of the world wouldn't be destroyed alongside.

 

[welsh]

I think you guys have to distinguish between a coup and a revolution.

A revolution has mass support, a coup is just a bunch of military types who use violence to create a government or regime change and then take over the state. A revolution is usually a mass movement to overturn the state and create a new one.

So I think you're right on the sense that some kind of unusual disaster might trigger a coup- a nuclear strike, a plague, a famine, a nationwide natural disaster.

But such an event would have to undermine our basic institutions. The success of a state is often measured by it's ability to respond to an exogenous shock- like a disaster.

But then the problem is the institutions at.

Let's say the US got taken over, democratically, by a group of hard core religious fundamentalists that threatened notions of the seperation of church and state? Would we be at risk of a coup?

That is exactly what played out in Indonesia when Suharto fell- the military felt threatened by a growing role of Muslim fundamentalists that would overthrow the economic and political ideology of the state.

Likewise, if the people voted for a Marxist leader- would the military- historically a conservative force- intervene?

What if there was a disaster and the democratic state proved unwilling or incapable of responding? Or what if there was a massive depression and the civilian leadership proved unresponsive?

In those circumstances, where the state begins to look less effective, the military may have a greater chance to intervene.

Not necessarily because the military wants to protect society- in either the guardian or developmental modes. That may be the case. But it is also possible the military may coup for it's own personalized gain.

If you control the military- coercive force, than you can easily take charge of the economic power of a state as well. Look at South Korea as an example of where military control by the government led to significant control over the main economic sectors.