Thread: Could there be a coup? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020250
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
We never expected the 1991
coup attempt in the USSR. The below link says there's been 145 in the western hemisphere with about 50% success rate.
Could there be an attempt to Dethrone donald? Why not? Would it be a good thing?
Here's > one Link < among many which discuss such things.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Please God no.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
It would have to be the military. The only other group with enough weaponry to even attempt a coup are the far-right gun nuts, and they're on 45's side.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
In case anyone is too lazy to click the link, it states several times that experts say there's no way it will happen.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Could there be an attempt to Dethrone donald? Why not?
You gotta have armaments to do this, and neither the military nor the gun nuts are going to do this. Not for the same reasons -- the military has always taken great pride in not being the sort of force that takes the law into its own hands -- but it comes to the same thing: no coup.
quote:
Would it be a good thing?
No, because the biggest problems with Trump are his blithe disregard for the rule of law and ignorance of the norms and necessities of democracy. A coup is a huge step in the wrong direction.
What we need are for the people in powerful positions in our system to do their jobs and exert the curbs upon the presidency that are built into the system.
[ 02. August 2017, 04:53: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posted by Marama (# 330) on
:
Back in May historian Timothy Snyder - for whom I have considerable respect - suggested it was much more likely Trump would be the one to stage the coup. I'm not sure if the chaos created between May and now counts as a coup, but I think not.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Please God no.
Amen. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
It would make things much, much worse. It would be illegal, which, in itself, would ruin the lives of the participants, no matter how the coup went. It would likely be violent, which would be a whole 'nother level of ruin, and possibly injure innocent parties. Whoever took over might be inclined to stay in power. That seems to happen in other countries, especially if it's a military coup. And it's very hard to oust *them*.
Current Trump supporters would be furious and scared, and might act to protect Their Guy and Their Country. Private militias might get in on the act. And opportunists, with other sorts of vested interests.
Governors might decide to call in their state's part of the National Guard. For one example of how that can turn out, look up "Kent State Shooting".
People would be frantic, terrified, and confused. There'd be a run on banks and grocery stores. Big upsurge in buying guns for self-protection. Nervous people would probably mean a nervous stock market, which could make the 2008 mess look like amateur hour and cause problems around the world.
Then terrorists and opportunists from other countries would get in on the act.
So no, _it_ _would_ _not_ _be_ _a_ _good_ _thing_.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
very much not. It would be an unmitigated disaster for the USA and the world.
A coup by Trump against the constitutional order is more likely than a coup against his Presidency, but would be equally disastrous.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
No.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Could there be an attempt to Dethrone donald? Why not?
Historically coups have occurred when a certain section of society perceive an existential threat to either their way of life or their person.
So therefore no - the people most likely to launch a coup in most western democracies are the rich or the military, and both are well catered for by the present US administration.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It would have to be the military. The only other group with enough weaponry to even attempt a coup are the far-right gun nuts, and they're on 45's side.
Plus, despite surface similarities between all of their views, I doubt the gun-nuts could get organized enough to act with the uniformity required to carry out such an action. They actually kind of fit the lazy caricature of what anarchists are supposedly like.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Chris has it. The military are a subset of the rich. The rich are insulated from reality. South Central LA and Detroit can burn to the ground again, New Orleans drowned, the rich are untouched. They just get richer. No coup.
[ 02. August 2017, 09:13: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
very much not. It would be an unmitigated disaster for the USA and the world.
A coup by Trump against the constitutional order is more likely than a coup against his Presidency, but would be equally disastrous.
He's already conducting a coup - a slow, painful eroding of all that was decent and democratic in the USA.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
It'd be fascinating to know if Trump has tried to do things (eg with the military) and has been prevented because those who are able have refused to co-operate. I'd like to think the WH is aware of the knife-edge that they're walking and that giving the wrong order to the wrong person would snowball into something horrendous.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Yes, of course, there could.
The most obvious route is impeachment and the installation of Pence as president. I don't know if you'd classify it as a coup, per se, but Pence is a dominionist and philosophically/politically/theocratically much more likely to get terrible things done for the military/industrial complex than Trump.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Chris has it. The military are a subset of the rich. The rich are insulated from reality. South Central LA and Detroit can burn to the ground again, New Orleans drowned, the rich are untouched. They just get richer. No coup.
Er, speaking as someone who's actually been in the military, I think you're a bit off beam - it's too easy to "other" the military. They're just the same as everyone else, just usually slightly more (in practical terms) pacifist precisely because they understand what they and their weapons can do and what the consequences of getting it wrong are.
Which is why Chris' contention is slightly more worrying. The military might get lots of shiny new toys to play with off Mr Trump indeed - OTOH, if things look so unstable that they think there's a good chance of them becoming embroiled in more ludicrous foreign adventures *then* there might be a problem.
Overall? no chance. However *not* because the military are a subset of the rich (FFS) or because they're "doing well." More because they're (generally) democrats and do what they're told.
Not for the first time I worry that what the west has done successfully is other itself from the military, rather than other the military from it... IME they're just the same as any other human being, although as a group usually less war mongering and more keen on avoiding wars...
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It'd be fascinating to know if Trump has tried to do things (eg with the military) and has been prevented because those who are able have refused to co-operate. I'd like to think the WH is aware of the knife-edge that they're walking and that giving the wrong order to the wrong person would snowball into something horrendous.
almost certainly - although that goes behind the scenes for most world leaders rather than just the more obviously insane. AIUI Harold Wilson was rather keen on bombing Rhodesia until the RAF quietly informed him that they wouldn't be doing that...
The Civilian good ideas club these days (largely because so many leaders lack military experience) frequently has a less than realistic grasp of what the armed forces can and can't do (and more particularly will and won't do).
In some ways the public might be reassured by how much time generals, admirals and air marshals the world over spend explaining why *not* to do the latest brilliant idea that the executive comes up with.
Although admittedly I suppose they might temper that reassurance with horror at some of the executive's plans....
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Which is why Chris' contention is slightly more worrying. The military might get lots of shiny new toys to play with off Mr Trump indeed - OTOH, if things look so unstable that they think there's a good chance of them becoming embroiled in more ludicrous foreign adventures *then* there might be a problem.
Please note that I didn't claim that they are 'a subset of the rich' (a ludicrous claim for the US army), or that they are 'doing well' more that they are well catered for - the higher ranks get new toys to play with, and moves against the ACA won't necessarily further worsen veteran care (as an example).
quote:
They're just the same as everyone else, just usually slightly more (in practical terms) pacifist precisely because they understand what they and their weapons can do and what the consequences of getting it wrong are
While true of the rank and file, the US (as opposed to the UK) tend to throw up officers at the ends of both extremes.
I agree with you about the othering, but think the causes of it on both sides of the Atlantic owe as much to military attitudes as that of the civilian population.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
That's interesting Betjemaniac, and chimes with a conversation (in a family/ social context) about gun control / arms proliferation I had with a couple of army officers not so long ago. I had been working for a company who make military comms equipment, one of whose executives was openly enthusiastic for war as an opportunity to sell stuff. They were probably more angry and depressed about it than (Guardian-reading) I was.
So what does Gen. Kelly do when he tries to straighten things out a bit, but its too chaotic for him to exert the kind of discipline which would have an impact? Taking the reins forcibly (a-la Pakistan) is out, so...what?
Here is something interesting.
[ 02. August 2017, 10:33: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]
Posted by wabale (# 18715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
AIUI Harold Wilson was rather keen on bombing Rhodesia until the RAF quietly informed him that they wouldn't be doing that...
A churchwarden of ours, as part of his army service some years before he joined us, was in charge of the detachment of the Zambian army at the Kariba Dam during the UDI crisis. He knew some of the ‘chaps’ on the other side of the river. All the Zambians had to defend themselves against Rhodesia's Hunter jets were trenches strengthened with railway sleepers. Later, Zambian Railways sent him the bill.
The best coups, whether they succeed or not, are often bloodless, because it becomes obvious which side has overwhelming force. In democracies this is a case of arguing and persuading (though I imagine fantasising about a coup might help).
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
I do hope that's true Mark, about the agreement between the two retired Generals. I rather suspect the leadership of America's armed forces are much more alert to internal dangers after the Strangelove Incident
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I would judge that Crooked Donald will be deposed politically, rather than militarily. No, this country will not tolerate an overthrow of democratic systems. We aren't a Venezuela quite yet.
As to the military saying no to him, you will recall that for the Inaugural parade he wanted the full North Korea -- goose-stepping troops snapping a salute as they pass the podium, munitions rolling down the avenue, flyovers by jets. The brass said no, and instead he got the (traditional) Girl Scout troops and high school marching bands.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Will his followers ever turn against him?
Reading the history of the Hapsburg monarchy which ruled the Austrian-Hungarian Empire and the 1848 revolution (if you've seen Les Miserables, that's the French one which spread to many other countries and most cities in Europe with 100k population). The people had moved to cities, promised jobs and industrialization didn't happen. Nothing became great. The people turned against altar and emperor. Many were killed. The establishment ultimately won. trumpy hasn't a chance to improve his followers' lives let alone greatness. Maybe it's a dystopian fiction to speculate. (Though aren't we living in one?)
[ 02. August 2017, 13:22: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
Seven Days in May is NOT a healthy Plan B for preserving democracy y'all.
For those unfamiliar with the reference, here's a helpful link.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
Look, when will you people realise that its all about water flouridation?
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
In an earlier post, simontoad mentioned the notion of Trump attempting a takeover against the constitution. It's not hard to see how a president could attempt this. Wait until a day or two before a national election (in 2020 or 2024, perhaps) and announce that the terror threat level is at an all-time high and that threats have been made against polling places nationwide. (All the evidence is faked and/or classified.) Now announce that the election will have to be postponed until the threat level comes down--and of course, it won't. The country stays in a state of emergency and whoever was in office stays in office.
I don't think it would actually work, but careful preparation ahead of time would make it more feasible. I first thought of this when we had George W. Bush in the White House.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
A more apt film analogy might be Alien. The body is invaded until such time as the parasitic organism can erupt, killing the husk-like remains of the body that nourished it.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Could there be an attempt to Dethrone donald? Why not?
You gotta have armaments to do this, and neither the military nor the gun nuts are going to do this. Not for the same reasons -- the military has always taken great pride in not being the sort of force that takes the law into its own hands -- but it comes to the same thing: no coup.
quote:
Would it be a good thing?
No, because the biggest problems with Trump are his blithe disregard for the rule of law and ignorance of the norms and necessities of democracy. A coup is a huge step in the wrong direction.
What we need are for the people in powerful positions in our system to do their jobs and exert the curbs upon the presidency that are built into the system.
This. Please God, this. Please. God.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
So what does Gen. Kelly do when he tries to straighten things out a bit, but its too chaotic for him to exert the kind of discipline which would have an impact? Taking the reins forcibly (a-la Pakistan) is out, so...what?
The easiest way, and most consistent with American customs and law (maybe not totally, but hey) would be to pull a James Comey. Get fired/leave, take one's personal notes with one, and then provide them to the media and/or Congress. Thereby hastening the impeachment.
The rub, of course, is that someone with military background will have ... qualms ... about doing this to the commander-in-chief. But he's not a robot, and would, I hope, put country first.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
Especially if he were to conclude that the commander-in-chief is unfit.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Seven Days in May is NOT a healthy Plan B for preserving democracy y'all.
For those unfamiliar with the reference, here's a helpful link.
Brilliant film. The best treatment of the subject by far. The only really!
Posted by wabale (# 18715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Will his followers ever turn against him?
Reading the history of the Hapsburg monarchy which ruled the Austrian-Hungarian Empire and the 1848 revolution (if you've seen Les Miserables, that's the French one which spread to many other countries and most cities in Europe with 100k population). The people had moved to cities, promised jobs and industrialization didn't happen. Nothing became great. The people turned against altar and emperor. Many were killed. The establishment ultimately won. trumpy hasn't a chance to improve his followers' lives let alone greatness. Maybe it's a dystopian fiction to speculate. (Though aren't we living in one?)
Yes, but it was
King Louis Philippe and his brolly they were rising against in 1832, another year when Revolution spread all over the place, including Britain, but in the end we made do with a Parliamentary Reform Act.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Could there be an attempt to Dethrone donald? Why not?
You gotta have armaments to do this, and neither the military nor the gun nuts are going to do this. Not for the same reasons -- the military has always taken great pride in not being the sort of force that takes the law into its own hands -- but it comes to the same thing: no coup.
quote:
Would it be a good thing?
No, because the biggest problems with Trump are his blithe disregard for the rule of law and ignorance of the norms and necessities of democracy. A coup is a huge step in the wrong direction.
What we need are for the people in powerful positions in our system to do their jobs and exert the curbs upon the presidency that are built into the system.
This. Please God, this. Please. God.
Yeah. The thing about a coup is it's totally unnecessary because of what Ruth points out. Personally, I think Trump has already spiked his own administration, and we are just watching the tyre slowly deflate.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I don't know. People who could call out the ignorant obscenity don't. The only influential people doing it at all seem to be comedians. Sad.
It's Marx in reverse: the comedy is going to return as tragedy in the trumpian dialectic. Which means the tarot of death and suffering has yet to be played. It's the end of Weimar and we're singing Springtime for Trumpy until he does something which rhymes with gas and blitz.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
np--
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I don't know. People who could call out the ignorant obscenity don't. The only influential people doing it at all seem to be comedians. Sad.
It's Marx in reverse: the comedy is going to return as tragedy in the trumpian dialectic. Which means the tarot of death and suffering has yet to be played. It's the end of Weimar and we're singing Springtime for Trumpy until he does something which rhymes with gas and blitz.
But since the comedians are handling it so well (!Viva Colbert!), maybe the pertinent Marx isn't Karl, but Groucho, Harpo, Chico (and sometimes Zeppo).
As long as there are comedians helping us cope, we can have a feeling of hope...and that can help us survive long enough to get through this.
FWIW.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
What we need are for the people in powerful positions in our system to do their jobs and exert the curbs upon the presidency that are built into the system.
FWIW, my opinion of the American political system has actually improved since Trump was inaugurated, precisely because it does look like those curbs are being used and are doing what they are designed to do.
If Trump was elected PM of the UK, we would be screwed.
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on
:
There are curbs in the UK but they are not well defined. It is not impossible that they might be used, or even that they have been used.
[ 03. August 2017, 08:59: Message edited by: agingjb ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
There was certainly mention (as in 'shooting his mouth off') from at least one serving UK army officer regarding the undesirability of a Labour government. I don't know if he lost his commission, but he certainly should have.
What's worse is that I think the majority of the population would just grumble about there being tanks on the street corner and carry on as before.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There was certainly mention (as in 'shooting his mouth off') from at least one serving UK army officer regarding the undesirability of a Labour government. I don't know if he lost his commission, but he certainly should have.
What's worse is that I think the majority of the population would just grumble about there being tanks on the street corner and carry on as before.
Desirable or otherwise there is no way on God's green earth that the UK forces would stage a coup.
Depending on who you believe though, they actually came *very* close in the early 70s. See the 1974 occupation of Heathrow airport on an "anti terrorism excercise" no one on the civil side knew anything about. Allegedly it was Mountbatten that put the lid back on that one when he was offered the regency and described it as "treason" before storming out...
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
This from the Grauniad is a reasonably concise primer for the unaware/overseas contingent but if you want to dig there's a lot more
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
You say that, and perhaps things have changed since Mrs Tor was in. But my experience of the officers' mess was one of unthinking conservatism, reinforced by an almost universal public school background.
I wouldn't necessarily trust them to boil an egg (and have anecdotes to prove that), but to follow senior officers in a coup? Yes, I can see that.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
After pretty much the whole governing class lost its backbone in the aftermath of the Brexit vote, I did daydream that I wouldn't mind if a few tanks appeared in Whitehall with the promise of stabilising the ship.
The trouble is, of course, apart from anything else, that once you get into that, you have to get out of it again. I suppose the Portuguese coup in 1974 worked and, under rather different circumstances, the coup (if you can call it that- technically AIUI just the King dismissing his chief minister) against Mussolini started putting Italy back on the right track. But I don't think there's generally a good record of short-term emergency military governments handing smoothly back to constitutional rule.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
And of course there's this from the paranoid years of the 1970s.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You say that, and perhaps things have changed since Mrs Tor was in. But my experience of the officers' mess was one of unthinking conservatism, reinforced by an almost universal public school background.
I wouldn't necessarily trust them to boil an egg (and have anecdotes to prove that), but to follow senior officers in a coup? Yes, I can see that.
They couldn't do much at all, but there are a lot of senior NCOs to get the work done and they don't fuck-up.
[ 03. August 2017, 11:29: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And of course there's this from the paranoid years of the 1970s.
Sounds like your typical Brexiteer. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Probably up for the leadership of UKIP.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And of course there's this from the paranoid years of the 1970s.
I was literally about to post that!
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You say that, and perhaps things have changed since Mrs Tor was in. But my experience of the officers' mess was one of unthinking conservatism, reinforced by an almost universal public school background.
I wouldn't necessarily trust them to boil an egg (and have anecdotes to prove that), but to follow senior officers in a coup? Yes, I can see that.
Dunno - that might have passed for the army in past.
The RN is and always has been a bit different. For a start you have to be able to do quite complicated maths (spherical trig anyone?). Then there's the fact that over 1/3 of the officers commission from the lower deck (other ranks in your money).
I was a public schoolboy but very much in the minority as one even at Dartmouth 15 years ago.
My intake are the current Lt Cdr/Major level, just starting (with the highflyers) to pick up Cdr/Lt Col.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Yes, I think it was/is different in the army. Certainly in the infantry (where, bless them, they were thicker than a whale sandwich), but transport was barely any better.
(They literally had no idea what to do with me, as I didn't conform to any norms of 'officer totty'.)
But to the substantive question, I think it's probably the army that would be best placed to arrange a coup. I'm also extreme uncertain as to what the Conservative party's response to one would be.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But to the substantive question, I think it's probably the army that would be best placed to arrange a coup. I'm also extreme uncertain as to what the Conservative party's response to one would be.
.. and just tangenting back to the original comment for a moment. The US Army tends to lean Republican due to decades of recruitment targeting Sunbelt states, and at the extremes, their reactionary element tends to swing further right than is the case here.
So I think they are highly unlikely - for this and other reasons - to launch a coup.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm also extreme uncertain as to what the Conservative party's response to one would be.
Outraged horror, the same as anyone else I should think. Weirdly I think some of the current Labour party might quite get quite excited by one though if they thought it would be supporting them against the Hated Tories (TM).
Overall, I think we're safe enough.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm also extreme uncertain as to what the Conservative party's response to one would be.
Outraged horror, the same as anyone else I should think.
I don't share your confidence. I don't think you share your confidence either, given that a military coups are almost universally against leftist governments.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm also extreme uncertain as to what the Conservative party's response to one would be.
Outraged horror, the same as anyone else I should think.
I don't share your confidence. I don't think you share your confidence either, given that a military coups are almost universally against leftist governments.
We can agree to disagree on who has confidence in what, but I will draw the line on being told what it is I think...
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Fair enough. Though examples of military coups against right-wing governments are as rare as hen's teeth (Turkey, maybe).
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Fair enough. Though examples of military coups against right-wing governments are as rare as hen's teeth (Turkey, maybe).
Portugal 1974
Peru 1968
Bolivia 1970
Turkey as you say
Off the top of my head. None have particularly been hymned in popular culture... Portugal's an interesting one because it got rid of the dictatorship.
There are maybe others - I add these for information, not because I'm implying that they're common. Just that they have happened.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I'll give you Portugal and Peru. Bolivia? That's stretching it a little, given that they had 33rpm.
It's fine to reach different conclusions, but I'm more interested in how you arrive at yours, given the evidence that left-wing politicians regularly came/come under secret service surveillance and the one coup 'attempt' we do know about was directed against a Labour government.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'll give you Portugal and Peru. Bolivia? That's stretching it a little, given that they had 33rpm.
It's fine to reach different conclusions, but I'm more interested in how you arrive at yours, given the evidence that left-wing politicians regularly came/come under secret service surveillance and the one coup 'attempt' we do know about was directed against a Labour government.
I was thinking more of the counter-coup than the coup in 1970.
Because, in Britain, having done the job, I'm still confident that the next time would be exactly like the last time. A couple of hot heads being put back in their box by the saner ones. We don't have an army of badly trained conscripts who are ruled by fear and thus will go along with it. Our lot just wouldn't obey the orders.
The last time it was seriously considered, it still boiled down to a group of newspaper editors, industrialists, and passed over generals who folded like a pack of cards when it was pointed out to them that the army wouldn't be tagging along on their little adventure.
As it was, so it will be I reckon. That's not complacency, that's just personal experience.
See
Arrse for the last time this was discussed by our boys and girls. It's in the serious bit, but maybe NSFW.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
sample quote "...we British don't do coups...it's either full-blown civil war or a stern shake of the morning paper."
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
As a proud social democrat I am ashamed to see so-called liberals in the US giddy at the prospect of nondemocratic means of removing President DT from power. Is he a threat to democracy, peace, and justice everywhere? Yes, I think so. He has started the country down the first steps towards illiberal democracy like we now see in Hungary, Turkey, Venezuela, the Philippines, and (to a lesser degree so far) Poland. But he is still a long way from becoming an Erdogan, Maduro, or Orban, thanks in large part to the US system of checks and balances that produced so much gridlock long before he came into office.
If DT did manage to break down those checks and balances and start to build an authoritarian regime, then I think massive nonviolent resistance, including civil disobedience by public servants and military officers, would be called for before any consideration of a coup (ie, a violent seizure of power). Only when DT, or any president, started waging war against his own people or initiating genocidal or apocalyptic war abroad would violent action against him be justified.
We're not there yet. I doubt we ever will be, but I am willing to consider any political possibility at the moment. Glorifying the possibility of a coup in the current situation is irresponsible and undermines the reputation of liberals as defenders of constitutional democracy. I don't think anyone here is guilty of doing that, but I have quite a few social media acquaintances who are. Our system can defeat Trump democratically and nonviolently, if people are willing to engage and organize IRL and not just like anti-Trump memes and buy "Nevertheless, She Persisted" gear.
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
I'm more afraid that when, for whatever reason, Trump is supposed to leave office, he refuses to do so and declares martial law. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
certainly the US left needs to be focused on the next round of elections. I don't mind street protests, as long as they are used to recruit and engage activists who will then go on to bring out the vote next year.
The one who persisted, by the way, is a fierce advocate for the rule of law.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Isn't trumpy a symptom and not the disease. The disease is the rot which was fully realized under your president Reagan. Let's empower corporations and overthrow governments of other countries in their interest. Let's enrich the rich and shit on our own people, but keep them happy by using the resources of the International Monetary Fund and trade agreements via the World Trade Organization to shit more heavily on the developing world. And let's force the developing countries to make us cheap consumer goods to keep our people from rising up.
Just read comsumer goods for religion and thank Karl Marx for your opiates.
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on
:
Getting back to the original question and its context.... The 25th Amendment is the much more preferred road than a coup. And, pace to someone above, I don't know ANY American liberals who are "giddy" at the prospect of a coup. The 25th would, at the very least, present a fig leaf of process and constitutionality over lawlessness. An overt coup might remove the immediate problem, "the presentation of the disease" as a physician might say, but poison the well and so wound the the general concept of respect for institutions that it would perhaps be fatal to the Republic.
A likelier scenario, in my view, would be something analogous to the 8 June 1907 "coup from above" when PM Stolypin suspended the Russian Constitution of 1905. I could see Trump attempting that. I would expect a momentary paralysis on the part of the command structure: Do we obey the Commander-in-Chief, or do we obey our oath to the Constitution? I'm not military, but I suspect that the majority of the officer corps would respect the latter.
My final judgement is no coup, from above or below. As I've argued here and elsewhere, "For health reasons...."
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Isn't assassination traditionally the American way?
Of the 8 presidents who died in office, didn't exactly half, i.e. 4. not die by natural causes. Also, aren't there others who were shot but not 'successfully' and several additional examples of unsuccessful attempts that missed.
Rather than a coup, I would have thought Trump is much more at risk of being assassinated by some dissatisfied right wing person who feels let down that he hasn't drained the swamp and made America great again.
I suppose there might be a risk that an assassin would find it easier to get through because those responsible for guarding him felt tempted not to do so as assiduously as with other presidents.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Enoch--
No no no no no no no.
1. As several of us Americans said upthread, violence would make things much, much worse.
2. The Feds keep track of comments on such things. You can even get in trouble for a bumper sticker. Early in Dubya's first term, a man in my area had a homemade bumper sticker, telling Dubya where to go. He didn't offer to send him there, or suggest that anyone else should. But a women saw that sticker, got scared, and called the FBI. They showed up at his home, and went in for a discussion. When they finally came back out, one said that he didn't think the man was dangerous--he just didn't like the president very much. AFAIK, that was the end of it; but it could've been so much worse--and it was bad enough as it was.
And a comedienne recently got into a whole lot of trouble for performing with a bloodied model of T's decapitated head.
3. Please don't even suggest such a possibility. (I know you're not endorsing it.)
Again, no no no no no no no.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I'm more afraid that when, for whatever reason, Trump is supposed to leave office, he refuses to do so and declares martial law.
I dunno, Trump's standard response to a reversal is to moan about it on Twitter but not actually do anything.
I don't get the impression he's interested in seizing power he hasn't got, because a.) it would be too much hard work, b.) it would require co-conspirators that he trusted, c.) he isn't all that interested in exercising the powers he does have - hence Obama-era staffers staying on because he hasn't appointed replacements for them.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Golden Key, I'm not suggesting the idea. I'm making the comment as an observer of history. Looking at the data, whether one likes it or not, assassination is more the American way than a military coup. I'm not saying the latter is impossible. I'm saying it's less likely than the former.
Most presidents cease to be president by completing their term in the normal way.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Enoch--
Thanks. I did say "I know you're not endorsing it". ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Rather than a coup, I would have thought Trump is much more at risk of being assassinated by some dissatisfied right wing person who feels let down that he hasn't drained the swamp and made America great again.
The only American politicians who have been shot at since Trump came to office were Republicans shot at by a Sanders supporter. Representative Steve Scalise was the most seriously injured. He was almost dead from blood loss when he reached the hospital. He spent five weeks in the hospital and then went into rehab.
Moo
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
That's what the Secret Service is for. And those people are well-trained.
The story is told of when Ronald Reagan toured the Secret Service training facility. He commented that, when he was in the movies, the cowboys always crouched down when gunfire was exchanged. The agent reminded Reagan gently that his guards would always return fire standing up. It was their goal to take the bullet intended for the President.
One can imagine Li'l Donny spurning or denigrating or ignoring nearly anything. But not his personal security, no.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
One can imagine Li'l Donny spurning or denigrating or ignoring nearly anything. But not his personal security, no.
Ahem
Maybe he really is that stupid.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
One can imagine Li'l Donny spurning or denigrating or ignoring nearly anything. But not his personal security, no.
Ahem
Maybe he really is that stupid.
Nah. He's never there. Now that Melania and Baron have moved out, it's only his older sons who work there that are affected. I guess their pop figures They can take their chances, .
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
There won't be a coup unless something like the coming zombie apocalypse is not handled very well. Other than something like that, nope. Until then, we will maintain the pattern where one candidate will win an election and those that didn't support that candidate will bitch and moan like it's worse than a zombie apocalypse.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Looking at the data, whether one likes it or not, assassination is more the American way than a military coup. I'm not saying the latter is impossible. I'm saying it's less likely than the former.
Most presidents cease to be president by completing their term in the normal way.
A list of presidents who did not complete their term in office, listed by reason of departure:
Fatal Illness:
Assassination:
Resignation:
Looking at the data, assassination seems to be running neck-and-neck with fatal illness as the most prevalent cause of early departure from the presidency. It should also be noted that while it is indeed true that "[m]ost presidents cease to be president by completing their term in the normal way", about 20% of presidential departures from office were for other reasons. So it's not typical, but not that unusual either.
Still, no literal coups on record (unless the conspiracy theories about Zach Taylor are actually true).
[ 04. August 2017, 16:44: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Ahem
Maybe he really is that stupid.
Is he really entitled to charge the state of which he is President rent for providing him with his security? To me, that seems mercenary and outrageous.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I was thinking more of the counter-coup than the coup in 1970.
You think the left is likely to be in the position to launch a counter-coup? You are starting to sound like those officers I've talked to.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I don't think he's saying that at all. I was struggling to think of any leftist military coups outside of Turkey, and he kindly supplied the very few examples.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Our system of government has been proven time and time again to work and work well.
I remember working with some Kenyans during the time of the Gore-Bush election. They were amazed that the military did not take to the streets when the Republican leaning Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bush.
Now, the one situation I could see some rebellion in some quarters is if Trump is impeached and found guilty of collusion with the Russians. People have said they would take up arms but I believe they will quickly be put down
The one country that seems very ripe for a coup, though, is Venezuela. Her citizens are suffering through the worst economic crisis she has ever experienced. I do think the military will step in shortly.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
America would like a coup in Venezuala. One that might bring its oil reserves under USA control.
[ 05. August 2017, 01:02: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
America would like a coup in Venezuala. One that might bring its oil reserves under USA control.
I wouldn't put it past us.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Crœsos--
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Still, no literal coups on record (unless the conspiracy theories about Zach Taylor are actually true).
Or theories about any of the other presidential assassinations.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is he really entitled to charge the state of which he is President rent for providing him with his security? To me, that seems mercenary and outrageous.
With a normal protectee, the secret service will acquire a base of operations close to the protectee's home. Normal people don't have a couple of spare rooms they can loan to the secret service, but they often rent a neighbouring house or something.
Trump owns the tower block he lives in; the secret service would normally look to rent a nearby apartment. Guess who the owner is?
Note that Joe Biden was in a similar situation. He owns a cottage next to his home in Delaware, which he rented to the secret service.
[ 05. August 2017, 05:29: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Even if more than one person has done it, taking rent off the state for facilitating your own security, rather than providing what you can provide to help them, still strikes me as grasping, mercenary and corrupt.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Enoch--
Well, during his campaign, there was money for housing some of his workers. So he put them in one of his hotels, was paid from the campaign funds, and thus made money from the whole thing.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Even if more than one person has done it, taking rent off the state for facilitating your own security, rather than providing what you can provide to help them, still strikes me as grasping, mercenary and corrupt.
Perhaps. On the other hand, suppose President A owned a house next to his personal residence, which he rented out as an investment, and suppose President B owned a similar rental property in some different city.
In each case, the secret service will want to acquire a base of operations close to their protectee's home. Presidents A and B are identical in every respect except for the location of their rental property. You argue that because he owns a house next to his own, President A should provide it free of charge to the secret service. Do you also require President B to take the income from his rental property and use it to rent his neighbour's house for the secret service? Why not?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
America would like a coup in Venezuala. One that might bring its oil reserves under USA control.
I wouldn't put it past us.
It was attempted back in 2002. At the time even the Economist - no lefty conspiracy rag - reported the attempted coup as driven behind the scenes by the US.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Even if more than one person has done it, taking rent off the state for facilitating your own security, rather than providing what you can provide to help them, still strikes me as grasping, mercenary and corrupt.
Or as another example, I own a car. Sometimes I use my car to travel on behalf of my employer. Am I a grasping mercenary because I claim expenses for doing so?
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
America would like a coup in Venezuala. One that might bring its oil reserves under USA control.
I wouldn't put it past us.
It was attempted back in 2002. At the time even the Economist - no lefty conspiracy rag - reported the attempted coup as driven behind the scenes by the US.
Can you point to a specific article that supports this?
I've read several articles on the coup from the Economist's archives of April 2002, and I'd say none of them are even close to saying it was "driven behind the scenes by the US." There are criticisms that the US failed to condemn the coup, and "unconfirmed" allegations that it may have known about it beforehand and encouraged it.
In their 2009 review of a "superbly researched account" of the coup they say the author "exonerates the United States of direct involvement."
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
The wiki entry is more ambiguous than "exonerates".
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Can you point to a specific article that supports this?
I no longer subscribe, and so can't view more than a limited amount of stuff on their website, which curtails my ability to do extensive searches.
quote:
I've read several articles on the coup from the Economist's archives of April 2002, and I'd say none of them are even close to saying it was "driven behind the scenes by the US." There are criticisms that the US failed to condemn the coup, and "unconfirmed" allegations that it may have known about it beforehand and encouraged it.
ISTR in one or two articles written at the time they alleged CIA/US involvement strongly enough that someone from the US government felt the need to write in a denial.
I generally place little value in their book reviews.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Can you point to a specific article that supports this?
I no longer subscribe, and so can't view more than a limited amount of stuff on their website, which curtails my ability to do extensive searches.
So the answer would be "no", then?
You did look, but didn't find anything like that in the limited material you saw? quote:
quote:
I've read several articles on the coup from the Economist's archives of April 2002, and I'd say none of them are even close to saying it was "driven behind the scenes by the US." There are criticisms that the US failed to condemn the coup, and "unconfirmed" allegations that it may have known about it beforehand and encouraged it.
ISTR in one or two articles written at the time they alleged CIA/US involvement strongly enough that someone from the US government felt the need to write in a denial.
I'm pretty confident your recollection is incorrect. I don't see any sign of this in the articles I've read. quote:
I generally place little value in their book reviews.
That's as may be, but it seems odd to me that a glowing review of a book that completely contradicts what you claim they alleged earlier made no mention of the reversal.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The wiki entry is more ambiguous than "exonerates".
The fact that the wiki article is merely "ambiguous" on the question of US involvement suggests to me that any support was tenuous at most. Remember, this was a failed coup - its supporters wouldn't have had much opportunity to clean up evidence of a conspiracy, and Chavez would have had every reason to publicize it. I don't see any particular reason to be confident that it was "driven behind the scenes by the US."
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
So the answer would be "no", then?
You did look, but didn't find anything like that in the limited material you saw?
I can access two articles on the coup, neither of which related to the events I was referring to, events described in the following link - specifically the visit of a number of people to the White House in the months leading up to the coup:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela
quote:
Remember, this was a failed coup - its supporters wouldn't have had much opportunity to clean up evidence of a conspiracy,
I don't see that that necessarily follows.
[ 05. August 2017, 19:09: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
So the answer would be "no", then?
You did look, but didn't find anything like that in the limited material you saw?
I can access two articles on the coup, neither of which related to the events I was referring to, events described in the following link - specifically the visit of a number of people to the White House in the months leading up to the coup:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela
As I said, the Economist reported allegations that the US may have known about it beforehand - but even this article (shockingly, the Guardian suspects a US conspiracy!) hardly reaches to the level of "driven behind the scenes by the US." quote:
quote:
Remember, this was a failed coup - its supporters wouldn't have had much opportunity to clean up evidence of a conspiracy,
I don't see that that necessarily follows.
Claims that the US was the driving force would be a lot stronger if they were based on more than a few visits to Washington. This deep involvement left no other traces for the Venezuelan government to find, even after the coup collapsed? No documents, no names of CIA agents extracted from captured plotters? This is quite consistent with the US not having provided any real support at all.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
I hear that Ozymandias is going on holiday for about 3 weeks, and that during that time parts of the White House will be undergoing renovation and repairs. A chance to change the locks, perhaps?
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
IJ
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
Isn't there a Marine stationed at the door to open and close it for persons entering and exiting? Perhaps he can be persuaded to bar it instead, rifle drawn.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
This is quite consistent with the US not having provided any real support at all.
It was more likely a "memorandum of agreement" along the lines of "if you pull this off, we'll support your government."
Which is still just a little bit naughty, since Chavez was democratically elected and, as it turned out, had an awful lot more popular support than anticipated. There's kind of a thing where elected governments don't go around promising things to insurgents who want to overthrow other elected governments.
It wasn't like the US didn't have form for that, either.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
This deep involvement left no other traces for the Venezuelan government to find, even after the coup collapsed? No documents, no names of CIA agents extracted from captured plotters?
That entirely depends on who in any such organisation knew of such things, afaict neither Maduro or Chavez have been accused of using 'enhanced interrogation techniques' on their opponents, and the rich and powerful are largely left alone.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
This deep involvement left no other traces for the Venezuelan government to find, even after the coup collapsed? No documents, no names of CIA agents extracted from captured plotters?
That entirely depends on who in any such organisation knew of such things
Support that hardly anybody knows about doesn't sound like much use to me. What do you imagine "driven from behind the scenes by the US" means, anyway? quote:
afaict neither Maduro or Chavez have been accused of using 'enhanced interrogation techniques' on their opponents, and the rich and powerful are largely left alone.
As far as you can tell? Well, maybe - I don't know how far you've looked, but there's this. Will that do?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Support that hardly anybody knows about doesn't sound like much use to me.
Knowing that a coup is likely to be accepted by the US after the fact (as it was - briefly) is very useful to the leaders of such a coup.
quote:
What do you imagine "driven from behind the scenes by the US" means, anyway?
This kind of thing:
"assert that the US administration was not only aware the coup was about to take place, but had sanctioned it, presuming it to be destined for success."
"The coup was discussed in some detail, right down to its timing and chances of success, which were deemed to be excellent."
[Incidentally, Ed Vulliamy was working for The Observer at the time].
quote:
As far as you can tell? Well, maybe - I don't know how far you've looked, but there's this. Will that do?
Within the time-frame of the coup? There was quite a lot of articles on his suppression of some parts of the press, and tangles with the judiciary, but again no mass round up - Carmona was placed under house arrest and then went into exile. Was there a concerted attempt to interrogate coup leaders that you are aware of?
[ 05. August 2017, 23:09: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
If there's a coup in the western hemisphere we the most reasonable assumption is the USA is involved.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
What do you imagine "driven from behind the scenes by the US" means, anyway?
This kind of thing:
"assert that the US administration was not only aware the coup was about to take place, but had sanctioned it, presuming it to be destined for success."
"The coup was discussed in some detail, right down to its timing and chances of success, which were deemed to be excellent."
If you say so. I would have thought a process "driven" by the US would have involved more, well, driving. quote:
quote:
As far as you can tell? Well, maybe - I don't know how far you've looked, but there's this. Will that do?
Within the time-frame of the coup?
That link was offered as a counter to your broad statement about Chavez and Maduro (the latter was just a legislator in 2002 and wouldn't have had any particular connection to the treatment of prisoners.) I don't know whether your opinion about conditions in 2002 is as poorly supported. quote:
There was quite a lot of articles on his suppression of some parts of the press, and tangles with the judiciary, but again no mass round up - Carmona was placed under house arrest and then went into exile. Was there a concerted attempt to interrogate coup leaders that you are aware of?
It seems pretty unlikely that any regime that had just survived a coup attempt would fail to perform a pretty thorough investigation - or that the coup plotters would prove themselves to be generally incompetent and yet unaccountably effective in hiding evidence incriminating their American co-conspirators.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
If there's a coup in the western hemisphere we the most reasonable assumption is the USA is involved.
Knee-jerk anti-Americanism at its finest.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
If there's a coup in the western hemisphere we the most reasonable assumption is the USA is involved.
Knee-jerk anti-Americanism at its finest.
What Ruth said.
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on
:
Well, Ruth and Key, the historical record largely bears out NP's assertion, if by coup we mean a military/economic elite intervention in the political sphere. NP's assertion doesn't hold in every case, but the prevalent pattern of American design/support/approval (depending on the case) in the Western Hemisphere is undeniable. I make a meaningful differentiation between a coup (e.g., Chile 1970, Argentina 1976 and the subsequent Operation Condor) and an insurgency (e.g., Cuba 1953-59, Nicaragua 1978-79 ). There are one saint (to be), very few heroes, and many villains in this story, leaving not much in the way of high ground, but attempting to dismiss this as facile anti-Americanism is equally "knee jerk", especially when that goes unaccompanied by argument or evidence. That 's more ad hominem.
And, I'm not anti-American, I say preemptively.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
PG--
Yes, the gov't of my country has done all sorts of horrible things to other countries. (E.g., look up "United Fruit Revolution", "Gen. Smedley Butler war is a racket", and "School Of The Americas".)
But np periodically makes jabs like this and it gets tiresome.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
If there's a coup in the western hemisphere we the most reasonable assumption is the USA is involved.
Knee-jerk anti-Americanism at its finest.
What Ruth said.
I dunno. I'm an American and I think it's a pretty reasonable assumption. Indeed, the most reasonable.
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on
:
Correcting error: Chile 1973. (I shouldn't post so late at night. Apologies.)
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
For information only.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
If there's a coup in the western hemisphere we the most reasonable assumption is the USA is involved.
Knee-jerk anti-Americanism at its finest.
No. Based on history. It's the pattern. Has nothing to do with anti-Americanism. Why is is anti-American to consider the fact that American interference in other countries, invasions and coups is very common? The knee-jerk here is your's.
Just from my own memory: Guatemala, Grenada, Chile, Panama, Argentina, Columbia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Cuba (I had multiple family living in South America and the Caribbean in the 1970 and early 1980s; I particularly recall Grenada because they'd just left the country) . All of which the USA either supported dictators against popular revolts overthrew elected governments or attempted to do so. It's the pattern.
After I wrote the prior paragraph, I did the simplest of web searches. You can find dates and circumstance listings if you'd care to inform yourself.
You might also inform yourself about the School of the Americas, since renamed Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.
FWIW, my one of my grandfathers and grandmothers was American and so is my sister.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
US foreign policy is appalling; I won't defend it. But in addition to the horrors the US has visited upon virtually every country in the western hemisphere, Latin American countries are perfectly able of staging coups without our help. Here are all the coups I could find that have taken place in Central and South America since World War II, with italics for US involvement:
Argentina
1951 - unsuccessful military coup against Peron
1955 - Revolucion Libertadora - military/civilian uprising overthrows Peron
1956 - failed military uprising
1962 - military coup
1966 - military coup
1976 - military coup with tacit US approval, regime gets US financial and military aid
1987 - failed military coup
1988 - failed military coup
1988 - and another the same year
1990 - failed coup
Bolivia
1946 - Villarroel overthrown
1949 - failed coup by MNR
1952 - military junta prevents MNR from taking power after they won the election; leads to revolution
1964 - US-backed coup
1964 - second coup
1970 - coup
1970 - counter-coup
1971 - US-backed coup
1980 - "cocaine coup"
2008 - failed "civic coup" - Morales alleges it was backed by the US
Brazil
1945 - ends dictatorship of Vargas
1955 - counter-coup
1959 - attempted military coup
1964 - military coup supported by the US
1969 - VP should have taken over when President had stroke but military junta takes over
Chile
1954 - Linea Recta affair - president wanted to be dictator, failed
1969 - Tacnazo insurrection - failed
1973 - failed coup by Roberto Souper - El Tanquetazo
1973 - US-backed coup
Colombia
1953 - peaceful coup - Rojas in
1957 - "coup d'etat of public opinion" - Rojas out
Cuba
1952 - Batista's coup ousts Prio
1956 - unsuccessful coup against Batista
1959 - Cuban Revolution, Castro ousts Batista
1961 - Bay of Pigs invasion - failed attempt by US to oust Castro
1961-2 - Operation Mongoose - US attempts to kill Castro - I'm not sure these were technically attempted coups, but they should nevertheless be included here
Dominican Republic
1961 - Trujillo assassinated with CIA support
1963 - military coup; Bosch ousted in faver of Reid
1965 - April Revolution - US intervention and occupation
Ecuador
1963 - military coup
1976 - military coup
2000 - junta briefly took power
2005 - removed President Borbua
El Salvador
1960 - bloodless coup ousts president
1961 - counter coup
1979 - coup raised to remove military from government, leads to civil war - US-USSR proxy war
Grenada
1979 - Bishop ousts Gairy
1983 - military coup, which is pretext for ...
US-backed counter-coup and invasion
Guatemala
1954 - US-backed coup
1963 - military coup
1982 - military coup
1993 - unsuccessful self-coup by president, who is removed by the constitutional court
Haiti
1946 - military coup
1950 - military coup
1958 - coup attempt
1988 - coup
1988 - and another
1991 - military coup ousts Aristide - US involvement in dispute
1994 - Aristide put back into power by US
2004 - Aristide removed, probably with US support
Honduras
1955 - military coup, followed by elections in 1957
1959 - failed military coup
1963 - military coup, opposed by the Kennedy administration; the US ended diplomatic relations with Honduras; LBJ reversed this and recognized the military government
1972 - military coup
1975 - military coup partially prompted by Bananagate scandal exposed by the US Securities and Exchange Commission
1978 - military coup, followed by elections
2009 - President seeks unconstitutional third term and is removed by army
Nicaragua
1981-90 US support for Contras
Panama
1968 - military coup
1988 - failed coup against Noriega
1989 - failed coup against Noriega
1989 - US invasion, removal of Noriega
1990 - failed coup attempt against Endara
Paraguay
1948 - coup
1949 - coup
1949 - and another
1949 - and a third
1954 - military coup, followed by election
1989 - military coup
Peru
1948 - military coup
1962 - military coup
1968 - military coup
1992 - Fujimori's self-coup
1992 - unsuccessful military coup
Trinidad & Tobago
1990 - failed coup attempt
Uruguay
1973 - coup: President dissolves Parliament
Venezuela
1945 - dictator overthrown by military and popular movement, leads to democratic elections
1948 - coup, beginning of military dictatorship
1958 - coup ends military dictatorship, leads to democratic elections
1992 - two unsuccessful coup attempts by Hugo Chavez; Cuban involvement is alleged
2002 - failed coup attempt; charges that the US was involved are strongly disputed
2017 - self-coup: Maduro dissolves National Assembly - US condemns
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
wow. How long did that take you to compile Ruth?
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Let's just say I need to make a donation to Wikipedia.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
RuthW: quote:
US foreign policy is appalling; I won't defend it.
Ours is no better, of course. But there was a time when both our nations were proud of interfering in the affairs of others *cough* Mission Impossible , anyone?
Getting back to the subject of the OP, I think a coup is highly unlikely. Ozymandias' political opponents believe in the rule of law, and (shudder) he is your legally elected President, however dubious the circumstances of the election may have been. The means to remove him legally or work around him are there.
[ 07. August 2017, 06:42: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Ozymandias' political opponents believe in the rule of law, and (shudder) he is your legally elected President, however dubious the circumstances of the election may have been. The means to remove him legally or work around him are there.
And are infinitely preferable to a coup!
Sign me up for the working around him bit. Trump is incompetent and increasingly hamstrung. I don't want to see him removed because he'd be replaced by Mike Pence, who is malevolent and competent, whereas Trump is malevolent and incompetent.
One thing a dive into Latin American history leads me to believe is that we don't need to worry about a coup. Coups are almost exclusively led by the military, and the US military is not going to rise up against the president. My answer to the question in the title of the thread is a resounding "No."
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
[Crosspost]
So at least one in 13 out of 20 countries, where we know about US involvement. I think that is enough to say the reputation is earned rather than assumed, and will mean people will wonder if it is the US *this time* basically every time there's a coup in Latin America.
(Also, that is just one continent - if you tried to count across the world, I think you'd find more.)
In the US itself, I'd have thought your biggest risks are:
A) White supremacist domestic terrorism if Trump I'd impeached
B) Small scale civil war on Capitol Hill if Trump attempts to institute a dictatorship and then refuses to leave office. (The sort of thing where's troops surround the presidential palace - WH - then there's a stand off and then the leader is evacuated to a country that will tolerate him, usually Saudi.)
[ 07. August 2017, 07:00: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So at least one in 13 out of 20 countries, where we know about US involvement. I think that is enough to say the reputation is earned rather than assumed, and will mean people will wonder if it is the US *this time* basically every time there's a coup in Latin America.
Yes, and in Venezuela Maduro exploits that every chance he gets. We brought it on ourselves, to be sure.
At the same time, more than 90% of the time it wasn't us!
quote:
(Also, that is just one continent - if you tried to count across the world, I think you'd find more.)
Ya think?
quote:
In the US itself, I'd have thought your biggest risks are:
A) White supremacist domestic terrorism if Trump [is] impeached
The Democrats have to re-take the House in 2018 to impeach Trump. The Republicans won't do it (and I don't really think so badly of them for this -- impeachment is a political tool, always has been). It's not impossible, but it's more likely that they will gain seats but not enough to get a majority. But yes, if this happens, and if Trump is impeached, this is a possibility.
quote:
B) Small scale civil war on Capitol Hill if Trump attempts to institute a dictatorship and then refuses to leave office. (The sort of thing where's troops surround the presidential palace - WH - then there's a stand off and then the leader is evacuated to a country that will tolerate him, usually Saudi.)
How on earth does this happen?
I don't see him enjoying the office enough to want to stay in past his term, and even more important, I don't see him having the institutional support to do this. If he loses the 2020 election or is termed out in 2024 (please God let it not take that long), he'd need Congress and the military on his side if he wanted to hang around somehow. Republicans are already thinking about challenging him in the primary in 2020 (NY Times).
Trump is weak and getting weaker. He might be forced from office by Mueller's investigation, or he might stumble through the full four-year term. But he is not in a strong political position, and it's only August of his first year.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
He doesn't like the job, but he is a total narcissist and the idea of "losing" by being removed from office may be simply intolerable for him.
As to creeping dictatorship, I am sure you have seen all the various lists of warning signs circulating.
There will come a point where he crosses a constitutional line - tries to dismiss the house majority leader, demands the AG lock up a specific reporter - something - and how Trump reacts to the state response maybe very ugly.
There are clearly members of the police, border force and military who support him - if he declares he is being removed illegally, or that the deep state is attempting a coup - thru his Facebook news channel or wherever and calls patriots to come to the capitol / White House to defend him, some will come and some will be armed.
[ 07. August 2017, 07:36: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Ruth, as comprehensive as your list appears to be, it disagrees with the one I posted earlier on several dates.
I don't disagree with the idea that coups can be entirely self-started - clearly they can. A more radical thought would be that it may have been better for western democracies to have supported civil society and democratic institutions in other countries, and indicated that they would cut trade and relations with any country that replaced an elected government with a military one.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
I am currently reading this book and it is very, very alarming. It argues that there is already a fifth column working to undermine American democracy, and it comes from the radical libertarian right, bankrolled principally by the Koch brothers. The purpose of their campaign is to concentrate power and wealth in the hands of rich white people at the expense of the majority, and they’ve been doing rather well of late (exhibit A: private prisons; exhibit B: the defunding of public education in favour of vouchers; exhibit C: the propaganda campaign to convince the American public that climate change is not real in order to further corporate interests).
It’s safe to say these people are never going to launch an outright coup because they’ve figured out that a stealth campaign via the back door is a much more effective method. Right now they’re getting exactly what they want. We should all be very worried. And angry.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
Honestly, la vie, that sounds like disaster porn for the left. Put it away and re-read The Handmaid's Tale. Atwood is brilliant and convincing, and the mini-series which I'm watching now is excellent. As for the Koch brothers, the name says it all.
My opinion is the US tendency to back coups in other countries is nothing more than catch-up colonialism tinged with a fair dollop of cold-war paranoia. Every group of people that has weilded power in the world has these sorts of skeletons in their closet, and much much worse.
I'll bet (expression only) I can match any anti-democratic practice or atrocity perpetrated on behalf of the United States without even referring to Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein or the Rwandan massacre. I'll even try and limit myself to the Georgian Brits, though I'm a bit worried I might be exhibiting braggadocio there. Hell, you can even include the massacres of native Americans in the westward expansion if you like.
In spite of the evil inflicted upon peoples in the name of the United States, it is still the most humane and benevolent world leader the planet has yet seen.
No wikipedia. I pull everything out of my arse.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I agree. And as a nation the US is prone to occasional fits of lunacy (the last really good one was Joe McCarthy, and who can forget Prohibition?) but we always pull out of the nosedive eventually. Crooked Don too shall pass, and become no more than roadkill in the rear-view mirror, the wellspring of thousands of TV dramas, novels and psychological analyses. We are bigger than he is. My hope is that the crackup won't be too damaging for the nation.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Ruth, as comprehensive as your list appears to be, it disagrees with the one I posted earlier on several dates.
Blum is listing attempts to overthrow governments, while I'm listing coups and attempted coups - not entirely the same thing. There are other ways besides coups to overthrow governments. And if some of my dates are wrong, well, so it goes. I took them all from Wikipedia.
Thanks for the reference - Blum is going on my to-read list.
quote:
I don't disagree with the idea that coups can be entirely self-started - clearly they can. A more radical thought would be that it may have been better for western democracies to have supported civil society and democratic institutions in other countries, and indicated that they would cut trade and relations with any country that replaced an elected government with a military one.
Could not agree more. I was only disputing the notion that it is reasonable to suspect US involvement every single time there's a coup in the western hemisphere, given that most of the time it's actually not the case.
The long list of coups makes me think even more that the US is unlikely to experience one. The conditions that give rise to them in other countries don't exist here. Not to say things couldn't develop in that direction, if our democratic institutions are sufficiently undermined.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
The British are/were probably one of the worst offenders for regime change - just that we tended to do it by invasion and occupation. Though I did like Blum's sardonic joke at the bottom of the page:
quote:
Q: Why will there never be a coup d’état in Washington?
A: Because there’s no American embassy there.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Re Kochs:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Honestly, la vie, that sounds like disaster porn for the left.
Actually, from what I understand from news over the years, the Koch thing is for real (DuckDuckGo).
Example:
"Covert Operations The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama." (Jane Mayer for The New Yorker).
The Koch bros. were not happy campers about that...
"How the Kochtopus Went After a Reporter In Jane Mayer’s new book, she reports how the conservative machine sicced private detectives on her." (Mother Jones).
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Doc Tor: Yeah, I appreciated that as well. One of my arguments against California seceding from the union is that we'd then be subject to American foreign policy. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
[ 07. August 2017, 20:22: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Ruth, as comprehensive as your list appears to be, it disagrees with the one I posted earlier on several dates.
Is there a reason to think that one should be considered authoritative? (I note that, according to it, the US overthrew the Australian government back in the 70s. You might think that would rankle, but they seem to be remarkably chill about it.)
In any case, the sorry history of US interference in Latin America (among other regions) provides such a rich source of well-documented knavery that an unsupported statement like "even the Economist - no lefty conspiracy rag - reported the attempted coup as driven behind the scenes by the US" just seems sloppy and lazy.
Besides, in the spring of 2002 the US administration was rather preoccupied on the foreign policy front with preparations for something much, much worse.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Ruth, as comprehensive as your list appears to be, it disagrees with the one I posted earlier on several dates.
Is there a reason to think that one should be considered authoritative? (I note that, according to it, the US overthrew the Australian government back in the 70s. You might think that would rankle, but they seem to be remarkably chill about it.)
I gave it as a point of information, and will merely comment that the author has presented, in writing and at length in several books, arguments to support such allegations.
You could, of course, look up the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, as I've just done (I was nine at the time, and it seems to have passed me by) and see the official denials and odd coincidences for yourself, including the report of a call that President Carter made, promising to "never again interfere with Australia's democratic processes" (emphasis mine).
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
I'm sure he has! I can find lists of any number of interesting things on the internet, compiled by prolific authors who will be happy to sell you their books and send you their newsletters. This doesn't necessarily make them useful to discussions of the issues they purportedly address, even as merely "information".
You may not be surprised (or maybe you are!) to know that I had already read the same Wikipedia article I presume you did. I don't think that comes anywhere near supporting Blum's contention that the US overthrew the Australian government. Do you?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I think that there is not enough evidence in the public domain to conclusively prove that they did. There is enough circumstantial evidence to say they certainly picked sides, and that it may have even gone as far as interfering in the democratic process.
How else would you explain Carter's "never again" remark, else in that context?
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I think that there is not enough evidence in the public domain to conclusively prove that they did. There is enough circumstantial evidence to say they certainly picked sides, and that it may have even gone as far as interfering in the democratic process.
Really? The former head of the ASIO "has dismissed the notion of CIA involvement", but you're certain of your evaluation of evidence about this remarkable government overthrow that you had never heard of until today? quote:
How else would you explain Carter's "never again" remark, else in that context?
Wikipedia doesn't ascribe any remark or call directly to Carter. Supposedly Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher told Whitlam that Carter said that - or so Whitlam claimed in his memoirs. But Wikipedia also says Whitlam "wrote that Kerr did not need any encouragement from the CIA" - this is from a 2008 article in the Australian headlined "Carter denied CIA meddling". If there was something actually from Carter that said this, or even from Warren Christopher, that might be worth looking into, but third hand? Eventually we'll end up asking Kevin Bacon.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
...presumably, then, giving Kevin Bacon the sixth degree?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I don't think I ever heard about *anyone* trying to overthrow the Australian gov't, though I might have heard back in the day, and forgotten it. I don't know why the US gov't would mess with *Australia*.
If Carter made that "never again" remark, I wonder if he had the Middle East peace process (and, therefore, the Holocaust) on his mind. That might have influenced the wording.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
What happened in 1975 was:
(a) The Whitlam govt made a series of serious mistakes that left it vulnerable if the Liberal opposition could engineer an election;
(b) The Senate was evenly poised when a Government senator died. The convention was that the State Government would appoint the nominee of the dead senator's party to fill the vacancy. This Gentleman's agreement was broken by the conservative premier of Queensland, thus giving control of the Senate to the conservative forces. I think he appointed a bloke who used to be a member of the ALP, the tricky bastard.
(c) The leader of the Liberal Party Mal Fraser, used his control of the Senate to block money bills from passing, effectively choking off the executive branch from supply. The choke hold was proving effective, but the Government was not yet asphyxiated.
(d) Fraser then advised the Governor General, Sir John Kerr, to use his reserve powers to dismiss the executive Government and appoint Fraser as Prime Minister for the purpose of holding an election to resolve the Parliamentary deadlock. Kerr received advice from Whitlam not to do this, but did it anyway.
(e) Fraser was appointed Prime Minister by Kerr, called an election, and won in a landslide.
There was no coup. I am certain that the Americans were cheering the actions of Fraser and Kerr, because Whitlam and some in the ALP had expressed hostility towards the American alliance, a minor element of their political incompetence at the time. The Americans didn't have to do anything to get rid of Whitlam. He created the conditions for his own demise and he got what was coming to him, just a bit earlier than expected.
There were some shall we say difficulties in what Kerr did and how he did it. However, he took advice from the proper source, the Chief Justice. It's just that the Chief Justice's impartiality was suspect. Arguably, Fraser should not have advised Kerr at all, and arguably Kerr should only have acted on the Prime Minister's advice, not on his own volition. But these points are moot. The salient point is that this crisis was about the interactions, relationships and personalities of a dozen or so Australian men, and had very little to do with the Americans.
Hopefully Gee D. will join in the conversation. I'm sure his understanding of the legalities will be more accurate than mine, and his recollection of events more precise.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
There is a constitutional provision for a coup, technically, it is the 25th amendment. Basically it says if the VP and at least half the cabinet determines the President cannot fulfill duties of the office, they can notify Congress, and Congress has 21 days to accept the actions of the VP. If they do not, the President can return to office.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I think that there is not enough evidence in the public domain to conclusively prove that they did. There is enough circumstantial evidence to say they certainly picked sides, and that it may have even gone as far as interfering in the democratic process.
Really? The former head of the ASIO "has dismissed the notion of CIA involvement", but you're certain of your evaluation of evidence about this remarkable government overthrow that you had never heard of until today?
I am ... uncertain ... as to how to got to your comment from mine, unless you're feeling particularly fighty this morning.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
I agree with a previous observation that it's actually 45, his plutocrat supporters like the Mercer family and his minions who are engaged in a slow-motion coup, systematically dismantling our government and ignoring the rule of law.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0