I have always wondered what it would take to stage a successful militaryt takeover of the government.
First: you need the Army and the Air Force, plus the Marines. Not sure about the Navy, as they have no capacity to oppose the US Army onland. Ditto the Coast Guard.
Next: the plotters need to get the garrison commanders of the forts around Washington-troops are needed to seize the US Senate and House, also arrest the President and the cabinet officers. These officials would be arrested and jailed at a army base near Washington.
You then have to seize control of the major cities (NYC, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Dallas, Boston Philadelphia-army units would take control, and appoint generals as acting mayors of these cities.
Martial law would be enacted, and all city policemen would be drafted into the military.
Finally, you have to seize control of the radio, TV and cable station infrastructure.
My question: are there enough army units in the hinerland, that would be able to oppose a coup?If the navy didn’t go along, could they pose a threat? I suspect that the Air Force could threaten to bomb and recalcitrant areas, so armed opposition would collapse fairly quickly.
I think the theoretical plan (outlined in “Seven Days In May”) would work pretty well, have I missed anything?
If there is no political backing at all, purely military, then you will need the support of a clear majority of the troops, period. Because the majority of the populace will be against you, as well, and if the majority of the troops and people oppose you, you theoretically could hang around for awhile if the opposition is disorganized, but I wouldn’t count on it.
The Navy is not just sailors on big metal boats. The US Navy is one of the most technologically advanced and complex organizations on the planet. They control more firepower per man by far than any other service. Consider that 55% of the US population lives within 50 miles of the coastline, including most of the major cities named. The Navy is not the military branch you want to ignore.
Plus there are naval bases (with plenty of weaponry) in places far from the oceans.
At the very least you would need the support of a rather large minority of the population, as well as the active support of a majority of the troops. Isn’t going to happen. By the time the situation got to the point that you had such support, the system would have corrected for it. Free elections are a wonderful thing. So long as those are happening, we’re good.
Now if the PTB suddenly decide that elections are bad…
Aren’t you forgetting those carriers and their aircraft? Not to mention the SSBNs.
Aren’t you forgetting that America has a heavily armed citizenry? And the National Guards of the various States?
Look how well that’s working in Afghanistan. And someone’s got to make new ordnance.
No, an open coup in America would be very short-lived.
Yeah, it’s another thing if the elected politicians call on the military. Then you would simply need the acquiesence of a majority of the military and the general population, or the active support of the majority of the military (population be damned.)
Interestingly enough there was a civil war in Chile in the 1890s where the Presidential faction controlled the country and the army while the Congressionalists controlled the navy. However the latter ended up winning; an important thing to note in this case.
Pretty much meaningless; an organized armed force can crush armed citizens easily, all the mythmaking about the wonders of guns notwithstanding. And the odds are excellent that the armed citizens will be on the side of the coup, anyway.
So how do you explain Afghanistan and Iraq?
I’m not sure what would be more unlikely-organizing the troops to participate in a coup, or organizing the citizenry into opposing one.
And Vietnam.
In the case of Iraq, the portion of the citizenry devoted to fighting the Coalition is mostly dead now. It took awhile, but they lost.
In the case of Afghanistan, it’s not purely a partisan war by any stretch of the imagination; it’s militarized Afghan factions fighting each other, and we’re on one side.
The history of partisan warfare is really very clear; what partisans do, much better than professional soldiers, is die. They die in waves, by the thousands, in horrendous ratios. In every substantial partisan effort in opposition to a professional military ever fought, the partisans spent most of their time getting shot.
If a substantial portion of American citizens were to try to fight the U.S. Armed Services, the citizens would be slaughtered. A fool with a hunting rifle is nothing more than a target for a real soldier.
You’d probably want to sieze the state capitals also to prevent the state governments from forming regional resistance movements.
It’ll never work. Trust me, I’ve tried it.
As I understand it though, the point of a military coup that the person controlling the military takes over government. For smaller countries you have a popular army general declare the president/king a criminal and move to take power. The question is then whether or not the troops will follow the general or the head of state.
As far as the US is concerned, a military coup could be as easy as the President (being commander in chief) declaring martial law and removing/imprisoning Congress and the Supreme Court.
The second level of that would be a Vice President declare the President unfit, and hope that the troops agree. If congress and the supreme court disagree they get hanged.
Third level would be for the Defense Secretary, followed by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, followed by the individual chiefs. (I’m not sure if the Secretary of the Navy etc would have any power).
Soldiers follow orders, it’s what they do. So the minimum requirements for a successful military coup is to convince the troops that [Person Rank n, n=1 -> infinity] is more legitimate than [Person Rank n+1]. Failing that you have a court martial of [Person Rank n]
The US military is massive and divided up into several branches. So I would contend that at the very least you’d have to convince the joint chiefs, since below them you splinter into the various branches. As an example, Sergent Major of the US Army is third in command of the Army, but has zero influence with the Navy.
Libertarian fanatics don’t want a right-wing government anymore a communistic one.
For some state capitals such as Indianapolis or Phoenix this might make sense but California won’t be much affected by the seizure of Sacramento (unless its coupled with capturing San Francisco/San Jose/Oakland)
As you said, ultimately it’s a question of whether people do what you say when you give them orders.
If you’ve got the military and the police and other essential services firmly behind you, then you’ve already won the coup. If people are going to obey you rather than the President, then you don’t even need to arrest him.
But that’s a rare situation. In most cases, these people are going to follow what they think is the legitimate authority. In the United States, the President is clearly the top authority figure so any coup attempt would need to take him out of the command loop.
But it can get confusing pretty quickly. Suppose Obama and Biden have disappeared. And you’ve got Nancy Pelosi, Robert Gates, Admiral Mullen, and Arnold Schwarzenegger all giving out conflicting orders. Each of them is saying there was a coup attempt and the President is being unlawfully held. But each of them is saying the other three were in on the coup and they’re the one that’s trying to restore the legitimate government. Who do you believe?
The minimum requirement would be a government which is centralized and top-down enough that a coup would mean little except who was issuing the edicts. Which for all the bitching in recent years is not how our government works. To replace our current system with a military dictatorship would require the breakdown of civil society- a civil war or two for example.
The sergeant major of the Army isn’t third in command of the Army. It is the highest enlisted position in the Army, but it is mainly an advisory role to the top brass on enlisted personnel issues. A general, even an Army general at a regional command, is not going to take orders from the sergeant major of the Army.