RSS 2.0 FeedCan A Military Coup Ever Be Justified ?
by Doug MataconisSeveral bloggers have written today about this quote from Thomas Sowell:
When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can’t help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup.
I think it’s perfectly clear that this was somewhat of a throw-away line on Sowell’s part; and definitely hyperbole. Nonetheless, it’s set off quite a discussion.
Steven Taylor for one didn’t hold back:
One wonders if Sowell has ever actually studied countries where the assumption was that the military could sweep in and “fix†things.
Clearly there are people out there, who ought to know better, who prefer democracy only when it produces the outcomes that they like.
A military coup as a throw-away suggested cure for what ails us? Quite frankly, that is an obscene suggestion.
Steven Bainbridge suggests that, because of the culture that has developed in the Armed Services over the past 200 years, it’s unlikely that the military would ever overthrow the government in this country. And, finally, James Joyner points out that even if such a coup did succeed, it would take away not only the civilian government, but any notion of individual liberty.
Clearly, if he really is suggesting that a military coup would be the cure for a despotic government, Sowell is completely wrong. Without fail, military coups in other countries have led to repression and a loss of individual freedom. Even when the junta finally cedes control back to civilian authorities, which happens rarely and only after much time has passed, the relationship between the state and the military is forever changed and the threat of another coup hangs over the civilian leadership like the Sword of Damocles. Instead of being an institution under civilian control, the military turns into a power center of it’s own and, since it has the real power in the form of guns, tanks, and airplanes, it quickly becomes the predominant power.
I don’t disagree with Sowell that there is much to be distressed about when it comes to the current state of the United States of America. The question of whether there will come a time when armed rebellion against an oppressive state is justified has been debated here and elsewhere countless times. However, turning the United States, or any other country, into a military dictatorship isn’t going to do anything to stop the erosion of personal freedom.
After reading the opposition pieces linked, I found one thing missing from all three and that is the distinction about other countries’ cultures that is usually made when discussing “exporting” democracy. For example, can a military coup of a group of communists ever be equivilant to a military coup in the U.S.? What about the “culture” of liberty and honor that our military prides itself on? Steven Brainbridge addresses part of that tradition, but what about a coup as envisioned by Thomas Jefferson, one that restores the Constitution? It may be farfetched, but then again, maybe not. As long as the leaders were motivated by idealism to a constitutional republic (as Washington was and showed by giving up power twice), I think the military would be a logical place to start a coup. However, and this is what makes me doubt a true military coup, it would be more likely that the actual soldiers would have come from the military and not be current military. But, that isn’t to say it isn’t a remote possiblity. I guess I would be more likely to say there would be a coup that would focus on one state or a group of states revolting against the federal government and wanting no more federal control, rather than trying to reform the entire federal government. For a fictional book on this idea, see Douglas MacKinnon’s book, America’s Last Days. After reading it, a coup or revolution, or whatever the correct term should be, is not that hard to imagine.
Comment by trumpetbob15 — May 2, 2007 @ 8:11 pmActually, the ultimate resort of the military to fulfill its oath of honor (which is to the constitution, not to the government) may be to depose a government; if that government were intent on violating the constitution to the point where such a reaction was required.
That would not be a military coup; so long as the military did not itself attempt to rule (excepting the maintenance of civil peace).
Comment by Chris — May 2, 2007 @ 10:51 pmWhat Chris said. A military “coup” in this country would be much different from that in another country because our military, while bound to obey all LAWFUL orders from our Commander in Chief and superiors, still ultimately has an oath of allegiance to the Constitution. And nothing else. Assuming of course that the military stays within the rules and doesn’t run crazy with power (which, given our military’s history, isn’t too far of an assumption to make.)
But, like Chris said, it’s not really the traditional definition of a military coup.
Comment by mike — May 3, 2007 @ 12:50 amJustifiable? Perhaps yes. But a military coup too quickly becomes self destructive, the functional equivalent of using a flame thrower to defend one’s home against burglary.
The biggest problem you can ever have, in either the public or the private sector, is the accumulation of unmoderated power. This is because ALL power structures, even those created in the spirit of altruism. intrinsically become corrupted by the desire to preserve themselves. Only multiple, external checks and balances can moderate this intrinsic preoccupation with self-preservation.
The problem with a military coup is that however honorable or even useful the impetus for it was, unless subject to some external controls it will become preoccupied with its own survival. Moreover, military coups are especially difficult to moderate because the military quickly gains a virtual monopoly over lethal force…
Comment by Riley — May 3, 2007 @ 5:13 pmGood god! I can’t believe any American with even a drop of patriotism would tolerate –much less advocate– a military coup of any sort in the US. Truly pathetic. While I defend the right of people to talk about this or any other subject, I must say that such proposals are more dangerous than were the Nazis, the Soviet Union and the sum total of the world’s terrorists.
And to those who believe a coup by the US military would somehow be qualitatively different from those perpetrated by other militaries throughout the world, I suggest you study very carefully all the armed forces involved, dispassionately and objectively.
The US military, like all armed forces, is dictatorial. As it absolutely must be. This is tolerable (and, again, necessary) in a military force in order for it to operate. But to think that a dictatorial culture will somehow miraculously tranform into a democratic one upon involving itself in civil affairs and political power in the pinnacle of naivete. The US military’s culture is diametrically opposed to liberty, as it must be.
Furthermore, I posit that the culture of honor that reigned in the US armed forces during WWII, for example, has largely been abandoned. No honorable man will torture, and yet US soldiers have been caught doing so repeatedly. No honorable man will obey an illegal order, and yet invading a country that has not attacked your country is clearly illegal, violating treaties that the US has signed (and which have therefore become binding US law). And yet the US military has done so on numerous occasions: Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, and many others. There is no honor in such actions.
Those who advocate some sort of military coup in the US have an axiomatic belief that Americans will not be subject to the types of actions the US military routinely performs abroad. These actions are predicated on the dehumanization of “the enemy”, whoever he may be, and coup proponents believe that US citizens will never become “the enemy”.
But dehumanization of a declared enemy is a very, very slippery slope. We’ve seen it in the US, happening to Americans, on more than one occasion. The repression of labor activists and “agitators in the 1920s and 1930s, as well as the red scare, are clear cases of this.
To dehumanize anyone –American or not– who is accused of being a friend of the wrong group, of not being a sufficiently vehement enemy of the wrong ideology, or of simply holding the wrong beliefs, is terrifyingly easy.
Comment by fishboy — May 3, 2007 @ 6:41 pmSowell’s normally articulate mind is taking a day off here. What an absurd idea! You can point to far more alarming moments in our history and breaches of Constititional rights, yet the nation survived then and it will survive now.
What we really need in this election is a politician that will call on the American people to sacrifice for our future. We’ve got to make some major reforms to Medicare and Social Security or these programs will bankrupt the nation. It’s time for Americans to Cowboy Up!
Comment by Brook — May 3, 2007 @ 6:47 pmFishboy, I can say unequivocally, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Comment by Chris — May 4, 2007 @ 1:39 amNo, no idea whatsoever. The Pentagon does, though:
http://www.truthera.com/2007/05/04/us-iraq-troops-condone-torture/
“A US survey of battlefield ethics among troops in Iraq has found widespread tolerance for torture in certain circumstances and problems with morale.”
“The Pentagon survey found that less than half the troops in Iraq thought Iraqi civilians should be treated with dignity and respect.”
“More than a third believed that torture was acceptable if it helped save the life of a fellow soldier or if it helped get information about the insurgents.”
“About 10% of those surveyed said they had actually mistreated Iraqi civilians by hitting or kicking them, or had damaged their property when it was not necessary to do so.”
Comment by Fishboy — May 4, 2007 @ 5:37 pm