Should the US military stop coups or just activate them?
Really difficult questions emerge from a report on a coup directly linked to the US military presence.
In the month and a half that special forces trained Guineans, US troops met with Guinean Colonel Mamady Doumbouya, who is now the self-proclaimed ruler of Guinea after his forces overthrew former leader Alpha Condé, said Azari.
When asked how a hundred Guinean special operators could have left their base and made the four-hour journey to the country’s capital without the special forces team knowing anything, Azari explained : “Sept. 5 was considered a blackout day for both forces.
It is possible that the Guineans left while the Special Forces team instructing them slept …
The reader shouldn’t be left hanging on to fill in the blanks on US military doctrine here. Objection to the coup is fine, but why not put that objection into action … once they wake up, of course?
If the US military is present and capable, should it interfere with a coup? After all, he was already present and capable on the principle that he trains and changes behavior.
So why intervene only then, instead of intervening also later to stop a coup? Presumably there is an authorization switch that was reversed before (e.g. the neutrality law cited in The Gambia), whereas now it will not be reversed and the authorization is lacking … for possibly reasons be obvious (people who have just been trained are not going to file).
And this is foreign policy, so what about at the national level (given the number of police and military personnel involved in 2016 as well as in 2021 – January 6)?