[Civilian control of the military](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_control_of_the_military#:~:text=The%20concept%20of%20civil%20control,%2C%20societal%20values%20and%20norms%22.) is an important guardrail against military coups.
In the US, the Secretary of Defense may not have served in the military in the seven years leading up to their nomination (by The Executive Branch).
This may be waived by the congress (the Legislative Branch) but it is unusual for someone to come directly out of military service and run the military.
Another thing is the command structure doesn’t really allow an easy military coup.
Secret service couldn’t hold off a determined military assault of sufficient size, but should be a match for smaller elements without combined arms support.
Joint Chiefs of Staff (highest ranking members of each service) have no forces under them.
The Pentagon has a lot of bodies, but mostly not combat forces.
Northcom commander technically controls all combat forces in North America, but he is off in Colorado.
DC itself is mostly covered via national guard.
The major intelligence services (CIA, FBI) are independent of the military.
You’d need to bring in a lot of different entities to pull it off, and the more people are in on your plot, the higher chance it gets leaked.
I think the size of the military itself is a deterrent. Any one branch of the military could defend the country against the other. Each branch has elements of the other branch.
Also, US leadership system is built on constant change. Every leadership position (maybe except supreme court) has a built in expiration date for the person in charge to force change and to force the system to be designed such that the institution functions independent of any one particular person’s influence.
A lot of other countries look at US’ constant change of the persons in charge and think it’s nuts but there are very good reason for it.
To have a coup, you’d have to gather enough loyal soldiers to your cause while keeping it secret from everybody else. In a military like the US – and in an intelligence-gathering state like the US – this just simply isn’t possible because of the scale of it.
For instance, look up the FEAR militia – a group of between 5 and 11 mainly Army and recently-discharged men who sought to overthrow the Government, assassinate Obama etc.. They started stockpiling guns, which caught the attention of the ATF. After their two murders (which were performed to try and keep their scheme secret), the Georgia Bureau of Investigation were questioning them within a day. The GBI had access to their texts, which were very suspicious. The ATF coordinated with them, and the whole thing fell apart very quickly; pretty much all of them broke within minutes and told the investigators everything.
There’s no way you could build a big enough group of people without someone inside blabbing or someone outside catching on.
One thing that I haven’t seen mentioned here is the distrust between enlisted and officers. I rarely had an officer that was trustworthy and competent. The officers are /taught/ that enlisted are base and not to be trusted: Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear considerable watching.”
And enlisted generally see the officers has either out of touch (see command climate surveys), unwilling to change/sclerotic (Majors and above), or just generally classist.
I’m pretty sure the Army has kept the two-tiered system that pits enlisted vs officers for this reason. If the masses can’t trust the classes, and the classes can’t do the masses’ work, it subverts any attempts to overtake even a base like Ft. Hood.
One thing no one has mentioned yet that I think is important is that “The US Military” is not a single entity. The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and National Guard are all separate and distinct entities, the members of whom don’t necessarily feel any kinship or connection to those in other branches. It would be exceedingly difficult for a demagogic military leader to inspire enough loyalty from all branches to successfully execute a full on coup. Army guys aren’t gonna break the law for a Naval leader, Air force guys won’t break the law for a marine leader, etc. In theory a Julius Caesar type could rise to the head of the Joint Chiefs of staff, and, through incredible charisma get the vast majority of armed forces members across branches to follow him in a coup, but people like that are once in a millennia, and anyway, if you’re that charismatic, why not just do it the legal way and run for President?
Let’s say the US Army decided to attempt a coup. Well they’re now at war with the US Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, National Guard and Coast Guard as well as every local state and national police force. I don’t like their chances. Thats also assuming none of our allies come to aid.
You’d need multiple branches of the military to all decide at once to overthrow the government, and it would likely destroy the country in the process. You’re now the boss of the rotting husk of what used to be the US. Cool. Have fun with that.
It’s just not worth it.
The closest we could get to a “military overthrows the government” scenario would be if a president actually tried to declare himself a dictator. He would be removed from office, replaced with the next person in line, and order would be restored. The President is the Commander in Chief of all branches of the military, so he’s their boss, but their REAL boss is the US Constitution.
Latest Answers