Burkina Faso: Another Coup Led by U.S.-Trained Soldier(theintercept.com)
theintercept.com
Burkina Faso: Another Coup Led by U.S.-Trained Soldier
https://theintercept.com/2022/01/26/burkina-faso-coup-us-military/
32 comments
"sometimes have intersected" that is quite a generous a very very generous interpretation of the situation, if there would be ten guys like Kim then we would be asking questions, why should we not see this in this way.
Specially since this has happened a lot of occasions before[1], in places like Chile and around the Americas too.
Are we going to ignore what Operation Condor was ? Interestingly enough you could do something like this NOT with European universities but with Ivy league Universities and Mexican corrupt presidents.
This should make us ask questions about American institutions instead of yelling. Muh Cuntspiracy!!
Don't be a glowie friend, and ask questions about amercians institutions and their overlord interests. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor
Specially since this has happened a lot of occasions before[1], in places like Chile and around the Americas too.
Are we going to ignore what Operation Condor was ? Interestingly enough you could do something like this NOT with European universities but with Ivy league Universities and Mexican corrupt presidents.
This should make us ask questions about American institutions instead of yelling. Muh Cuntspiracy!!
Don't be a glowie friend, and ask questions about amercians institutions and their overlord interests. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor
> Interestingly enough you could do something like this NOT with European universities but with Ivy league Universities and Mexican corrupt presidents.
Do it - you’ll find it’s more a factor of the times than anything else
Out of 65 presidents 4 have Ivy league studies [1]
De la Madrid 1982-1988 - Harvard - Lawyer Salinas 1988-1994 - Yale - Economist Zedillo 1994-2000 - Yale - Economist Calderon 2006-2012 - Harvard - Lawyer
Were any of them corrupted by their Ivy league schools ?
[1] https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Gobernantes_de_México_...
Do it - you’ll find it’s more a factor of the times than anything else
Out of 65 presidents 4 have Ivy league studies [1]
De la Madrid 1982-1988 - Harvard - Lawyer Salinas 1988-1994 - Yale - Economist Zedillo 1994-2000 - Yale - Economist Calderon 2006-2012 - Harvard - Lawyer
Were any of them corrupted by their Ivy league schools ?
[1] https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Gobernantes_de_México_...
That slighlty underselling it. First of all : "[...] trained by the CIA or something as part of a coup plot, but neither of those interpretations are true."
There is nothing we know about him that is at all inconsistent with the profile of someone trained or goaded for a coup plot. They don't get directly named CIA training, they go to training facilities of the U.S. Army which coincidentally seem to produce a gigantic amount of notable figures in coups. Training by U.S. special forces is exactly the modus operandi of someone being prepared to orchestrate a coup, in fact, it's exactly what the School of the Americas nominally was.
Secondly: "who received military training from the US as part of a project to increase the capabilities of Burkina Faso's military" is underselling it. He was part of an exceptional number of U.S. military training exercises, and seemed to received outsized attention as part of them. Beyond that, this is exactly how U.S. coup training works, it's always billed as projects to increase the capabilities of the domestic military.
So is it 100% certain that he was being groomed for a coup by the US? No. The reason it's newsworthy is that he is just one out of multiple dozen people involved in coups that has received similar training regimens. It's one more case in a pattern, which makes it very newsworthy. Indeed, the article links this study: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002234331771355..., which indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship between these kinds of training exercises and coups. So the title doesn't seem misleading to me at all.
There is nothing we know about him that is at all inconsistent with the profile of someone trained or goaded for a coup plot. They don't get directly named CIA training, they go to training facilities of the U.S. Army which coincidentally seem to produce a gigantic amount of notable figures in coups. Training by U.S. special forces is exactly the modus operandi of someone being prepared to orchestrate a coup, in fact, it's exactly what the School of the Americas nominally was.
Secondly: "who received military training from the US as part of a project to increase the capabilities of Burkina Faso's military" is underselling it. He was part of an exceptional number of U.S. military training exercises, and seemed to received outsized attention as part of them. Beyond that, this is exactly how U.S. coup training works, it's always billed as projects to increase the capabilities of the domestic military.
So is it 100% certain that he was being groomed for a coup by the US? No. The reason it's newsworthy is that he is just one out of multiple dozen people involved in coups that has received similar training regimens. It's one more case in a pattern, which makes it very newsworthy. Indeed, the article links this study: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002234331771355..., which indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship between these kinds of training exercises and coups. So the title doesn't seem misleading to me at all.
> So is it 100% certain that he was being groomed for a coup by the US? No. The reason it's newsworthy is that he is just one out of multiple dozen people involved in coups that has received similar training regimens. It's one more case in a pattern, which makes it very newsworthy. Indeed, the article links this study: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002234331771355..., which indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship between these kinds of training exercises and coups. So the title doesn't seem misleading to me at all.
Is there strong evidence that he was "being groomed for a coup by the US", or anything to support that kind of conclusion beyond speculation and innuendo?
I'd imagine effective military training may be helpful to a coup plotter's success, but so is literacy and all kinds of other things. Where's the "newsworthy" articles about that?
Is there strong evidence that he was "being groomed for a coup by the US", or anything to support that kind of conclusion beyond speculation and innuendo?
I'd imagine effective military training may be helpful to a coup plotter's success, but so is literacy and all kinds of other things. Where's the "newsworthy" articles about that?
Yes, the strong evidence is an ongoing 70-year-old trend of US trained military leaders plotting coups.
> I'd imagine effective military training may be helpful to a coup plotter's success
I suggest you read the article that I and the link pointed to. It actually says the reverse. Students of US military training programs are more likely to attempt coups, but less likely to succeed at their attempt. Indeed, the probability of a coup attempt roughly doubles, while the probability of a successful coup is only increased by 50%. So clearly, your hypothesis is incorrect. The increased propensity of coups cannot be explained by increased competence leading to more success.
> I'd imagine effective military training may be helpful to a coup plotter's success
I suggest you read the article that I and the link pointed to. It actually says the reverse. Students of US military training programs are more likely to attempt coups, but less likely to succeed at their attempt. Indeed, the probability of a coup attempt roughly doubles, while the probability of a successful coup is only increased by 50%. So clearly, your hypothesis is incorrect. The increased propensity of coups cannot be explained by increased competence leading to more success.
From the article:
> Effects of military training on coup success
> Calculating the first difference of predicted probabilities from the logit regression shows an increase in the prob- ability of a successful coup of about 0.8% (Figure 7). The absolute change is smaller than that for attempts (but successful coups are rarer than attempts). The per- centage change in the predicted probability is around 150%. _Successful coups are strongly associated with IMET training and spending._ (Emphasis mine)
The fact that successful coup attempts do not go up as much as total coup attempts after US military training, does not alone to speak to whether US military training increases the success of coups.
After all, people only attempt coups if they think there is some likelihood of success. IMET training could very well increase the _perception_ of likelihood of success more than it increases _actual_ likelihood of success. Given this, even if IMET training makes a given coup attempt more likely to succeed, if more risky coup attempts are made after IMET training, the overall success rate of coups could go down after IMET training.
While my previous paragraph of texts explains that the data that you cite does not support your conclusions, I must also ask, where the data you cite comes from. I read the article that you link [0] and it says the opposite of what you say it says. Total military coups in the dataset are 110 for non-trained soldiers and 165 for trained soldiers (a 50% increase). However, _successful_ coups are 37 for non-trained soldiers and 72 for trained soldiers (a 100% increase). This information comes from Figure 2 and Figure 3 in the linked article.
[0] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002234331771355...
> Effects of military training on coup success
> Calculating the first difference of predicted probabilities from the logit regression shows an increase in the prob- ability of a successful coup of about 0.8% (Figure 7). The absolute change is smaller than that for attempts (but successful coups are rarer than attempts). The per- centage change in the predicted probability is around 150%. _Successful coups are strongly associated with IMET training and spending._ (Emphasis mine)
The fact that successful coup attempts do not go up as much as total coup attempts after US military training, does not alone to speak to whether US military training increases the success of coups.
After all, people only attempt coups if they think there is some likelihood of success. IMET training could very well increase the _perception_ of likelihood of success more than it increases _actual_ likelihood of success. Given this, even if IMET training makes a given coup attempt more likely to succeed, if more risky coup attempts are made after IMET training, the overall success rate of coups could go down after IMET training.
While my previous paragraph of texts explains that the data that you cite does not support your conclusions, I must also ask, where the data you cite comes from. I read the article that you link [0] and it says the opposite of what you say it says. Total military coups in the dataset are 110 for non-trained soldiers and 165 for trained soldiers (a 50% increase). However, _successful_ coups are 37 for non-trained soldiers and 72 for trained soldiers (a 100% increase). This information comes from Figure 2 and Figure 3 in the linked article.
[0] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002234331771355...
>> Is there strong evidence that he was "being groomed for a coup by the US", or anything to support that kind of conclusion beyond speculation and innuendo?
> Yes, the strong evidence is an ongoing 70-year-old trend of US trained military leaders plotting coups.
That is not strong evidence; that is speculation. Honestly, speculation turning into "evidence" is a hallmark of conspiracy-theory style thinking.
> The increased propensity of coups cannot be explained by increased competence leading to more success.
Then perhaps the factor is increased confidence, not increased competence.
> Yes, the strong evidence is an ongoing 70-year-old trend of US trained military leaders plotting coups.
That is not strong evidence; that is speculation. Honestly, speculation turning into "evidence" is a hallmark of conspiracy-theory style thinking.
> The increased propensity of coups cannot be explained by increased competence leading to more success.
Then perhaps the factor is increased confidence, not increased competence.
No, it is strong evidence. In fact, there is no stronger evidence possible, short of the US coming out and saying, yes, we are training them to put our tendrils into their state.
Oh wait, they did : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute...:
"Despite Carter's worries about the school's training materials, he believed that the international military education and training provided by the School of the Americas, among other institutions, was critical to furthering "the national interests of the United States".[24] He considered the training conducted in Panama to be essential because it enhanced American "access to the politically influential leadership" of the Panamanian National Guard and instilled in its personnel "attitudes favorable to the United States".[24] Further, he believed the training served to "increase respect for United States foreign policy goals and the United States concept of military-civilian relationships at the national level".[24]"
It's a simple fact that the US provided training in order to exert power over Latin American fact, by admission. The real conspiracy theory is that for some reason, despite the same effects, operations in Africa don't have the same intent.
Oh wait, they did : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute...:
"Despite Carter's worries about the school's training materials, he believed that the international military education and training provided by the School of the Americas, among other institutions, was critical to furthering "the national interests of the United States".[24] He considered the training conducted in Panama to be essential because it enhanced American "access to the politically influential leadership" of the Panamanian National Guard and instilled in its personnel "attitudes favorable to the United States".[24] Further, he believed the training served to "increase respect for United States foreign policy goals and the United States concept of military-civilian relationships at the national level".[24]"
It's a simple fact that the US provided training in order to exert power over Latin American fact, by admission. The real conspiracy theory is that for some reason, despite the same effects, operations in Africa don't have the same intent.
>>> Is there strong evidence that he was "being groomed for a coup by the US", or anything to support that kind of conclusion beyond speculation and innuendo?
>> Yes, the strong evidence is an ongoing 70-year-old trend of US trained military leaders plotting coups.
> No, it is strong evidence. In fact, there is no stronger evidence possible, short of the US coming out and saying, yes, we are training them to put our tendrils into their state.
Sorry dude, you just don't have strong evidence. I don't think you even understand what strong evidence is.
You're also moving goalposts. We started talking about the US supposedly orchestrating coups, but now you're just offering quotes about "access to the politically influential leadership" and "instilling attitudes favorable to the United States," which does not at all imply the former.
>> Yes, the strong evidence is an ongoing 70-year-old trend of US trained military leaders plotting coups.
> No, it is strong evidence. In fact, there is no stronger evidence possible, short of the US coming out and saying, yes, we are training them to put our tendrils into their state.
Sorry dude, you just don't have strong evidence. I don't think you even understand what strong evidence is.
You're also moving goalposts. We started talking about the US supposedly orchestrating coups, but now you're just offering quotes about "access to the politically influential leadership" and "instilling attitudes favorable to the United States," which does not at all imply the former.
You seriously don't understand what "installing attitudes favourable to the United States" in military leadership means?
At this point, you're putting the bar of evidence so high that nothing short of a complete admission is evidence. It's not. U.S. officials admitting they want to instill favourable attitudes in foreign military leadership as well as admitting they know that these activities increase the number of coups is strong evidence. It's not incontrovertible, but nothing short of an admission could be any stronger.
At this point, you're putting the bar of evidence so high that nothing short of a complete admission is evidence. It's not. U.S. officials admitting they want to instill favourable attitudes in foreign military leadership as well as admitting they know that these activities increase the number of coups is strong evidence. It's not incontrovertible, but nothing short of an admission could be any stronger.
It's also well known that many of our enemies sneak into civilian and military education. A fair amount of the Taliban are Western educated and are trained in camps run by people who used to do legitimate work. There's an entire cartel in Mexico that consists of a subset of their army that we trained to fight cartels that became a cartel.
This article also conveniently leaves out what the "popular protests" are about, which the last time I read on this topic was the Taliban bombarding their country and the President doing very little. So, are coups ever acceptable?
This article also conveniently leaves out what the "popular protests" are about, which the last time I read on this topic was the Taliban bombarding their country and the President doing very little. So, are coups ever acceptable?
What percentage of foreign military personnel have had some training by a US organization? From what I know, a huge number for myriad reasons.
My guess is it's large enough that the odds a coup includes US-trained elements becomes a coin toss.
My guess is it's large enough that the odds a coup includes US-trained elements becomes a coin toss.
In Africa? Not that much, actually. France for example is much more active than the US there.
Many US foreign military training is also aimed specifically at organising coups. See for example the School of the Americas, now known as the "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation". As Joseph P. Kennedy himself put it:
> The U.S. Army School of the Americas is a school that has run more dictators than any other school in the history of the world.
Many US foreign military training is also aimed specifically at organising coups. See for example the School of the Americas, now known as the "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation". As Joseph P. Kennedy himself put it:
> The U.S. Army School of the Americas is a school that has run more dictators than any other school in the history of the world.
[deleted]
So is this being done on purpose? Just a coincidence? If former, why is USA so good at toppling governments? Or does this happen all the time done by all sorts of country? Hard to tell if it's selective bias or if USA is just good at this.
He was trained by the USA. The objective of the training program is not disclosed.
A reasonable guess would be that the objective of the training program was combating Islamic extremism / terrorism, as this aligns with US interests in the region.
Either way the conclusion that this he was directed by the US is not supported by the facts in the article.
A reasonable guess would be that the objective of the training program was combating Islamic extremism / terrorism, as this aligns with US interests in the region.
Either way the conclusion that this he was directed by the US is not supported by the facts in the article.
[deleted]
The US has a very well-funded agency that specializes in coups. They’ve perfected this over almost 70 years of experience keeping the world safe for American business interests.
The US is the best at toppling governments because of extensive practice, and it's status as the military hegemon.
The percentage of people trained who go on to stage coups is so tiny I think it’s hard to reach the conclusion the Intercept is making.
That's not the interesting metric, though. In fact it is destined for nothing but un-informativity.
What is interesting is, among all military members who are trained by foreign governments, how many of the US-trained ones go on to stage coups vs those trained by other nations?
Along these lines, there is a very disturbing pattern.
What is interesting is, among all military members who are trained by foreign governments, how many of the US-trained ones go on to stage coups vs those trained by other nations?
Along these lines, there is a very disturbing pattern.
Other countries that have the same policy (most notably France, Britain, and, historically, Prussia) have the same kind of record, and it still seems like a pittance, percentagewise.
The US has a lot of (eroding) institutional infrastructure to reduce the chances of it happening at home, and throughout the republic some have expressed an interest or tried, most notably during the US civil war when about a third of the West Point graduate generals who fought were on the Confederate side. The the coup plot in 1933 the very general the plotters wanted to recruit blocked it.
https://www.justsecurity.org/44479/tangled-history-confedera...
The US has a lot of (eroding) institutional infrastructure to reduce the chances of it happening at home, and throughout the republic some have expressed an interest or tried, most notably during the US civil war when about a third of the West Point graduate generals who fought were on the Confederate side. The the coup plot in 1933 the very general the plotters wanted to recruit blocked it.
https://www.justsecurity.org/44479/tangled-history-confedera...
The idea is to sell more weapons manufactured by USA firms. Conflict in general is good for that, but conflict in which one or more of the combatants was trained and/or put in power by USA is even better.
It's possible that other nations do this, and certainly some of the colonial European powers did in the past, but no one does it on the scale that we do.
It's possible that other nations do this, and certainly some of the colonial European powers did in the past, but no one does it on the scale that we do.
Of course also securing (typically extractive in this part of the world) business contracts, and doing so before other world powers (i.e., China) get there.
That Smedley Butler sort of arrangement was definitely the idea through the 1950s (and arguably was less disgusting than the racist murder that previously motivated the USA military on "the frontier" and in Philippines), but more recently the resource extraction firms are often simply outbid by the war firms. After all, Chevron has to spend most of its money getting oil out of the ground and into a gas pump. Raytheon, on the other hand, doesn't have to produce weapons that perform well by any measure, (...which may be why our military since 1946 hasn't been fit to shine the shoes of our military just before then?) so they have a lot more to dole out to politicians, media firms, and think tanks. It's not as though we got any valuable contracts from the mess we made of Libya.
The history of these African nations has always been, and will forever be, rule by a strongman. Better that they are aligned with the West, than China.
I believe Burkina Faso did very well under Thomas Sankara, whether or not you want to call him a "strongman". He definitely was not aligned with the West. In fact, he had close relations with Cuba.
Incidentally, Sankara met Blaise Compaoré, who orchestrated both the coup that brought Sankara to power and the one that murdered him, at a foreign military training facility.
I can't help thinking that voting is a better way to select leaders. It's too bad we haven't invested in some sort of training in democracy.
I can't help thinking that voting is a better way to select leaders. It's too bad we haven't invested in some sort of training in democracy.
There were two other coups in the years leading up to Sankara's taking power, so I wouldn't say that the country was exactly in a stable state.
I don't think the problem is the lack of training in democracy. I think the problem is the powerful forces opposed to democracy. When he assassinated Sankara, Blaise Compaoré represented the interests of imperialists.
I don't think the problem is the lack of training in democracy. I think the problem is the powerful forces opposed to democracy. When he assassinated Sankara, Blaise Compaoré represented the interests of imperialists.
Essentialism is a bit of a faux pas nowadays, FYI.
Correction: the history of the global south has long been, and will continue to be, instability and exploitation at the hands of the global north.
Colonialism never ended.
Colonialism never ended.
It turns out this guy is just a Burkinabé soldier (yes I had to look that up), who received military training from the US as part of a project to increase the capabilities of Burkina Faso's military. That's kind of like calling Kim Jong-Un a Swiss-trained dictator: technically true but misleading.
The root situation seems to be that some African countries have coups, and the plotters sometimes have intersected with US military training. You could probably write a similar article with similar innuendo targeted European universities or all kind of other things, with about equal validity.