Once you stop exercising, your muscles begin to atrophy and wither away. Anyone who has broken a bone or spent time bedridden will certainly attest to that. Skills that are not used also have the tendency to wither away and die as well, hence why athletes ruthlessly practice their fundamentals. The declining of skills through intentional non-use happens on the macro scale as well, companies that get complacent tend to lose their ability to innovate, and sports teams that similarly get comfortable in the offseason are often in for a rude awakening when there is a sudden change in the organization; just ask the Patriots and the Packers. Countries can also have atrophying muscles; such as the case with America and staging coups.
The thing is, America used to be really good at throwing coups in other countries. I mean, like, really good at it. In fact, it was one of our countries’ go-to maneuvers during the Cold War against the Soviet Union. One such example was in Guatemala during 1954. The Guatemalan government under Jacobo Arbenz had audacious plans of redistributing the land in his country from wealthy farmers to the downtrodden poor within his borders. There was just one small problem; most of that land belonged to the United Fruit Company, now known as Chiquita Banana. Luckily for the United Fruit Company, the U.S government was willing to stage a revolution inside their borders in order to keep the supply of fresh bananas coming. After all, gotta stamp out those commies!
Guatemala was hardly the only example from that period of American history. There several others, such as Congo in 1960, South Vietnam in 1963, Brazil in 1964 and Iran in 1953. However, this coup-backing spree did not come to a boisterous end, but simply vanished without a trace. After 9/11, the United States spent the 2000’s toppling hostile regimes in the Middle East, though this was done with overtly heavy-handed military force and not through a subtle guiding hand. It’s as if America has skipped leg day. Besides, military invasions and lengthy occupations cost precious American lives, are expensive, galvanize the international community against the United States and have a dubious track record of success post-WWII. Thus, they are best-used as a last-resort.
While I personally prefer the U.S government to stay the hell out of everyone else’s problems, there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of that actually happening. After all, since when the hell has government actually listened to the citizens? Therefore, I’m going to suggest in this article a list of nations that the U.S, would benefit from if they chose to astroturf a rebellion inside of. Needless to say (disclaimer time!), this is merely a thought experiment and I don’t condone inciting riots or acts of terrorism. Preference will be given to countries that have a large separatist movement or similar cultural rift currently inside their borders, as it is easier to sow division and radicalization in such an environment; just ask Vladimir and his bots. Countries with lenient or overwhelmed court systems and law enforcement agencies are ripe targets as well. Countries that have natural resources that the United States would be interested in are also on the table for this article. Geography, and the inherent military value geography entails, will also be factored in. My moral-lacking recommendations will come in no particular order, nor would they necessarily come as a package deal.
Just as pointedly, it’s important to discuss the countries that I won’t be recommending. Countries that would have nothing to offer the United States in terms of military positioning or economic benefit are off of the list. After all, this is a list of coup ideas and not humanitarian missions. Therefore, countries such as North Korea or Cuba will not be on the list; they simply have nothing that we want (North Korea) or something that we can’t get anywhere else (Cuba). I also won’t be talking about countries that have no functioning government; after all, who is there to overthrow in Somalia or Afghanistan?
Lastly for parameter setting, we need to acknowledge that coups are simply one tool in the proverbial toolbox, and each tool has a defined purpose. Just as you shouldn’t use a flathead screwdriver as a crow-bar, coups are not the tool to use for every hairy foreign affairs situation. Some countries are just a harder target than others. For example, China’s military, police-state, and lack of overt internal dissent would make them a bad idea for a potential coup target, even if a successful attempt would bring a widespread peace not known to the world since the Soviet collapse.
Firstly, if the U.S. government is looking to interfere with a foreign government, then they should start with Russia. There are many reasons; for starters, Vladimir being deposed from power in favor of a pro-Western government would significantly reduce the number of cyberattacks America receives. Vladimir has spent the last several years exploiting the state of radicalization in modern America. However, given the recent coup attempt on Moscow by the Wagner Group, there is certainly an already exploitable vulnerability in Russia, should the United States decide to play tit-for-tat. The potential reward? Besides heaps of oil, which it could weaponize against other hostile nations, the United States would gain access to heaps of rare earth metals, not to mention the fuel we need to power nuclear reactors (and we all know that I love nuclear power). Freeing up Russia’s natural resources would be an economic boon to NATO allies looking either for fossil fuels or to nuclearize their electrical grids.
Another nation that is hungry for a pro-American coup is Iran. Recent protests have shown that there is a yearning for change within the nation of the Shah, and a deft hand could exploit that. Furthermore, deposing the anti-Western government in Iran would have a multi-pronged benefit to the US militarily. First, installing a pro-U.S. government could make a lot of progress towards stabilizing the region long-term, as most of the Middle East dislikes Iran. Additionally, Iran spent the 2010’s threatening the United States, and little progress has been made since then to ease tensions. Therefore, encouraging and enabling Iranians to oust their current regime and replace it with a pro-American leader would make the United States safer. Once a pro-U.S. government is set-up in Iran, the United States can then offload some of the logistical minutiae of keeping rogue states in the region like Afghanistan and Iraq in check to Iran.
In a similar vein to Iran, Pakistan would be a great addition to the coup-collection for the United States. Nudging Pakistan to shed its current government in favor of one that is ideologically closer to Washington would keep the Chinese Communist Party in check. This is because China desperately wants access to Pakistan’s seaports. In fact, China wants that so badly that they are willing to build-and pay for-the infrastructure to get it. Assuming a pro-U. S government in Pakistan would be able to cooperate militarily with a pro-U. S government in Iran, the two new allies could help keep the rogue state of Afghanistan in check, as they’d have a mutual enemy and vested interests in doing so.
These countries are just the most readily-available ones that have an opportunity for a U.S-backed leadership staff to set up shop. However, I wont project any further countries, because that would be of limited value. Trying to project a world in which America has no enemies is a fool’s errand, so therefore I won’t try to do so. While I want prosperity for as many people as possible (removing violent, state-enterprising dictators is a step in that direction), I’m not Shirou Emiya, nor will I pretend to be.
Alright, now it’s time to address those of you who have spent the majority of this article sharpening your pitchforks. ”Well Dan, I thought you paid attention when you played Metal Gear Solid 3; today’s allies can-and frequently do-turn into tomorrow’s enemies”, a keen observer will state. Truthfully, this critique is pretty spot-on, irrelevant as it may be. The reason it isn’t relevant is because that line of thinking hasn’t been factored in before regarding American foreign affairs planning, thus I didn’t bother doing it here. Not even NostradAmish can see multiple decades into the future. “Dan, what about the average citizens of these nations?” is another question that I’ll get asked. The U.S government has not cared about the plight of the common citizen in any of the past countries it has attempted to stage a coup in, so that’s why I didn’t pay any attention to them in this article. In case you haven’t noticed, neither Vladimir’s bots nor Xi Jinping’s fentanyl care about the welfare of the average American. “But Dan, this is merely an article about outright exploitation!” is another line that I’ll get. Yes, The Art of War is a fantastic book, and you should try reading it sometime. “Dan, this is some of the scariest reasoning that I’ve read all week! How could you come up with something so manipulative and blatantly one-sided?” is another, though less likely, question I might get. I’ve said nothing in this article that is either off-brand from my past writing or not based in reality.
Make sure to call me a sociopath on your way out…
Home Page 