Read on Twitter
Attempts to resist democratic transition in the USA are very concerning, but without the use of force (or the threat of the use of force) they are not a military coup. Even an autogolpe requires threatened force to work. +
I get what Ezra Klein is saying here & he is right to point out that there is a wholly illegitimate attempt to retain power after losing an election. This is very dangerous. But right now (thankfully) it appears that all of this remains purely civilian + https://www.vox.com/2020-presidential-election/2020/11/7/21554114/trump-election-2020-voter-fraud-challenge-recount-biden
The lack of force / lack of threat of force means there is a limit to what can be done. Strategies to retain power rest of legal gambits or political ones, responses can be the same. It is very dangerous & will damage institutions & norms but it is qualitatively different +
From an autogolpe. So what then, is going on in the Pentagon? Why is there a lameduck removal of top civilian Pentagon officials? The TLDR is that this is bad for governance but also appears to be unlikely to be a coup attempt + https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/defense-department-election-transition/2020/11/10/5a173e60-2371-11eb-8599-406466ad1b8e_story.html
The removal of Esper is most worrisome, especially if Esper had been saying no to the President wrt politically motivated & illegitimate uses of the military. But none of this appears to be a precursor to a coup. For one thing, you don't mount a coup with Pentagon bureaucrats +
For another, the administration's MO to date has been to use DHS paramilitary troops (yes, you can have troops who are not in the military, the word has generic meaning) when engaging in politically motivated uses of force https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-race-protests-agents/u-s-homeland-security-confirms-three-units-sent-paramilitary-officers-to-portland-idUSKCN24M2RL +
So I am not sure what is going on & why the White House is shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic. I have some unsystematic hunches though. I think the White House is signaling both that it is not conceding and that it rewards loyalty / punishes dissent +
My hunch is that the recent string of firings/replacements has little to do with the Pentagon itself and more to do with sending a message to others in DC who are watching. It still doesn't make a lot of sense, but that's my working hypothesis +
I am not at all convinced that I am right about this. I do think that the key question to ask is who is the audience for this move. The worst will be if the audience are other Pentagon political appointees/bureaucrats that the White House is trying to bring to heel +
Still, I am not convinced it will amount to much. There have been no changes on the uniformed military side & the services are amazingly good at slow rolling Presidents when they want to. After Lafayette Square I hope they sincerely want to protect their independence +
I am not, however, seeing anything ominous. It may not be good for Presidents to go around firing subordinates & it will probably damage institutional independence, but it is fully legal. It's just weird to do it now. I'm still puzzled.
TLDR: Singh doesn't think this is a sign of an impending autogolpe but is puzzled as to what it does mean. Also, DISCLAIMER: all opinions entirely my own.
