A lot of countries suffered from military coups but India and Israel didn't get any despite both having tumultuous political periods and heavy corruption. What factors contributed to this?
Adding to what others said, such a coup even if successful, would not be able to effectively govern India. Indian Military is dominated by the Sikh, Nepalese (Gurkha) and Rajput minorites of India. No Maratha or Bengali would like being governed by some Gurkha in Delhi, and as such the Coup's control could not extend beyond Northwest India and Delhi. Infact, Nehru kept the military of minorites for exactly this reason.A lot of countries suffered from military coups but India and Israel didn't get any despite both having tumultuous political periods and heavy corruption. What factors contributed to this?
Define "effectively govern".Adding to what others said, such a coup even if successful, would not be able to effectively govern India. Indian Military is dominated by the Sikh, Nepalese (Gurkha) and Rajput minorites of India. No Maratha or Bengali would like being governed by some Gurkha in Delhi, and as such the Coup's control could not extend beyond Northwest India and Delhi. Infact, Nehru kept the military of minorites for exactly this reason.
would you make the same statement about say the US or British army?Indian army being coup-proof seems too convenient. Usually, there's large amount of give or take involved: you can have loyal army, or efficient army. That's why a lot of countries purposefully keep their army staffed with incompetent crooked generals, so no soldier would be willing to follow them during coup: why risk your life for a general who's as much crooked scoundrel as your civilian leaders?
So, does structuring of Indian army gives it some particular weaknesses?
Yeah.would you make the same statement about say the US or British army
No. India is a federal country, the states would bow down to popular pressure. To do otherwise means political suicide. Now, the coup leaders might ask, You and which army? To which, the states would answer IAS , the effective permanent bureaucracy of India, and while some officers would collaborate with the military, the vast majority would likely interfere in administration (as they did during the emergency) and without them the links of governance would break down (meaning, yes, stopping of taxes being collected and roads being maintained). Also, in the medium term popular support is important for government control and rule of law (or should I say army?).Indian army being coup-proof seems too convenient. Usually, there's large amount of give or take involved: you can have loyal army, or efficient army. That's why a lot of countries purposefully keep their army staffed with incompetent crooked generals, so no soldier would be willing to follow them during coup: why risk your life for a general who's as much crooked scoundrel as your civilian leaders?
So, does structuring of Indian army gives it some particular weaknesses?
Define "effectively govern".
Do taxes stop being collected, teachers and nurses are no longer paid, roads aren't being maintained?
If armed forces are sufficiently united that there is no civil war in immediate aftermath of coup, of course junta is going to govern whole India.
So did Pakistan until 1958. Even then the first Coup was only one technically speaking, the imposition of Martial law was announced by the properly elected President on his own initaive. He was then removed by the rest of the Cabinet, who felt that he was the source of the problem and replaced by the Defence Minister; who resigned as Army Chief the same day. And as at pains to avoid being seen as a Coup maker. Later ones dispensed with this fiction. Point is; the unthinkable only has to happen once and can occur in stages as people become more and more used to the idea.First, Israel considered itself a first world nation in which a coup would be unthinkable. Second, Israel's military, being conscript-based, isn't going to be skewed towards one political faction. If there was a coup, the legitimate government would enjoy broad support, resulting in a civil war. Finally, Israeli political instability would probably bring down any government that didn't have broad support.
So, IAS would "punish" junta by effectively setting fire to their own local provinces? Okay...meaning, yes, stopping of taxes being collected and roads being maintained
Yeah.
American: they have enough hardware and money thrown at their armed forces, to offset most leadership inadequacies, but still couldn't beat some backward fanatics for years. US fights ISIS longer than they did WWII.
British: they have less tanks than Serbia, they have a carrier without CAG. British armed forces are joke.
Yeah.
American: they have enough hardware and money thrown at their armed forces, to offset most leadership inadequacies, but still couldn't beat some backward fanatics for years. US fights ISIS longer than they did WWII.
What there is to satirise? It's common knowledge that most armies nowadays are completely useless, and exist only out of historical inertia.Are you being serious or is this satire
It took them so long, because US fights ISIS and Assad at the same time, while supporting "moderate opposition", members of which constantly defected to ISIS alongside with equipment that Americans gave them.This is ridiculous. The reason it took so long to defeat ISIS is simply that the US decided that no large numbers of US troops would be used unless necessary. *Of course* if the US had been willing to use large numbers of its troops as in World War II, Fallujah, Mosul, etc. would have been reclaimed from ISIS as soon as it took them in 2014 rather than in 2016-17.
I'm very doubtful the USAF planned on having un contested air superiority in the event of having to fly SIOP missions against the Soviet Union. I suspect the same holds true to this day vis a vis potential strategic missions and Russia.What there is to satirise? It's common knowledge that most armies nowadays are completely useless, and exist only out of historical inertia.
US armed forces are a bit of paper tiger, and get away with a lot of personal and structural incompetence, because they have very expensive ordinance like cruise missiles, drones, and aircraft carriers, which allow them to bomb people without any risk of retaliation.
But that's only against small countries like Serbia, Libya, or Syria. Russians and Chinese have anti-ship ballistic missiles that'd negate US Navy carriers (stay in home waters or get sinked), and anti-air mobile batteries that'd prevent US Airforce establishing uncontested air superiority (stay close to bases or get shot down).
Americans don't know how to fight wars without uncontested air superiority and being able to bomb with impunity.
It took them so long, because US fights ISIS and Assad at the same time, while supporting "moderate opposition", members of which constantly defected to ISIS alongside with equipment that Americans gave them.
Army conceived to fight world war III and army conceived to do occasional peace-keeping missions after democratic end of history occurred in 1991, were two very different types of animal.I'm very doubtful the USAF planned on having un contested air superiority in the event of having to fly SIOP missions against the Soviet Union.