> my point is that to automatically dismiss all potential Global implications is AT BEST naive <
You're obviously a thoughtful and generally well-informed person. And that's not a sarcastic remark on my part.
Let me assure you moreover that I lost my naivité about political realities at least 40 years ago. And I've worked on international matters not only in Thailand and Wash DC but also in a number of other countries is Asia, Africa and Latin America -- starting with Vietnam in 1967.
[You and I may even have crossed paths at one time or another in our government careers. But it's of no consequence.]
So please take some time to consider the solid facts of the matter at hand:
Nobody who's "in-the-know" about Thailand and southeast Asia can tell you with a straight face that this coup has any important implications for US national security or the GWOT. One might (like my lawyer) be able to dream up all sorts of improbable scenarios, any one of which has approximately a .00001 per cent chance of occurring. But even if you think up 100 such contingencies, there's a 99.999% chance that the coup has no implications beyond the borders of Thailand. Period. Full stop. End of story.
Hawthorn,
Yes, if you go back and read my initial comments, my main point was to explain to the people who were worried about this Coup that it was almost surely nothing to worry about, and at this point, no evidence suggested that it had anything to do with a "secret" Muslim takeover of the government. If you read it again, that was my MAIN point, which is why I was stunned by your initially harsh attack on my position where you chose to focus on one or two comments that pointed to what should have been obvious...this is still a "fluid" situation and any long term ramifications are still unknown, and it would be naive to dismiss them offhand.
If you date back 1967, and you worked at State, CIA or Pentagon, then you probably fall into the "realist" category in terms of your view of international relations. This explains our initial inability to "get on the same page" in regards to our thought process, since I am very clearly in the "Neo-Con" camp in regards to foreign policy matters, which is why I was so out of place in D.C. under the first Bush Admininistration. Of course, now that his son is in power, I wished I had stuck it out...LOL.
Now I don't want to be insulting, but while you are criticizing some of the posters here for their lack of knowledge of Thai politics, or their inability to understand Thai culture, perhaps it displays that you yourself have "gone native" at some point based on what appears to be your lack of understanding of AMERICAN culture. You should understand that rank and file Americans will automatically assume the worst and have a negative perception of a COUP or a knee jerk reaction to a "KING" regardless of how respected that man may be in Thai culture. And at this point, you can add the word "Muslim" to the list of words that inspire automatic suspicion on the part of the American public, so you should understand that when people hear that a Muslim General led a COUP to overthrow a Democratically elected, capitalist, Prime Minister, you are going to get people who expect the worst. Now you and I know that this is a very, very different situation than someplace like Indonesia or even the Phillipines for that matter, but to be as dismissive and insulting as you were to these other posters was not only unnecessary, but may betray your own lack of cultural understanding...the very same thing you accuse people of in this thread. And again, I mean no disrespect, just food for thought.
But that said, I do surely concede that your interpretation of the overall situation in Thailand is almost surely 100% correct...but as I've stated, the situation is still fluid and much can change if Sondhi does not relinquish power as he promises, and if he takes a "soft" approach in the South.