> 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.

> 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...

> 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.

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.

>> 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.

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.