The US army will not remove President Museveni – Here is why

By Buyinza Adam Luzindana

In international diplomacy, relationships are built on interests, not emotions or online expectations. That is why the belief held by some Ugandan opposition supporters that the United States will militarily intervene to remove President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni is not only misguided but detached from geopolitical reality.

In recent weeks, particularly following U.S. actions elsewhere, some opposition youth have convinced themselves that Washington will replicate military intervention in Uganda. This assumption ignores history, strategic interests, and the fundamentals of U.S. foreign policy.

Since 1986, President Museveni’s leadership has never been antagonistic to U.S. interests. On the contrary, Uganda has consistently aligned with American foreign policy priorities, especially in matters of national security and counterterrorism. Uganda’s role in stabilising Somalia and combating violent extremism has positioned the country as one of Washington’s most reliable partners in Africa.

At the core of U.S. foreign policy are three enduring objectives: safeguarding national security, advancing democratic values, and promoting economic prosperity. Uganda under President Museveni has complemented, not contradicted, these goals. From peacekeeping deployments to regional stabilisation efforts, Uganda has acted as a strategic ally rather than a liability.

The United States does not overthrow governments that serve its security interests and cooperate within international frameworks. Uganda has contributed troops to peacekeeping missions, supported humanitarian interventions, and partnered with Washington on counterterrorism. These actions matter more in diplomatic calculus than opposition rhetoric or social media activism.

Beyond security, U.S.–Uganda cooperation extends into health, trade, and development. American investment in Uganda’s fight against HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other public health threats reflects trust and long-term engagement. These are not the hallmarks of a hostile relationship.

Economically, the U.S. continues to promote regional integration and agricultural development in Uganda. While disagreements, particularly on governance and human rights, do arise, they are addressed through diplomacy and dialogue, not military force.

President Museveni has mastered a careful diplomatic balance: maintaining strong relations with Western powers while prioritising Uganda’s sovereignty and development agenda. This balance has earned Uganda sustained military, humanitarian, and development cooperation from the United States.

In foreign policy, the U.S. removes regimes that threaten its interests—not those that secure them. Uganda’s contributions to regional peace, counterterrorism, and humanitarian stability make President Museveni a strategic asset, not a target.

For these reasons, the idea that the U.S. Army will intervene to remove President Museveni is a political fantasy. It misunderstands how international relations work and misreads Uganda’s standing in global diplomacy.

Uganda’s future will be decided by Ugandans at the ballot—not by foreign armies.

The writer is a diplomat and analyst of international relations mentored by former Prime Minister Amama Mbabazi.