The Thai military launched a coup against the caretaker government of Thaksin Shinawatra a few hours ago (Tuesday evening, Bangkok time). This is rather sad - I am among those that had high hopes when the 2001 election was held under the new constitution - it produced a stable government, under Thaksin, who unfortunately then proceeded to start undermining rule of law, to the point that the main opposition party, the Democrats, boycotted the 2006 election. The election results were anulled, the re-run held off indefinitely after the politicized Election Commission was forced to resign.

A coup by the military, or a counter-coup (there were rumours, of uncertain credibility, that Thaksin planned to overthrow the monarchy)? It reminds me of the confusion surrounding the (counter-)coup that put Gen. Soeharto in power in Indonesia in 1965.

It's interesting to compare two SE Asian countries with traditionally unstable politics:

The Philippines: last successful coup: 2001, previous successful coup: 1986
Thailand: last successful coup: 2006, previous successful coup: 1992

Update (2006-09-20 03:17 PM EDT)
(From my comment over at The Head Heeb)

A comparison can be made with the abortive coup in Venezuela, aimed at overthrowing Hugo Chavez. In both cases a populist leader despised by the urban middle classes gained power through electoral means, slowly strengthening his position, with democratic attempts to unseat him failing.

A coup led by an army faction toppled both leaders; in Chavez's case he came back. The plausible involvement of US intelligence in his short-lived overthrow certainly played into his favour, while in Thailand's case the appearance of tacit support by the king (it's interesting that he has not made any public appearance; we only have the military's claim that they have royal support) favours the coup leaders.