Straight forward question. Been trying to gauge the man’s politics and I think he leans more toward being an anti-colonial nationalist rather than an outright socialist. Still based and deserving of critical support, but maybe not the next Thomas Sankara; not that he needs to be, but it’d be cooler if he was.
As military officer you could say he was a (disloyal) servant of the bourgeois state, but to say he was bourgeois just by being a military officer is stretching the definition. Saying he held “power and relative privilege” is a reach. He didn’t own capital; he made money selling his labour to the state: he wasn’t and isn’t bourgeoisie.