Regime change refers to the covert or overt intervention of one country in another with the goal of supplanting or replacing the current government. The term includes a broad range of policy tools, from supporting a military coup to covertly backing a politician or political party to outright regime-conquest through armed force. It has become the go-to tool of many States to promote democracy around the world and advance their security and economic interests.
The problem is that academic research shows that armed regime-change missions rarely succeed as intended, regardless of the strategy employed. They also tend to have adverse unintended consequences, including humanitarian crises and weaker internal state security. Furthermore, the overuse of regime change undermines the effectiveness of other policy tools that can achieve America’s security and human rights goals more effectively.
Despite the poor track record, policymakers continue to support forcible regime change. This is due to several cognitive biases, including a tendency to focus on the desirable outcomes and an unwillingness to consider the costs and risks of a campaign. This misunderstanding leads to unsustainable campaigns that are costly, protracted, and often ineffective.
The United States’ track record on regime change demonstrates that it is not a sound policy tool to supplant odious regimes or promote democratic reform around the world. The scholarly consensus is that the use of force to remove foreign governments creates more problems than it solves. Digesting the prevailing literature on regime change will give policymakers a more accurate picture of what this type of mission actually looks like and allow them to avoid the numerous pitfalls that have traditionally accompanied these kinds of missions.
About the Author
