Regime change has gotten a bad rap since the Iraq War, but it may be a useful tool in America’s arsenal. The key is to carry it out without sparking an actual war with an Iraq-style occupation afterwards. The policy can take many forms, from economic sanctions to covert support for a political party or internal resistance movement. The overarching goal should be to undermine the adversary’s capacity to coerce and corrupt its citizens and to destabilize its own region.
But it should not be used as a substitute for other, more successful tools to promote democracy and human rights in the world. The scholarly consensus is that regime-change operations generally do not achieve their intended goals, and often have negative side effects. These include sparking civil war, increasing repression, and dragging foreign interveners into lengthy nation-building projects.
In addition, overuse of regime-change efforts undermines the effectiveness of other tools that are more effective at promoting democracy and human rights in the world. For example, it limits the effectiveness of American foreign policy by making adversaries more skeptical about America’s motives in a given region and by associating America with the repression of national aspirations and independence movements.
It is a mistake to demonize regime change as reckless adventurism or imperialistic hubris. The cry for liberation from autocratic rule is an expression of popular will and a vital force for freedom. It is no accident that dictators such as Xi Jinping react so hysterically to even the slightest hint of regime instability.
About the Author
