Even after the failure of regime change in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, many in the US policy community continue to call for ousting illiberal governments. Advocates argue that such missions are cheaper, quicker and less risky than sustained diplomatic pressure and engagement and will not escalate into broader military action. However, the empirical record suggests that these claims are wrong. A look at the scholarly literature shows that regime-change operations are more likely to fail than succeed. In addition, they often spiral into decades-long state-building projects and often do not achieve predetermined goals.
Regime change is a dangerous strategy that undermines America’s ability to promote human rights and democracy abroad and harms the nation’s security. Instead of promoting American interests, it fosters resentment toward the United States. This resentment can sour the public’s attitude toward democracy, making it more difficult for democratic leaders to govern effectively. It can also undermine the ability of democratic and nondemocratic countries to cooperate and reduce the likelihood of a global peaceful order based on multilateralism.
The popular argument for regime change is that the current government in question does harm to its citizens and that if a chance at democracy were granted, the people would vote out the bad guys. This is a logical argument but it does not take into account that for democratization to work, necessary conditions must be in place. Instead of attempting to force regime change, it is best for policymakers to use normal means to control malfeasant states – including limited military action and non-military tools like sanctions and engagement.