Regime change is the forcible removal of a country’s government by foreign actors. It may be prompted by revolution or a coup. Examples include the French Revolution, US-backed overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953, CIA recruitment of Guatemalan exiles to overthrow Jacobo Arbenz in 1954 and the failed Bay of Pigs attempt to topple Fidel Castro in 1961. While scholars agree that it is a good thing for foreign powers to promote democracy in other countries, most scholars also believe that regime change operations rarely accomplish their intended goals and often foster unintended consequences.
Despite high-profile failures, many in the policy community continue to argue that armed regime change can achieve objectives more cheaply and quickly than sustained diplomatic pressure and engagement. The reality, however, is far different. Forcibly removing a foreign government rarely produces the desired outcome, and in most cases, it undermines America’s own national security.
A key reason for this is that the prevailing paradigm of regime change is flawed. Advocates of this tool typically focus on the desired goals of a campaign, and fail to take into account the costs and complexities associated with the long institution-building mission that follows.
Moreover, in the interconnected world of today, policies implemented by one nation exert externalities on all other nations. These effects can make it tempting for foreign powers to intervene in a foreign country to change the policy, but this type of intervention usually backfires and leads to unintended outcomes. As a result, the overuse of regime change undermines other tools that are more effective at promoting democracy and human rights around the world and harms American policy goals.
About the Author
