The conventional wisdom in Washington is that regime change is an effective tool for supplanting odious regimes, advancing American security interests, and promoting democracy. But the empirical evidence shows that armed regime-change missions rarely succeed and typically produce severe, unintended consequences for America’s long-term national security and humanitarian goals.
Policymakers should consider the depressing empirical record before rushing to support any covert mission. They should also be aware that a serious regime-change effort must include the political commitment to commit to decades of institution-building. Otherwise, it is likely to morph into a prolonged military occupation and may have a variety of negative, unexpected outcomes.
Even with these warnings in mind, however, there will be cases when U.S. officials will find it appropriate to push for the downfall of a foreign leader. This may be justified in the face of an imminent threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, mass terrorism, or other catastrophic events that can only be addressed by force.
Nonetheless, a consistent commitment to using force for regime-change purposes is ill-advised. It impedes the effectiveness of other tools that are more successful at advancing U.S. national security and human rights goals, and it risks empowering factions that are more dangerous than the ones that have been removed from power. Instead of sponsoring a coup or supporting rebels militarily, the United States should use its other policy tools to promote democratic institutions and improve human rights without resorting to covert action.