Despite high-profile failures in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, many in the policy community continue to advocate ousting illiberal regimes. They argue that regime change is cheaper and faster than other policies, such as sustained diplomatic pressure and engagement, and can help avoid a costly military intervention.
But the evidence suggests otherwise. The vast majority of covert regime-change efforts end in failure and a worsening security situation. For example, the US-led effort to remove Saddam Hussein in Iraq shattered that country’s state and created conditions that made it easy for al-Qaeda and ISIS to take hold. The overuse of regime-change tactics also undermines the effectiveness of other tools that are more successful at enhancing democracy and human rights around the world and harming America’s ability to achieve its policy goals.
What’s more, regime change often creates a host of new problems, such as corruption and a breakdown in law and order. It can also spark sectarian conflicts and exacerbate domestic instability, and it frequently leads to unintended blowback against the United States.
A better way forward would be to focus on promoting political and economic reforms within a targeted country. This can be done by using the normal foreign-policy tools of diplomacy and development cooperation, but if all else fails, a deplorable regime can be pressured through the use of nonlethal coercive measures, such as sanctions and economic measures. Such a strategy helped bring down the apartheid regime in South Africa and set the stage for the election of Nelson Mandela and a peaceful transition to democracy.