With the escalating crisis in Venezuela, the issue of regime change has come into public discussion. Some policymakers argue that ousting an illegitimate government is the best option for promoting democracy, improving human rights, and advancing America’s interests. Others, however, have pointed out that these objectives could be achieved through sustained engagement and diplomatic pressure without the need for armed intervention.
The case against regime change begins with the fact that there is no evidence that such interventions work as intended. The historical record shows that armed regime-change missions rarely produce the benefits they purport to and, more often than not, have unintended consequences.
Moreover, the use of force in regime-change operations undermines the effectiveness of other foreign policy tools that are more likely to succeed in achieving American goals. It also increases the risk of a catastrophic conflict that threatens regional stability and harms American national security.
In addition to its direct costs, the regime-change strategy has indirect costs that are even more severe. Whenever the United States is seen to engage in covert regime change, foreign actors become much more wary of American influence.
A more sensible approach to promoting democracy abroad would focus on building democratic institutions within targeted states rather than trying to forcibly overthrow their leaders. The problem is that the cognitive biases that lead many policymakers to favor regime change can obscure the facts about what it actually takes to achieve these goals.
About the Author
