Despite recent high-profile failures like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria, many in the policy community continue to call for ousting illiberal regimes. They argue that it is cheaper, faster, and more likely to lead to stability than sustained diplomatic pressure or engagement. And they believe that the United States should be willing to take armed action against dictators who commit atrocities and create unrest in their region or beyond.
The emergence of a post-Soviet world of flourishing democracies made the regime change idea seem more practical than ever. But as the US and its allies overthrew regimes across the globe, the reality proved to be far different. Even in cases where a new government is installed, it is rarely the compliant partner that its backers expect. Whether Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan or the post-Saddam leaders of Iraq, they governed with their own interests and political survival in mind, not those of the outside powers that backed them.
Moreover, the regime-change strategy often leads to more instability, human rights abuses, and regional conflict than the country would have experienced without it. It also exposes the United States to the risk of blowback, associating it with the repression of independence movements and national aspirations around the world. In fact, research shows that covert regime-change efforts fail to achieve their basic purposes about sixty percent of the time. And even when they do succeed, they are often counterproductive, associating the United States with dictatorial leadership or creating revolutionary groups that are far more hostile to its influence than the ones they replaced.