The overthrow of the governments of Germany and Japan after World War II inspired a generation of American leaders to believe that regime change is a useful tool for supplanting odious dictatorships, enhancing international security, and advancing humanitarian goals. But academic research reveals that armed regime-change missions rarely succeed as intended and produce unintended consequences such as humanitarian crises and weaker internal security in the targeted states.
In light of these facts, it’s time to shift two common mindsets among American officials. First, regime change advocates should stop selling their strategy as a cheap, quick fix that will lead to significant political and economic reform. Instead, they should accept that regime-change campaigns are often long-term state-building efforts. Second, American officials should recognize that foreign polities have different priorities and that trying to change these priorities through changing leadership is a lot more difficult than typically imagined.
As the United States continues to seek a successor to Venezuela’s autocratic government, and as top officials such as Marco Rubio continue to promote their candidacy for the White House, it is important for us to consider what lessons we can learn from past US regime change initiatives. A key lesson is that it is easy to overthrow a government; it is much harder to achieve the desired policy outcome.
The next president should commit to using the tools of foreign policy more wisely, including restraining covert actions that do not advance American interests and encouraging civil society groups and international institutions to promote democratic governance. Doing so will discourage the perception that America only cares about its own short-term interests, which would weaken the credibility of America’s leadership around the globe and make it harder for future officials to advance the nation’s global security and humanitarian agendas.