Even after high-profile failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, some in the policy community still call for supplanting illiberal regimes using military force. Such arguments typically assert that regime change will achieve security or humanitarian goals more cheaply and quickly than sustained diplomatic pressure and engagement. But a growing scholarly consensus shows that foreign-imposed regime change rarely succeeds and often creates more problems than it solves.
While a more democratic world may improve American security and human rights, the use of armed force to push for these political outcomes undermines nonmilitary tools that are more effective at these goals. It also empowers peer competitors who have incentives to counter US attempts at regime change. The United States should rethink its strategic objectives and seek other ways to promote democracy, security, and human rights around the globe.
A key reason why regime-change operations fail is that citizens observe heterogeneous signals, creating endogenous differences in beliefs about the likelihood of regime change. Leaders attempt to induce higher anti-regime efforts by increasing the reward for a given level of effort but that raises the cost of failure. Leaders therefore struggle to find an optimal reward scheme for each citizen.
The resulting heterogeneity makes it more difficult for outside forces to create a coherent, cohesive revolution with a clear end goal in mind. Instead, they are more likely to create a failed state or civil war and draw the foreign intervener into lengthy nation-building projects. To improve policy outcomes, American officials must shift two common mindsets: First, they must understand that a toppled foreign regime is only the beginning of a long process of building democracy and establishing institutions and norms that provide stability.