Cato Institute: "The Failure of Forcible Regime-Change Operations" Talk presented by Ben Denison

The presenter, Mr. Ben Denison, Postdoctoral Fellow at Tufts University surveyed a century of attempts to bring about regime-change through the use of force to rid illiberal regimes and supplant them with something better.  Supplementing his presentation was Prof. Lindsey O'Rourke, Boston University paper on covert regime-change attempts during much the same time period, last Century till now.  Professor Alexander Downes of George Washington University provided comments on these offerings.  The moderator was Cato's own Vice President, Christopher Preble.  The event occurred at Cato, February 26, 2020.

The topic was well-chosen though over the years analysts on the issue have come to much the same conclusions:  such forced regime-changes tend to unleash political confusion even to the point of civil war--at least does not advance the cause of democracy among all peoples.

I found the material these two authors cited thoroughly digested and well analyzed.  We don't know the precise success record of covert regime-change efforts, but I think the United States State Department and the many Presidential Administrations are aware of the many problems encountered from the many tries to achieve it over time.

I would think those interested in the topic would agree with Denison and O'Rourke that these attempts constitute learning lessons when contemplating any further ventures into supplanting a  regime. I take it is vacuous to add "forced" to any regime-change that is implemented by some other government than the one in power, since a government that is being deposed is likely to take it as a hostile act.

My response to this lively discussion: 
1.  I think it is widely recognized that the time a President is in office, especially, if for only one term, is just too short to successfully wage a regime-change.  And, if a two-term Presidency, there are plenty of competing goals other than some government's regime change that would vie for top priority consideration.

2.  Yet one would hope some government or some international organization would be responsive to a moral demand for regime change.  It is unconscionable that mankind would allow millions of people to be displaced as in the instance of Venezuela or Syria or Yemen because of tyrants and despots who have seized control of government for their own ends, causing devastation and migration and, yes, famine.

Africa has the African Union, which has seemed a viable mediator to bring about peace, e.g., in the Sudan; but the Americas' OAS organization has no military group to work for the cause of peace and governmental stability on its continent save the military and the State Department of the US--acting as the moral agent on behalf of the cause of peace.  Europe has benefited over the years of the services of NATO to stand for justice and peace to the very border of Russia.  May there be always some organization to stand up for the cause of mankind's existence and well-being on earth!

3.  I am cognizant that those interested in doing regime-change for the moral good know from the US bitter experience through the years that the new leadership must be well-trained and receive the very best education in the use of technology as is offered here in the States.  Indeed, the current batch of leaders in China were, by and large, educated here at our very distinguished colleges and universities to take their place thereafter among China's high echelon of administrators and business entrepreneurs.  Years ago, however, a leader was propped up in these foreign countries who had very little education and little experience in what he was being called on to do!  (As I attempted to clarify in the Q/A, those who pursue regime-changing have learned a lot from the past tries and embarrassments.) 

Thanks to the Cato Institute for a needed discussion of this issue.