Using military force to replace a foreign government that appears to be doing harm or shirking its duties initially seems attractive. It promises to spread democracy, advance economic interests, and create a friendlier regime. However, these goals often become entangled with complex and unintended consequences when the United States invades another nation. The result is a policy that can sacrifice thousands of American and local lives, cost billions or trillions, alienate partners, exhaust the US military, violate international law and norms, fan flames of nationalistic resentment, and undermine public support for international engagement.

Regime change, the most common of these policies, seeks to replace a ruling administration that is perceived as harmful or incompetent. This usually involves a democratic transition, but it can also include reshaping a country’s political culture and economy to benefit a particular group of citizens or the state’s external creditors.

While there are certainly deserving cases for regime change, the vast majority of such efforts fail. In order to succeed, there needs to be significant organized internal opposition, a broader regional or ideally global consensus that the existing regime is indefensible, and a clear alternative that can assume power without creating instability.

For example, the recent overthrow of Venezuela’s Maduro regime by Juan Guaidó is an interesting case, but it was a power grab that lacked the backing of many countries and a clear successor. Policymakers should therefore be cautious about advocating for regime change unless they can demonstrate that they have the resources, patience, and willingness to undertake a lengthy institution-building mission afterward.