From Iraq to Afghanistan: A History of US-Led Regime Changes and Their Fallout

India

oi-Gaurav Sharma

Donald
Trump
is
claiming
victory
after
a
large
US
military
operation
in
Venezuela
that
ended
with
Nicolas
Maduro
seized
in
Caracas.
Special
forces,
air
power,
and
naval
assets
were
used.
No
American
personnel
were
reported
killed,
making
the
mission
a
tactical
success
but
leaving
major
political
and
strategic
questions.

The
action
revives
long
debates
about
US
regime
change
and
its
record
in
Afghanistan,
Iraq,
Latin
America,
and
beyond.
Supporters
see
Maduro’s
removal
as
overdue.
Critics
warn
that
past
interventions
brought
civil
wars,
weak
institutions,
and
long
occupations
that
reshaped
whole
regions
in
ways
Washington
did
not
intend.

US
regime
change
and
Trump’s
Venezuela
strategy

The
Trump
administration
describes
the
Venezuela
raid
as
precise
and
lawful,
stressing
that
Maduro
was
treated
as
the
head
of
a
criminal
network.
Officials
have
not
set
out
a
clear
plan
for
what
follows.
It
is
still
unclear
whether
Washington
plans
to
install
a
new
leadership,
back
a
domestic
transition,
or
manage
a
temporary
authority.

Trump
campaigned
as
a
critic
of
the
Iraq
invasion
and
often
attacked
“endless
wars.”
Trump
promised
a
foreign
policy
that
rejected
what
supporters
called
“neocon
wars”
and
said
a
new
term
in
office
would
be
focused
on
restraint.
Yet
within
a
year
of
returning,
the
White
House
is
again
involved
in
a
major
overseas
fight.

US
regime
change
and
domestic
political
risks

This
shift
carries
political
risk
at
home.
Many
Trump
voters
backed
a
“peace
President”
and
expected
fewer
interventions.
A
sudden
and
visible
embrace
of
US
regime
change
abroad
may
clash
with
those
expectations.
It
could
also
revive
memories
of
earlier
commitments
that
began
with
quick
victories
but
slid
into
long,
costly
crises
overseas.

Trump
values
visible
displays
of
strength,
and
Venezuela
offered
an
immediate
example.
Maduro
was
removed
from
power
swiftly,
and
images
of
US
military
might
circulated
worldwide.
Yet
tactical
success
does
not
resolve
deeper
issues,
such
as
who
governs
Venezuela
next
and
how
competing
local
factions,
neighbours,
and
rivals
will
react.

US
regime
change
and
its
long
history

US
regime
change
has
a
long
history.
Researchers
estimate
Washington
has
helped
remove
about
35
foreign
leaders
in
the
past
120
years.
That
figure
represents
nearly
one-third
of
all
forced
regime
changes
worldwide
during
that
period,
making
the
United
States
a
central
player
in
such
operations.

Scholars
refer
to
these
interventions
as
foreign-imposed
regime
change,
or
FIRC.
Historical
data
suggests
serious
long-term
risks.
Around
one-third
of
all
such
overthrows
are
followed
by
civil
war
within
ten
years.
Many
also
produce
weak
new
governments
that
depend
heavily
on
outside
military
and
financial
support.

Past
examples
highlight
the
variety
of
US
regime
change
efforts.
In
Guatemala
in
1954,
Washington
helped
remove
a
government
it
viewed
as
unfriendly.
By
the
end
of
that
year,
three
leaders
had
been
ousted
with
US
backing.
The
aftermath
brought
decades
of
unrest,
violence,
and
deep
social
divisions.

US
regime
change
in
Afghanistan
and
Iraq

In
late
2001,
US-backed
forces
advanced
into
Kabul
and
removed
the
Taliban
within
weeks.
Hamid
Karzai
became
leader
with
strong
American
support,
and
President
George
W
Bush
predicted
that
democracy
would
take
hold
in
Central
Asia.
Two
decades
later,
the
Taliban
retook
control
almost
as
quickly
as
they
had
first
been
ousted.

The
Afghan
government
installed
with
US
help
struggled
to
gain
broad
legitimacy.
Many
Afghans
viewed
it
as
dependent
on
foreign
troops
and
funds.
Corruption
and
internal
rivalries
weakened
state
institutions.
As
the
system
decayed,
it
became
easier
for
the
Taliban
to
regroup,
exploit
anger,
and
reclaim
territory
across
much
of
the
country.

Iraq
followed
a
similar
pattern.
US
forces
toppled
Saddam
Hussein
in
2003
with
great
speed
and
minimal
initial
resistance.
Washington
again
spoke
of
democratic
change.
Yet
the
dismantling
of
Saddam’s
security
services
left
many
armed
men
jobless.
Competing
groups
then
fought
for
influence
in
a
fragile
new
order.

The
power
struggle
in
Iraq
helped
fuel
sectarian
killings
and
drew
in
regional
players.
Iran-backed
militias
gained
strength.
The
chaos
eventually
created
space
for
the
group
known
as
Islamic
State
to
emerge.
The
conflict
reshaped
the
Middle
East
and
still
affects
politics,
borders,
and
security
calculations
across
the
region.

US
regime
change,
Karzai,
and
Venezuela’s
uncertain
future

The
relationship
between
Washington
and
Hamid
Karzai
shows
how
US
regime
change
can
sour
over
time.
Karzai
was
first
presented
as
a
partner
in
rebuilding
Afghanistan.
Gradually,
Karzai
clashed
with
US
officials
over
civilian
deaths,
talks
with
insurgents,
and
the
reach
of
American
military
operations
inside
the
country.

“To
the
American
people,
give
them
my
best
wishes
and
my
gratitude.
To
the
US
government,
give
them
my
anger,
my
extreme
anger,’
Karzai
had
said.
The
statement
captured
deep
frustration
with
how
the
project
of
regime
change
unfolded
and
how
Afghan
lives
were
affected
by
foreign
decisions.

Venezuela
now
faces
many
of
the
same
unresolved
questions.
Trump
officials
portray
Maduro
as
a
criminal
actor
and
argue
that
his
removal
was
necessary.
Yet
they
have
given
few
details
about
how
Venezuelan
institutions
will
be
reshaped,
who
will
hold
real
power,
or
how
future
conflict
within
the
country
will
be
prevented.

History
offers
limited
comfort
for
those
seeking
quick,
clean
outcomes
from
US
regime
change.
Earlier
interventions
in
Afghanistan,
Iraq,
Guatemala,
and
Panama
often
began
with
rapid
military
wins.
Many
later
produced
civil
wars,
authoritarian
backlash,
or
chronic
instability.
Those
records
frame
the
uncertain
path
that
lies
ahead
for
Venezuela
after
Maduro’s
capture.