The
Foolishness of Regime-Change Fantasies
By
Stephen Miles
July
07, 2017 "Information
Clearing House"
- Stop me if you’ve heard this one before.
There’s an out-of-control regime run by a madman
halfway around the world, and if the U.S.
government doesn’t topple it ASAP, a lot of
people are going to die.
The
United States has tried its hand a lot at regime
change. By one count, the US tried to
overthrow 72 different governments during the
Cold War alone—and that’s before the most recent
misadventures in Iraq and Libya. It’s not
exactly a track record of success: the United
States failed most of the time to accomplish the
fundamental goal of toppling the target. And a
quick glance at Iraq is enough to remind you
that even when America “succeeds,” it often
really fails.
Despite
this track record, the Wall Street Journal
opinion pages called for US-led regime change in
North Korea and Iran on the same day. That’s the
same Wall Street Journal that
championed the Iraq War over and over again with
tales of Saddam Hussein’s phantom nuclear
weapons and millions of “cheering Iraqis” who
would greet the U.S. military as liberators.
But the
Journal is hardly alone in its
regime-change giddiness. Calls to topple Kim
Jong-un regularly emanate from news
outlets like Fox News and then make their
way to the right-wing echo chamber.
And in Washington, champions for
regime change in Tehran are as regular as
a delay on the DC Metro’s Red Line.
Let’s
imagine for a second that I convinced you to let
me invest $1,000 of your money. Sure, I was
making some risky bets, but other serious people
seemed to think I was great at investing, so you
set your worries aside and gave me a chance. And
then I lost every last penny you gave me. I come
back to you with a surefire investment. I just
need another $1,000 but this time I’ll double
your money. And then I lose every last penny
again. If I came back and asked you for another
$1,000 to try again, would you give it to me?
Of
course not. Yet that’s exactly what Washington’s
regime-change chorus wants you to do. Trust
them. This time it’s going to work. This time
it’s going to be different.
Losing
a few thousand dollars would be bad. These guys
have lost trillions of our tax dollars on one
military boondoggle after another. The deserts
of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan have
sucked up $4.8 trillion alone, a price tag set
to rise by trillions more when all’s said and
done. To put that into context, instead of 16
years of war, the U.S. government could have
spent that money on providing 10 million needy
children with health care, giving 10 million
college students Pell grants, creating one
million jobs in infrastructure and another
million in clean energy jobs, and put another
million teachers to work in elementary schools.
And there still would have been more than $100
billion left over.
Which
do you think would have been the better
investment?
Of course, far more important than the costs in
treasure are the ones measured in blood. By any
measure of the human toll, America’s recent
history of regime change is a horrific failure.
The past 16 years of war have cost 6,931
Americans in uniform their lives, another 52,579
were wounded in battle, and an unknown number
came home suffering the invisible wounds of war.
It’s difficult to know exactly how many innocent
civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan have lost
their lives since 2001, but it is in
the hundreds of thousands.
Millions more have seen their lives upended by
years of conflict as they’ve become refugees or
been forced to live with near constant
insecurity.
The
Wall Street Journal editorial page and the
Washington regime-change chorus almost always
neglect to mention this staggering amount of
human suffering.
Yet any
policy debate must entail benefits, not just
costs. The costs of regime change, according to
its advocates, are the price paid for U.S.
security and for making the world safer. And
here, beyond a shadow of a doubt, lies the moral
bankruptcy of Washington’s regime-change
champions. For the trillions spent, for all the
lives lost, America—not to mention Iraq—is far
worse off today. Terrorism is a bigger challenge
today, with threats emanating from multiple
terrorist organizations in a variety of
countries. Iraq and Afghanistan are unstable,
insecure countries that cost Americans billions
of dollars, still host American soldiers, and
are run by corrupt governments with deep and
unresolved political divisions—with no end in
sight. It would take a particular type of
derangement to call this “success.”
And
yet, the phoenix of horrible ideas rises again
from the ashes. The Wall Street Journal
continues to insist that regime change will
work: in North Korea as in Iran. You’ve got to
admire the chutzpah.
As bad
as America’s recent history with regime change
has been, it pales in comparison to the horrors
that await in North Korea and Iran. A war with
Iran would be like Iraq and Afghanistan
combined. A war with North Korea would be unlike
anything since World War II, and that’s before
factoring in the potential of a mushroom cloud
over Seoul, Tokyo, or Honolulu.
When proponents of regime change focus on the
best-case scenario, remember what the worst case
is. When they try to scare you with talk of
madmen and weapons of mass destruction, remember
the blood on their own hands. And when they try
to tell you that, no matter how bad it went
before, this time it will be different and
regime change will work, remember the wise words
George W. Bush couldn’t:
Fool me
once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Stephen Miles is the director for Win Without
War, a national coalition of diverse member
organizations that works to advance a more
progressive foreign policy for America. He has
more than a decade of experience in progressive
politics and grassroots campaigning and holds a
M.Sc. from the London School of Economics and a
B.A. from Tulane University.
See
also
Tony Blair 'not straight'
with UK over Iraq, says Chilcot
The
views expressed in this article are solely those
of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of Information Clearing House.