Since the US stepped onto the world stage as the “world’s policeman” it has employed a wide range of regime change policies. Regime change policies include covert and overt efforts to support a political movement, back military coups, or outright intervene in the domestic politics of another country with the goal of replacing that government with a new one.
The rationale for regime change is that a non-democratic government, with its corrupt and incompetent leadership, does not serve the people’s interests. The regime’s leaders may commit atrocities and oppress their citizens, leading them to believe that if they were replaced with a democratically-elected government that had the interests of its people in mind the country would be a better place to live. This argument is flawed on many levels.
American officials have a vested interest in supporting democracy around the world, but using armed force to promote regime change is not the way to do it. The historical record shows that armed regime-change missions rarely succeed as intended and often produce unintended consequences, including humanitarian crises and weakened internal security in the targeted state.
In addition, a regime change operation will have severe costs for American foreign policy in the long term. When foreign polities begin to associate the United States with its own history of imperial ambition, they become much less willing to work with it, making it more difficult for the US to advance its own interests.