Regime change may not be for the better
America's recent experience in the Middle East and the mess that its policies created in Iraq, Syria and Libya suggest that the conventional wisdom of ousting dictators is wrong
WHEN World War I, also known as the Great War, ended on Nov 11, 1918 the mood among members of the liberal elites in the political and literary salons of London, Paris and New York was quite upbeat.
It was true that the First World War - one of the deadliest conflicts in history, having lasted for more than four years and inflicted death and destruction across Europe and the Middle East - resulted in the deaths of more than nine million combatants and seven million civilians, including many young Brits, French and Germans.
But the war also led to the collapse of the oppressive regimes that had ruled the German, Russian, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires that were blamed for pursuing aggressive policies that ignited the costly and bloody wars.
TRENDING NOW
Employers want AI-fluent employees. Hiring them is the challenge
Early payout from Philippines’ Maharlika Investment Fund raises eyebrows over its true nature
SpaceX, Unitree, Anthropic, OpenAI: Is the ultra-hyped tech-listing wave backed by sound fundamentals?
Changes to EV incentives, uncertainty over COE framework drive Category A premium to a new high in ‘re-run of 2025 mania’