America had a history of isolationism prior to World War I and World War II, but the country has become increasingly more involved in foreign affairs since these two wars.  Regime change has become a commonly used tactic by the United States to put in place foreign leaders that have policies that favor America.  This has always been an interesting topic for me to think about.  I am very interested in politics and regime change is a tactic that I have always questioned.  America has put in place a system of values that promote democracy for the entire world, but continue to take part in regime change.  I believe that regime change undermines democracy in many cases, especially when the foreign leader had been democratically elected.  Also it creates a hostile environment that leaves the country in a far worse state many times than what it was previously in.  The main counter argument that can be made for regime change is that in some cases it is a genuine attempted to better a country when it may not know that it is in trouble or unable to help itself.  I would like to think that I am fairly aware politics and affects of regime change enough to talk about it in this paper, but I have no real qualifications other than reading many articles about things like this.  I do not think enough people are aware of the affects of regime change and I would like to hopefully make people more aware of its potential dangers and why America should not be involved in it.  


J. Dana Stuster wrote the article, "Mapped: The 7 Governments the U.S. Has Overthrown."  In the article Stuster identifies the seven known times that the United States and specifically the CIA have been involved in staging a foreign coup.  The article goes into detail about the coups that occurred in Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, Dominican Republic, South Vietnam, Brazil, and Chile.  Stuster gives information on why the United States may have been involved in the coups, but nothing is ever for sure.  The article informs more people about the United States actions in performing these coups and shows that it really occurred and maybe not for the right reasons.  He is showing that America might not always follow everything that they preach about spreading democracy through the world.  Stuster is credible because he is a policy analyst at the National Security Network.  Stuster works with foreign policy on a daily basis and understands what the implications are when staging a coup and he has also written many different articles on various topics that help show his wide range of knowledge on the topic. 

Alexander B. Downes wrote the article, "Regime Change Doesn't Work."  In the article Downes talks about the history of regime change throughout the world. The United States has been the nation to perform the most successful regime changes since the 1800'sand the author goes into detail of why the US is so inclined to perform regime changes. He then talks about why regime changes occur and how they affect the countries that they are home to.  Then he gives his beliefs on why regime change fails.  Downes thinks that regime change leaves the world in a worse place than what it was before.  Downes said that more than 40 percent of all regime changes end up leading to great tension throughout the nation, which escalates, into a civil war within 10 years. He is trying to inform people on the effects of regime change and why it may not be the best option to turn to when America feels that a country needs to be improved.  Furthermore many of the country's that America intervened in were in their eyes at risk of falling to communism or already had.  Our country's personal crusade against this may have left countries worse than they would have been if they let them run their own course.  The article has bias but it is backed up by facts.  His views should be taken a note of because he is an Associate Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University so he deals with foreign policy and politics on a dail basis.  The article was also published on the Boston Review, which is a credible source.  

Frud Bezhan wrote the article, "Aftershocks Of Iran's 1953 Coup Still Felt Around The World, 60 Years Later."  The article goes into detail about the coup that occurred in 1953 in Iran. The United States and Britain both planned to overthrow Iran first democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. The reason for the overthrow to this date have never been confirmed, but many assume it was to continue to control of Iranian Oil and stop Iran from falling to the influence of communism. The affects of this coup are still felt today. The coup led to increasing hatred toward western civilization and ultimately led to the Islamic Revolution in 1979.  Bezhan talks about the Iranian coup because it has had a lasting affect on the world.  Many believe that many of the tensions felt between the West and Middle East can be traced back to this event.  He goes into detail saying that the coup lead to the rise of radical Islamism and radical leftist.  Bezhan wants people to see how regime change can have a lasting affect and should be taken very seriously.  The main argument that can be made is America does not see the long-term effects that occur from regime change, but rather as a short-term fix for a troubling problem.  They fail to see how it may affect the people of that country down the road.  Bezhan is arguing for why he thinks the Iranian coup should not have occurred so there will be some bias there, but he is a very qualified speaker.  He is credible on this topic because he has been published on world renown websites like the Atlantic about issues directly related to the Middle East.  He is also actively on the ground in the Middle East and I believe that gives him a great first hand knowledge of how Iran still is affected to this day.  He is able to actually talk to people that are in the area and get their views on the subject rather than reading someone else's first hand account.  These people can help create pathos between the audience and the author.  

The question is arguable because people can either be for or against regime change in foreign nations.  That means that you can take a stance on how you think things should be carried out.  I had two sources that both argued against regime change because of its negative affect on the country that it occurs in and that seems to be a pretty universal agreement.  However, some people believe that it is still necessary even with the negative affect it can have on a nation.  This is especially true when a country falls into a civil war like state or is under a cruel dictator but is not always the case when regime change occurs. Perspectives that are first hand accounts are going to greatly affect my view on the subject because I think it should be up to the people of a nation to decide who they want their leaders to be rather than a foreign nation.  If people of a nation where regime change occurred voice their disapproval I think it will show how it undermines democracy and promotes an authoritarian system. I don't see a way I need to revise my question as of now.  

