When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

You've reached your limit of one free article.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime .


Exclusive International news coverage

Ad-free experience NEW

Weekly digital Magazine NEW

9 daily & weekly Newsletters

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Free trial

30-days free access, then $2.90
per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch

The Inevitable Failure Of Successful Foreign Interventions

Since the end of the Cold War, from the Middle East to Africa, almost every military intervention carried out by the world's top powers leads to regime change. But rarely to stability.

French troops in Mali
French troops in Mali
Jacques Hubert-Rodier

PARIS — Remember “Mission Accomplished”? It was May 2003, and the banner on the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier proclaimed U.S. victory over Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s regime.

In 2008, the same Republican president who was responsible for the Iraq War, George W. Bush, said the U.S. could not afford to lose in Afghanistan. By September 2011, it was then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron celebrating their success in Libya. More recently, on Jan. 14, 2014, François Hollande took his turn to declare “victory against terrorism, for democracy, for development” in Mali, one year after the start of Operation Serval. At least for the latest intervention, in the Central African Republic (C.A.R.), the French president plainly recognized that “the work was not done yet” one month after French troops were deployed.

Of course, every military intervention has different objectives and conditions. But since the beginning of the 21st century, wars carried out by the world’s superpowers have had two main purposes: to defeat terror, like in Afghanistan or in Mali, and to protect civilian populations, like in Libya or in the C.A.R. The stated purpose for the war in Iraq was of a different nature: to destroy weapons of mass destruction, which proved nonexistent. Iraq in 2003 was supposed to be America’s test lab for the democratization of the Near and Middle East, and for a global transformation based on the troubling views of neoconservatives.

But, whatever the pretext, all these post-Cold War interventions — in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, the C.A.R. and even in the Ivory Coast and Mali — have led to a more or less similar result. In each case, leaders in power were toppled, and a new regime emerged. But can these interventions lead to something beyond organizing elections? To political transitions that allow stability and implementation of the rule of law?

[rebelmouse-image 27087765 alt="""" original_size="640x457" expand=1]

The infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner for President Bush's 2003 speech aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln (Juan E. Diaz)

We are far from it. Two years after American troops withdrew from Iraq, the country has fallen into a deep political crisis. The conflict between Shiite and Sunni factions has intensified, with the growing presence of groups linked to al-Qaeda. Indirectly, this conflict has consequences in Syria, with the infiltration of fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in the Syrian rebellion.

In 2001, Americans and their allies, backed on the ground by Afghan opposition forces, overthrew the Taliban regime in Kabul, Afghanistan and appointed Hamid Karzai to the presidency in just a few weeks. But now, just a few months before the withdrawal of the American and allied troops and a new presidential election in April, Afghanistan is in chaos once again. Not only are the Taliban still attacking government forces, but al-Qaeda is also getting stronger.

“Fracafrique” is dead

France seems to have had more success — for now — in Sub-Saharan Africa. Partly because, unlike the U.S., Paris has colonial experience that enables the country to return to a familiar ground in the guise of “reluctant police force.”

Another difference between Iraq and the French interventions in Sub-Saharan Africa is that the latter were carried out with a United Nations mandate and the support of the African Union.

“Françafrique” is dead, but as French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius has pointed out, France still has influence in Africa, not to mention cultural and historical links. France has also kept stand-by forces there.

But the country must now reexamine its security plan in Sahel. Because victory, even in Mali, could be short-lived. The bases of fighters linked to al-Qaeda in the north of the country have indeed been destroyed, but many of them have dispersed or still maintain a presence, like in Kidal. For lack of stabilization and far away from cries of victory, Libya also remains a hotbed for departure and retreat for these fighters.

Malian President Ibrahim Boubacar Keïta, elected in September 2013 as head of a weakened state and a still-divided nation struggling to resolve tensions with the Tuareg, faces huge challenges. In addition to this, the French and now UN troops are struggling to consolidate their security advances, as the International Crisis Group recently pointed out.

And the task, for Catherine Samba-Panza, the former Bangui mayor elected this week as head of C.A.R., is Dantesque. This might force the French troops into staying longer than announced, like in Mali. Unless the African countries manage to take over and secure the country. But, like in the Middle East or in Central Asia, post-intervention stabilization is not a steady path.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

FOCUS: Israel-Palestine War

Why The U.S. Lost Its Leverage In The Middle East — And May Never Get It Back

In the Israel-Hamas war, Qatar now plays the key role in negotiations, while the United States appears increasingly disengaged. Shifts in the region and beyond require that Washington move quickly or risk ceding influence to China and others for the long term.

Photograph of U.S Secretary of State Antony Blinken  shaking hands with sraeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

November 30, 2023, Tel Aviv, Israel: U.S Secretary of State Antony Blinken shakes hands with Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

Chuck Kennedy/U.S State/ZUMA
Sébastien Boussois


PARIS — Upon assuming office in 2008, then-President Barack Obama declared that United States would gradually begin withdrawing from various conflict zones across the globe, initiating a complex process that has had a major impact on the international landscape ever since.

This started with the American departure from Iraq in 2010, and was followed by Donald Trump's presidency, during which the "Make America Great Again" policy redirected attention to America's domestic interests.

For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.

The withdrawal trend resumed under Joe Biden, who ordered the exit of U.S. forces from Afghanistan in 2021. To maintain a foothold in all intricate regions to the east, America requires secure and stable partnerships. The recent struggle in addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict demonstrates that Washington increasingly relies on the allied Gulf states for any enduring influence.

Since the collapse of the Camp David Accords in 1999 during Bill Clinton's tenure, Washington has consistently supported Israel without pursuing renewed peace talks that could have led to the establishment of a Palestinian state.

While President Joe Biden's recent challenges in pushing for a Gaza ceasefire met with resistance from an unyielding Benjamin Netanyahu, they also stem from the United States' overall disengagement from the issue over the past two decades. Biden now is seeking to re-engage in the Israel-Palestine matter, yet it is Qatar that is the primary broker for significant negotiations such as the release of hostages in exchange for a ceasefire —a situation the United States lacks the leverage to enforce.

Keep reading...Show less

The latest