As global power competition increases, the United States will inevitably confront situations where it seeks to pursue its interests abroad, but cannot directly control a conflict. In these cases, proxy war can offer a useful and efficacious option — but only under certain conditions.
One advantage of a proxy approach is that it allows the intervening state to avoid the domestic backlash that typically follows direct intervention in a nation-state. Furthermore, proxies are often more accepted by local communities and thus may be better able to gather intelligence on their adversaries’ activities. Finally, if the proxy is a guerrilla force, it knows the terrain better than any foreigner could and can blend in with the local population.
The downside of proxy war, however, is that the asymmetry of power makes it hard to control a proxy’s behavior. Once the spigot of cash and weapons is opened, it can be difficult to turn it off. To sustain and increase their influence, proxies will often talk up their cause and heroic nature. Over time, programs and bureaucracies will develop, creating vested interests in continuing the fight.
As a result, even when the intervening state’s desired outcome is clear, the resulting conflict may become entangled in a host of other issues that complicate and detract from its objective. To maximize its chances of success, therefore, an intervening state must carefully cultivate a proxy’s ability to lead while also restricting its autonomy in areas that could compromise the desired outcome.
About the Author
