When states back opposing factions to fight a conflict, it’s called a proxy war. It’s a weapon of choice for major powers with regional or global interests, especially when the threat is too great for direct intervention. Proxies are often corrupt, brutal, and incompetent. The asymmetry of power between the intervening state and its proxy makes it difficult to limit escalation and avoid triggering a cycle of reprisals. And, when the sponsors of proxies are gross human-rights violators themselves, they may not care that their proxies trample civilians along the way. Meddling in these conflicts also complicates efforts to find solutions that address the root causes of strife.
In the end, these conflicts cost lives and leave a lasting legacy. Civilians suffer from displacement, malnutrition, and a lack of access to healthcare. Outbreaks of diseases like cholera and collapsed health systems further undermine communities’ ability to recover. They’re also a major drag on economic growth and global food stability.
Although avoiding proxy wars is preferable, this type of indirect intervention can be necessary when the threat to the intervening state’s vital interests and identity pushes outside its borders. Amid fiscal pressures to limit military engagement and political pressures from rivals to intervene, policy makers will need to develop better ideas about the strategic context in which they should engage and how to do so more effectively and with less risk. Curricula for Joint Professional Military Education should incorporate more focus on the use of proxies in complex and shifting strategic contests.