Whether a country is fighting for its own survival or pursuing its global ambitions, indirect intervention will always be necessary. While the concept of proxy war is a familiar one, its role in modern great-power competition is constantly evolving. Hoover scholars and fellows explored how this form of indirect conflict has evolved at a March 22 workshop on Proxy War hosted by the Military History in Contemporary Conflict Working Group at the Hoover Institution.
Attendees weighed in on how the practice of proxy war is changing, with many acknowledging that it has become much more complex than simply donating aid. They also noted that proxy war can help states manage uncertainty when direct military engagement is infeasible or risky, but that it comes with its own risks and limitations.
One key point was that the best proxy policies offer a clear goal and a limited duration. A longer campaign often leads to a higher cost and greater likelihood of escalation. This type of policy also needs to be backed by substantial resources and a plan for when the sponsor’s role ends.
In a best-case scenario, an intervening state will seek a proxy that pursues its objectives with the same level of commitment and vigor as it would its own forces. In some cases, this will require a high degree of control over the proxy and its leadership. This is difficult to achieve, however, as proxies will likely pursue their own agendas if they are not held accountable.
About the Author
