Proxy war is when a major power instigates and supports a party to a conflict but does not directly engage its forces in the fighting. Major powers employ proxies because they want to advance their strategic interests without the risks and costs of direct military engagement. Unfortunately, the use of proxies can lead to unintended consequences in the host country. This article explores how to create and sustain a proxy policy that minimizes these risks. The ideal proxy policy is one that achieves a balance of internal, international, and domestic coherence. Intervening states must continually manage the expectations of their proxies, understand how emerging conditions and unintended consequences may impact their policy over time, and deal with the frictions that arise when their objectives conflict with those of their proxies.
Proxies must also be given some degree of autonomy to allow them to pursue their own self-interests without alienating their sponsoring state’s domestic audience. Nevertheless, the autonomy that is granted to a proxy can create a tension that strains the relationship. Sponsors want their proxies to fight to the last man and to cash their checks, but if a proxy is too brutal it can detract from the success of an intervention. The United States has struggled with its proxies in Syria and Afghanistan. Russia and Iran are both gross human rights violators, but they seem to care little about the behavior of their proxies.
A proxy war can be a war of attrition between an intervening state and a local group that does not fully share its values. This type of war is typically characterized by violence that can leave large amounts of civilian casualties and damage infrastructure. The goal of a proxy war is to control the escalation of the conflict and limit its negative effects in the host country.