I am in substantial agreement with Mike's post. Indeed, I think he does an excellent job of critiquing a brand of liberal internationalism which, although currently in vogue, has gotten ahead of itself. Historically, liberal internationalism has been about fostering international stability by coupling the projection of American power abroad with the fashioning of international partnerships. To be sure, the founders of liberal internationalism and many of its adherents today (myself included) would be delighted if all the states of the world were democracies. But, as Mike points out, the goal of liberal internationalism was to make the world safe for democracy, not to engage in coercive democracy promotion and nation building. Roosevelt and Truman sought to make partners of the Soviet Union and China; they hardly conditioned their participation in the proposed "Four Policeman" or the UN Security Council on their readiness to embrace democracy.

Mike is right that the United States risks overreaching in pursuing a more ambitious brand of internationalism; indeed, it has already done so in Iraq. He is also correct that seeking to attenuate sovereignty risks unraveling an international order based on the principle that states have a right to sovereignty unless they commit aggression against another state. To be sure, genocide and other gross violations of human rights do provide cause for, if not obligate, the international community to act. But, as Mike points out (and as David Shorr has passionately argued), under a more expansive interpretation of "the responsibility to protect," it is easy for humanitarianism to turn into imperialism.

I fully share Mike's skepticism about the merits of a league of democracies, and have critiqued the idea in the current issue of Foreign Affairs. The world's democracies are already regular partners. The United States should be investing in efforts to improve cooperation with China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and other non-democracies, not building a new club that would only shut them out.

Mike's vision is sober, practical, pragmatic, non-ideological -- and doable. All welcome attributes after the excesses of the recent past.