Wilsonian War in Iraq

"Baghdad 2003 has some shadows of the Great War... The first shadow is the belief that the victors carry democracy with them. This is an American idea from 1917-18. Woodrow Wilson believed that democracy was inherently peaceful and dictatorships, the kind that ruled in Germany in 1914, were inherently hostile and bellicose. By insisting that Germany change regimes, there was a better chance of guarding the peace of the world than if Germany had remained a quasi-military dictatorship. The notion that you can create democracy and therefore peace is Woodrow Wilson's. And George W. Bush is a Wilsonian. ... one that harks back to a period in which armed force brings democracy to those who are suffering under dictatorship."

Is this accurate? I believe this to be flawed in more ways than I care to describe in this brief blog. However, the primary reason this argument is completely misleading is that Woodrow Wilson never advocated the use of military force to change regimes prior to, or throughout most of, the Great War. In fact, President Wilson won the 1916 election partially by promoting how he had kept America out of the war up until that point.

Was he a proponent of democracy? Sure, why wouldn't he be as the president of the United States. Where Wilson and Bush differ, however, is that Wilson didn't initiate a war in order to "secure democracy". He did it because Germany was posing a direct threat to U.S. citizens via unrestricted submarine warfare and attempting to coordinate an attack with Mexico.

Another point, when George Bush asked congress to declare war, he asked under the pretense that Iraq was constructing WMDs and were looking to attack Israel or even the U.S. Only after the invasion did this reason come into question, and did people begin to question Bush's true intentions.