I'm going to start collecting arguments against invading Iraq that are Neo-Wilsonian. This essay by Thomas Friedman is a good start:
Why is America pushing democracy only in Iraq? Maybe it's because America really doesn't care about democracy in the Arab world, but is just pursuing some naked interests in Iraq and using democracy as its cover.
"Up to now, the Bush administration has been using democracy-promotion in the Mideast only as a tool to punish its enemies, not to create opportunities for its friends," notes the Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen.
It's true. The Bush team is advocating democracy only in authoritarian regimes that oppose America, not in authoritarian regimes that are ostensibly pro-American � even though it is America's support for the autocratic regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia that has made many of their citizens so anti-American and contributed to the fact that 15 Saudis and one Egyptian played key roles in 9/11.
Some argue that if you have elections in these countries you will end up with "one man, one vote, one time" � in other words, the Islamists would win and never cede power back. I disagree. I think you would have one man, one vote, one time � for one term. Because sooner or later even the Islamists would have to deliver or be ousted.
The Bush policy today is to punish its enemies with the threat of democracy and reward its friends with silence on democratization. That's a sure-fire formula for giving democracy a bad name.