There's another Wilsonian approach to war in Iraq in the WaPo:
What the Bush administration needs to do now is fashion a strategy for the Middle East in which its strike against Iraq won't seem crazy, but part of a sensible plan for a new and stable order in the Middle East. That shouldn't be impossible; the status quo, after all, is a mess -- and has been for decades.
That's the problem with those who argue for caution and inaction. They're defending a status quo that's rotten -- one that has left the Arab world perpetually unstable, and one in which U.S. interests seem constantly at risk. A new order would benefit everyone, most of all the Arabs.
The fundamental difference between this kind of argument and the pro-invade argument of the Bush Administration is the different outlook of time. For political reasons, the Bush Admin is advocating a "get in quick, do it fast" easy-success route. Very little thought to what happens AFTER Saddam is taking place. But as we saw in Afghanistan, a quick war often is just a delayed war.
The point that the current regimes in teh Arab world are all the direct result of colonialist policy should be a strong selling point in taking the long view instead of seeking short-term policy advantages. Had we seeded the region with democracies instead of propping up dictators like Saddam, we wouldnt have these threats to our interests today. Its essential that we take the long view. The principle here is itself the most practical - true regime change is only possible from within, not from without.