We clobbered them with one ship and a company of Marines, in Jefferson's first year in office. But what is the point? Neither Washington, nor his Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, were pacifists! As Jefferson put it, when he was Washington's Secretary of State (I believe), we should "punish the first insult."
Of course the traditional Washington/Jefferson foreign policy would have had us going after Al Quaida--and with everything necessary. That is not the subject of our little debate, here.
Again, the only issue in this debate is the present President's call for a multi-generation American policy to "Democratize" the world, which is based upon many errors--some of which I have addressed in other essays at my web site--the one being addressed here, is that it involves playing favorites and dealing with the world as meddlers, rather than as respectful peoples, etc.. In this one facet of the debate, treated here, we have let General Washington--who spoke for an even handed policy better than anyone else, because he went into the common knowledge from all human experience, as to the psychological factors involved--carry the debate.
Read Washington's paragraphs A, B, C, D, L, etc., and you will understand what he was saying and what he was not saying.
There is no unalienable right for undemocratic governments not to have their affairs meddled with. That's an idea you don't agree with? Or do you misuse the word "meddle" which implies the interference of rights like liberals often do?
Our president advocates the spread of democracies around the world. He does so because he believes it is the best way to defend freedom in this country against world tyrants. He also believes it helps the people who live in those oppressed countries.
Not to complicated reall.