Where Neo-Conservatism Errs

In recent years the idea of conditional sovereignty has come to play a significant role in the foreign affairs of the United States. Roughly put, the State is not legitimate if it does not meet one or more of the following criteria:
-The State does not follow the rules which govern international bodies
-The State poses a threat to other nations
-The State violates the fundamental rights of its people
These actions, in the view of some, constitute a violation of the conditions surrounding sovereignty akin to a violation of the Social Contract. Case in point: the invasion of Iraq. Long after the "imminent threat" rationale for the war has been debunked, its supporters still continue to justify it upon humanitarian grounds. And whether or not they admit it, this argument troubles most American liberals. They recall Mogadishu and Belgrade, and wonder if perhaps their aversion to the imperial venture in Iraq might be nonexistent had another man been President. This of course leads to the vexing moral question: Why shouldn't it be acceptable to intervene in other nations to support the principles which Liberalism so avidly defends at home? Those who oppose Bush's neo-welcoming foreign policy have no trouble attacking its failures, but what should be proposed instead?
The non-partisan organization Freedom House recently released an interesting report entitled How Freedom is Won which reaches some interesting conclusions. To encapsulate, the report explains how grassroots, non-violent civil disobedience is the best method for replacing a tyrannical regime with a free one. A regime change that uses violence, unsurprisingly, "is significantly less likely to produce sustainable freedom."
Does this suggest that the best course for the United States in promoting Democracy is to in effect completely remove itself from world affairs? By no means. Instead, it means looking to avenues other than the US military to help spread human rights. The State Department and NGOs can do much more to help human rights around the world. And on an individual level, there is much citizens of the free world can do. Think of the worldwide effort to end apartheid in South Africa. Our government could do tremendous good by ending the double standard which props up states like Egypt and Pakistan while preaching of the virtues of Liberty. And most of all, remember that the most powerful leverage the United States has is still its economy.
So, my message to President Bush is this: soft power isn't only for sissies. The dollar can speak much louder than even a supersonic fighter jet. And you're a lot less likely to get someone hurt.