Who, in June 2004, wrote the paragraph below as part of a larger Op-Ed? (See if you can answer without Googling.)
Added to this justification for war were the potential benefits to the region–the ripple effects that a free and democratic Iraqi state can still have on the Middle East. Naysayers have accused hawks of playing dice with people’s lives: How could we possibly know that a democratic Iraq would have a demonstration effect on the region? On one level, they are correct; we cannot know. But we did know what would happen if we didn’t try. The ossified situation in the Middle East, with its utter lack of political freedom or economic opportunity for millions of men and women, helps breed murderous ideologies that threaten the United States. And the region’s autocratic but pro-American regimes are increasingly incapable of stifling these deadly, anti-Western tendencies in their own people. The Saudi regime pledges its love and respect for the United States, yet 15 of 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudi. Establishing a democratic Iraq in the heart of the region was, and remains, our best chance for encouraging the necessary transformation of the Middle East. […Snip…]
But were we wrong to invade? No. On the biggest question of all–whether Saddam had to go, by force if necessary–we were right. I would do it again today.
And here’s a bonus question: What foreign policy theory is being advanced? (Hint: I’ve bolded the giveaway lines…)