While President Bush and Congress struggle over how to finish up two wars in some satisfactory fashion, it’s time to begin thinking about what’s next. Public and congressional opposition to the Iraq war has been mounting, but it has focused mainly on its management.

Most of us know by this time that Saddam Hussein was not much of a threat and had nothing to do with the September 2001 terrorist attacks. But the idea persists that he was such a bad ruler that it was probably good policy to take him out. Democrats and Republicans alike seem to have accepted the idea that the mission of the United States, as the only superpower, must be to spread democracy and respect for human rights throughout the world, by example, by pressure, and, if necessary, by force of arms.

A recent article in The Washington Post states a provocative counterposition. Samuel L. Popkin, professor of political science at the University of California at San Diego, and Henry A. Kim, assistant professor of political science at the University of Arizona, contend that leading “neoliberals” of the Democratic Party are nearly indistinguishable from the Republican neoconservatives who brought us the invasion of Iraq. They argue that public outrage over the Iraq war is approaching the point where the Democrats could lose their quest for the White House unless they go beyond demanding an exit from Iraq and dissociate themselves from the Bush doctrine of spreading democracy and wiping out potential threats by any means, including pre-emptive war.

Messrs. Popkin and Kim take aim particularly at the Progressive Policy Institute, the think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, and its 2006 book of essays by 19 liberal Democrats, “With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty.” The introduction by Will Marshall, president of the institute, and Jeremy Rosner praises the Democratic “tradition of muscular realism” and declares: “Advancing democracy – in practice, not just in rhetoric – is fundamentally the Democrats’ legacy, the Democrats’ cause, and the Democrats’ responsibility.

The Popkin-Kim article says that Hillary Clinton “criticizes the conduct of the war, but not the idea of the war.” It says that John Edwards and Barak Obama, while calling the war a serious mistake, have not called for “a more modest U.S. role in the world generally.”

For generations, Democratic as well as Republican presidents have engineered the overthrow of foreign governments considered evil or threatening – often leading to even worse dictatorships. Think Iran’s Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953, Guatemala’s Jacobo Arbenz in 1954, Chile’s Salvador Allende in 1973, and a long list of other ultimate disasters.

Is this an appeal for isolationism? Not at all. The United States got rid of Mussolini and Hitler and obtained the surrender of Emperor Hirohito – all with excellent long-term consequences. But that was in World War II, when the United States was defending itself, not trying to run the world.

Pax Romana worked well for the ancient Romans for two centuries but ended in decline and fall. A Pax Americana would follow a dangerous precedent.

Clarification: Through a mistake in preparation of this editorial, a copy of Professors Popkin’s and Kim’s article in the Washington Post was combined with another Post article published the same day, written by Tony Smith, a political science professor at Tufts, titled, “The Dems’ Neos Are a Lot Like Those Other Neos.” All of the quotations attributed to Professors Popkin and Kim, including those referring to the Democratic Leadership Council, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards, should have been attributed to Professor Smith.