"What is missing from the debate in the Foreign Policy Community is any discussion of the right to intervene -- when is it justifiable to slaughter innocent people in order to advance our "interests"? Is it justifiable to invade and/or bomb other countries even when they are not threatening our national security?
Yes, Drezner is correct that there are debates about whether there is net utility to our "interests" in each specific intervention. Those debates are allowed. But debates about whether there is legitimacy or justification to using our military force to kill civilians even when our national security is not at risk is precisely what we do not debate. We are an empire, and hence our right to use military force (when in our interests) is simply assumed (hence, pre-Iraq, the mainstream "debate" included arguments that our occupation strategy was wrong and/or that we should delay an invasion of Iraq pending the inspection process and/or even the argument that invading Iraq would distract from Afghanistan, but not that invading Iraq was per se illegitimate because they did not attack us or threaten our national security)."

I read this as critical of the "assumption" of the natural prerogative our "interests" give us to invade preemptively. The claim that we are a militaristic empire is buttressed by our outrageous Pentagon budget, our huge debt incurred by such spending, our global network of military bases, our military support for who knows how many regimes across the globe, in addition to the policies that the Bush Administration has followed. (Though here one must also note that Clinton Administration policies were not dissimilar with regards to military spending and the selective projection of military force. Though, neither he nor Gore would have invaded Iraq as Bush illegally did, nor refused diplomacy as a matter of principle.)

[O'Hanlon and Pollack] . . . almost certainly will occupy key national security positions in the next Democratic administration, particularly in a Clinton administration.

That's not too many <philosophical> steps away from saying greater force is needed, and increasing the numbers of troops deployed there, IMO.

I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors. And I also knew that our military forces would be successful. But what we did not appreciate fully and what the administration was unprepared for was what would happen the day after.

It has been a continuing theme of my criticism and others that we would be further along, we would have more legitimacy, we would diminish the opposition and resentment that is fueling whatever remains of the insurgency if we had been willing to move to internationalize our presence and further action in Iraq.
...
There are a lot of lessons that perhaps we can learn from already looking back at Iraq and Afghanistan. The overriding lesson I take away is the need for international support. And that has become almost a mantra, and people say it, and no one's quite sure what it means, but everyone keeps saying it. But to me, it is clear that just as we were reminded with the quote that I recited from Leslie Gelb that our interests are often embedded in American internationalism, I think have seen that clearly.

She takes great pains to stress internationalism, but I wonder if it is a cover for imperialism.

What the Bush Regime portrays as a noble effort to make the world safe from terrorism and bring democracy to the Middle East is actually a vicious war of empire to deepen the U.S. stranglehold on the Middle East and Central Asia --a war that is part of a broader effort to create an unchallenged and unchallengeable imperialist empire.

This goal is not viewed as capricious or incidental by those in charge--whether Democrats or Republicans--rather it flows from the deepest needs and drives of their system: U.S. hegemony in the Middle East and global dominance is crucial for U.S. capitalism's ongoing functioning and U.S. global power.
...
So when Bush says, "Even if you thought it was a mistake to go into Iraq, it would be a far greater mistake to pull out now," he's expressing a fear -- from an imperialist viewpoint - that a U.S. pullout would leave the empire weaker. And he is saying this in opposition to other forces in the U.S. ruling class who, also coming from an imperialist viewpoint, now think it's a big mistake for the U.S. not to withdraw.
...
And they're trying to carry out this "redeployment" while making clear to the world and the powers-that-be in the U.S. that they can be just as tough and ruthless as Bush.  At the first Democratic Party candidates debate, both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards forcefully responded to a question about terrorist attacks with declarations that they'd act "swiftly" and "strongly."