I agree that Wilson was a scumbag but even the neo-cons admit that he was the founder of the effort to spread to democracy (rather than annex territory) through force of arms. As LBJ would say, Wilson might be scumbag but he's scumbag. Deal with it.
Certainly annexing territory was a hoped-for result.
But what of the heavily inhabited portions of central Mexico?
Would he have wanted to install an absolute monarchy there? Or a representative government that would serve as an ideologically aligned ally? Or would he have wanted to incorporate those Mexicans into the United States?
My guess is that he would have wanted land from Mexico as well as a US-style allied government.
Are you suggesting we do the same for Iraq? If not, you are a modern Wilsonian.
That's an enormous leap.
Iraq does not border the United States and it does not have vast swaths of uninhabited land - Iraq in 2008 and Mexico in 1798 are two very different propositions.
The contemplated liberation of Mexico in 1798 was meant as a strategic maneuver against the French dictatorship. The actual liberation of Iraq is a strategic maneuver against the Iranian dictatorship.
The fate of Iraq from a US perspective comes down to a pragmatic question - the kind of question Hamilton would have asked himself: what is the best way to make Iraq useful to US interests in the future?
The answer in 2008 is to give it a friendly representative government where we can maintain military bases.
Wilson's 14 Points were not based on pragmatism of any kind. The US does not believe that asking Iran, Turkey and Syria to engage in voluntary arms and force reductions is the key to peace in the Middle East.
even the neo-cons admit that he was the founder of the effort to spread to democracy (rather than annex territory) through force of arms
Wilson was not the founder of the idea that it is stupid to annex overseas territory with large, settled populations to the US.
Should the US have annexed Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungary? Really?