"Buckley is effect is saying that simply because it would be difficult to promote freedom in many parts of the world, we should just throw up our hands and forget the whole thing."
My guess is that unless our actions match our perceived rhetoric (which is close to setting very high expectations), disillusionment and demoralization could set in that could make the situation more dangerous for the people involved. For example, the Kurds revolted against Saddam in the early 90's and when we didn't come to their rescue, he gassed them. In Somalia after our troops were dragged through the streets, we didn't intervene in Rwanda. If there is a small uprising in China, do we and how do we intervene? If we don't intervene because of practical considerations (we don't want to go to war), will they not feel betrayed? Will not the Chinese fail to see this as the wishes of their own people and instead interprete it as foreign influence that will then justify in their eyes even more draconian measures? Will our allies find us unreliable when they cannot tell when our rhetoric can be counted on? It has been everything we can do just to stay the course in Iraq when the stakes are huge.
I think you are reading too much into GWB's admonition in support of freedom.
He gave no specifics other than to say the world would be better off if tyrants were to disappear, and that America, aka mankind, should seek the better angels of our nature.
I find it astonishing that so many hard core conservatives are shaking in their boots tonight at the thought that America, with all its might, should be willing to offer help to those seeking to get out from under the boot of despots and dictators.
good post!