A similar question plagued America's sixth president, John Quincy Adams.

In an 1821 address, he, the secretary of state at the time, responded to critics who had asked, "What has America done for the benefit of mankind?"

"Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy." Adams made a philosophical argument, emphasizing that "America's glory is not dominion, but liberty," but he made a practical argument as well.

"She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force ..."

Who can argue with that wisdom? Yet America is inextricably involved in every hot spot everywhere. All our involvements use the standard of freedom, but end up being about force.

Consider the situation in Bosnia, which has faded from public view since Bill Clinton's nation-building experiment there. The American overseer there once bragged about his dictatorial powers, which have been used to disqualify candidates for office the U.S. government doesn't like. Democracy? No. Force? Certainly. My guess is that Iraq will devolve into a similar situation, especially if the Shiite-majority Iraqi population wants to elect a radical cleric as president.

During war, people cede power to the central government so that it can "protect" them. Citizens who could once be counted on to oppose excessive government power, liberty-sapping regulations and obscene levels of taxation have grown quiet, preferring instead to cheer on a foreign war.

No one doubted that the United States forces would, at some point sooner or later, roll over the Iraqi forces. But already the best-laid plans to impose a democratic society on a fractious Third World country that has never known democracy are providing signs of trouble. First there was the looting, which American forces did nothing to stop, even allowing destruction of priceless antiquities. "No to America, No to Saddam," chanted as many as 20,000 Iraqis protesting U.S.-sponsored talks in Nassiriya designed to start rebuilding civil government, according to Reuters reports last week.

On April 10, two clerics were hacked to death by an angry mob during what the United States had hoped to be a highly publicized session of peace and reconciliation. Other reports point to the emergence of radical Islamic clerics in the wake of the breakdown of civil order, and abuses against Arabs by U.S. allies, the Kurds.

Yet some war whoopers are eager to take the war to Syria now. At some point, even the most ardent war supporters have to realize that the United States treasury isn't a bottomless pit. Some war supporters argue that "we" should be willing to pay any price for Iraqi freedom.

I'll suggest to them the same thing that I suggest to liberals who argue that "we" should pay any price to eliminate poverty or "save" the environment: The government always fails at such broad-based endeavors, and it always costs a fortune. How about war supporters agree to, say, a $500 a month federal surcharge to pay for Iraqi democracy? Can't put a price on freedom, can we?

Imposing democracy on a people from the top down perhaps has worked a time or two under certain unusual circumstances, but it's not the model (and it isn't "worth it" if your family is collateral damage). There will, of course, be exceptions to this non-interventionist rule, but the burden of proof ought to be on those who propose the use of military force not on those of us who say, "slow down a minute."

Sure, most Iraqis are probably thrilled at the end of a vicious totalitarian regime. No doubt, there were torture chambers and death squads and all the other nasty stuff that goes along with a government run by thugs constrained by nothing but their own whims.

Remember, though, this war wasn't originally justified as a crusade to liberate Iraq from its oppressors. It was launched as a pre-emptive action to stop a "Hitlerian" madman from launching strikes on the United States. So far no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and the quick crumbling of the regime (without the use of WMDs, even in its last gasps of power) suggests that the Hitler analogy was overblown.

So, the rationale has shifted to democratization. Doug Bandow, the Cato Institute senior fellow and foreign policy expert, notes the "the hilarious emergence of conservatives as Wilsonians." Remember, the right has traditionally promoted foreign wars only in service of national interests, whereas the left has promoted so-called humanitarian wars - i.e., democracy-building, nation-building and the like.

Bandow points to a few problems with this Democracy at Gunpoint. First, there is an easy list of 30 or 40 nations that are run by brutal despots. In the Congo, for instance, 3 million people have been slaughtered over the last decade.

This leads to the real question: "What is your criterion? If we go everywhere, it will take an imperial presence."

A fascinating article in the May issue of Reason magazine chronicled the downfall of totalitarianism in the Czech Republic, with an emphasis on the brave actions of Vaclav Havel, the writer who later became the country's president. Admittedly, Havel became a supporter of U.S. war in Iraq, but his own country escaped its shackle because he and other dissidents stood up to the regime.

In Cuba this month, that country's dictator stepped up a reign of terror against dissidents who were brave enough to call for reforms despite the consequences. Some 11,000 Cubans - an amazing number, given the repercussions - signed a petition calling for an opening of the communist state.

Even in a dreadful, totalitarian state, freedom must be essentially home grown, flowing from the bottom up.

Can Americans publicize another government's evils? Can our government exert pressure on those countries? Can we admonish liberals such as Jimmy Carter who visit totalitarian states and make apologies for dictators?

Yes, yes and yes.

But should we send the Marines hither and yon, imposing "freedom" at gunpoint? Well, we certainly are trying. But it would be far better for freedom - ours and everyone else's - if America followed the words of Adams and served as "the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all [but] the champion and vindicator only of her own."