Daniel Pipes makes the case for a more pragmatic set of goals by which to measure success in Iraq, making reference to a new book by Samuel P. Huntington: American Purposes In Iraq.

Cosmopolitans reject the unilateralism of the Iraq campaign, despise the notion of guiding the Iraqis to “a free and peaceful” country, and deeply suspect the Bush administration’s motives. They demonstrate on the streets and hurl invectives from television studios.

Imperialists are guiding American policy toward Iraq, where they see a unique opportunity not just to rehabilitate that country but to spread American ways through the Middle East.

And nationalists find themselves, as usual, somewhere in between. They sympathize with the imperial vision but worry about its practicalities and consequences. As patriots, they take pride in American accomplishments and hope U.S. influence will spread. But they have two worries: that the outside world is not ready to Americanize and Americans are unwilling to spend the blood and treasure to carry off an imperial mission.

Mr. Huntington is clearly a nationalist. Less clearly, so am I. I believe the U.S. goal in Iraq should be more narrowly restricted to protecting American interests. I hope the Iraqi population benefits from the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and can make a fresh start, while I reject the rehabilitation of Iraq as the standard by which to judge the American venture there.

The American military machine is not an instrument for social work, nor for remaking the world. It is, rather, the primary means by which Americans protect themselves from external violent threats. The U.S. goal cannot be a free Iraq, but an Iraq that does not endanger Americans.