My original question was:

At the beginning of the 20th Century it was postulated that
"Democracies do not tend to attack other democracies"

By whom and in what context?

The researcher more than satisfied my basic question, but in asking
for a clarification, I replied:

I understand that it was the basis for what became "The War to Make
The World Safe for Democracy" (WW I), which, because of the failure of
the League of Nations led to "The War to End All War" (WW II).

The Second World War led to the United Nations - "The Last Great Hope for Mankind".

If one goes by the numbers, the United Nations has been a success
until now.  [Additional Note:  I did some research at West Point, and
it appears that Europe has never before enjoyed more than half a
century without a major war!]

In the 1970's I heard it postulated that in a 'Democratic' world,
"Terrorism was a suitable alternative to war" since the responsibility
for events was directly attributable to the citizenry as opposed to
the oligarchs!

As part of our continuing dialogue, the Researcher said:

??This belief [that democracies do not tend to attack other
democracies] spread to the American presidency, leading the Clinton
administration to emphasize democratization in its foreign policy as
it concluded that the best way to stabilize traditionally dangerous
regions like Eastern Europe was to foster the spread of liberal
democratic institutions."

Which led me to pose the following!

Your most illuminating response, unfortunately, as any good answer
should, opens up so many more questions!

The most specific detail that would satisfy my curiosity would be to
know at what point the Clinton Administration made the decision to
emphasize democratization as part of our foreign policy.

I ask this because on October 10, 1997 I sent President Clinton a
paper entitled: ?Victory In Bosnia ? where the ?War to End All War?
began.?

[Text of paper:  Victory In Bosnia.

Where ?The War To End All War? began.

In 1914 it was postulated that ?democracies do not tend to attack democracies.?

In 1917 Our Lady of Fatima asked her followers to ?pray for peace? and
the United States effected the cessation of hostilities in what was
known as the First World War (WW I).

We lived through the ?Roaring 20?s? and Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome
(The ?Great Depression?) but the world was not yet safe for democracy
so we were forced into a second round of hostilities known as the
Second World War (WW II).  Again the United States militarily
conquered the world and gave it back.

The United States of America has never fought a war for territorial
gain.  An error in judgement kept us from invading the Soviet Union,
creating the ?Cold War?.

For the first time in 4,000 years of organized warfare the United
States pioneered the concept of ?Limited War?, the goal of which is to
effect a political solution to a conflict doing the least possible
damage to the enemy.  The courage, discipline and restraint shown by
the American people brought us to victory in Korea and Vietnam
bringing an end to the ?Cold War?.

Now the world is safe for democracy ? not democratic, choice still
remains ? and while conflict is still rampant in the world, in Bosnia,
for the first time in the history of the world a military force stands
tall between combatants preventing hostilities.

This is the ?Manifest Destiny? of The United States of America.

The Emancipation Proclamation put an end to slavery in the world.  An
American victory in Bosnia will put an end to war.]

Some five weeks later ? on November 18th ? I received an
acknowledgement in the form of what has generally been accepted as a
personally signed letter from Bill Clinton on White House stationary.

I have been advising U.S. Presidents since JFK (whether they wanted my
advice or not!!!) so any timetable you could give me would either
inflate or deflate my ego tremendously ? but Satyagraha (the
discipline espoused by Gandhi and often mis-translated as
non-violence) properly translates as Truth-Force.

Shanti,

1Advisor

"Europe has never before enjoyed more than half a century without a major war"

I thought it was interesting that you made this statement given your
mention of the conflict in Bosnia.  I found your ideas stimulating and
would be curious to know - what exactly constitutes a major war in
your opinion?

I don't mean to pick at your word choice - Western Europe is of course
much more peaceful nowadays - but your question makes me wonder about
the larger implications of when war justifies foreign intervention. 
At what point does a conflict or situation (Iraq, for example) become
"major" enough to warrant pro-democracy actions by another state.

You've got me here!  Of course, conflict is subjective.  One death in
anger is way, way too many.  The motto of the U.S. Secret Service is
that "If you know how to use a gun, you don't have to."  I like that.

One can, at best, go to the numbers.

My understanding is that 100,000,000 died between the First and Second
World Wars.  In Korea - a Police Action by the United Nations, there
were some 10,000,000 dead while during the Vietnam Conflict a mere
3,000,000 human beings went to the Charnel House. (Don't forget that
Curtis LaMay and his cronies wanted to "nuke all of Southeast Asia
back to the Stone Age." - That's the forbearance I speak of about
calmer heads prevailing!)

It is also interesting to note that in ten years of hostilities in
Vietnam, 58,678 (Approximately) American G.I.'s perished while back
here an average of some 50,000 Americans die on the highway every
single year.

It should also be noted that there were 50,000 men, during Vietnam,
who openly resisted the draft and did not desert their country. I
proudly count myself among them.

I have a friend who is into his eighties and served in the South
Pacific.  He is appalled by the numbers of casualities in Iraq.  He
remembers ships that sunk near him where thousands of sailors were
lost from a single Kamikaze while we count from 450 to 600 American
causualties in the whole Iraq thing.

Of course, those are only the numbers of American casualties.

AND - let's not forget that "it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings."
(an old saying from my days with the Metropolitan Opera!)

I am not glamorizing war or killing in any manner - I simply see the
glass as being half full as opposed to half empty.

The World Trade Center attack was horrible.  I had just driven under
it the Friday before and stood looking at the devastation on September
25th.  The stench of Death was everywhere.  But, have you ever seen
pictures of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, The Blitz, Dresden?????

And if you read the Old Testament, you will read of the genocides of many people.

When I wrote of our mission in Bosnia, I saw it as the incarnation of
Gandhi's beloved Shanti Sena or Peace Brigade.  He envisioned an army
of Satyragrahis serving to separate combatants until both sides could
cool down.

Imperfectly, that is exactly what we Americans did in Bosnia and have
attempted to do elsewhere - Somalia comes to mind off the bat.

You pose the question of justification for foreign intervention if a
situation becomes 'major' enough.

"Pro-democracy actions by another state" are just that.  Technically
they are classified as MOOTW (Military Operations Other Than War), and
the government has been making active plans for them since 1995 that I
know of. If you want to get really technical - in this country
Congress must declare War for it to be a war.  Ergo, we have not been
at war since 1945.

As an aside, going back into pre-20th Century Europe, let's not forget
the 100- Years-War which was only a small conflict compared to the
rest of the 4,000 years of their history - during which, according to
the Historian at West Point, they had never spent 50 years without
massive slaughter, pillage, plunder and rape!

C'mon back.