One neocon innovation (which was borrowed and enhanced from "anti-totalitarianism") which almost everyone has adopted is a scrupulous distinction between regimes and peoples. No Brit would have said in WW 1 that we're fighting the "German Empire," not the German people. Now even
antisemites want to say that they're only against the Israel government, not the Israeli people. This has introduced a profound shift in thinking about global politics, one which it would be helpful to discuss more explicitly.
This distinction can lead to delusions or manipulation (the "we will be greeted as liberators" syndrome) but leaves open the possibility of enlisting some or all of the population of an enemy state into your ranks. It also allows for the distinction between more technologically
advanced armies that make the distinction in practice and more "barbaric" countries that have to throw military and civilian together in the same pot (or even single out the softer target). This distinction has its own propaganda value, or at least so one would think--but maybe
highlighting the difference in civilizational levels simply encourages post-colonial moral blackmail. The solution to this dilemma would have to entail an imperial willingness to take on sovereign responsibilities proportionate to one's power.