And as I've already said, there's no sense turning this into some ideological debate about the legitimacy of war in real life. This is a story about the history of the Federation, and we know that the Federation did not become a warlike military state -- that even though it was born out of war, it ended up going in a more peaceful direction. It's silly to argue about whether that "should" have happened; it's what did happen, and the question is how and why.
I really applaud a lot of the nuances considered in the book regarding the Federation's geo-political situation. It's interesting to see Archer's advice includes not expanding the group as fast as possible lest it anatagonize the "big dog" of the Klingon Empire.
Even so, we know it's not going to be entirely peaceful as the Federation of TOS still functions as a wartime Navy. The next few decades are going to be interesting to chronicle, showing how things are changed by the interaction with new powers and groups.
Given there's only the "Big Four" at present, I'm going to be interested in how the balance of power changes as the group starts taking in new members. It'd be very easy to fall into a "UN Security Council" sort of situation where there's "these guys who decide everything." We know it doesn't but the shift from four votes to 140 votes seems like something that'll be interesting to chronicle.
BTW, was it intentional to set up a sort of fun parallel to modern war-profiteering criticism with Sauria? By which I mean, it's sort of amusing you have dilithium (oil) coming from a kingdom (not naming any names but the name is appropriate) yet the Federation spurns them for their more egalitarian neighbors. Despite the fact they're so useful and a strategic resource. It shows how the Federation is a new kind of government, to me--even if unintentional.
(I also loved the Farpoint callback where the Admiral more or less says, "I hope they find you as tasty as their last clients" when they talk about taking their business elsewhere)