Frederick Kagan thinks it odd that the Democrats oppose soft power initiatives just when the administration begins to employ them. Their problem: Bush is employing them in Iraq.
It is particularly odd that the antiwar party that has been so loudly trumpeting the need to use soft power rather than hard power is now attempting to undo years of effort to develop a sophisticated political-economic-social-military program in Iraq to secure America's objectives. Having failed to force American troops out of Iraq, Congress is now trying to strip them of all the enablers they need to win. And it is not scare-mongering to state a fact that any brigade commander in Iraq will bear out: cutting off assistance, particularly the CERP money that brigade commanders rely on to establish and maintain good relations with local populations who reciprocate by helping track down terrorists and protect key infrastructure (including the "concerned local citizens," now renamed "Sons of Iraq" who are the lynchpin of this effort), will lead to more American casualties.
I disagree with Mr. Kagan on one minor point. It is predictable, rather than odd. The Democrats would happily torpedo Iraqi political, economic, and military gains. The party's opposition to the liberation of Iraq, as well as all efforts to secure and rebuild it, is has been above all else rooted in their dread at seeing George W. Bush succeed at anything. To the Democrats Iraq is a domestic issue. It's all about winning the next election. "Odd" is not the word I would use to describe a political party whose members openly side with terrorists.
Comments