Many liberals want to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq, derail the current NSA surveillance operation tracking terrorist communications to the U.S., and remain outraged at U.S. covert "propaganda" efforts in Iraq -- Sen. Kennedy has called such efforts "a devious scheme." On this point, Reuel Gerecht argues in today's Washington Post that "the Bush administration shouldn't flinch from increasing its covert "propaganda" efforts in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. The history in the last great war of ideas is firmly on its side." Gerecht asks:
Why did the United States spend so much covert-action money in Western Europe after World War II? Washington was unsure of Western Europe's commitment to democracy and its resolve to oppose the Soviet Union and its proxy European communist parties. The programs had to be clandestine: The foreigners involved usually could not have operated with open U.S. funding without jeopardizing their lives, their families or their reputations. Did these CA projects retard or damage the growth of a free press and free inquiry in Western Europe after World War II? I think an honest historical assessment would conclude that U.S. covert aid advanced both.