  I was happy to finally find a urlLink reasonable hawkish criticism of John Kerry's foreign policy . I usually find David Brooks' criticisms of John Kerry unhelpful and often characteristic of the bumbling soul-searching of many wavering conservative supporters of the war. Today, a neo-con has hit on something that I can't possibly defend. Brooks writes that Kerry thinks a homegrown movement for democracy in Cuba is "unproductive.
" If Kerry thinks that, then his foreign policy attitude is unproductive. The alternative to regime change by force is nurturing grassroots movements for democracy. Kerry believes in engagement with the international community. That shouldn't mean that we only deal with the political leaders of a country. Yes, there are times to work with the leaders of a country. But we should not forget the people of a country. Legitimate and succesful regime change comes when a country's citizens lead a movement for change.
It is America's role to enable these movements (of course this is often difficult to do when we need to ensure that the impetus for such a revolution comes from the people and not the U.S.). Kerry has to have some plan. If we don't use force and we don't engage with peoples struggles, how exactly do we pursue change at all? 
