What is wrong with CERP?

I am back from my vacation, which consisted of a worldwind tour of former Soviet republics where I taught them how to wage an insurgency against their Russian occupiers... one more reason why every person in the U.S. between the ages of 17 and 40 should sign up for the military! Learn how to wage an insurgency! It looks great on a resume - every Fortune 500 company will undoubtedly want to hire you after you complete your service!

In this article, which will undoubtedly inform the genius Iraq experts on Capitol Hilll who have never been there, the efficacy of using money to fund reconstruction and "special projects" in Iraq is questioned. I will break it down for them:
CERP is the equivalent of pork barrel spending for commanders in Iraq. In America, members of Congress must bring home the bacon to their district. In Iraq, commanders must bring home some bacon, albeit not bacon (perhaps tea?) to their area of operations (aka the neighborhood they are in "control" of). CERP is one program, in my mind, that works.

On page A8, Hedgpeth and Cohen question how to end the program. My question is an emphatic, "WHY?!" This is one program that allows for bottom-up assessment of neighborhood wants and needs. Just like in land use and education policy management in America, communities decide on certain issues and CERP allows commanders and their Iraqi counterparts to do just that. One of my friends' biggest projects in Iraq was a soccer field. There were many more projects that would seem to be more important, but the soccer field is what the local community wanted. Violence went down and the unemployed men were happy. CERP is, overall, a good program. Surprisingly, for once, I am in disagreement with Mr. Kilcullen when he likens the use of CERP funds to dealing heroin. CERP is needed and at least there are Americans there to manage it rather than the U.N. handing out rice in poor countries that goes straight to the "bad guys."