Connotation of the word "power" implies the ability to get what you want. This ability has been demonstrated through various ways and by different methods. If we consider exercising power through history, what comes to our minds is usually war, imposing dictatorship, coups and other violent measures, the measures to gain other's power and resources by costly and bloody ways. The other way to impose power has been to pay for what you want to obtain. In foreign policies between the countries, usually the powerful country either gives economic help or makes military threats to obtain its goals in the opposite country.
However, there is another form of reaching those goals bloodlessly. This method has been introduced to the foreign policy by Joseph Nye. He is currently University Distinguished Service Professor at the
Kennedy School of Government at
Harvard University. He coined the term "Soft Power" in his book "Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power" in 1990.
"Everyone is familiar with hard power. We know that military and economic might often get others to change their position. Hard power can rest on inducements ("carrots") or threats ("sticks"). But sometimes you can get the outcomes you want without tangible threats or payoffs. The indirect way to get what you want has sometimes been called "the second face of power." A country may obtain the outcomes it wants in world politics because other countries admire its values, emulate its example, aspire to its level of prosperity and openness. This soft power—getting others to want the outcomes that you want—co-opts people rather than coerces them."
[1] 
In his second book, "Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics" in 2004, he made more elaboration on this phrase, saying, "The primary currencies of Soft Power are an actor's Values, Culture, Policies and Institutions."
[2]"The success of soft power heavily depends on the actor’s
reputation within the
international community, as well as the flow of information between actors. Thus, soft power is often associated with the rise of
globalization and
neoliberal international relations theory.
Popular culture and
media is regularly identified as a source of soft power, as is the spread of a national
language, or a particular set of
normative structures; a nation with a large amount of soft power and the good will that engenders it inspire others to
acculturate, avoiding the need for expensive
hard power expenditures. Because soft power has appeared as an alternative to raw power politics, it is often embraced by ethically-minded scholars and policymakers. But soft power is a descriptive rather than a normative concept. Like any form of power, it can be wielded for good or bad purposes."
[3]In fact, the ability to attract others to do what you want and the ability to change their preferences is a general definition of Soft Power. This attraction is attained from specia
l ways. As Nye says, "The ability to establish preferences tends to be associated with intangible assets such as an attractive personality, culture, political values and institutions, and policies that are seen as legitimate or having moral authority."
[4]There are differences between soft power and hard power that has made using the former difficult. Because of these differences we can conclude why the inclination toward using hard power although it has not always been successful is still more. "Of course, these differences are matters of degree. Not all hard power actions promptly produce desired outcomes—witness the length and ultimate failure of the Vietnam War, or the fact that economic sanctions have historically failed to produce their intended outcomes in more than half the cases where they were tried. But generally, soft power resources are slower, more diffuse, and more cumbersome to wield than hard power resources."
[5]This notion of building a legitimacy and credibility to be followed among other nations without using carrot and stick principle reminded me of the early days of establishing the America, the days that nobody even knows this country is going to be named America, the day that John Winthrop made his ceremony upon Arable ship. He spoke about a city upon a hill. The city that meant to be a model, a model that other nations could or should imitate. This historical reminding made me think that if Winthrop was thinking about soft power from the early days what has happened that today the degree of adhering to this power has decreased?
"When the United States paid insufficient attention to issues of legitimacy and credibility in the way it went about its policy on Iraq, polls showed a dramatic drop in American soft power. That did not prevent the United States from entering Iraq, but it meant that it had to pay higher costs in the blood and treasure than would otherwise have been the case. "
[6]Although some officials think about the need of this power and seek its ways like the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who spoke of "the need to enhance American soft power by "a dramatic increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national security diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action and economic reconstruction and development.""
[7] These efforts have not much drastic effects. For instance, few characteristics like Martin Luther King who according to Nye had soft power have been emerged. This may be due to the lack of legitimacy, the time consuming and difficulties of establishing it or a strong disagreement against this issue among leaders and officials. The instance of the latter issue is in Nye's article about Decline of American Soft Power. He mentions skeptic view about using soft power according to Rumsfeld, secretary of Defense, "The United States, they assert, is strong enough to do as it wishes with or without the world's approval and should simply accept that others will envy and resent it. The world's only superpower does not need
permanent allies; the issue should determine the coalitions, not vice-versa."
[8]Nye too confesses "Of course, soft power is not the solution to all problems. Even though North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il likes to watch Hollywood movies, that is unlikely to affect his nuclear weapons program. Likewise, soft power got nowhere in attracting the Taleban government away from its support for Al-Qaeda in the 1990s. It took hard military power to end that alliance. But other goals, such as the promotion of democracy and human rights, are better achieved by soft power."
[9]What can be conclude is that it is not right time to rely on using this type of power, because of disagreements on using it, the arrogance that reinforces opposition to it and the hard work it needs to attract people.
[1] . http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/4290.html
[2] . Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics pp31
[3] . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power
[4] . http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/4290.html
[5] . http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/4290.html
[6]. . http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/4290.html
[7] . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power
[8] . http://www.polsci.wvu.edu/faculty/hauser/PS293/NyeDeclineSoftPower2004.pdf
[9].http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/1615/after_rumsfeld_a_good_time_to_refocus_on_soft_power.html
These ways in compare to real wars that need deploying troops to another country, usually miles away, the problem of convincing people and other opposite groups within the attacker country, investing much more budget and suffering death and casualty poll and day to day justifying the aim through mass media, have less difficulties. 
These ways in compare to real wars that need deploying troops to another country, usually miles away, the problem of convincing people and other opposite groups within the attacker country, investing much more budget and suffering death and casualty poll and day to day justifying the aim through mass media, have less difficulties. 
