Angelina Gets It

On Thursday, actress Angelina Jolie published an opinion piece in The Washington Post arguing that U.S. troops should be allowed to stay in Iraq and provide the security necessary for the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR) to address the humanitarian crisis in Iraq.

While I’m a bit skeptical of any United Nations undertaking (let’s not forget the track record of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in funding the ongoing hate education of children in the Palestinian territories, and the hundreds of documented cases of sexual abuse of children by UN “peacekeepers” in places like the Congo, Bosnia, and Haiti), to be fair, some branches of the United Nations do some good in the world. This is particularly the case when they are subject to oversight and working in cooperation with other non-governmental organizations and the United States Agency for International Development. (In my work for The New York Daily News I had the opportunity to write about one such successful combined effort).

Hopefully, with the proper oversight, the UNHCR can help the people of Iraq. And as the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto pointed out Friday in Best of the Web, Ms. Jolie is articulating a perspective that should inform the views of any genuine humanitarian on the subject of a continued U.S. troop presence in Iraq: U.S. troops at this point are serving as peacekeepers preventing wholesale slaughter.

What most liberals heretofore haven’t seemed to get is that to argue for precipitous withdrawal is to argue for abandoning to the terrorists the most peaceful, law abiding people in Iraq—a point I made last November in my Wall Street Journal opinion piece on Iraqi patriot Mithal al-Alusi.

Ms. Jolie’s stance should serve as a memo to liberals: whatever your views about the decision to liberate Iraq, to support the presence of troops there now is to support what fragile peace has begun to tentatively blossom. And perhaps even more important, the continued troop presence in Iraq is protecting innocent civilians.

BTW, it’s not for nothing Ms. Jolie has the brains and character to rise above the lemming-like “bring the troops home yesterday” liberal cant and grasp the more complex reality. She is, after all, the daughter of actor Jon Voight.

This entry was written by and posted on March 1, 2008 at 1:04 pm and filed under Blog. permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Keywords: , , , . Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL. */?>

2 responses to Angelina Gets It
  • 1.

    Bill Ford

    March 4, 2008 at 3:26 pm

    I read your Political Mavens articles and find them thought provoking.

    I have to respectfully disagree with your Angie Voight piece for the following reasons.

    1. Iraq was created by the British after World War I. It is not a cohesive political unit.

    2. The UN is a corrupt America and Christian and Jew hating organization used by Muslims as a platform for this murderous bile and by other petty tyrants who know not any shred of human decency. American needs to end all support and veto every measure then escort this garbage to the closest border minus the people who are there spying and after a full financial audit is performed.

    3. Using US troops to defend Murderous Muslims from other murderous Muslims is a terrible waste and is exhausting the country’s spirit and welfare. You indicate Angie wants us there. Would she still have this support if we declared war against Islam and killed ten thousand Muslims every time they murdered a non-Muslim. That would stop the Jihad but I am sure she would oppose this measure.

    4. Since when does the US have the right to occupy a country without a declaration of war? The Constitution grants no such authority.

    5. Angie is in the Bible. Her name is Jezebel. I invite you to refresh your recollection of her life, times and demise.


  • 2.

    Marylin Pitz

    March 2, 2008 at 12:34 pm

    I admire your open-mindedness, Ms. R. in seeing some good in the activities of the UN, which is so notably biased and unfair as well as downright corrupt in its usuual activities, when they, as in this rare instance, do something decent. I am, however, generally suspect of the political opinions of "celebrites," since they are not ususally "celebrated," in this media-mad pop culture, for anything other than their fine camera angles or sex appeal.
    Anyway, thanks for your insight. Best, M.P.

1 trackback/pingback