I found myself deeply impressed by Angela Jolie's Washington Post editorial.
Today's humanitarian crisis in Iraq -- and the potential consequences for our national security -- are great. Can the United States afford to gamble that 4 million or more poor and displaced people, in the heart of Middle East, won't explode in violent desperation, sending the whole region into further disorder?What we cannot afford, in my view, is to squander the progress that has been made. In fact, we should step up our financial and material assistance. UNHCR has appealed for $261 million this year to provide for refugees and internally displaced persons. That is not a small amount of money -- but it is less than the U.S. spends each day to fight the war in Iraq. I would like to call on each of the presidential candidates and congressional leaders to announce a comprehensive refugee plan with a specific timeline and budget as part of their Iraq strategy.
As for the question of whether the surge is working, I can only state what I witnessed: U.N. staff and those of non-governmental organizations seem to feel they have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up their programs. And when I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq. They have lost many friends and want to be a part of the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible.
It seems to me that now is the moment to address the humanitarian side of this situation. Without the right support, we could miss an opportunity to do some of the good we always stated we intended to do.
Aside from endorsing her views and arguments on Iraq, I applaud the way she conveys her message, and would hope that other actor-activists might read what she's written (had ghost written?) and learn something important about how its done.
There are no side trips into partisan hate speech, no tired anti-war screeds, no attempts at all at recriminations. She just tells us what she saw and what she concludes from her direct observations--within the context of deep humanitarian concerns. That is the only discernible agenda and as a result, Jolie rises above politics and speaks to whole country rather than only red or blue states.
In taking this approach, she follows U2's Bono into a far more productive type of activism that sidesteps partisanship and focuses on more fruitful efforts to advance people causes. It uses politics as a means rather than an end.
Not to be cynical, but professionally its a far more positive role than say, Sean Penn meretricious kissy-face with dictators. A lot of people won't see a Sean Penn movie on principle, won't listen to Dixie Chicks and avoid anything with Susan Sarandon because they don't feel like rewarding people who attack their values.
If Ms. Jolie keeps this up, she could find herself in Audrey Hepburn territory...
Posted by Mick Stockinger on February 28, 2008 11:38 AM
| Permalink
