Jolie 1, Obama 0 (or so says the Wall Street Journal)

[algoreagain]

That is how the WSJ's top opinion writer, James Taranto, describes Angelina Jolie's op-ed in the Washington Post on Thursday.
Jolie tried to hide her support for the Iraq war behind the "humanitarian" side of the war. She keeps talking about how we should help those displaced by the war, but she also seems to convey the message that she thinks the "surge" has worked:

My visit left me even more deeply convinced that we not only have a moral obligation to help displaced Iraqi families, but also a serious, long-term, national security interest in ending this crisis.

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? . . .

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.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120430737505503363.html?mod=Best+of+the+Web+Today