Bush Has No Legal Basis to Intervene for Kurds

To the Editors of the Crimson:

I must admit that I had an extremely enjoyable time reading Robert Gordon's compelling article titled "the Big Lie." (April 13) With a touch of pompous conservatism, I must say that you, Mr. Gordon, have gone far to help me understand why the word "liberal" has gained such bad connotations in the past few years. Your article had a disturbing tendency to substitute broad generalities, extreme statements and unqualified rhetoric for reasoned argument.

You speak of Bush's "hideous betrayal" and how "only the willfully ignorant can trust anything this man says about the Middle East." Well, I must be one of those "willfully ignorant" to trust a man who rescued a country from a harsh invasion and did it with an unprecedented straightforwardness and competence.

As Bush stated long ago, the mission of our armed forces was to free Kuwait, not to occupy Iraq. Clearly, we could have marched into Baghdad during the height of the ground war, but Bush, as he promised, did not give these orders.

I don't even want to think about the liberals hitting the ceiling if we had gone on to Baghdad. But now it's okay to go storming into northern Iraq. How convenient! Most of the liberals did not want to go to war in the first place. Now they want to rescue the world from the consequences of George Bush's--not Saddam's, God forbid--aggression. How noble!

Of course it's all Bush's fault, since he "left them to die." It's all Bush's fault, since the "United States caused a revolt." Let's not look at the underlying causes of the revolt (i.e., Saddam's ruthless reign). It's all Bush's fault that we devastated the Iraqi army. Let's not put any blame on the man who invaded Kuwait, mutilated its people and failed to respond to our ample warnings.

You speak of the needless slaughter of Iraqi troops on the Basra road, but then say that the United States left just enough of Iraq's military intact to cause the revolt to fail, as if it were some conspiracy. Did we go too far or not far enough? Make up your mind. By the way, when you're dodging ground fire in an Apache helicopter, you don't circle enemy tanks until every soldier has left his vehicle. How much time does it take for an Iraqi soldier to leave his vehicle anyway?

You discuss none of the formidable arguments against giving military aid to the Kurds. Who's calling whom "willfully ignorant"?

First, the United Nations does not sanction such an intervention.

Second, Bush would encounter some serious problems using international law to legitimate American intervention in a civil war. You say that Bush does not respect international law in the first place because Allied forces occupied 15 percent of Iraq. Perhaps you would have preferred a straight-forward invasion of Kuwait without a flanking movement. If we had, you would never have written this article--we would still be fighting under such a strategy.

Third, you do not recognize the serious risk involved in embroiling our forces in a civil war. Not only would this require some nasty fighting, it would also ensure our presence in Iraq for an indefinite time to come. Instead of simply freeing Kuwait and getting out (as Bush originally promised), the United States would become directly responsible for the government and destiny of the Iraqi nation.

When Bush wanted to free a country from external invasion, liberals criticized Bush for interfering with Middle East politics. Now they want him to help overthrow the government of one of the major countries in the region.

Lastly, you are right in saying that Bush looks to public opinion to help guide his foreign policies--as well he should. After all, he is a representative of a people who want their troops to come home.

There is no doubt that the post-war world is filled with problems that need to be solved. You are right in saying that Bush deceived the Kurds to a certain degree. Perhaps my basic position has no more merit than yours.

Yet your article does nothing to convey the complexities of the international situation. You simply proclaim that you "have seen the new world order and it sucks." Considering that the war has been over for less than two months, is not such a conclusion a bit hasty?

Portraying Bush as an uncaring Satan and giving a hopelessly one-sided and conspiratorial account of the situation goes nowhere. When you recognize both sides of the argument, give Bush a little credit for the most astounding military achievement in the modern age and start giving some concrete remedies for the situation, then you will have an article that is worth reading.

Let's get serious and stop shooting from the hip. Rich Weitzel '92