Clinton's decision to bomb Iraq in retaliation for Saddam Hussein's abuse of the Kurds presents an example of a complex problem which Clinton himself faces. He must retain his position of power in the face of what I still optimistically hope is his better nature.
The Iraqi troop movements which precipitated the bombing were requested by one of the several warring Kurdish factions in the area. While the request may have been a mistake in the long run, and other Kurdish factions may cry foul play, the issue is essentially an internal one, and the US's reaction would have been obviously uncalled for if not for the pre-existing hostilities between the countries.
It's perfectly clear why we choose to interfere with civil wars in Iraq rather than any other of the world's warring countries: Iraq has oil. It would be far more honest, although less heroic, if Clinton had simply said up front when he announced the bombings that any unrest in Iraq jeopardizes our oil supplies.
But Clinton's problem is that he has to be seen to care about the Kurds--and to give him credit, he actually may. Tears come to the President's eyes when he hears assorted tales of woe; tears which even seem genuine. But political expediency invariably wins out over private pity. If our actions in Iraq help the Kurds, so much the better--but that is not our primary motivation. Witness the fact that we actually applauded Turkey's move in northern Iraq against the Kurdish People's Party (which admittedly is a terrorist organization--there do not seem to be any good guys available).
How can we trumpet our concern with human rights when we maintain alliances with places like Saudi Arabia, where a woman is not allowed by law to drive an automobile and may be harrassed or even beaten by the religious police if she steps out of her house with her face uncovered? If they were genuine, Clinton's claims of compassion for the Kurds would be laudable; as it is, they're just embarrassing.
Equally embarrassing is the fact that the United States, self-appointed policeman to the world, is deeply in debt to the United Nations, the organization which should really be doing the job. It's one more hint at the true motivation for our concern with international human rights: expedience.
Oh, it's a very clever move. All the reasons for bombing Iraq sound all right, if a little vague. And it puts Dole in a pleasantly awkward position: he can hardly fail to support the move. If he criticizes any strong foreign policy moves, it will reflect badly on him. But that cleverness is transparent. We know what's going on: Clinton's showing off for the voters.
This places liberal voters in almost as bad a position as Dole's. We certainly can't vote for Dole, but this latest betrayal by Clinton is hard to stomach.
Yet we hang on, despite this, despite the welfare reform bill, despite four-year-old memories of his cave-in on gays in the military, because of those tears that are in Clinton's eyes when he hears about hungry children or a man laid-off from work.
It's handy to have an outside enemy. And Iraq is relatively safe to attack these days. If the papers quote a few of Saddam Hussein's speeches, emphasizing the bits where he claims that God has shamed the Americans, thereby drawing on the Western tendency to demonize Islam (we somehow manage to forget that some of our allies against Iraq are in fact Islamic theocracies, whereas Iraq has a secular government), it's easy to feel that he deserves what he gets.
But we forget that Saddam Hussein himself is not being punished. He is keeping his position of power.
It is, as usual, the civilians, the populace, who are in the line of fire. It is bad enough that they should be in such a horrifying position; it is worse still that they should be placed there simply because it is September of an election year.